[House Report 111-698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 421
111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - -House Report 111-698
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
DECEMBER 30, 2010
December 30, 2010.--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
Union Calendar No. 421
111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - -House Report 111-698
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
DECEMBER 30, 2010
December 30, 2010.--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
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York** MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
+BART GORDON, Tennessee +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chair
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio VACANCY
KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania**
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
+BART GORDON, Tennessee +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio** BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
VACANCY
+BART GORDON, Tennessee +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona, Chair
DAVID WU, Oregon PETE OLSON, Texas
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland** F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio Wisconsin
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
+BART GORDON, Tennessee +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chair
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico** JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
PAUL D. TONKO, New York W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, 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
111th Congress, 2009-2010
Page
History of the Committee on Science and Technology............... 1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science and
Technology..................................................... 17
1.1--P.L. 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (H.R. 1).............................................. 17
1.2--P.L. 111-11, Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009 (H.R.
146)....................................................... 18
1.3--P.L. 111-84, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647)............................... 22
1.4--P.L. 111-125, To Extend the Commercial Space
Transportation Liability Regime (H.R. 3819)................ 24
1.5--P.L. 111-140, Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act
(H.R. 730)................................................. 24
1.6--P.L. 111-267, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (S. 3729)......... 25
1.7--P.L. 111-XXX, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010 (H.R. 5116)........................................... 27
1.8--P.L. 111-XXX, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523)....................... 29
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on
Science and Technology......................................... 31
2.1--H.R. 445, Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2009................. 31
2.2--H.R. 469, Produced Water Utilization Act of 2009........ 33
2.3--H.R. 549, The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2009... 34
2.4--H.R. 554, National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments
Act of 2009................................................ 35
2.5--H.R. 631, Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research
Act of 2009................................................ 36
2.6--H.R. 915, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009............... 38
2.7--H.R. 957, Green Energy Education Act of 2009............ 39
2.8--H.R. 1145, National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act of 2009..................................... 40
2.9--H.R. 1580, Electronic Waste Research and Development Act 42
2.10--H.R. 1622, To Provide for a Program of Research,
Development, and Demonstration on Natural Gas Vehicles..... 44
2.11--H.R. 1709, STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009..... 45
2.12--H.R. 1736, The International Science and Technology
Cooperation Act of 2009.................................... 47
2.13--H.R. 2020, Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Act of 2009....................... 48
2.14--H.R. 2407, National Climate Service Act of 2009........ 50
2.15--H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009....................................................... 51
2.16--H.R. 2693, Oil Pollution Research and Development
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010........................ 52
2.17--H.R. 2729, To Authorize the Designation of National
Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy,
and for Other Purposes..................................... 53
2.18--H.R. 2965, SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009....... 55
2.19--H.R. 3029, To Establish a Research, Development, and
Technology Demonstration Program To Improve the Efficiency
of Gas Turbines Used in Combined Cycle and Simple Cycle
Power Generation Systems................................... 56
2.20--H.R. 3165, Wind Energy Research and Development Act of
2009....................................................... 57
2.21--H.R. 3246, Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009..... 59
2.22--H.R. 3247, To Establish a Social and Behavioral
Sciences Research Program at the Department of Energy, and
for Other Purposes......................................... 60
2.23--H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act................ 61
2.24--H.R. 3598, Energy and Water Research Integration Act... 63
2.25--H.R. 3618, Clean Hull Act of 2009...................... 64
2.26--H.R. 3650, Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research
and Control Amendments Act of 2010......................... 66
2.27--H.R. 3791, Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009..... 68
2.28--H.R. 3820, Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2010.. 69
2.29--H.R. 4061, The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2010... 70
2.30--H.R. 4842, Homeland Security Science and Technology
Authorization Act of 2010.................................. 73
2.31--H.R. 5716, Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling
Technology Research and Development Act.................... 74
2.32--H.R. 5781, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2010................... 76
2.33--H.R. 5866, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act
of 2010.................................................... 77
2.34--H.R. 6160, Rare Earths and Critical Materials
Revitalization Act of 2010................................. 78
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the
Committee on Science and Technology and Passed by the House of
Representatives................................................ 81
3.1--H. Con. Res. 167, Supporting the goals and ideals of
National Aerospace Day, and for other purposes............. 81
3.2--H. Con. Res. 292, Supporting the goals and ideals of
National Aerospace Week, and for other purposes............ 81
3.3--H. Res. 67, Recognizing and commending the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Cornell University for the
success of the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and
Opportunity, on the 5th anniversary of the Rovers'
successful landing......................................... 82
3.4--H. Res. 117, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Engineers Week, and for other purposes..................... 82
3.5--H. Res. 224, Supporting the designation of Pi Day, and
for other purposes......................................... 82
3.6--H. Res. 387, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Hurricane Preparedness Week................................ 83
3.7--H. Res. 413, Supporting the goals and ideals of ``IEEE
Engineering the Future'' Day on May 13, 2009, and for other
purposes................................................... 83
3.8--H. Res. 447, Recognizing the remarkable contributions of
the American Council of Engineering Companies for its 100
years of service to the engineering industry and the Nation 84
3.9--H. Res. 492, Supporting the goals and ideals of High-
Performance Building Week.................................. 84
3.10--H. Res. 558, Supporting the increased understanding of,
and interest in, computer science and computing careers
among the public and in schools, and to ensure an ample and
diverse future technology workforce through the designation
of National Computer Science Education Week................ 85
3.11--H. Res. 607, Celebrating the Fortieth Anniversary of
the Apollo 11 Moon Landing................................. 85
3.12--H. Res. 631, Congratulating Continental Airlines on its
75th Anniversary........................................... 85
3.13--H. Res. 793, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of
National Chemistry Week.................................... 86
3.14--H. Res. 797, Expressing the sense of Congress with
respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of
cyber security in the United States, and supporting the
goals and ideals of the sixth annual National Cyber
Security Awareness Month................................... 86
3.15--H. Res. 935, Honoring John E. Warnock, Charles M.
Geschke, Forrest M. Bird, Esther Sans Takeuchi, and IBM
Corporation for receiving the 2008 National Medal of
Technology and Innovation.................................. 87
3.16--H. Res. 1027, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the
historic dive to the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench,
the deepest point in the world's oceans, on January 23,
1960, and its importance to marine research, ocean science,
a better understanding of the planet, and the future of
human exploration.......................................... 87
3.17--H. Res. 1055, Supporting the designation of National
Robotics Week as an annual event........................... 87
3.18--H. Res. 1069, Congratulating Willard S. Boyle and
George E. Smith for being awarded the Nobel Prize in
physics.................................................... 88
3.19--H. Res. 1097, Supporting the goals and ideals of
National Engineers Week, and for other purposes............ 88
3.20--H. Res. 1133, Recognizing the extraordinary number of
African-Americans who have overcome significant obstacles
to enhance innovation and competitiveness in the field of
science in the United States............................... 88
3.21--H. Res. 1213, Recognizing the need to improve the
participation and performance of America's students in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
fields, supporting the ideals of National Lab Day, and for
other purposes............................................. 89
3.22--H. Res. 1231, Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
United States Television Infrared Observation Satellite,
the world's first meteorological satellite, launched by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 1,
1960, and fulfilling the promise of President Eisenhower to
all nations of the world to promote the peaceful use of
space for the benefit of all mankind....................... 89
3.23--H. Res. 1269, Commemorating the 400th anniversary of
the first use of the telescope for astronomical observation
by the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei................... 90
3.24--H. Res. 1307, Honoring the National Science Foundation
for 60 years of service to the Nation...................... 90
3.25--H. Res. 1310, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the
laser...................................................... 90
3.26--H. Res. 1388, Supporting the goals and ideals of
National Hurricane Preparedness Week....................... 91
3.27--H. Res. 1407, Supporting the goals and ideals of High-
Performance Building Week.................................. 91
3.28--H. Res. 1421, Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the
Apollo 13 mission and the heroic actions of both the crew
and those working at mission control in Houston, Texas, for
bringing the three astronauts, Fred Haise, Jim Lovell, and
Jack Swigert, home to Earth safely......................... 92
3.29--H. Res. 1560, Supporting the increased understanding
of, and interest in, computer science and computing careers
among the public and in schools, and to ensure an ample and
diverse future technology workforce through the designation
of National Computer Science Education Week................ 92
3.30--H. Res. 1660, Expressing support for the goals and
ideals of the inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival
in Washington, D.C., and for other purposes................ 93
3.31--H. Res. 1714, Congratulating the engineers, scientists,
psychologists, and staff of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) for helping to successfully
rescue 33 trapped Chilean miners from a collapsed mine near
Copiapo, Chile............................................. 93
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science and Technology, Including Selected
Subcommittee Legislative Activities............................ 95
4.1--Committee on Science and Technology..................... 95
4.1(a) February 11, 2009--Electronic Waste: Investing in
Research and Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle.
Hearing Volume No. 111-1............................... 95
4.1(b) February 25, 2009--Impacts of U.S. Export Control
Policies on Science and Technology Activities and
Competitiveness. Hearing Volume No. 111-4.............. 97
4.1(c) March 4, 2009--21st Century Water Planning: The
Importance of a Coordinated Federal Approach. Hearing
Volume No. 111-6....................................... 98
4.1(d) March 17, 2009--New Directions for Energy Research
and Development at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Hearing Volume No. 111-11.............................. 100
4.1(e) April 1, 2009--Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Act of 2009.
Hearing Volume No. 111-17.............................. 101
4.1(f) April 22, 2009--Monitoring, Measurement, and
Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role
of Federal and Academic Research and Monitoring
Programs. Hearing Volume No. 111-18.................... 102
4.1(g) May 14, 2009--An Overview of the Federal R&D
Budget for FY 2010. Hearing Volume No. 111-26.......... 103
4.1(h) May 19, 2009--NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
Request. Hearing Volume No. 111-28..................... 104
4.1(i) June 17, 2009--Advancing Technology for Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, Development,
and Demonstration Strategy Be?. Hearing Volume No. 111-
35..................................................... 105
4.1(j) September 14, 2009--Strengthening Regional
Innovation: A Perspective From Northeast Texas. Hearing
Volume No. 111-50...................................... 107
4.1(k) September 15, 2009--Options and Issues for NASA's
Human Space Flight Program: Report of the ``Review of
U.S. Human Space Flight Plans'' Committee. Hearing
Volume No. 111-51...................................... 108
4.1(l) November 5, 2009--Geoengineering: Assessing the
Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention.
Hearing Volume No. 111-62.............................. 109
4.1(m) December 10, 2009--Decisions on the Future
Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for
the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?.
Hearing Volume No. 111-69.............................. 111
4.1(n) January 20, 2010--America COMPETES: Big Picture
Perspectives on the Need for Innovation, Investments in
R&D, and a Commitment to STEM Education. Hearing Volume
No. 111-70............................................. 112
4.1(o) January 27, 2010--The Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E): Assessing the Agency's Progress
and Promise in Transforming the U.S. Energy Innovation
System. Hearing Volume No. 111-72...................... 114
4.1(p) February 24, 2010--The Administration's FY 2011
Research and Development Budget Proposal. Hearing
Volume No. 111-78...................................... 115
4.1(q) February 25, 2010--NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget
Request and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 111-80.......... 117
4.1(r) March 3, 2010--The Department of Energy Fiscal
Year 2011 Research and Development Budget Proposal.
Hearing Volume No. 111-81.............................. 117
4.1(s) March 4, 2010--Reform in K-12 STEM Education.
Hearing Volume No. 111-82.............................. 118
4.1(t) March 10, 2010--Fiscal Year 2011 Research and
Development Budget Proposals at EPA and NOAA. Hearing
Volume No. 111-84...................................... 119
4.1(u) March 17, 2010--The Future of Manufacturing: What
Is the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting
Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers?. Hearing Volume No.
111-87................................................. 120
4.1(v) March 18, 2010--Geoengineering III: Domestic and
International Research Governance. Hearing Volume No.
111-88................................................. 121
4.1(w) May 19, 2010--Charting the Course for American
Nuclear Technology: Evaluating the Department of
Energy's Nuclear Energy Research and Development
Roadmap. Hearing Volume No. 111-94..................... 123
4.1(x) May 26, 2010--Review of the Proposed National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Spaceflight
Plan. Hearing Volume No. 111-96........................ 124
4.1(y) September 29, 2010--Averting the Storm: How
Investments in Science Will Secure the Competitiveness
and Economic Future of the U.S. Hearing Volume No. 111-
111.................................................... 126
4.1(z) November 15, 2010--Options and Opportunities for
Onsite Renewable Energy Integration. Hearing Volume No.
111-113................................................ 127
4.2--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.................. 129
4.2(a) February 24, 2009--How Do We Know What We Are
Emitting? Monitoring, Reporting, and Verifying
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Hearing Volume No. 111-3..... 129
4.2(b) March 11, 2009--FutureGen and the Department of
Energy's Advanced Coal Programs. Hearing Volume No.
111-9.................................................. 130
4.2(c) March 24, 2009--Examining Federal Vehicle
Technology Research and Development Programs. Hearing
Volume No. 111-13...................................... 131
4.2(d) April 23, 2009--Continued Oversight of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Geostationary Weather Satellite System. Hearing Volume
No. 111-19............................................. 133
4.2(e) April 28, 2009--Pushing the Efficiency Envelope:
R&D for High-Performance Buildings, Industries and
Consumers. Hearing Volume No. 111-21................... 134
4.2(f) May 5, 2009--Expanding Climate Services at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Developing the National Climate Service. Hearing Volume
No. 111-24............................................. 135
4.2(g) June 4, 2009--A New Direction for Federal Oil
Spill Research and Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-
29..................................................... 136
4.2(h) June 9, 2009--Environmental Research at the
Department of Energy. Hearing Volume No. 111-30........ 138
4.2(i) July 9, 2009--Technology Research and Development
Efforts Related to the Energy and Water Linkage.
Hearing Volume No. 111-41.............................. 139
4.2(j) July 14, 2009--New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar
Research and Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-42.... 140
4.2(k) July 23, 2009--Effectively Transforming Our
Electric Delivery System to a Smart Grid. Hearing
Volume No. 111-46...................................... 141
4.2(l) September 10, 2009--Biological Research for Energy
and Medical Applications at the Department of Energy
Office of Science. Hearing Volume No. 111-49........... 142
4.2(m) September 17, 2009--Harmful Algal Blooms and
Hypoxia: Formulating an Action Plan. Hearing Volume No.
111-52................................................. 144
4.2(n) October 1, 2009--Investigating the Nature of
Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. Hearing Volume No.
111-54................................................. 145
4.2(o) October 21, 2009--Biomass for Thermal Energy and
Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio for
the Future. Hearing Volume No. 111-56.................. 146
4.2(p) October 29, 2009--The Next Generation of Fusion
Energy Research. Hearing Volume No. 111-61............. 147
4.2(q) December 3, 2009--Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy
Technology: Finding the Path to Commercialization.
Hearing Volume No. 111-67.............................. 149
4.2(r) February 4, 2010--Geoengineering II: The
Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges. Hearing
Volume No. 111-75...................................... 150
4.2(s) June 9, 2010--Deluge of Oil Highlights Research
and Technology Needs for Effective Cleanup of Oil
Spills. Hearing Volume No. 111-98...................... 151
4.2(t) June 16, 2010--Real-Time Forecasting for Renewable
Energy Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-100......... 153
4.2(u) June 23, 2010--Deepwater Drilling Technology,
Research, and Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-101.. 155
4.2(v) November 17, 2010--A Rational Discussion of
Climate Change: The Science, the Evidence, the
Response. Hearing Volume No. 111-114................... 156
4.3--Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight............ 159
4.3(a) March 12, 2009--The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Problems in the Past,
Potential for the Future?. Hearing Volume No. 111-10... 159
4.3(b) March 19, 2009--Follow the Money, Part I:
Accountability and Transparency in Recovery Act Science
Funding. Hearing Volume No. 111-12..................... 161
4.3(c) April 30, 2009--The Role of Science in Regulatory
Reform. Hearing Volume No. 111-23...................... 163
4.3(d) May 5, 2009--Follow the Money, Part II: Government
and Public Resources for Recovery Act Oversight.
Hearing Volume No. 111-25.............................. 164
4.3(e) May 19, 2009--The Science of Insolvency. Hearing
Volume No. 111-27...................................... 167
4.3(f) June 11, 2009--Fixing EPA's Broken Integrated Risk
Information System. Hearing Volume No. 111-33.......... 168
4.3(g) June 17, 2009--Continuing Independent Assessment
of the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System. Hearing Volume No. 111-
36..................................................... 169
4.3(h) June 25, 2009--The Science of Security: Lessons
Learned in Developing, Testing and Operating Advanced
Radiation Monitors. Hearing Volume No. 111-38.......... 171
4.3(i) July 16, 2009--Providing Aviation Weather Services
to the Federal Aviation Administration. Hearing Volume
No. 111-43............................................. 172
4.3(j) September 10, 2009--The Risks of Financial
Modeling: VaR and the Economic Meltdown. Hearing Volume
No. 111-48............................................. 174
4.3(k) November 17, 2009--The Science of Security, Part
II: Technical Problems Continue to Hinder Advanced
Radiation Monitors. Hearing Volume No. 111-63.......... 176
4.3(l) December 3, 2009--Independent Audit of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Hearing
Volume No. 111-68...................................... 178
4.3(m) March 16, 2010--Rare Earth Minerals and 21st
Century Industry. Hearing Volume No. 111-86............ 180
4.3(n) April 22, 2010--Caught by Surprise: Causes and
Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis. Hearing
Volume No. 111-92...................................... 182
4.3(o) May 20, 2010--Preventing Harm--Protecting Health:
Reforming CDC's Environmental Public Health Practices.
Hearing Volume No. 111-95.............................. 185
4.3(p) June 29, 2010--Setting New Courses for Polar
Weather Satellites and Earth Observations. Hearing
Volume No. 111-102..................................... 187
4.3(q) July 20, 2010--Building a Science of Economics for
the Real World. Hearing Volume No. 111-106............. 189
4.3(r) September 16, 2010--Camp Lejeune: Contamination
and Compensation, Looking Back, Moving Forward. Hearing
Volume No. 111-108..................................... 191
4.4--Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.......... 197
4.4(a) February 26, 2009--Beyond the Classroom: Informal
STEM Education. Hearing Volume No. 111-5............... 197
4.4(b) March 24, 2009--Coordination of International
Science Partnerships. Hearing Volume No. 111-14........ 198
4.4(c) June 10, 2009--Cyber Security R&D. Hearing Volume
No. 111-31............................................. 199
4.4(d) June 16, 2009--Agency Response to Cyberspace
Policy Review. Hearing Volume No. 111-34............... 200
4.4(e) July 21, 2009--Encouraging the Participation of
Female Students in STEM Fields. Hearing Volume No. 111-
45..................................................... 202
4.4(f) July 30, 2009--A Systems Approach to Improving K-
12 STEM Education. Hearing Volume No. 111-47........... 203
4.4(g) October 8, 2009--Investing in High-Risk, High-
Reward Research. Hearing Volume No. 111-55............. 205
4.4(h) October 22, 2009--Engineering in K-12 Education.
Hearing Volume No. 111-57.............................. 206
4.4(i) February 4, 2010--Strengthening Undergraduate and
Graduate STEM Education. Hearing Volume No. 111-76..... 207
4.4(j) February 23, 2010--The State of Research
Infrastructure at U.S. Universities. Hearing Volume No.
111-77................................................. 208
4.4(k) March 10, 2010--The National Science Foundation's
FY 2011 Budget Request. Hearing Volume No. 111-83...... 210
4.4(l) March 16, 2010--Broadening Participation in STEM.
Hearing Volume No. 111-85.............................. 211
4.4(m) June 10, 2010--From the Lab Bench to the
Marketplace: Improving Technology Transfer. Hearing
Volume No. 111-99...................................... 212
4.4(n) June 29, 2010--21st Century Biology. Hearing
Volume No. 111-103..................................... 214
4.4(o) July 21, 2010--Behind the Scenes: Science and
Education at the Smithsonian Institution. Hearing
Volume No. 111-107..................................... 215
4.4(p) September 23, 2010--The Science of Science and
Innovation Policy. Hearing Volume No. 111-109.......... 216
4.5--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics................... 219
4.5(a) March 5, 2009--Cost Management Issues in NASA's
Acquisitions and Programs. Hearing Volume No. 111-7.... 219
4.5(b) March 26, 2009--Aviation and the Emerging Use of
Biofuels. Hearing Volume No. 111-15.................... 220
4.5(c) April 28, 2009--Keeping the Space Environment Safe
for Civil and Commercial Users. Hearing Volume No. 111-
22..................................................... 221
4.5(d) June 18, 2009--External Perspectives on the FY
2010 NASA Budget Request and Related Issues. Hearing
Volume No. 111-37...................................... 222
4.5(e) July 16, 2009--Enhancing the Relevance of Space to
Address National Needs. Hearing Volume No. 111-44...... 224
4.5(f) October 22, 2009--Strengthening NASA's Technology
Development Programs. Hearing Volume No. 111-58........ 225
4.5(g) November 19, 2009--The Growth of Global Space
Capabilities: What's Happening and Why It Matters.
Hearing Volume No. 111-65.............................. 227
4.5(h) December 2, 2009--Ensuring the Safety of Human
Spaceflight. Hearing Volume No. 111-66................. 228
4.5(i) December 3, 2009--Independent Audit of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Hearing
Volume No. 111-68...................................... 230
4.5(j) February 3, 2010--Key Issues and Challenges Facing
NASA: Views of the Agency's Watchdogs. Hearing Volume
No. 111-73............................................. 232
4.5(k) March 24, 2010--Proposed Changes to NASA's
Exploration Program: What's Known, What's Not, and What
Are the Issues for Congress?. Hearing Volume No. 111-91 233
4.5(l) May 5, 2010--Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash
Clouds on Aviation--What Do We Need to Know?. Hearing
Volume No. 111-93...................................... 234
4.6--Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation............... 237
4.6(a) February 12, 2009--An Overview of Transportation
R&D: Priorities for Reauthorization. Hearing Volume No.
111-2.................................................. 237
4.6(b) March 10, 2009--Strengthening Forensic Science in
the United States: The Role of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. Hearing Volume No. 111-8.. 239
4.6(c) March 31, 2009--The Role of Research in Addressing
Climate in Transportation Infrastructure. Hearing
Volume No. 111-16...................................... 241
4.6(d) April 23, 2009--The Role of SBIR and STTR Programs
in Stimulating Innovation at Small High-Tech
Businesses. Hearing Volume No. 111-20.................. 243
4.6(e) June 11, 2009--Reauthorization of the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: R&D for Resilient
Communities. Hearing Volume No. 111-32................. 244
4.6(f) June 16, 2009--Agency Response to Cyberspace
Policy Review. Hearing Volume No. 111-34............... 246
4.6(g) June 25, 2009--Assessing Cybersecurity Activities
at NIST and DHS. Hearing Volume No. 111-39............. 248
4.6(h) July 8, 2009--Reauthorization of the FIRE Grants
Program. Hearing Volume No. 111-40..................... 249
4.6(i) September 24, 2009--The Potential Need for
Measurement Standards to Facilitate Research and
Development of Biologic Drugs. Hearing Volume No. 111-
53..................................................... 251
4.6(j) October 22, 2009--Cybersecurity Activities at
NIST's Information Technology Laboratory. Hearing
Volume No. 111-59...................................... 253
4.6(k) October 27, 2009--Developing Research Priorities
at DHS's Science and Technology Directorate. Hearing
Volume No. 111-60...................................... 254
4.6(l) November 19, 2009--The Research and Development
Portfolio Required to Support the Priorities of the
Department of Transportation. Hearing Volume No. 111-64 256
4.6(m) January 21, 2010--Commerce Department Programs to
Support Job Creation and Innovation at Small and
Medium-Sized Manufacturers. Hearing Volume No. 111-71.. 258
4.6(n) February 3, 2010--Passenger Screening R&D:
Responding to President Obama's Call to Develop and
Deploy the Next Generation of Screening Technologies.
Hearing Volume No. 111-74.............................. 260
4.6(o) February 24, 2010--How Can NIST Better Serve the
Needs of the Biomedical Research Community in the 21st
Century?. Hearing Volume No. 111-79.................... 262
4.6(p) March 23, 2010--NIST Structure and Authorities,
Its Role in Standards, and Federal Agency Coordination
on Technical Standards. Hearing Volume No. 111-89...... 264
4.6(q) March 24, 2010--Supporting Innovation in the 21st
Century Economy. Hearing Volume No. 111-90............. 265
4.6(r) May 27, 2010--Interoperability in Public Safety
Communications Equipment. Hearing Volume No. 111-97.... 268
4.6(s) July 1, 2010--Smart Grid Architecture and
Standards: Assessing Coordination and Progress. Hearing
Volume No. 111-104..................................... 271
4.6(t) July 15, 2010--Planning for the Future of Cyber
Attack Attribution. Hearing Volume No. 111-105......... 273
4.6(u) September 23, 2010--Progress on P25: Furthering
Interoperability and Competition for Public Safety
Radio Equipment. Hearing Volume No. 111-110............ 274
4.6(v) September 30, 2010--Standards for Health IT:
Meaningful Use and Beyond. Hearing Volume No. 111-112.. 276
Appendix
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science and Technology
for FY 2010.................................................... 280
Minority Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2010................ 287
Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Alan Grayson.... 291
Additional Views and Estimates of Representatives Bob Inglis and
Vernon J. Ehlers............................................... 292
Additional Views of Representative Paul C. Broun................. 293
Additional Views of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson......... 294
Views and Estimates for the Committee on Science and Technology
for Fiscal Year 2011........................................... 298
Additional Views of Representatives Donna F. Edwards and Brian
Baird.......................................................... 304
Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Alan Grayson.... 305
Minority Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2011................ 307
Additional Views of Representative Dana Rohrabacher.............. 315
Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Bob Inglis...... 317
Additional Views of Representative Paul C. Broun................. 318
Additional Views of Representative Pete Olson.................... 319
House Science and Technology Committee Summary of Oversight
Activities--111th Congress..................................... 320
Findings of the Chairman of the Committee on Science and
Technology Pursuant to H. Res. 1493............................ 395
History of Appointments, Committee on Science and Technology..... 398
Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Science and
Technology for the 111th Congress.............................. 399
Legislative and Oversight Jurisdiction of the Committee on
Science and Technology......................................... 412
List of Publications of the Committee on Science and Technology
(111th Congress)............................................... 413
Union Calendar No. 421
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-698
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
__________
December 30, 2010.--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 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 and Chairman Boehlert, 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
authorized an additional one billion dollars to accelerate
development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which was the
follow-on human space transportation system to the Space
Shuttle. Finally, the 2008 authorization increased 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.
Chairman Gordon's focus on competitiveness continued in the
111th Congress, with many of the activities of the Committee
focused on reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Other
issues on which the Committee focused include: water use and
conservation; climate research and monitoring; energy research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application; and,
national space policy.
Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act involved the
combined work of the Research and Science Education, Technology
and Innovation, and Energy and Environment Subcommittees, along
with the full committee, in holding 26 hearings, three
subcommittee markups, and a full committee markup. The primary
focus of the reauthorization effort was to maintain the
doubling paths of the National Science Foundation, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of
Energy's Office of Science, and greatly expand the newly formed
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. In addition, the bill
focused new efforts on innovation including Department of
Commerce programs creating regional innovation clusters around
the United States and providing innovative technology loan
guarantees to small and medium sized manufacturers. A number of
complementary and related measures were included in H.R. 5116,
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, including:
H.R. 554, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act
of 2009; H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act of 2009; H.R.
1144, the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science
and Engineering Act; H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Coordination
Act of 2009; and, H.R. 2020, the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Act of 2009.
The Committee on Science and Technology also found itself
at the center of the policy debate concerning NASA in the 111th
Congress. In February of 2010, the President submitted a budget
request with dramatic changes for NASA's human spaceflight
program. The primary elements of this plan included the
cancellation of the Bush-era Constellation program to return
astronauts to the Moon, an increased investment in space
technology, and outsourcing the task of transporting NASA
astronauts to and from the International Space Station to the
nascent ``commercial'' human spaceflight industry. The plan was
met with skepticism in Congress, and the Committee spent the
Spring and early Summer of 2010 holding a number of hearings on
the topic. These culminated in the Committee reporting H.R.
5781, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of
2010. H.R. 5781 differed in many key aspects from the
Administration's plan, most notably in continuing the
development of a Government owned launch capability and a
reduction on the funding for ``commercial'' crew development.
Before H.R. 5781 was considered by the House, the Senate passed
their version of the NASA Authorization, S. 3729. The Senate's
bill also authorized development of a Government owned launch
vehicle, but differed from the House bill in mandating an
additional Space Shuttle flight in 2011 and devoting more
resources to ``commercial'' crew development. The House and
Senate were unable to come to an agreement on a compromise bill
text, and sensing that time was running out on the fiscal year,
Chairman Gordon ultimately supported passage of S. 3729.
In the first session of the 111th Congress, the Committee
devoted considerable attention to legislation addressing energy
and environmental issues. Early in the Congress, the Committee
moved H.R. 1580, the Electronic Waste Research and Development
Act. This bill sought to address, through research and
standards, the significant and growing problems associated with
the waste stream associated with electronic devices. The
Committee also marked up a bill to establish a National Climate
Service to coordinate Federal climate research and monitoring
activities, and this bill eventually passed the House as part
of a large climate related bill: H.R. 2454, the American Clean
Energy and Security Act of 2009. Energy bills which the
Committee moved in the 111th Congress include measures relating
to: gas turbine efficiency, wind and solar power, and advanced
vehicle technologies.
Another area of focus for Chairman Gordon was on the topic
of water. Despite water being an increasingly precious and
valuable resource, Chairman Gordon recognized that Federal
efforts at water conservation and use were fractured among
several agencies with little overall coordination. H.R. 1145,
the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of
2009 sought to remedy this situation by requiring coordination
of the Federal government's water research and development
efforts. The Chairman also addressed the important energy-water
nexus in H.R. 3598, the Energy and Water Research Integration
Act. Water use and availability and energy production are
inextricably intertwined, and H.R. 3598 required the Department
of Energy to pay greater attention to this issue in its
research efforts. The Committee also moved three additional
water-related bills in the 111th Congress: H.R. 469, the
Produced Water Utilization Act of 2009 which was sponsored by
Ranking Member Ralph Hall; H.R. 631, the Water Use Efficiency
and Conservation Research Act which was sponsored by Jim
Matheson; and, H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010 which was sponsored
by Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird.
On April 20, 2010, the British Petroleum owned oil rig
``Deepwater Horizon'' exploded and sank, which resulted in a
months long release of millions of barrels of oil in one of the
greatest environmental catastrophes in the country's history.
The Committee responded by moving two bills: H.R. 2693, the Oil
Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
of 2010 and H.R. 5716, the SAFER Oil and Natural Gas Drilling
Technology Research and Development Act. H.R. 2693 reorganized
and expanded the existing interagency oil pollution research
and development efforts within the Federal government. With
H.R. 5716, the Committee addressed the issue of developing
safer oil and gas drilling technologies by altering an existing
oil and gas research and development program to focus heavily
on the issue of safety.
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science and
Technology
1.1--P.L. 111-5, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (H.R.
1)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, was a comprehensive law aimed at addressing the severe
economic downturn in the United States. Its principal
provisions involved a series of tax cuts, infrastructure
spending, and extension of unemployment benefits. The law
appropriated significant resources to programs within the
Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction, including:
the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, and the Department of Energy.
P.L. 111-5 also legislated on a select number of areas
within the Committee's jurisdiction, including the area of
health information technology. In the 110th Congress, Chairman
Gordon introduced H.R. 2406, the Healthcare Information
Technology Enterprise Integration Act, which established an
initiative for healthcare 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 healthcare IT for Federal agencies to
promote the interoperability of Federal healthcare information
systems. It created a program of grants for universities and
consortia to conduct multidisciplinary research in healthcare
IT research centers, directed the National High-Performance
Computing Program to coordinate Federal research and
development programs related to healthcare IT, and further
directed NIST to establish a task force to develop
recommendations on standards harmonization. Finally, it
authorized $8 million for NIST in FY2009 and FY2010. On
November 15, 2007, the Committee reported the bill to the House
(H. Rept. 110-451), but no further action was taken on the
measure.
Efforts continued in the 110th Congress to craft a
comprehensive healthcare information technology bill involving
the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and
Science and Technology. The result of those efforts culminated
in Title XIII of P.L. 111-5, entitled ``Healthcare Information
Technology.'' Title XIII created a comprehensive Federal effort
to develop and implement modern information technology across
the healthcare industry. The Science and Technology Committee
had shared jurisdiction over Subtitle A, Subtitle B and Part I
of Subtitle C of Title XIII. Subtitle A deals with the
development of health information technology standards,
adoption of those standards, promotion of those standards, and
coordination of these actions by entities like the HIT
Standards Committee created by section 3003. Subtitle B
addressed research and development relating to health
information technology and testing of the technology by NIST.
Among other things, Part I of Subtitle C established a health
information technology architecture program, provided for
implementation assistance, created a Health Information
Technology Research Center, and established a health
information technology professional education program.
In addition to the Health Information Technology components
of P.L. 111-5, the Committee had jurisdiction over two energy
related sections of the act: Section 405, Amendments to Title
XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
and Section 406, Temporary Program for Rapid Deployment of
Renewable Energy and Electric Power Transmission Projects.
Section 405 contained provisions relating to smart grid
demonstration projects. In addition, the section required all
energy demonstration projects funded under the section to
``utilize open protocols and standards.'' Section 406 provided
for loan guarantees for renewable energy projects that can be
rapidly deployed. The loan guarantees are to be specifically
made available for biofuel projects ``at the pilot or
demonstration scale''.
Legislative History
On January 26, 2009, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, introduced H.R. 1, which was
referred to the Committees on Appropriation and Budget. On
January 27 and 28, 2009, H.R. 1 was considered by the House and
passed by: Y-244, N-188 (Roll Call No. 46).
H.R. 1 was received in the Senate on January 29, 2009. H.R.
1 was considered by the Senate on February 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,
and 10, 2009, and ultimately passed the Senate on February 10,
2009, with an amendment by: Y-61, N-37 (Record Vote No. 61).
The Senate requested a conference and appointed conferees.
On February 10, 2009, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1, agreed to a conference, and appointed
conferees. On February 12, 2009 the conference report (H. Rept.
111-16) was filed. The House considered and passed the
conference report on February 13, 2009, by: Y-246, N-183, 1
Present (Roll Call No. 70). The Senate passed the conference
report on February 13, 2009, by: Y-60, N-38 (Record Vote No.
64). It was signed into law by the President on February 17,
2009, and became Public Law No. 111-5.
1.2--P.L. 111-11, OMNIBUS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009 (H.R. 146)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-11, the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, was a
consolidated bill primarily composed of elements dealing with
Federal lands and water resources. Several portions of this
bill were within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science
and Technology.
Subtitle F of Title IX, ``Secure Water,'' created several
programs within the Departments of the Interior, Energy,
Agriculture, and Commerce to more accurately assess potential
future water impacts from climate change. Those programs within
the Department's of Energy and Commerce lie within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
Title XII, ``Oceans,'' is composed of several bills dealing
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Subtitle A, ``Ocean Exploration,'' contained two parts:
Exploration and NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2009.
These sections are very similar to the text of H.R. 366, the
Ocean Research and Exploration Enhancement Act of 2009,
introduced on January 9, 2009, by Representative Sam Farr, and
the Senate analogue, S. 172, the NOAA Ocean Exploration and
Undersea Research Program Act of 2009, introduced on January 8,
2009, by Senator Olympia Snowe. Both of these bills were
similar in topic to H.R. 1834, the National Ocean Exploration
Program Act, from the 110th Congress. H.R. 1834 implemented a
key recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to
provide specific and separate authorizations for the
exploration and undersea research 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 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. H.R. 1834 was introduced on March 29, 2007, by
Representative Saxton. 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 II). 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.
Subtitle B of Title XII of H.R. 146, the Ocean and Coastal
Mapping Integration Act, was similar to H.R. 2400, the Ocean
and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, from the 1110th Congress.
H.R. 2400 was introduced by Delegate Bordallo on May 21, 2007,
and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and the
Committee on Science and Technology. On July 23, 2007, the
Committee was discharged of 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. H.R. 2400 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 nongovernmental
entities. It also authorized the Administrator to convene an
ocean and coastal mapping advisory panel consisting of
representatives from nongovernmental 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
nongovernmental 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 nongovernmental 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.
Subtitle C of Title XII, the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Act of 2009, was largely derived from H.R.
2342, the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation Act
of 2007, from the 110th Congress. H.R. 2342 was introduced on
May 16, 2007, by Representative Allen. The bill was referred
the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on
Science and Technology. On March 31, 2008, the Committee was
discharged of 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. 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 ``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. H.R. 2342 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.
Subtitle D, Federal Ocean Acidification Research and
Monitoring Act of 2009, was likewise, derivative of a bill from
the 110th Congress: H.R. 4174. H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, was introduced on
November 14, 2007, by Representative Allen. 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.
H.R. 4174 established 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 designated JSOST as the coordinating
body for interagency activities on ocean acidification and
required JSOST to involve the extramural ocean community in the
development of the plan, including universities, states,
industry and environmental groups. The bill also authorized
ocean acidification activities at the National Science
Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Legislative History
On January 6, 2009, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced H.R.
146, which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The bill, as introduced, was entitled, ``Revolutionary War and
War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act,'' and bore little
resemblance to P.L. 111-11. On March 2 and 3, 2009, H.R. 146
was considered by the House and passed by: Y-394, N-12 (Roll
Call No. 91).
On January 7, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
introduced S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009. On January 15, 2009, the Senate passed S. 22, with
amendments by: Y-73, N-21 (Record Vote No. 3). On January 16,
2009, S. 22 was received in the House. On March 11, 2009, Rep.
Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Natural Resources
Committee, moved to suspend the rules and pass S. 22, as
amended. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as
amended, failed by: Y-282, N-144 (Roll Call No. 117).
H.R. 146 was considered by the Senate on March 18 and 19,
2009, and H.R. 146, as amended, passed the Senate on March 19,
2009, by: Y-77, N-20 (Record Vote No. 106). The amended bill,
as passed the Senate, closely resembled S. 22, as passed the
Senate.
H.R. 146 was received in House on March 19, 2009. On March
25, 2009, Chairman Rahall moved that the House agree to the
Senate amendments to H.R. 146, and the motion was agreed to by:
Y-285, N-140 (Roll Call No. 153). It was signed into law by the
President on March 30, 2009, and became Public Law No. 111-11.
1.3--P.L. 111-84, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2010 (H.R. 2647)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010, authorized the defense activities of the
federal government, including the Department of Defense and
portions of the Department of Energy. The Committee on Science
and Technology had jurisdiction over provisions in both the
House passed and Senate passed versions of the bill. Provisions
of P.L. 111-84 over which the Committee had jurisdiction are:
Section 254, Authority for National Aeronautics and Space
Administration federally funded research and development
centers to participate in merit-based technology research and
development programs; Section 806, Treatment of non-defense
agency procurements under joint programs with intelligence
community; Section 819, Contract authority for advanced
component development or prototype units; Section 845, Study of
the use of factors other than cost or price as the predominate
factors in evaluating competitive proposals for defense
procurement contracts; Section 847, Extension of SBIR and STTR
programs of the Department of Defense; Section 848, Extension
of authority for small business innovation research
Commercialization Pilot Program; Section 911, Submission and
review of space science and technology strategy; and, Section
913, Management and funding strategy and implementation plan
for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System Program.
Section 254 allowed NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to
perform research and development work for other agencies,
including the Department of Defense. Sections 806, 819, and 845
slightly altered Department of Defense procurement rules, which
also apply to NASA and the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 847 extended the Department of Defense's Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer Research (STTR) programs through fiscal year 2010.
Section 848 extended an SBIR commercialization pilot program
through fiscal year 2010. Section 911 slightly altered certain
aspects of an existing space science and technology strategy
which the Department of Defense was tasked with formulating,
and required GAO to review the strategy and report back to
Congress on the review. Section 913 required the President to
create a management and funding strategy for the National
Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
Program (commonly referred to as NPOESS), which was jointly
managed by the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA, and also required
the President to create a plan for implementation of the
strategy.
Legislative History
On June 2, 2009, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, introduced H.R. 2647, which was
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On June 18, 2009,
H.R. 2647 was favorably reported from the Committee on Armed
Services, with an amendment.
On June 24 and 25, 2009, the House considered H.R. 2647
under a structured rule (H. Res. 572), and on June 25, 2009,
the House passed H.R. 2647, as amended, by: Y-389, N-22, 1-
Present (Roll Call No. 460).
H.R. 2647 was received in the Senate on July 6, 2009, and
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. On July 23, 2009,
H.R. 2647 was considered and passed, with a substitute
amendment, by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate
insisted on its amendment, asked for a conference, and
appointed conferees.
Message on Senate action was sent to the House on July 28,
2009. On October 6, 2009, Chairman Skelton moved that the House
disagree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2647 and agree to a
conference, and the motion was agreed to by voice vote. From
the Committee on Science and Technology, the Speaker appointed
the following conferees for consideration of Sections 248, 819,
836, and 911 of the House bill and Sections 801, 814, 833, 834,
912, and Division F of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference: Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN),
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman David Wu (D-
OR), and Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Ranking Member
Adrian Smith (R-NE).
On October 7, 2009, the conference report (H. Rept. 111-
288) was filed. The House considered the conference report,
subject to a rule (H. Res. 808), on October 8, 2009, and the
report passed by: Y-281, N-146 (Roll Call No. 770). The Senate
considered the conference report on October 20, 21, and 22, and
the conference report passed the Senate On October 22, 2009,
by: Y-68, N-29 (Record Vote No. 327). The bill was signed into
law by the President on October 28, 2009, and became Public Law
111-84.
1.4--P.L. 111-125, TO EXTEND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
LIABILITY REGIME (H.R. 3819)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-125, to extend the commercial space transportation
liability regime, was a bill which extended the indemnification
regime for commercial space transportation until December 31,
2012. The commercial space transportation indemnification
regime was first enacted as part of P.L. 100-657, the
Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988. Under this
regime, the United States shall pay up to $1.5 billion,
adjusted for inflation, in excess of the amount covered by
liability insurance or demonstrated financial responsibility
with respect to third party claims against a commercial space
launch or reentry licensee, transferee, contractor,
subcontractor, or customer for death, bodily injury, or
property damage or loss resulting from and activity carried out
under the license.
Legislative History
On October 15, 2009, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chairman of
the Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 3819,
which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
On October 20, 2009, Chairman Gordon moved to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, and the motion was agreed to by voice vote.
H.R. 3819 was received in the Senate on October 21, 2009,
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. H.R. 3819 was favorably reported from the
committee without amendment on December 22, 2009. On December
23, 2009, H.R. 3819 was considered and passed by the Senate by
unanimous consent. It was signed into law by the President on
December 28, 2009, and became Public Law No. 111-125.
1.5--P.L. 111-140, NUCLEAR FORENSICS AND ATTRIBUTION ACT (H.R. 730)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-140, the Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act,
directed certain nuclear forensic and attribution activities
within the Department of Homeland Security. The bill amends the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add to the mission of the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO): 1) lead the
development and implementation of the national strategic five-
year plan for improving U.S. nuclear forensic and attribution
capabilities; 2) establish within DNDO a National Technical
Nuclear Forensics Center to centralize all federal nuclear
forensics and attributions activities; and, 3) establish a
National Nuclear Forensics Expertise Development Program to
provide scholarships and other means to ensure faculty and
students have a secure funding stream in the study of nuclear
and geochemical science specialties relevant to technical
nuclear forensics.
The bill also required DNDO and the other federal partners
in these efforts to annually report an assessment of each
department's activities and investments in support of nuclear
forensics and attribution activities and specific goals and
objectives accomplished during the previous year pursuant to
the national strategic five-year plan.
Legislative History
On January 27, 2009, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), introduced
H.R. 730, which was referred to the Committees on Homeland
Security and Foreign Affairs. H.R. 730 was similar to H.R.
2631, which was introduced and passed the House and Senate in
the 110th Congress. Differences between the houses on H.R. 2631
were not resolved before the end of the 110th Congress. The
Science and Technology Committee's jurisdiction over H.R. 2631
was acknowledged in correspondence with the Committee on
Homeland Security. Similarly, on March 19 and 20, 2009,
Chairman Bart Gordon and Homeland Security Committee Chairman
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) exchanged correspondence acknowledging
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology
over H.R. 730, and agreeing to waive referral of the bill to
Committee. On March 24, 2009, the bill was considered under
suspension the rules, and the motion was agreed to by: Y-402,
N-16 (Roll Call No. 148).
H.R. 730 was received in the Senate on March 26, 2009, and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. H.R. 730 was favorably reported from the committee
with an amendment on November 4, 2009. On December 23, 2009,
H.R. 730 was considered and passed by the Senate by unanimous
consent, and the House was notified of Senate action on
December 24, 2009.
On January 20 and 21, 2010, H.R. 730, as amended by the
Senate, was considered by the House under suspension of the
rules, and the bill passed by: Y-397, N-10 (Roll Call No. 16).
It was signed into law by the President on February 16, 2010,
and became Public Law No. 111-140.
1.6--P.L. 111-267, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 (S. 3729)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-267, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2010, authorized the
programs of NASA for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. The
prior NASA Authorization (P.L. 110-422) expired at the end of
fiscal year 2009.
Shortly after the Obama Administration took power in 2009,
the Administration announced a Review of United States Human
Space Flight Plans and formed a committee to undertake the
review. The committee, led by Norm Augustine, former CEO of
Lockheed Martin, released its final report on October 22, 2009.
The Augustine committee's report determined that NASA's
existing Constellation program was so underfunded and behind
schedule that meeting the program's goals without large budget
increases was not possible. The committee judged that human
exploration beyond low earth orbit should be NASA's primary
human spaceflight goal and, within budget scenarios prescribed
by the Administration, crafted several basic options to achieve
this goal. Each of these options involved different
destinations and tools to get there. The committee also
evaluated in these options the possibility of heavily utilizing
``commercial'' providers of launch services.
Following the release of the Augustine committee's report,
in February of 2010, the President submitted a budget request
with dramatic changes for NASA's human spaceflight program and
for NASA generally. Elements of the President's request
included termination of the Constellation program and its
constituent elements, sharply increased investment in space
technology development, and outsourcing the task of
transporting NASA astronauts to and from the International
Space Station to a ``commercial'' spaceflight industry. The
plan was met with skepticism in Congress, and the Science and
Technology Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee spent much of the Spring and early
Summer of 2010 holding a number of hearings on the topic. The
Committee was unable to acquire any programmatic or budgetary
analysis from the Administration which would support the
drastic changes to NASA proposed in the budget request. For
that reason, Chairman Gordon decided to move forward in
crafting a NASA authorization which departed from the
President's budget request.
The key programmatic elements of H.R. 5781 were: the
continuation of assured NASA access to low earth orbit and the
International Space Station through development of a government
vehicle or vehicles; development of a heavy lift launch
vehicle, utilizing elements from Constellation and the Space
Shuttle to the maximum extent practicable; a flexible path
toward exploration beyond low earth orbit which could adapt to
future budget realities; reduced funding for ``commercial''
human launch development, and an alteration in the funding
mechanism from direct payments to a loan or loan guarantee
approach; continuation of the International Space Station until
at least 2020; and, increased space and aeronautics technology
funding (albeit less than proposed in the President's request).
Although the programmatic elements of H.R. 5781 differed
significantly from the President's budget request, the top line
authorization levels for 2011, 2012, and 2013 matched those in
the budget request.
Before H.R. 5781 was considered by the House, the Senate
passed S. 3729. S. 3729 differed significantly from the
President's budget request, but it also contained key
differences from the House bill, including: prescriptive
requirements for the development of a NASA heavy lift launch
vehicle; no mandate of assured government owned access to low
earth orbit; increased (relative to the House bill) funding for
``commercial'' human launch development; and a mandated extra
flight of the Space Shuttle. Like the House bill, S. 3729 hewed
to the top line numbers in the President's budget request. Also
like the House bill, S. 3729 provided significant increases in
NASA's space and aeronautics technology programs and it
extended the International Space Station until 2020.
After passage of S. 3729, attempts were made to reconcile
the differences between the two bills. However, those efforts
were unsuccessful. With the 2011 fiscal year quickly
approaching, Chairman Gordon determined that moving forward
with the Senate bill was necessary to provide NASA and its
workforce with stability, and the House took up and passed S.
3729 without amendment.
Legislative History
On July 20, 2010, Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), along with
Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee Chair Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Olson (R-TX),
introduced H.R. 5781, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2010. On July 22, 2010,
H.R. 5781 was marked up by the Full Committee, and ordered
reported, amended, by voice vote. H.R. 5781 was reported to the
House on July 28, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-576). No further action
was taken on H.R. 5781.
On August 5, 2010, Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV),
Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, introduced S. 3729, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. The measure, in
draft form, was previously marked up by the Commerce, Science,
and Transportation Committee on July 15, 2010, and favorably
ordered reported by voice vote. The written report on the
measure was filed upon introduction of the bill (S. Rept. 111-
278). On August 5, 2010, the Senate passed S. 3729, with
amendments, by unanimous consent.
S. 3729 was received in the House on August 9, 2010, and
held at the desk. On September 29, 2010, Chairman Gordon moved
to suspend the rules and pass S. 3729. S. 3729 passed the House
by: Y-304, N-118 (Roll Call No. 561). It was signed into law by
the President on October 11, 2010, and became Public Law No.
111-267.
1.7--P.L. 111-XXX, AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 (H.R.
5116)
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 5116, America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010, was to invest in innovation through research and
development and science and mathematics education and to
improve the competitiveness of the United States. It
reauthorized the programs of the National Science Foundation,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) at the Department of
Energy. The Act also authorized new innovation-focused programs
at the Department of Commerce and an energy innovation hub
program at the Department of Energy. Finally, the Act
authorized: education and oceanic and atmospheric programs at
NOAA; education programs at the Department of Energy; and,
education programs at NASA.
The origin of H.R. 5116 dates back to the National
Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which
was requested in 2005 by then Ranking Member Gordon and
Chairman Boehlert. The report made several recommendations for
action to ensure the competitiveness of the United States, and
those recommendations were enacted as P.L. 110-69, the America
COMPETES Act or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act.
Among other things, P.L. 110-69: authorized seven year doubling
paths for NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy Office of
Science; authorized science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education programs at NSF, the Department of
Education, NOAA, and NASA; and, authorized the creation of an
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy at the Department of
Energy to engage in high-risk high-reward energy related
research.
In the update to the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''
report, entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5,'' the Committee
headed by Norm Augustine, former Chairman of Lockheed Martin,
noted that:
L``Although significant progress has been made . . .
the Gathering Storm effort once again finds itself at a
tipping point. It is widely agreed that addressing
America's competitiveness challenge is an undertaking
that will require many years if not decades; however,
the requisite federal funding of much of that effort is
about to terminate. In order to sustain the progress
that has begun it will be necessary to (1) reauthorize
the America COMPETES Act, and (2) ``institutionalize''
funding and oversight of the Gathering Storm
recommendations . . . ''
P.L. 111-XXX sought to fulfill these objectives. The bill
reauthorized NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy Office of
Science for three fiscal years. In addition, the bill
reauthorized ARPA-E. P.L. 111-XXX also expanded upon the
original COMPETES Act in authorizing certain competitiveness
related activities at the Department of Commerce. These include
loan guarantee programs for science park infrastructure and
innovative technology manufacturing and a regional innovation
cluster program to help spur innovation at a regional level.
Legislative History
H.R. 5116 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on
April 22, 2010 and referred to the Science and Technology
Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.
The House Education and Labor Committee discharged the bill
on April 22, 2010. House Science and Technology committee met
to consider the bill on April 28, 2010. The Committee agreed to
report the bill to the House by voice vote. The Science and
Technology Committee reported the bill, as amended, to the
House on May 7, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-478, Part I).
The House considered H.R. 5116 on May 12 and 13, 2010. On
May 13, 2010, Ranking Member Hall moved to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Science and Technology with instructions. The
motion was agreed to by: Y-292, N-126 (Roll Call No. 270).
Further proceedings on the bill were postponed.
On May 18, 2010, Chairman Gordon introduced H.R. 5325, the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. H.R. 5325 was
substantially similar to H.R. 5116, with the notable exception
that it was a three-year authorization rather than a five-year
authorization. On May, 19, 2010, Chairman Gordon moved that the
House suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5325, and the motion
failed by: Y-261, N-148 (Roll Call No. 277).
On May 28, 2010, H.R. 5116 was considered as unfinished
business. Upon reporting the bill back to the House with the
amendment specified in the motion to recommit, Chairman Gordon
moved to divide the question of adoption of the amendment into
each of its nine components. The question of adoption was
divided and put to each portion of the amendment. Upon
division, certain portions of the amendment passed and certain
portions failed. The bill then passed, as amended, by: Y-262,
N-150 (Roll Call No. 332).
The bill was received in the Senate on June 29, 2010
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. On December 17, 2010, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation was discharged of H.R.
5116 by unanimous consent. On December 17, 2010, the bill was
considered and passed the Senate, with an amendment, by
unanimous consent.
On December 17, 2010, message of the Senate's action was
sent to the House. On December 21, 2010, Chairman Gordon moved
that the House concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116,
and the bill passed by: Y-228, N-130 (Roll Call No. 659). On
December XX, 2010, the bill was signed by the President and
became P.L. 111-XXX.
1.8--P.L. 111-XXX, IKE SKELTON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011 (H.R. 6523)
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 111-XXX, the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, authorizes the defense
related activities of the United States, including the
Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security
Administration at the Department of Energy.
H.R. 6523 included several provisions within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology
including: establishing a pilot program on collaborative energy
security between the Department of Defense and the Department
of Energy; modifications to defense procurement laws which also
apply to NASA; an assessment and plan for critical rare earth
materials; a limitation on use of authorized funds to cancel
contracts related to the National Polar-Orbiting Operation
Environmental Satellite System Program (NPOESS); preservation
of the solid rocket motor industrial base; sustainment of the
liquid rocket propulsion system industrial base; and, extension
of certain transaction authority of the Secretary of Energy
through 2015.
Legislative History
H.R. 6523 was introduced by Armed Services Committee
Chairman Ike Skelton on December 15, 2010, and the bill was
referred to the Armed Services Committee and the Budget
Committee. The bill was derivative of H.R. 5136, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. H.R. 5136 had
previously passed the House, and in the course of that previous
effort, the Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction
over parts of the measure was acknowledged. Chairman Skelton
also acknowledged the Committee on Science and Technology's
jurisdiction over portions of H.R. 6523 in an exchange of
correspondence.
On December 17, the House suspended the rules and passed
H.R. 6523, as amended, by: Y-341, N-48 (Roll Call No. 650). The
bill was received in the Senate on December 17, 2010. On
December 22, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 6523, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent.
The bill was received in the House on December 22, 2010,
and passed the House by unanimous consent. On December XX,
2010, the President signed the bill and it became Public Law
111-XXX.
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
and Technology
2.1--H.R. 445, HEAVY DUTY HYBRID VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 445 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 jobsite 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. 445 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. 445 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.
445 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.
On January 9, 2009, the bill was reintroduced in the House
as H.R. 445, the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2009, and referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology.
The House considered the bill on suspension on September 9,
2009 and passed the bill, as amended, by voice vote.
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. No other legislative actions was taken on
H.R. 445.
2.2--H.R. 469, PRODUCED WATER UTILIZATION ACT OF 2009
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
addresses environmental concerns, water use issues and energy
production benefits.
H.R. 469 directs 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 addresses produced water recovery, produced water
utilization and re-injection of produced water. The program
also establishes 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 the Produced
Water Utilization Act of 2007 as 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.
On January 13, 2009 the bill was reintroduced in the House
as H.R. 469, the Produced Water Utilization Act of 2009, by
Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX). On February 11, 2009, the
House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 469 by voice vote.
On February 12, 2009 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. 469.
2.3--H.R. 549, THE NATIONAL BOMBING PREVENTION ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
Explosives are one of the most commonly used terrorist
weapons worldwide. A National strategy is needed to deal with
this threat. Many agencies within the Federal Government play a
role in prevention and detection of, protection against, and
response to terrorist use of explosives. It is important to
designate an overall coordinator for this mission. This
legislation authorizes in statute the Office of Bombing
Prevention within the Department of Homeland Security for this
purpose. The purpose of H.R. 549 is to amend the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 to establish the Office for Bombing
Prevention, to address terrorist explosive threats, and for
other purposes.
Legislative History
The bill was introduced as H.R. 4749, the National Bombing
Prevention Act of 2008 by Representative Peter King (R-NY) on
December 17, 2007 and referred to the House Committee on
Homeland Security.
The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection met to
consider the bill on May 1, 2008 and discharged the bill on May
20, 2008. The full Committee on Homeland Security met to
consider the bill on May 20, 2008 and ordered the bill to be
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On June 16, 2008 Chairman Gordon of the House Science and
Technology Committee and Chairman Thompson of the House
Committee on Homeland Security exchanged correspondence in
which the House Committee on Homeland Security acknowledged the
House Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction over
the bill, H.R. 549, and Chairman Gordon waived a referral of
the bill.
On June 18, 2008 the bill was reported to the House, as
amended, by the Committee on Homeland Security (H. Rept. 110-
689). On June 18, 2008, the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 4749 by voice vote.
On June 19, 2008, the bill was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
On January 15, 2009, the bill was reintroduced by
Representative Thompson as H.R. 549, the National Bombing
Prevention Act of 2009, and referred to the House Committee on
Homeland Security.
On February 3, 2009, the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 549 by voice vote.
On February 4, 2009 the bill was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 549.
2.4--H.R. 554, NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF
2009
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. 554 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 the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as H.R. 5940.
H.R. 5940 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, 2008, H.R. 5940 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On January 15, 2009, H.R. 5940 was reintroduced as H.R.
554, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of
2009 by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) and referred to the
House Committee on Science and Technology. The House considered
the bill on suspension on February 11, 2009 and passed the bill
by voice vote.
H.R. 554 was received in the Senate on February 12, 2009
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
554. However, H.R. 554 also passed the House as part of H.R.
5116 (see Chapter I for further information). This portion of
H.R. 5116 was stricken by the Senate before enactment.
2.5--H.R. 631, WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION RESEARCH ACT OF
2009
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, downsize, 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. 631 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.
On January 22, 2009, the bill was reintroduced to the House
by Representative Matheson as H.R. 631, the Water Use
Efficiency and Conservation Research Act of 2009 and referred
to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
On February 11, 2009, the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 631 by voice vote.
On February 12, 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 631.
2.6--H.R. 915, FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 915, authorized
appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for
fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to improve aviation safety and
capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation
system, and for other purposes. H.R. 915 would authorize almost
$54 billion for FAA programs over three years. The bill raised
fuel taxes for corporate jets and other general aviation
aircraft, but kept fuel taxes paid by the airlines and
passengers' taxes at their current rates. The bill allowed
airports to increase passenger facility charges, raising the
maximum from $4.50 to $7 per passenger. The bill increased
authorized spending for facilities and equipment to support
development of Next Generation air traffic modernization
initiatives, and authorized increased funding for airport
infrastructure improvement grants. The bill modified FAA
management and oversight of Next Generation air traffic
modernization projects, and included provisions addressing
system capacity, aviation safety, environmental issues, and
airline industry issues, including airline passenger rights
issues.
Legislative History
Representative James Oberstar introduced H.R. 915 on
February 9, 2009. H.R. 915 was referred to the House Committee
on Science and Technology and the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
On May 19, 2009 the Committee on Science and Technology
discharged the bill. On May 19, 2009 the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure reported the bill to the full
house (H. Rept. 111-119).
On May 21, 2009 the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure submitted a supplemental report to the full
house. Representative Oberstar offered an amendment, which was
passed by voice vote. Representative Lee offered an amendment,
which was passed by voice vote. Representative Richardson
offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Cueller offered an amendment, which was passed
by voice vote. Representative Cassidy offered an amendment,
which was passed by voice vote. Representative Murphy offered
an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative
Kilroy offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Lowey offered an amendment, which was passed by
voice vote. Representative Ackerman offered an amendment, which
was passed by voice vote. Representative Burgess offered an
amendment, which was passed by a recorded vote of 420-0 (Roll
Call No. 288). Representative McCaul offered an amendment,
which was passed by a recorded vote of 417-2 (Roll Call No.
289). The bill was passed, as amended by a recorded vote of
277-136 (Roll Call No. 291).
On June 1, 2009 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.
915.
2.7--H.R. 957, GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION ACT OF 2009
Background and Legislative History
H.R. 957 addresses 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 provides interdisciplinary education and training
in high-performance building design and construction to the
next generation of architects and engineers. The purpose of
this bill is 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 the
bill as H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act of 2007. 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.
On February 10, 2009, the bill was reintroduced to the
House by Representative McCaul as H.R. 957, the Green Energy
Education Act of 2009, and referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology.
On April 22, 2009, the House suspended the rules and passed
H.R. 957 by a recorded vote of Y-277, N-136 (Roll Call No.
199).
On February 12, 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On December 8, 2009
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a
hearing on the bill. No further legislative action was taken on
H.R. 957. However, H.R. 957 also passed the House as part of
H.R. 5116 (see Chapter I for further information). This
provision was stricken by the Senate prior to enactment of H.R.
5116.
2.8--H.R. 1145, NATIONAL WATER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE ACT
OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1145 is to authorize a National Water
Research and Development Initiative to coordinate the Federal
Government's efforts in research, development, demonstration,
data collection and dissemination, education, and technology
transfer related to water resources.
Water policy in the United States remains essentially
unchanged despite a myriad of reports recommending broad
changes to address dwindling water supplies. Multi-year
droughts continue to plague regions and states around the
country, including the Southeast, Texas, and California. For
many municipalities, intense competition for water and
diminished supplies will force local water agencies to make
tough decisions on water allocations including implementation
of restrictions to protect essential ecosystem services.
Droughts, changing patterns of precipitation and snowmelt, and
increased water loss due to evaporation as a result of warmer
air temperatures are indicators that climate variability and
climate change have impacts that are being felt across the
United States.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)
latest report projects that water supplies stored in glaciers
and snow cover will decline in the course of the century, thus
reducing water availability in regions supplied by melt water
from major mountain ranges. The United States' water supply
cannot support future populations at its current rate of
consumption. The country's population has increased from five
million citizens in the 19th century to over 300 million today,
and it continues to grow at a rate of roughly one percent
annually. Available surface water supplies have not increased
in the United States since the 1990s, and groundwater tables
are continuing to decline.
These water supply problems have substantial economic
impacts. According to a 2000 report from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), each of the eight water
shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat waves
resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. Further, an
adequate supply of water is integral to industry. Water
shortages contribute to reductions in job creation and
retention, and increased water demand results in increased
costs to businesses. Available water supplies are decreasing in
the face of increasing demand. This problem necessitates that
the federal government establish a comprehensive strategy for
research and development to ensure a sustainable water supply.
Currently, over 20 federal agencies carry out research and
development on some aspect of water supply, water quality or
water management. The National Academies of Science surveyed
these agencies for a 2004 study and, based upon the responses,
estimated approximately $700 million in federal expenditures on
water research. Despite this investment, an increase in the
number of water shortages and emerging conflicts over water
supplies suggest that we are inadequately prepared to address
the nation's water management issues. Quantitative knowledge of
water supply in the United States is currently inadequate.
Accurate and timely data on water resources and variations in
water supplies over time is essential to effectively manage
water supplies.
Accordingly, a national initiative coordinating federal
water research is necessary to ensure that the United States
maintains adequate water supplies in the coming decades. H.R.
1145 seeks to improve the Federal Government's efforts in water
research, development, demonstration, data collection and
dissemination, education, and technology transfer activities to
address changes in water use, supply, and demand in the United
States.
The bill codifies the Interagency Committee created in
2003, the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ)
of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources. SWAQ was created to identify
science and technology needs to address the growing issues
related to freshwater supplies, to develop a coordinated
multiyear plan to improve research on water supply and water
quality, and to enhance the collection and availability of data
needed to ensure an adequate water supply for the nation. H.R.
1145 incorporates suggestions in the NAS's 2004 report that are
intended to strengthen the Committee. By strengthening the SWAQ
and providing it explicit Congressional authorization, the
recommendations of the 2007 SWAQ report will receive due
consideration and form the foundation of a national strategy to
ensure that the United States has a sustainable water supply.
Legislative History
On September 23, 2008 Committee Chairman Bart Gordon
introduced H.R. 6997, the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act, which was referred to the Committee
on Science and Technology. On February 24, 2009, Chairman
Gordon reintroduced the legislation in the 111th Congress as
H.R. 1145, and the bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology.
On March 25, 2009, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1145,
the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. Mr.
Baird moved that the Committee favorably report H.R. 1145, as
amended, to the House. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
The bill was reported to the House on April 21, 2009 (H.
Rept. 111-76). On April 23, 2009 the House considered H.R.
1145. Representative Gordon offered two amendments,
Representative Hastings offered an amendment, Representative
Cardoza offered an amendment, Representative Arcuri offered an
amendment, Representative Kirk offered an amendment,
Representative Blumenauer offered an amendment, Representative
Moore offered an amendment, and Representative Brown-Waite
offered an amendment, each of which were agreed to by voice
vote. Representative Kosmas offered an amendment which was
agreed to by a recorded vote of 424-0 (Roll Call No. 200).
Representative Teague offered an amendment which was agreed to
by a recorded vote of 423-1 (Roll Call No. 201). Representative
Roskam offered an amendment which failed by a recorded vote of
194-236 (Roll Call No. 202). Representative Shadegg offered an
amendment which failed by a recorded vote of 160-271 (Roll Call
No. 203). H.R. 1145 was passed in the House, as amended, on
April 23, 2009 with a vote of 413-10 (Roll Call No. 205).
On April 23, 2009, the bill was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 1145.
2.9--H.R. 1580, ELECTRONIC WASTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
Background and Summary of Legislation
The growing number of unwanted televisions, computers, cell
phones, monitors, and other electronic devices ready for
discard is a growing problem in the United States and
worldwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated
that between 1980 and 2004, 2 billion electronic products were
sold in the U.S. Of these, it estimated about half were still
in use, while 42 percent were discarded. Further estimates
revealed that only 11 percent of those discarded devices
reached recyclers. Most were disposed of in landfills.
Electronics recycling is increasing in the United States,
but the industry faces a number of challenges. These challenges
include convincing consumers to recycle, the logistics of
collecting unwanted electronic devices, efficiently
disassembling products, safely removing hazardous substances,
efficiently processing materials, and recovering value from all
of the materials found in the electronic devices.
The design of electronic products could also aid in making
recycling more cost efficient. Many products are difficult to
disassemble and the location of hazardous materials varies
(i.e., mercury lamps in some flat panel displays). Greater use
of materials recycled from old electronics in the manufacturing
of new products would help make recycling more profitable.
Scores of different chemicals and materials comprise
computers, televisions, cell phones and other electronics. Some
of the substances used in electronics, like lead and hexavalent
chromium, have raised enough health and environmental concerns
that the European Union adopted a measure to ban their use in
electronics products sold in Europe. Manufacturers have been
able to comply with these requirements for most consumer
electronics, but the process to ban substances sensitive to the
environment and human health is on-going. Comprehensive data on
the physical properties of substitutes for harmful materials
would enable electronics designers to change their products
more quickly in response to concerns raised about different
materials. The availability of this type of comprehensive data,
provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
enabled manufacturers to quickly meet the challenge of
eliminating ozone-layer depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
from their products in the 1980s.
Increasing the amount of electronics sent to responsible
recyclers is essential to reducing the impacts of electronic
device disposal. Of equal importance, though, is prolonging the
use, and re-use, of these devices. Estimates of the total
amount of energy required over a computer's lifecycle show that
roughly 80 percent goes into the computer's production phase,
and only 20 percent into the use phase. Extending the amount of
time a product is in use could not only reduce the volume of
discarded electronic devices, but also lessen the impact of the
production of these complex and sophisticated products on the
environment. Consumers are often wary of purchasing used
electronics because they are unsure of a used product's value
or they are afraid it will not meet their needs. Developing re-
use markets that aid consumers in evaluating used devices could
help keep these devices in the hands of consumers for a longer
period of time. Prolonging a device's use could also be
accomplished by developing ways for consumers to easily upgrade
their current products. Consumers need to be better educated
about electronics recycling. In addition, the training of
current and future engineers, and others in the fields of
electronics production and recycling could be improved to
incorporate environmental considerations in to the design of
electronics and the practice of recycling.
The purpose of H.R. 1580 is to authorize the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency to award grants to
reduce the volume of discarded electronic products in the
United States through research, development, and demonstration
projects for product design, recycling and re-use. H.R. 1580
requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to award multiyear grants through a competitive,
merit-based process. The grants are to conduct research to
create innovative and practical approaches to manage the
environmental impacts of electronic devices through recycling,
reuse, reduction of the use of hazardous materials, and life-
cycle extension; and through such research, to contribute to
the professional development of scientists, engineers, and
technicians in the fields of electronic device manufacturing,
design, refurbishing, and recycling.
The Administrator is also required to enter into an
arrangement for the National Academy of Sciences to report to
Congress on opportunities for, and barriers to, increasing the
recyclability of electronic devices and making electronic
devises safer and more environmentally friendly, the risks
posed by the storage, transport, recycling, and disposal of
unwanted electronic devices, the current status of research and
training programs to promote the environmental design of
electronic devices to increase the recyclability of such
devices, and regulatory or statutory barriers that may prevent
the adoption or implementation of best management practices or
technological innovations that may arise from the research and
training programs established by the bill.
Additionally, H.R. 1580 requires the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
establish an initiative to develop a comprehensive physical
property database for environmentally friendly alternative
materials for use in electronic devices and develop a strategic
plan to establish priorities and physical property
characterization requirements for the database.
Legislative History
Representative Bart Gordon introduced H.R. 1580, the
Electronic Waste Research and Development Act, on March 18,
2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Science
and Technology on March 18, 2009. The bill was reported to the
House on April 21, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-75). On April 23, 2009
the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1580 by voice
vote.
On April 23, 2009 the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1580.
2.10--H.R. 1622, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROGRAM OF RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION ON NATURAL GAS VEHICLES
Background and Summary of Legislation
Natural gas vehicles have the potential to address
important energy security and environmental issues. While the
United States imports the majority of the petroleum it uses,
most natural gas is domestically produced. As a result,
increased use of natural gas vehicles may reduce dependence on
foreign oil imports and promote U.S. energy security. In
addition, natural gas vehicles, in general, have lower
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline vehicles.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that there
were roughly 116,000 compressed natural gas vehicles in the
United States in 2006, and roughly 3,000 liquefied natural gas
vehicles. Roughly two-thirds of natural gas vehicles are light-
duty (i.e., passenger) vehicles. This compares to roughly 230
million conventional (mostly gasoline) light-duty vehicles.
Furthermore, of the roughly 16.5 million new light-duty
vehicles sold in 2006, only about 2,000 (0.01%) were natural
gas vehicles.
The Vehicle Technologies program at the Department of
Energy funds a wide range of research activities on passenger
vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. The program's mission is to
`develop `leap frog' technologies that will provide Americans
with greater freedom of mobility and energy security, while
lowering costs and reducing impacts on the environment.' The
Department of Energy is currently addressing these research
needs through two public-private research programs: the 21st
Century Truck Partnership, which conducts research and
development through collaborations with the heavy-duty trucking
industry, and the FreedomCar and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
programs which examine the pre-competitive, high-risk research
needed to develop technologies that will apply to a range of
affordable cars and light trucks. Though the Department has
funded natural gas vehicle R&D in the past there are currently
no activities in this area.
The purpose of H.R. 1622 is to provide for a program of
research, development, and demonstration on natural gas
vehicles and related technologies. The bill directs the
Secretary of Energy to conduct a five-year program of natural
gas vehicle research, development, and demonstration,
coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regarding such program, coordinate with
the natural gas vehicle industry to ensure cooperation between
the public and the private sector, and report to Congress on
implementing such program.
Legislative History
Representative John Sullivan introduced H.R. 1622 on March,
19, 2009. On June 16, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment reviewed the bill. On June 24, 2009 the Committee
on Science and Technology met to consider the bill. The bill
was reported to the House on July 14, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-206).
On July 21, 2009 the House suspended the rules and passed H.R.
1580 by a recorded vote of 393-35 (Roll Call No. 598).
On July 22, 2009 the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1622.
2.11--H.R. 1709, STEM EDUCATION COORDINATION ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of this bill is to establish a committee
through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to
coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education.
A consensus exists that improving STEM education across the
United States is a necessary condition for preserving the
Nation's capacity for innovation and discovery and for ensuring
the Nation's economic strength and competitiveness. A variety
of STEM education programs and activities exist for K-16
students at the federal research and development (R&D)
agencies, which include: the National Science Foundation, the
National Aeronautics & Space Administration, the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of
Health.
For the most part, agencies have developed their programs
independently rather than sharing `best practices' and
collaborating across agencies. Each program has also developed
its own methods and criteria for evaluation, making a
comparison of effectiveness across the programs impossible.
This is often the case even within agencies, where there
appears to be little communication between different offices
and directorates, each of which may manage their own STEM
education programs. Finally, the agencies have at times had
trouble building widespread awareness of their programs among
teachers and other practitioners.
In 2006, the Department of Education, through the American
Competitiveness Council (ACC), launched a year-long review of
federal STEM education programs. The ACC process identified 105
federal STEM education programs, across all levels, totaling
$3.12 billion in federal funding. Agencies submitted a total of
115 evaluations for those programs. Only 10 of the evaluations
were determined to be scientifically rigorous and only four of
them led the ACC to conclude that the educational activity
evaluated had a meaningful positive impact. The ACC concluded,
that, `despite decades of significant federal investment in
science and math education, there is a general dearth of
evidence of effective practices and activities in STEM
education.'
In its May 2007 report, the ACC made six key
recommendations: 1) The government should maintain and update
regularly an inventory of federal STEM education programs,
including goals and metrics, to facilitate stronger interagency
coordination; 2) Agencies and the federal government at large
should foster knowledge of effective practices through improved
evaluation and implementation of proven effective, research-
based instructional materials and methods; 3) Federal agencies
should improve the coordination of their K-12 STEM education
programs with states and local school systems; 4) Federal
agencies should adjust program designs and operations so that
programs can be assessed and measurable results can be
achieved, consistent with STEM education program goals; 5)
Funding for federal STEM education programs designed to improve
STEM education outcomes should not increase unless a plan for
rigorous, independent evaluation is in place, appropriate to
the types of activities funded; and 6) Agencies with STEM
education programs should collaborate on implementation of ACC
recommendations under the auspices of the NSTC.
In October 2007, the National Science Board (NSB) released
its own report, `A National Action Plan for Addressing the
Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics Education System.' A key recommendation of the
NSB action plan was the creation of a committee on STEM
Education, under NSTC, responsible for coordinating STEM
education programs across federal R&D agencies and the
Department of Education. Similarly, many of the witnesses at
the Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearings held
in the 110th Congress testified that there is a need for
improved coordination among the agencies regarding their STEM
education efforts in order to better communicate best practices
and eliminate inefficiencies. Even though an NSTC subcommittee
on education and workforce does currently exist, the ACC and
NSB reviews and the Subcommittee hearings demonstrated that
current efforts are far from sufficient to ensure a meaningful
federal investment in STEM education.
H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009,
requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), to
establish a committee to coordinate federal programs and
activities in support of STEM education. In addition, the bill
requires this committee to develop a STEM education strategic
plan to inform program and budget planning for agencies and to
establish and maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM
education activities, including documentation on program
assessments and participation by minorities. Finally, H.R. 1709
requires the Director of OSTP to submit an annual report to
Congress including a description and level of funding of the
STEM education programs and activities of each participating
Federal agency for the previous and current fiscal years.
Legislative History
On March 25, 2009, Representative Bart Gordon introduced
H.R. 1709. The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology and the House Committee on Education and
Labor. On March 26, the bill was referred to the Research and
Science Education Subcommittee. On March 31, 2009, the
Committee on Science and Technology met to consider H.R. 1709.
The bill was reported to the House on June 2, 2009 (H. Rept.
111-130). On June 8, 2009 the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 1709 by a recorded vote of 353-39 (Roll Call No.
312).
On June 8, 2009, H.R. 1790 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1790. However, H.R. 1709
also passed the House as a component of H.R. 5116. This
provision was ultimately enacted (see Chapter I for further
information on H.R. 5116).
2.12--H.R. 1736, THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the
establishment of a committee under the National Science and
Technology Council to identify and coordinate international
science and technology research and training partnerships that
can strengthen the U.S. science and technology enterprise,
improve economic and national security, and support U.S.
foreign policy goals.
In 2008, the National Science Board (NSB) issued a report,
`International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority
for U.S. Foreign Policy and our Nation's Innovation Agenda,' in
which the Board made a series of recommendations for increased
coherence and coordination of federally sponsored international
science and engineering activities that serve both a domestic
mission and a foreign policy mission.
In particular, the NSB called on the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to take a more active and
prominent role both in setting federal priorities for
international science and engineering cooperation and in
coordinating efforts across agencies, including by
reestablishing a Committee on International Science,
Engineering and Technology (CISET) under the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC). Such a Committee existed in the
1990's under the Clinton Administration.
CISET's mandate was not defined within any particular area
of science and technology (S&T). Rather, CISET's role was to
review the wide range of bilateral and multilateral
international scientific programs carried out by the technical
agencies in the U.S. Government, and to identify opportunities
for international cooperation and interagency coordination in
response to new needs and opportunities. In particular, CISET
was charged to: identify, and coordinate international
cooperation that can strengthen the domestic S&T enterprise and
promote U.S. economic competitiveness and national security;
utilize American leadership in S&T to address global issues and
to support the post-Cold War tenets of U.S. foreign policy--
promoting democracy, maintaining peace, and fostering economic
growth and sustainable development; and coordinate the
international aspects of federal R&D funding across the Federal
agencies.
The Bush Administration OSTP disbanded CISET in 2001. Dr.
Marburger, former Director of OSTP, explained in his testimony
before the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in 2008
that his approach to coordinating international S&T
partnerships was to draw together agencies in meetings focused
on specific science topics such as nanotechnology or genomics,
or on specific countries such as China or Brazil. The former
meetings occur naturally in the NSTC context, the latter occur
on the schedule of high-level bilateral commission meetings to
review progress under the S&T agreements. But many other
experts, including all of the witnesses at the March 24, 2009
hearing before the Subcommittee, argued that significant
opportunities are missed by this ad hoc approach to
international S&T cooperation, especially opportunities at the
intersection of science and diplomacy. The witnesses at the
March 2009 hearing agreed that a reconstituted CISET could
serve an important role in ensuring that the international
component of the national R&D agenda is sufficiently addressed
and in helping to bring S&T to bear on our foreign policy
goals.
H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology
Cooperation Act of 2009, requires the establishment of a
committee under the National Science and Technology Council
with the responsibility to identify and coordinate
international science and technology cooperation that can
strengthen the U.S. S&T enterprise, improve economic and
national security, and support U.S. foreign policy goals.
Furthermore, the bill requires that the committee report to
Congress annually on its activities.
Legislative History
Representative Brian Baird introduced H.R. 1736 on March
26, 2009. H.R. 1736 was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology, and subsequently referred to the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education on March 26,
2009. On April 29, 2009, the Committee on Science and
Technology met to consider the bill. The bill was reported to
the House on May 21, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-128). On June 8, 2009
the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1736 by a
recorded vote of 341-52 (Roll Call No. 311).
On June 9, 2009, H.R. 1736 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1736.
2.13--H.R. 2020, NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the planning and
coordination mechanisms of the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program and to
update the research content of the program. The legislation
implements a number of recommendations made in a recent
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) assessment of the program.
Over the past 50 years, advances in networking and
information technology (NIT) such as the internet and wireless
communication technologies have permeated society and
contributed significantly to the growth of the U.S. economy.
Breakthroughs in the coming decades are expected to lead to a
more reliable and secure internet, personalized health
monitoring, and increased transportation safety and efficiency.
Advances in networking and information technologies and their
anticipated benefits are built upon a strong foundation of
research and development (R&D).
The NITRD program, originally authorized in the High
Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), is a multi-
agency research effort to accelerate progress in the
advancement of computing and networking technologies and to
support leading edge computational research in a range of
science and engineering fields. The 1991 statute established a
set of mechanisms and procedures to provide for interagency
planning, coordination, and budgeting of R&D activities carried
out under the program.
The NITRD Subcommittee of the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) is the working body for interagency
planning and coordination and includes representatives from
each of the participating NITRD agencies as well as the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). In the current fiscal year (FY 2009),
13 Federal agencies are full participants in the NITRD program
and requested a total budget of $3.55 billion, an increase of
$0.21 billion or approximately 6 percent over the FY 2008 level
of $3.34 billion. Additional agencies participate in the
planning activities of the NITRD program, but do not report
their funding levels or contribute to the operating budget of
the National Coordination Office (NCO). The NCO provides staff
support for the NITRD Subcommittee and the program's Advisory
Committee and serves as the public interface for the program.
Currently, the NITRD program is divided into eight major
research components: Cyber Security and Information Assurance;
High End Computing Infrastructure and Applications; High End
Computing Research and Development; Human Computer Interaction
and Information Management; High Confidence Software and
Systems; Large Scale Networking; Software Design and
Productivity; and Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications
of IT.
In August 2007, PCAST completed an assessment of the NITRD
program and issued a report entitled, Leadership Under
Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive World.
The report indicates that while the U.S. remains the global
leader in NIT, several countries, including China and India,
are investing heavily in R&D and higher education. PCAST found
that while the NITRD program has been effective at addressing
the IT needs of the Federal agencies and the Nation, a number
of changes are necessary to guarantee continued U.S. leadership
in networking and information technology.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Act of 2009, H.R. 2020, requires the development
and periodic update of a strategic plan for the NITRD program
which specifies near-term and long-term objectives, and the
timeframe and metrics for achieving those objectives,
authorizes NITRD agencies to support large-scale, long-term,
interdisciplinary research in areas of national importance,
requires the NCO Director to convene a task force, with
representatives from universities, industries, and federal
laboratories, to explore mechanisms for carrying out
collaborative research and development activities for cyber-
physical systems, formally establishes the NCO, delineates the
office's responsibilities, mandates annual operating budgets,
specifies the source of funding for the office (consistent with
current practice), and stresses the role of the NCO in
developing the strategic plan and in public outreach and
communication with outside communities of interest.
Legislative History
On April 22, 2009, Representative Bart Gordon introduced
H.R. 2020. H.R. 2020 was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. On April 29, 2009, the Committee on
Science and Technology met to consider the bill. The bill was
reported to the House on May 12, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-102). On
May 12, 2009 the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 2020
by voice vote.
On May 13, 2009, H.R. 2020 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2020. However, H.R. 2020
also passed the House as a component of H.R. 5116 (see Chapter
I for more information on this bill). This provision was
stricken from the bill by the Senate prior to enactment.
2.14--H.R. 2407, NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE ACT OF 2009
Background and Need for Legislation
On February 8, 2010, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke
announced the Department's intent to create a National Climate
Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). H.R. 2407, the National Climate Service Act of 2009,
proposes to better integrate NOAA's climate activities and to
make them more accessible. The proposed NOAA Climate Service
would have equivalent organizational standing with NOAA's other
divisional structures, such as the National Weather Service,
the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
H.R. 2407 defines the activities to be undertaken by NOAA
to serve three primary purposes: (1) advance understanding of
climate variability and change at all geographic scales; (2)
provide forecasts, warnings, and information to the public on
climate variability and change and its effects on the public;
(3) and support development of adaptation and response plans by
Federal agencies; State, local and tribal governments, the
private sector and the public.
H.R. 2407, among other things, requires the interagency
development of a National Climate Service, addresses the
internal operational structure of the Climate Service Program,
requires the establishment of a Climate Service Advisory
Committee and at least two Subcommittees, repeals the National
Climate Program Act of 1978, establishes regional integrated
sciences and assessments teams, and requires a survey of
current and future climate services needs, and includes an
implementation plan for the National Climate Service. Nothing
in H.R. 2407 authorizes the National Climate Service or NOAA's
Climate Service Program to require state, tribal, or local
governments to develop adaptation or response plans or to take
other actions that could increase the financial burdens of
those governmental entities.
Legislative History
H.R. 2407 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on
May 14, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Science and
Technology. The Committee met to consider the bill on June 3,
2009. H.R. 2407 was ordered to be reported, as amended, by a
recorded vote of 24-12. No further legislative action was taken
on H.R. 2407. However, the substance of H.R. 2407 passed the
House as a component of H.R. 2454 (see below).
2.15--H.R. 2454, AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009
Background and Summary of Legislation
Between now and 2030, an estimated $1.5 trillion will be
invested in energy infrastructure in the United States and more
than $26 trillion will be invested worldwide. How these
investments are made will have dramatic and consequential
effects on the national security and economic future of the
United States. How these investments are made may also
determine the fate of our planet's climate.
Investments in clean energy offer an important opportunity
to spur economic growth. However, uncertainty about federal
policies regarding energy and global warming pollution is
impeding investors and CEOs in making investments in the energy
sector. By establishing an energy policy that provides
certainty with respect to both support for clean energy and
regulatory obligations for global warming pollution, we can
free up investments that have been on hold. By unleashing
billions of dollars of private and public investment in new
power generation, retrofits of existing capacity, energy
efficiency, and offsets for global warming pollution, clean
energy legislation can be an engine for both economic growth
and job creation.
The purpose of H.R. 2454 is to create clean energy jobs,
achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution
and transition to a clean energy economy. Measures in the
legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical
deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions
in carbon emissions. The bill sets forth provisions concerning
clean energy, energy efficiency, reducing global warming
pollution, transitioning to a clean energy economy, and
providing for agriculture and forestry related offsets.
Includes provisions: (1) creating a combined energy efficiency
and renewable electricity standard and requiring retail
electricity suppliers to meet 20% of their demand through
renewable electricity and electricity savings by 2020; (2)
setting a goal of, and requiring a strategic plan for,
improving overall U.S. energy productivity by at least 2.5% per
year by 2012 and maintaining that improvement rate through
2030; and (3) establishing a cap-and-trade system for
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and setting goals for reducing
such emissions from covered sources by 83% of 2005 levels by
2050.
Legislative History
H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009 was introduced by Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Rep. Edward J.
Markey on May 15, 2009. On May, 2009, H.R. 2454 was referred to
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs, the House Committee on Financial Services,
the House Committee on Education and Labor, the House Committee
on Science and Technology, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, the House Committee on
Natural Resources, the House Committee on Agriculture and the
House Committee on Ways and Means. The bill was reported to the
House on June 5, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-137).
The bill was discharged by the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the House Committee on Education and Labor on June
5, 2009. The bill was discharged by the House Committee on
Financial Services, the House Committee on Science and
Technology, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the House Committee on Natural Resources, the
House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Ways
and Means on June 19, 2009. H.R. 2454 was passed in the House
on June 26, 2009 by recorded vote: 219-212 (Roll Call No. 477).
H.R. 2454 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar
under General Orders (Calendar No. 97). No further legislative
action was taken on H.R. 2454.
2.16--H.R. 2693, OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
Oil spills are reported every day in the United States. Few
spills are environmental disasters of national or global
significance; most of the three million gallons of oil and
refined petroleum product spilled into U.S. waters each year
goes unnoticed by the public. Regardless of the level of public
awareness in each case, natural resources such as fish, corals,
marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, beaches, coastal habitats,
and water quality are often negatively affected, as are the
businesses and industries which depend on the immediate and
long-term health of these resources.
The United States has incorporated lessons learned from
past spills into Federal law and relevant response readiness
practices. We now have response tools and trained personnel at
ports and aboard vessels across the nation. However, oil
recovery and clean up techniques, including in situ burns,
chemical dispersants, skimmers, and booms have changed little
since the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.
The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90), P.L. 101-380 (8-18-1990),
was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to
rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The
intent of OPA 90 was to improve the nation's ability to prevent
and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that
expand the Federal government's ability to respond to oil
spills, and provide the funding and resources necessary for an
adequate response.
Title VII of OPA 90 establishes an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research to coordinate a
comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology
development, and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in
cooperation and coordination with industry, universities,
research institutions, state governments, and other nations, as
appropriate, and to foster cost-effective research mechanisms,
including the joint funding of research. Fourteen Federal
partners are named as members of the Interagency Committee, and
a representative of the Coast Guard serves as Chairman.
This program provides for research, development, and
demonstration of new or improved technologies which are
effective in preventing or mitigating oil discharges and which
protect the environment, including oil pollution technology
evaluation, oil pollution effects research, marine simulation
research, demonstration projects, simulated environmental
testing, and regional research programs.
Few legislative modifications to OPA 90's research and
development program have been made since its enactment, and
appropriations for these provisions have been small in
comparison to the need. The response to the Deepwater Horizon
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has exposed the need for an
effective and coordinated research program for oil spill
response.
The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, is to amend
and reauthorize the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The bill
authorizes the establishment of the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research and coordination of a
comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology
development, and demonstration program authorized under OPA 90
to ensure the ongoing development of methods and technologies
to prevent, detect, recover, and mitigate oil discharges.
Legislative History
H.R. 2693 was introduced by Representative Lynn Woolsey on
June 3, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology on June 3, 2009. The bill was referred
to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on June 4, 2009.
The Subcommittee met to consider H.R. 2693 on June 16, 2009.
The full committee met to consider H.R. 2693 on July 14, 2010.
H.R. 2693 was reported to the House on July 21, 2010 (H. Rept.
111-553). H.R. 2693 passed the House on July 21, 2010 by voice
vote.
On July 22, 2010, H.R. 2693 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2693.
2.17--H.R. 2729, TO AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH PARKS BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Need for Legislation
The National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs) are
unique outdoor laboratories that provide opportunities for
environmental studies on protected lands around Department of
Energy (DOE) facilities. They offer secure settings for long-
term research on a broad range of subjects, including biomass
production, environmental remediation, plant succession,
population ecology, ecological restoration, climate change and
thermal effects on freshwater ecosystems. The Parks also
provide rich environments for training researchers and
introducing the public to ecological sciences.
The seven National Environmental Research Parks are located
within six major ecological regions of the United States,
covering more than half of the nation. The mission of the Parks
is to: conduct research and education activities to assess and
document environmental effects associated with energy and
weapons use; explore methods for eliminating or minimizing
adverse effects of energy development and nuclear materials on
the environment; train people in ecological and environmental
sciences; and educate the public. A number of long-term data
sets have been gathered and maintained by researchers working
at the Parks. These long-term data sets are available nowhere
else in the U.S. or in the world and include information on
amphibian populations, bird populations, prairie succession and
restoration, and soil moisture and plant water stress. These
data are uniquely valuable for the detection of medium and
long-term variability and changes in ecology and climate. They
also provide valuable baseline information for assessing short
and long-term effects of energy development activities,
pollution exposures, pollution remediation, and other land-use
changes.
Over the years since their establishment, there have been
thousands of scientific papers published on the environmental
studies done at the NERPs. The research at these sites has been
conducted by DOE scientists, scientists from other federal
agencies, universities and private foundations.
The maintenance of the Parks by DOE meets the Department's
statutory obligations to promote sound environmental
stewardship of federal lands and to safeguard sites containing
cultural and archeological resources. However, the Parks
themselves have never been formally authorized and currently
have no designated source of funding within the federal
government. Research and outreach activities have been
coordinated on an ad hoc basis to date. H.R. 2729 addresses
each of these issues. The purpose of H.R. 2729 is to authorize
the existing National Environmental Research Parks as permanent
research reserves and provide guidance for research, education,
and outreach activities to be conducted on or in collaboration
with the Parks.
Legislative History
H.R. 2729 was introduced by Representative Ben Lujan on
June 4, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology on June 4, 2009 and to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment on June 10, 2009. The Subcommittee
met to consider H.R. 2729 on June 16, 2009. The full committee
met to consider H.R. 2729 on June 24, 2009. H.R. 2729 was
reported to the House on July 14, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-207). H.R.
2729 passed the House on July 21, 2009 by recorded vote: 330-96
(Roll Call No. 597).
On July 22, 2009, H.R. 2729 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2729.
2.18--H.R. 2965, SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
Background and Need for Legislation
In 1982, Congress passed the Small Business Innovation
Development Act which established the SBIR program. The intent
of the Act was to increase government funding of small,
innovative companies for the performance of research and
development with commercial potential. Supporters of the SBIR
program argued that while small companies were highly
innovative, such firms were underrepresented in federal R&D
activities.
The potential of small companies to be sources of
significant innovation led Congress to establish the SBIR
program. From the program's original development, however, SBIR
has been intended to stimulate technological innovation related
to each participating agency's goals and mission, use small
businesses for federal R&D needs and increase private sector
commercialization of innovations derived from federal R&D
expenditures. To meet these objectives, the Act required that
Federal departments with an extramural research budget of $100
million or more to set aside a small percentage of their
agency's overall research budget and award technology
development contracts to small firms. The percentage of R&D
activities to be conducted by small firms has increased since
the Act was originally passed and now stands at 2.5 percent.
A key element of the SBIR program is that it establishes a
three-phase development system for participants. During Phase
One, participating agencies fund a proposed idea to determine
if it has scientific and technical merit and is feasible.
Projects that demonstrate potential after the initial endeavor
can compete for Phase Two awards (lasting one to two years) to
perform the principal R&D. Generally, Phase One and Phase Two
awards may not exceed $100,000 and $750,000, respectively. A
third phase of the program, aimed at the commercialization of a
product or process developed in the earlier phases, is intended
to be funded by the private sector.
Legislative History
H.R. 2965 was introduced by Representative Jason Altmire on
June 19, 2009. The bill was referred to the Committee on Small
Business and to the Committee on Science and Technology on June
19, 2009.
The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider the
bill on June 24, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill,
as amended, to the House by a voice vote. The Committee on
Small Business met to consider the bill on June 25, 2009. The
Committee voted to report the bill, as amended, to the House by
a recorded vote of 22-0. The bill was reported to the House on
by the Committee on Small Business on June 26, 2009 (H. Rept.
111-190, Part I). The bill was reported to the House on by the
Committee on Science and Technology on July 7, 2009 (H. Rept.
111-190, Part II).
H.R. 2965 was considered by the House on July 8, 2009. H.R.
2965 passed by recorded vote of 386-41 (Roll Call No. 486).
H.R. 2965 was received in the Senate on July 9, 2009. The
Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause, substituted the
language of S. 1233, as amended, and passed the bill by
unanimous consent. On July 14, 2009 a message of the Senate
action was sent to the House. Further action was taken on H.R.
2965, however, the bill no longer dealt with SBIR or STTR, but
rather, unrelated issues not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science and Technology.
2.19--H.R. 3029, TO ESTABLISH A RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF GAS TURBINES USED IN
COMBINED CYCLE AND SIMPLE CYCLE POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS
Background and Need for Legislation
Natural gas is playing an increasingly important role in
the nation's electric generation portfolio. Gas-fired plants
now comprise about 20% of the total electric generation
portfolio in the U.S. after falling from 24% in 1970 to 12% in
1985. The majority of electric generation capacity additions in
the last decade have been gas-fired. For example, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) reported that, in 2000, of the
23,453 megawatts of total new electric capacity added in the
U.S. almost 95 percent, or 22,238 MW were natural gas-fired
additions. In 2009 it is estimated that over 50 percent of
additions will be gas-fired. Given the likelihood of tightening
environmental regulations on power plants and the recent
confirmation of sizeable new domestic natural gas resources,
the EIA estimates that natural gas-fired electricity generation
will increase dramatically over the next 20 years.
Efficiency enhancements for both combined cycle and simple
cycle gas turbine units could result in significantly reduced
natural gas usage and emissions. For example, General Electric
estimates that a one-percentage point improvement in efficiency
applied to its existing F Class fleet would result in CO2
emission reductions of 4.4 million tons per year, while also
providing savings of more than a billion dollars per year in
fuel costs.
In 1992, the Department of Energy, through the Office of
Fossil Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy, developed the Advanced Turbine Systems Program to
address a temperature barrier that, for all practical purposes,
capped efficiencies for turbine-based power generating systems.
Above 2300 degree F, conventional cooling technologies were
insufficient to protect the turbine blades and other internal
components from heat degradation. Because higher temperatures
generally correlate with higher efficiencies (i.e. faster
turbine speeds), this effectively limited the generating
efficiency at which a turbine power plant could convert the
energy in the fuel into electricity.
Nine years after the development of the Advanced Turbine
Systems Program, the Department of Energy and its private
partners produced `breakthrough' turbine systems that pushed
firing temperatures to 2,600 degrees F and permitted combined
cycle efficiencies that surpassed 60%. Among the innovations
that emerged from the Department's Advanced Turbine Systems
program were single-crystal turbine blades and thermal barrier
coatings (TBC) that could withstand the high inlet
temperatures, along with new firing techniques to stabilize
combustion and minimize nitrogen oxide formation.
H.R. 3029 directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out a
research, development, and technology demonstration program to
improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in power generation
systems and to identify the technologies that will lead to gas
turbine combined cycle efficiency of 65% or simple cycle
efficiency of 50%. The bill requires the program to support
first-of-a-kind engineering and detailed gas turbine design for
megawatt-scale and utility-scale electric power generation,
include technology demonstration through component testing,
subscale testing, and full scale testing in existing fleets,
include field demonstrations of the developed technology
elements to demonstrate technical and economic feasibility,
assess overall combined cycle and simple cycle system
performance, and directs the Secretary, in selecting program
proposals, to emphasize the extent to which the proposal will
stimulate the creation or increased retention of jobs in the
United States and promote and enhance U.S. technology
leadership.
Legislative History
H.R. 3029 was introduced by Representative Paul Tonko on
June 24, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology on June 24, 2009 and to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment on June 25, 2009.
The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider the
bill on June 29, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill,
as amended, to the House by voice vote. The Committee on
Science and Technology reported H.R. 3029, as amended, to the
House on December 1, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-343). On December 1,
2009 the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 3029 by a
recorded vote of 266-118 (Roll Call No. 911).
The bill was received in the Senate on December 2, 2009 and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3029. Also note
that the substance of H.R. 3029 passed the House as a component
of H.R. 2454.
2.20--H.R. 3165, WIND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3165 is to authorize a comprehensive
research, development, and demonstration program to advance
wind energy technologies.
According to a Department of Energy (DOE) report published
in May 2008 entitled 20% Wind Energy by 2030, a much greater
proportion of the nation's demand for electrical energy could
be provided by exploiting our land-based and offshore wind
resources. However, to expand from today's proportion of
electric generation from wind (less than 2 percent) to a
scenario where the U.S. generates 20 percent or more of its
power from wind energy requires several significant advances
including: improved wind turbine technology, improved wind
forecasting capability, improved energy storage, and expansion
of transmission systems to deliver wind power from resource
centers to centers of population. In turn, these changes in the
power generation and delivery process may involve changes in
manufacturing, policy development, and environmental
regulation.
Overall performance of wind energy systems can be
substantially improved to become more efficient, cost-
effective, and reliable. Fundamental technical issues remain
even while wind power is competitive with coal and other
conventional forms of energy in some markets. As a follow-up to
DOE's wind energy report, the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA) Research and Development Committee produced a detailed
Action Plan to 20% Wind Energy by 2030 in March 2009. This plan
proposed $217 million in annual federal funding combined with a
$224 million industry/state cost share to support specific
research and development programs which the AWEA Committee
believes are necessary to meet a goal of providing 20 percent
of America's electricity from wind by 2030.
This would be a significant increase from the DOE wind
program's current annual budget of roughly $50 million,
notwithstanding the one-time expenditure of $118 million
currently identified by the Department for additional wind
research and development activities from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In recent years much of the
federal wind program has focused on testing and evaluation of
commercial turbines rather than advanced research, leading to
gaps in our national wind R&D portfolio. There is broad
consensus among government, academic, and industry leaders that
research areas in which greater federal support could have a
considerable impact include: new materials and designs to make
larger, lighter, less expensive, and more reliable rotor
blades; advanced generators to improve the efficiency of
converting blade rotation to electric power; automation,
production materials, and assembly of large-scale components to
reduce manufacturing costs; low-cost transportable towers
greater than 100 meters in height to capitalize on improved
wind conditions at higher elevations; advanced computational
tools to improve the reliability of aeroelastic simulations of
wind energy systems; and advanced control systems and blade
sensors to improve performance and reliability under a wide
variety of wind conditions.
H.R. 3165 authorizes research targeted to fulfill these
areas of needed research. Providing federal support to address
areas of common need for the wind industry will help us to
reach the goal of increasing the proportion of electrical
generation from wind resources.
Legislative History
H.R. 3165 was introduced by Representative Paul Tonko on
July 9, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology on July 9, 2009 and to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment on July 14, 2009. The Committee met
to consider H.R. 3165 on July 29, 2009. The Committee voted to
report the bill, as amended, to the House on July 29, 2009 by
voice vote.
The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3165,
as amended, to the House on September 8, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-
248). On September 8, 2009 the House suspended the rules and
passed H.R. 3165, as amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 3165 was received in the Senate on September 10, 2009
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3165.
2.21--H.R. 3246, ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2009
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3246 is to provide for a program of
research, development, demonstration and commercial application
in vehicle technologies at the Department of Energy.
For over two decades the Department of Energy has funded a
wide range of research activities on passenger vehicles and
heavy-duty trucks through its Vehicle Technologies program. The
program's mission is to develop leap frog technologies that
will provide Americans with greater freedom of mobility and
energy security, while lowering costs and reducing impacts on
the environment. Most recently, the Department of Energy has
addressed these research needs through two public-private
research programs: The 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP),
which conducts research and development through collaborations
with the heavy-duty trucking industry, and the FreedomCar and
the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative programs, which engages in pre-
competitive, high-risk research needed to develop technologies
that will apply to a range of affordable passenger cars and
light trucks.
Over the last decade, federal research priorities have
shifted between passenger and heavy duty vehicles, as well as
diesel-hybrids, hydrogen-fueled, and battery-powered drive
systems. While the various programs have had some successes in
transferring component technologies to the marketplace, critics
contend that previous Administrations have adopted an
inconsistent winner-take-all approach to vehicle research where
one technology or platform receives the large bulk of funding,
only to have funding cut before the programs can reasonably be
expected to develop commercially viable technologies. It is
argued that what is needed is long-term sustained funding on a
broad range of areas from near-commercial technologies to
exploratory research on systems with the potential to
revolutionize transportation in the U.S. Striking the
appropriate research balance and strengthening the federal
commitment in this area is especially critical at a time when
both the automotive and commercial trucking industries have
limited resources for increasingly expensive research and
development.
Legislative History
H.R. 3246 was introduced by Representative Gary Peters on
July 17, 2009. The bill referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology on July 17, 2009 and referred to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on July 21, 2009. The
Committee met to consider the bill on July 29, 2009. The
Committee voted to report the bill to the House on July 29,
2009 by voice vote.
The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3246
on July 11, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-254). The House considered H.R.
3246 on September 16, 2009. Representative Gordon offered an
amendment, which was adopted by voice vote. Representative Hall
offered an amendment, the amendment failed by a recorded vote
of 179-253 (Roll Call No. 705). Representative Broun offered an
amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. Representative
Peters offered an amendment which was agreed to by voice vote.
Representative Posey offered an amendment which was agreed to
by voice vote. Representative Gordon offered an amendment which
was agreed to by voice vote. Representative Marshall offered an
amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. Representative
Cohen offered an amendment which was agreed to by voice vote.
Representative Donnelly offered an amendment which was agreed
to by recorded vote of 369-62 (Roll Call No. 706).
Representative Altmire offered an amendment which was agreed to
by voice vote. Representative Massa offered an amendment which
was agreed to by recorded vote of 416-14 (Roll Call No. 707).
The House passed H.R. 3246, as amended, on September 16,
2009 by a recorded vote of 312-114 (Roll Call No. 709).
H.R. 3246 was received in the Senate on September 17, 2009
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3246.
2.22--H.R. 3247, TO ESTABLISH A SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES RESEARCH
PROGRAM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Need for Legislation
H.R. 3246 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a
social and behavioral sciences research program to identify and
understand social and behavioral factors influencing energy
consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy
technologies, and to promote the use of the results of social
and behavioral research to improve the development and
application of energy technologies, requires the Secretary to
appoint or designate a Director of Social and Behavioral
Research to carry out such program, requires the Director to
develop a research plan in consultation with the Advisory
Committee established by this Act and review such plan every
five years and revise it as appropriate, instructs the
Secretary to provide grants in support of social and behavioral
research, and requires the Advisory Committee to advise the
Secretary and the Director on priority areas for research,
assist the Director in the development of the research plan;
and provide other assistance and advice as requested by the
Secretary or the Director.
Legislative History
H.R. 3247 was introduced by Representative Brian Baird on
July 17, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Science
and Technology. The Committee met to consider H.R. 3247 on July
29, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill to the House
by voice vote on July 29, 2009. No further action was taken on
H.R. 3247.
2.23--H.R. 3585, SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP ACT
Background and Need for Legislation
Solar energy constitutes the largest global energy
resource. Currently the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 158
active solar applications, covering 1.8 million acres with a
projected capacity to generate 97,000 megawatts of electricity
on the public lands that have been fast-tracked for renewable
energy development in six western states. These BLM solar
projects could provide the equivalent of 29 percent of the
nation's household electricity use. In addition, the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that 48 percent of
total water withdrawals in 2000 were used for electric power
generation. The combination of environmental benefits and
government incentives has resulted in a boom in the growth of
applications for solar energy projects on public and private
lands and on residential, commercial, and municipal sites. An
array of solar technologies are currently available for use in
lighting, heating, and cooling (air or water) as well as to
generate electricity on a wide range of scales from the
residential level to utility-scale installations.
The solar industry faces a number of challenges to
achieving a significant, stable domestic energy supply for U.S.
consumers while meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets. Reaching these goals will require the coordination of
the solar energy technology research and manufacturing supply
chains. The U.S. solar industry faces a number of barriers to
entry in energy supply markets. Utilities are justifiably risk-
averse and need access to best practices and expertise in order
to efficiently integrate solar loads especially in urban areas.
The United States has a long history of leadership in solar
energy technology, in part due to the development of
photovoltaic technologies for space applications. To help
accelerate the widespread deployment of solar technologies in
the U.S., the Administration recently dedicated $118 million in
Recovery Act funds to projects administered by the DOE solar
program. This program currently has a base annual budget of
roughly $200 million. In reviewing ways to support the long-
term growth of a domestic solar manufacturing industry the
semiconductor industry may provide a model for partnership on
R&D between government and the private sector.
In the case of semiconductors, in the mid-1980s the U.S.--
and the Department of Defense in particular--became concerned
that Japanese semiconductor manufacturers were limiting access
to semiconductor chips for two years or longer, delaying or
halting the progress of technological advancement. In order to
protect its strategic interest in advancing electronics the
U.S. opted to support the growth of a domestic semiconductor
industry through support for a semiconductor manufacturing
technology research consortium. Sematech was created along with
a National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.
These two activities brought together key players within
the industry, from semiconductor manufacturers to manufacturing
equipment builders and members of the semiconductor materials
supply chain. This model of coordination and collaboration
helped to keep the technology moving forward at a quick pace,
encouraged the industry to adopt cost and time-saving
standards, and helped to eliminate the duplication of research
efforts on pre-competitive technologies through communication
and coordination. The U.S. continues to host some of the
world's most prominent semiconductor companies including Intel,
AMD, National Semiconductor, and Texas Instruments.
While there are American solar companies that have emerged
as strong players in the world solar market, they do not have
the resources to individually support long-term research,
development, and commercial application of new solar
technologies while sustaining rapid growth and expanding
production capacity. Additionally, significant obstacles in the
approval process for siting, constructing and operating new
solar facilities has further stymied industry's pursuit of
cutting edge technological advances. A jointly-developed
comprehensive solar technology plan with public and private
support may provide a framework for strengthening U.S.
leadership in renewable energy technology.
H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, directs the
Secretary of Energy to conduct a program of research,
development, and demonstration for solar technology, requires
the Secretary to provide awards on a merit-reviewed,
competitive basis to promote a diversity of research,
development, and demonstration activities for solar technology,
calls for at least 75% of funding for such activities conducted
by DOE after FY2014 to support a diversity of activities
identified by and recommended under a Solar Technology Roadmap,
directs the Secretary to establish and provide support for a
Solar Technology Roadmap Committee, requires the Secretary to
award multiyear grants on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis
for research, development, and demonstration activities to
create innovative and practical approaches to increase reuse
and recycling of photovoltaic devices and contribute to the
professional development of scientists, engineers, and
technicians in the fields of photovoltaic and electronic device
manufacturing, design, refurbishing, and recycling, and
requires the results of such activities to be made publicly
available.
Legislative History
H.R. 3585 was introduced by Representative Gabrielle
Giffords on September 16, 2009 and referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology. The Committee met to
consider H.R. 3585 on October 7, 2009. The Committee voted to
report the bill, as amended, to the House by voice vote on
October 7, 2009.
The Committee on Science and Technology reported the H.R.
3585, as amended, to the House on October 15, 2009 (H. Rept.
111-302). The House considered H.R. 3585 on October 22, 2009.
Representative Gordon offered a manager's amendment, which was
agreed to by a voice vote. Representative Hastings offered an
amendment, which was agreed to by a voice vote. Representative
Cardoza offered an amendment, which was agreed to by a voice
vote. Representative Marshall offered an amendment, which was
agreed to by a voice vote. Representative Murphy offered an
amendment, which was agreed to by a voice vote. Representative
Broun offered an amendment, which failed by recorded vote of
162-256 (Roll Call No. 801). Representative Kaptur offered an
amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 395-24
(Roll Call No. 802). Representative Klein offered an amendment,
which agreed to by a recorded vote of 414-5 (Roll Call No.
803). Representative Titus offered an amendment, which was
agreed to by a recorded vote of 407-9 (Roll Call No. 804).
Representative Heinrich offered an amendment, which was agreed
to by a recorded vote of 420-0 (Roll Call No. 805).
Representative Himes offered an amendment, which was agreed to
by a recorded vote of 410-6 (Roll Call No. 806). The House
passed H.R. 3585 by a recorded vote of 310-106 (Roll Call No.
807) on October 22, 2009.
H.R. 3585 was received in the Senate on October 26, 2009
and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on December 8, 2009. No further legislative action
was taken on H.R. 3585.
2.24--H.R. 3598, ENERGY AND WATER RESEARCH INTEGRATION ACT
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3598 is to ensure consideration of
water intensity in the Department of Energy's energy research,
development and demonstration programs where appropriate, and
to help assure efficient, reliable and sustainable delivery of
energy and water resources.
According to the National Science and Technology Council
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality report, A Strategy for Federal
Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and
Quality in the United States, there is a need for coordinated
science and technology efforts to better understand water
supply and demand in the United States. In addition, the
Committee understands the Department of Energy will issue a
draft energy-water research roadmap outlining a number of
research and development challenges in this area. Finally, the
recent Government Accountability Office report, Electricity and
Water: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would Increase
Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use, underscores
the need for improvements in federal water use data to help
increase the understanding of trends in power plant water use.
Energy and water are directly linked. Water is essential
for energy generation and fuel production--it is used in energy
resource extraction, refining, processing, transportation,
hydroelectric generation, thermoelectric power plant cooling
and emissions scrubbing. Equally important is the energy needed
for water pumping, treatment, distribution and end-use
requirements. Furthermore, climate variability and demand
growth affect both our water and energy resources. Accordingly,
it is important to recognize this interdependency and develop
technologies and adopt practices that allow us to manage these
resources effectively. Thermoelectric power, oil, natural gas,
oil shale, and renewable energy, including solar power and
biofuels, are all important areas for energy and water research
integration.
As our population grows, our demand for water continues to
rise while supplies become scarcer. In water-stressed areas of
the United States, power plants will increasingly compete with
other sectors of the economy and end-users for water resources.
In addition, energy and water-related regulatory policy may add
to the challenge of operating our existing power plants and
permitting new thermoelectric power plants.
As future demands for energy and water continue to grow,
the reliability of our energy and water supplies is likely to
be an increasing challenge. As water use decisions become more
difficult a comprehensive research, development and
demonstration strategy would help to ensure we are well-
equipped to prevent energy and water supply disruptions.
H.R. 3598 authorizes research addressing these issues by
directing the Secretary of Energy to integrate energy-related
water issues into energy research, development and
demonstration programs at the Department of Energy.
Legislative History
H.R. 3598 was introduced on September 17, 2009 by
Representative Bart Gordon. The bill was referred to the House
Committee on Science and Technology on September 17, 2009 and
referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on
September 18, 2009. The full Committee met to consider the bill
on October 7, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill, as
amended to the House on October 7, 2009.
The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3598,
as amended, to the House on December 1, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-
344). The House suspended the rules and voted to pass H.R. 3598
by a voice vote on December 1, 2009.
H.R. 3598 was received in the Senate on December 2, 2009
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3598.
2.25--H.R. 3618, CLEAN HULL ACT OF 2009
Background and Need for Legislation
The fouling of a vessel's surface can produce many serious
consequences. For example, fouling on a vessel's hull increases
the ship's weight and slows it progress through the water,
causing the vessel to burn additional fuel. Untreated, a deep
draft tank vessel's hull can accumulate up to 6,000 tons of
fouling material in less than six months of exposure to sea
water. Such fouling can increase a vessel's fuel consumption by
up to 40 percent, causing significant economic and
environmental impacts. Antifouling is the process of removing
or preventing the accumulation of biological fouling organisms.
It is estimated that total expenditures on antifouling
applications for commercial and recreational vessels exceeds
$700 million a year. Biological fouling is defined by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) as the unwanted
accumulation of microorganisms, algae, mussels, plats, or other
`biological material' on structures that are `immersed in
water'. There are more than 4,000 species of biological
organisms that can foul an immersed surface.
In the 1960s, antifouling coatings based on tributyltin
(TBT) were developed. This product was so successful that, by
the 1970s, it was the standard antifouling application
throughout the shipping industry. As the number of vessels
using antifouling paints containing TBT increased, scientists
began to find high concentrations of TBT in marinas, ports and
harbors that had a large number of boats and vessels.
Eventually, high TBT levels were discovered in the open seas
and oceanic waters. TBT has been noted as the most toxic
substance ever deliberately introduced into the marine
environment.
In October 2001, IMO adopted the International Convention
on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, which
entered into force on September 17, 2008, after 25 States
representing 25 percent of the international commercial
shipping tonnage adopted the Convention. Countries that became
parties to the Convention were required to ban the new
application of TBT coatings by January 1, 2003 and to ensure
that all vessels that had a TBT-based coating removed the
coating or covered it with a barrier through which it could not
leach by January 1, 2008. Parties to the Convention must also
ensure that no vessel of a party using antifouling paint
containing TBT will be allowed in their ports, shipyard, or
offshore terminal.
In the United States, antifouling systems containing
organotins, including TBT, are currently regulated under the
Organotin Anti-Fouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (OAPCA), 33
U.S.C. Sec. 2401-2410 (2009). The OAPCA prohibits organotin-
based antifouling paints on vessels less than 25 meters
(excluding aluminum hulls, outboard motors, and external drive
units), and limits the leaching rate of antifouling paints on
larger vessels. Under the OAPCA, the sale, purchase, and
application of antifouling paint containing organotins were
banned.
In 2008, the Senate ratified the Convention and the Bush
administration submitted draft legislation to implement the
requirements of the Convention for purposes of U.S. law. The
United States will not become a party to the Convention until
implementing legislation is enacted. It is important for the
United States to become a party to the Convention to not only
replace the OAPCA, but also to ban vessels using antifouling
paint containing TBT from entering the country and continuing
to pollute the marine environment.
H.R. 3618, the Clean Hull Act of 2009, provides for the
implementation of the International Convention on the Control
of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships 2001, and for other
purposes.
Legislative History
H.R. 3618 was introduced by Representative James Oberstar
on September 22, 2009 and referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on
Science and Technology.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met to
consider H.R. 3618 on September 24, 2009. The Committee voted
to report the bill to the House, as amended, on September 24,
2009. The Committee on Science and Technology referred the bill
to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on September 23,
2009. The Committee on Science and Technology discharged the
bill on November 7, 2009. The Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3618 to the House on November 7,
2009 (H. Rept. 111-331, Part I).
The House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 3618 by voice
vote on November 17, 2009.
H.R. 3618 was received in the Senate on November 18, 2009
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
3618.
2.26--H.R. 3650, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL
AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and
Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010, is to
establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program to
develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy
to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for
the development and implementation of regional action plans to
reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia (severe depletion
of oxygen) are one of the most scientifically complex and
economically significant coastal management issues facing the
nation. In the past, few regions of the U.S. were affected by
HABs. Now, all U.S. coastal regions have reported major blooms
and hypoxic events. These phenomena have devastating
environmental, economic, and human health impacts. Impacts
include human illness and mortality following direct
consumption or indirect exposure to toxic shellfish or toxins
in the environment; economic hardship for coastal economies,
many of which are highly dependent on tourism or harvest of
local seafood; as well as dramatic fish, bird, and mammal
mortalities. There are also devastating impacts to ecosystems,
leading to environmental damage that may reduce the ability of
those systems to sustain species due to habitat degradation,
increased susceptibility to disease, and long-term alterations
to community structure.
Scientific understanding of harmful algal blooms and
hypoxic events has improved significantly since the early
1990s. However, there is a need for additional efforts in
monitoring, prevention, control and mitigation of these complex
phenomena. Practical and innovative approaches to address
hypoxia and HABs in U.S. waters are essential for management of
aquatic ecosystems and to fulfill a stronger investment in the
health of the coasts, oceans, and waterways.
Recognizing this need, in 2004 Congress reauthorized and
expanded the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-383) by passing the Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
456). The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act (HABHRCA) established an Interagency Task Force to
develop a national HABs assessment and authorized funding for
existing and new research programs on HABs. These programs
involve federal, state, and academic partners and support
interdisciplinary extramural research studies to address the
issues of HABs in an ecosystem context. HABHRCA, reauthorized
in 2004, required assessments of HABs in different coastal
regions and the Great Lakes and plans to expand research to
address the impacts of HABs. The law also authorized research,
education, and monitoring activities related to the prevention,
reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and
reconstituted the Interagency Task Force on HABs and Hypoxia.
The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce
several reports and assessments in addition to authorizing
funding for both new and existing programs and activities. The
Prediction and Response Report, released in September 2007,
addresses both the state of research and methods for HAB
prediction and response, especially at the federal level. The
National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Technology Transfer Plan for Reducing Impacts from Harmful
Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan) establishes research priorities to
develop and demonstrate prevention, control and mitigation
methods to advance current prediction and response
capabilities. The law also required development of local and
regional Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia and a Scientific
Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms.
The HABHRCA authorized funds were directed to conduct
research and seek to control HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine
waters, estuaries and the Great Lakes. The 2004 reauthorization
also required a report on The Scientific Assessment of
Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms that describes the state of
knowledge of HABs in U.S. inland and freshwaters, and presents
a plan to advance research and reduce the impacts on humans and
the environment. There is a continued need to research and
respond to HABs in marine waters, the Great Lakes, and in
inland waterways, such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees a wide
array of programs specifically designed to protect and preserve
the coastal and marine waters of the United States, including
watershed protection programs working through partnerships and
an array of regulatory programs. 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.
EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) are co-leads of a Federal Workgroup of thirteen federal
agencies committed to supporting the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a
partnership formed by the five Gulf State Governors. In
addition, EPA is also a participating member of the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. However, at
present, there is a lack of significant federal research and
development aimed at addressing freshwater HABs. Because of the
agency's complementary work on inland water ecosystems, the EPA
is a logical federal entity to partner with NOAA to develop and
implement a research, development, and demonstration program to
address freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia through
research, monitoring, prevention, mitigation, and control. As
the lead agency with oversight over freshwater quality, the EPA
should ensure the protection of aquatic ecosystems to protect
human health, support economic and recreational activities, and
provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife by
conducting research to develop HAB prevention, control and
mitigation technologies.
Addressing the many dimensions of HABs requires a
coordinated multi-agency approach, and there are presently a
number of programs and agencies that address the various
aspects of HABs. However, there is a need to expand Harmful
Algal Blooms research to include both marine and freshwaters.
The reauthorization of the HABHRCA should address both marine
and freshwater blooms and hypoxia by building upon and
utilizing the findings and results of various reports and
assessments to formulate national and regional action
strategies.
Legislative History
H.R. 3650 was introduced by Representative Brian Baird on
September 25, 2010. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on
Natural Resources. The Committee on Science and Technology met
to consider the bill on October 10, 2009. The Committee on
Science and Technology voted to report H.R. 3650, as amended,
to the House on October 7, 2010. On January 13, 2010, the
Committee on Natural resources discharged the bill and the
Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3650, as
amended to the House (H. Rept. 111-396, Part I).
On March 9, 2010 the House suspended the rules and voted on
H.R. 3650, which failed by a recorded vote of 263-142 (Roll
Call No. 92). On March 12, 2010 the House considered H.R. 3650
under a structured rule and passed the bill, as amended, by a
recorded vote of 251-103 (Roll Call No. 109).
H.R. 3650 was received in the Senate on March 15, 2010. No
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3650.
2.27--H.R. 3791, FIRE GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
Background and the Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization
Act of 2009, is to reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant (AFG) Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Program.
Since the AFG program began in FY2001, over $4.8 billion in
Federal funding has been competitively awarded to local fire
departments to purchase firefighting and emergency response
training and equipment. In FY2008, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) received over 20,000 applications from
fire departments for AFG funds, requesting over $3 billion. The
program was created to assist local fire departments in meeting
the challenge of expanding emergency response capabilities.
Many local fire departments do not have adequate training and
equipment. For instance, the National Fire Protection
Association estimates that 65 percent of fire departments in
the U.S. do not have enough portable radios to equip all
firefighters on shift, and that 36 percent of fire departments
involved in emergency medical response do not have enough
adequately trained personnel to perform those duties. The
support for training, equipment, and apparatus provided by the
AFG Program is especially needed to protect public safety as
municipalities face severe budget constraints.
Legislative History
H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009, was
introduced on October 13, 2009 by representative Harry Mitchell
and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
The House Committee on Science and Technology met to
consider H.R. 3791 on October 21, 2009 and voted to report the
bill to the House by voice vote. On November 7, 2009, the
Committee on Homeland Security was referred H.R. 3791 and
discharged the bill. The House Committee on Science and
Technology reported the bill to the House, as amended, on
November 7, 2009 (H. Rep. 111-333, Part I).
H.R. 3791 was considered by the House under the provisions
of rule H. Res. 909 on November 18, 2009. Representative Titus
offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Holden offered an amendment, which was passed by
voice vote. Representative Cardoza offered an amendment, which
was passed by voice vote. Representative Perlmutter offered an
amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 358-75
(Roll Call No. 899), which was. Representative Flake offered an
amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 371-63
(Roll Call No. 900). The House passed H.R. 3791, as amended, by
a recorded vote of 395-31 (Roll Call No. 901) on November 18,
2009.
H.R. 3791 was received in the Senate on November 19, 2009
and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. No further legislative action was taken
on H.R. 3791.
2.28--H.R. 3820, NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 3820, Natural Hazards Risk Reduction
Act of 2010, is to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program (NWIRP). In addition, this bill strengthens
the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) by giving the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) more
flexibility in implementing the Act.
The United States faces serious threats to public safety
and property from natural disasters. Major California
earthquakes in 1989 and 1994, Loma Prieta and Northridge
respectively, killed over 100 people, injured thousands, and
cost the country nearly $30 billion from property losses and
economic disruption. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita most recently
demonstrated that severe weather can cause death, injury, and
billions of dollars in damage. Developing and implementing
measures to reduce the toll of earthquakes, severe weather,
wildfires, and other natural disasters is critical as more
Americans move to hazard-prone regions of the country. H.R.
3820 reauthorizes and amends the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program (NWIRP), the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program (NWIRP), National Construction Safety Team
Act, and the Wildfires at the Wildland-Urban Interface to
improve knowledge of the physical processes of natural hazards
and their effects, develop methods to prepare for and mitigate
the impacts of natural hazards on the built environment and
communities, and to facilitate the implementation of mitigation
measures to stem the mounting losses from these disasters.
Legislative History
H.R. 3820 was introduced by Representative David Wu on
October 15, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Science
and Technology; House Committee on Natural Resources; and House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider
H.R. 3820 on October 21, 2009. The Committee voted to report
the bill to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3820,
as amended, to the House on February 26, 2010 ( H. Rept. 111-
424, Part I). The bill was considered under suspension of the
rules by the House on March 2, 2010. The House voted to pass
H.R. 3820 by a recorded vote of 335-50 (Roll Call No. 76) on
March 2, 2010.
H.R. 3820 was received in the Senate on March 3, 2010 and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
3820.
2.29--H.R. 4061, THE CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
Information technology (IT) has evolved rapidly over the
last decade, leading to markedly increased connectivity and
productivity. The benefits provided by these advancements have
led to the widespread use and incorporation of information
technologies across major sectors of the economy. This level of
connectivity and the dependence of our critical infrastructures
on IT have also increased the vulnerability of these systems.
Reports of cyber criminals and possibly nation-states accessing
sensitive information and disrupting services have risen
steadily over the last decade, heightening concerns over the
adequacy of our cybersecurity measures.
The Office of Management and Budget cites that federal
agencies spend $6 billion on cybersecurity to protect a $72
billion IT infrastructure. In addition, the Federal government
funds approximately $350 million in cybersecurity research and
development (R&D) each year. Despite this Federal spending, the
Government Accountability Office testified as recently as June
2009 that the U.S. IT infrastructure is vulnerable to attack
and the Federal agencies tasked with its protection are not
fulfilling their responsibilities.
On May 29, 2009, the Obama Administration released the
Cyberspace Policy Review, a 60-day review of cyberspace
policies across the Federal government. The findings of the
review include: strengthening partnerships between the Federal
government and the private sector to guarantee a secure and
reliable infrastructure, increasing public awareness of the
risks associated with cybersecurity, expanding and training the
Federal cybersecurity workforce, advancing cybersecurity R&D,
and better coordination among Federal agencies.
Specifically, the review recommends the development of an
R&D framework that focuses on strategies for innovative
technologies and calls for a single entity to coordinate United
States representation in international cybersecurity technical
standards setting bodies. In the mid-term, it recommends that
Federal agencies expand support for cybersecurity education and
R&D to ensure the Nation's continued ability to compete in the
information age economy.
The task of coordinating unclassified cybersecurity R&D
lies with the Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development (NITRD) program, which was originally
authorized in statute by the High-Performance Computing Act of
1991 (P.L. 102-194). The NITRD program, which consists of 13
Federal agencies, coordinates a broad spectrum of R&D
activities related to information technology. It also includes
an interagency working group and program component area focused
specifically on cybersecurity and information R&D. However,
many expert panels, including the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology, have argued that the
portfolio of Federal investments in cybersecurity R&D is not
properly balanced and is focused on short-term reactive
technologies at the expense of long-term, fundamental R&D.
With a budget of $127 million for FY 2010, NSF is the
principal agency supporting unclassified cybersecurity R&D and
education. NSF's cybersecurity research activities are
primarily funded through the Directorate for Computer &
Information Science & Engineering (CISE). CISE supports
cybersecurity R&D through a targeted program, Trustworthy
Computing, as well as through a number of its core activities
in Computer Systems Research, Computing Research
Infrastructure, and Network and Science Engineering. In
addition to its basic research activities, NSF's Directorate
for Education & Human Resources (EHR) manages the Scholarship
for Service program which provides funding to colleges and
universities for the award of 2-year scholarships in
information assurance and computer security fields.
NIST is tasked with protecting the Federal information
technology network by developing and promulgating cybersecurity
standards for Federal non-classified network systems (Federal
Information Processing Standard [FIPS]), identifying methods
for assessing effectiveness of security requirements,
conducting tests to validate security in information systems,
and conducting outreach exercises. Experts have stated that
NIST's technical standards and best practices are too highly
technical for general public use, and making this information
more usable to average computer users with less technical
expertise will help raise the base level of cybersecurity
knowledge among individuals, business, education, and
government.
Currently, the United States is represented on
international bodies dealing with cybersecurity by an array of
organizations, including the Department of State, Department of
Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and the United
States Trade Representative without a coordinated and
comprehensive strategy or plan. The Cyberspace Policy Review
called for a comprehensive international cybersecurity strategy
that defines what cybersecurity standards we need, where they
are being developed, and ensures that the United States Federal
government has agency representation for each. At a hearing
before the Committee's Technology and Innovation Subcommittee,
witnesses stated that NIST is the appropriate Federal agency to
coordinate the development of this strategy due to its status
as a non-regulatory agency known and respected among
international and private sector stakeholders.
In the 107th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee
developed the Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L.
107-305). The bill created new programs and expanded existing
programs at NSF and NIST for computer and network security. The
authorizations established under the Cyber Security Research
and Development Act expired in fiscal year 2007.
The purpose of this bill is to improve cybersecurity in the
Federal, private, and public sectors through: coordination and
prioritization of federal cybersecurity research and
development activities; strengthening of the cybersecurity
workforce; coordination of U.S. representation in international
cybersecurity technical standards development; and
reauthorization of cybersecurity related programs at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
Legislative History
H.R. 4061 was introduced by Representative David Lipinski
on November 7, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on
Science and Technology. The Committee met to consider the bill
on November 18, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill to
the House, as amended, by a voice vote.
H.R. 4061 was considered under the provisions of rule H.
Res. 1051 on February 2, 2010. Representative Gordon offered an
amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative
Matheson offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Roskam offered an amendment, which was passed by
voice vote. Representative Edwards offered an amendment, which
was passed by voice vote. Representative Garamendi offered an
amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative
McCarthy offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Sanchez offered an amendment, which was passed
by voice vote. Representative Langevin offered an amendment,
which was passed by voice vote. Representative Shea-Porter
offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Clarke offered an amendment, which was passed by
voice vote. Representative Bright offered an amendment, which
was passed by voice vote. Representative Kratovil offered an
amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative
Lipinski offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote.
Representative Heinrich offered an amendment, which was passed
by voice vote. Representative Hastings offered an amendment,
which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 417-5 (Roll Call No.
34). Representative Flake offered an amendment, which was
agreed to by a recorded vote of 396-31 (Roll Call No. 35).
Representative Dahlkemper offered an amendment, which was
agreed to by a recorded vote of 419-3 (Roll Call No. 36).
Representative Cueller offered an amendment, which was agreed
to by a recorded vote of 416-4 (Roll Call No. 37).
Representative Connelly offered an amendment, which was agreed
to by a recorded vote of 417-4 (Roll Call No. 38).
Representative Halvorson offered an amendment, which was agreed
to by a recorded vote of 424-0 (Roll Call No. 39).
Representative Kilroy offered an amendment, which was agreed to
by a recorded vote of 419-4 (Roll Call No. 40). Representative
Kissell offered an amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded
vote of423-6 (Roll Call No. 41). Representative Owens offered
an amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 430-0
(Roll Call No. 42). H.R. 4061 was passed by the House by a
recorded vote of 422-5 (Roll Call No. 43) on February 4, 2010.
H.R. 4061 was received by the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on February
9, 2010..
2.30--H.R. 4842, HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 4842 is to authorize the Directorate of
Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
Congress authorized the Science and Technology Directorate
in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office was authorized by the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. Over the years, the
Committee on Homeland Security has considered measures
affecting both components, but has never passed a
comprehensive, multi-year authorization like H.R. 4842.
In March 2009, on a bipartisan basis, the Committee on
Homeland Security began a review of the activities of the
Department's Science and Technology Directorate and Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office. The Homeland Security Act broadly
authorizes the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to
conduct research, development, testing, and evaluation
activities for the Department, utilizing national laboratories
and federally funded research and development centers, and
specifically transfers a number of functions to the Under
Secretary for the purposes of achieving his or her
responsibilities. In reviewing the Department's use of these
authorities, the Committee determined that accountability and
internal procedures, essential to the Department's ability to
perform its research and development mission, were
insufficient.
The Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization
Act of 2010 addresses management, administration, and
programmatic areas affecting the Science and Technology
Directorate (`S&T') and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
(`DNDO'). The legislation principally emphasizes management and
administrative aspects. To foster a culture that puts the needs
of S&T's customers at the forefront, and more closely align
research and development activities with identified homeland
security risks, the legislation directs the establishment of a
more rigorous process within the S&T Directorate for
identifying, prioritizing, and funding research opportunities.
The legislation places a number of additional reporting
requirements on the Department to ensure compliance with the
law and Congressional intent. The legislation contains several
specific programmatic areas for research.
Legislative History
H.R. 4842 was introduced by Representative Clarke on March
13, 201 and referred to the House Committee on Science and
Technology and the House Committee on Homeland Security on
March 15, 2010.
The House Committee on Homeland Security met to consider
H.R. 4842 on March 16, 2010. The Committee voted to report the
bill to the House by a recorded vote of 26-0. H.R. 4842 was
reported to the House, as amended, on March 18, 2010. (H. Rept.
111-486, Part I). H.R. 4248 was referred sequentially to the
House Committee on Science and Technology on March 18, 2010.
The Committee on Science and Technology discharged the bill on
June 25, 2010.
The House considered H.R. 4842 under suspension of the
rules on July 20, 2010, and the bill was passed by voice vote.
H.R. 4842 was received in the Senate on July 21, 2010
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 4842.
2.31--H.R. 5716, SAFER OIL AND NATURAL GAS DRILLING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the enhancement
of existing efforts in support of research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application activities to advance
technologies for the safe and environmentally responsible
exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas
resources.
On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire occurred on the BP
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig as it completed the final stages
of an exploratory well in approximately 5,000 feet of water.
The rig capsized and sank two days later, leaving an
uncontrolled flow of oil and gas from the wellhead, and
resulting in the largest oil spill in U.S. history. While an
investigation into the exact cause of the Deepwater Horizon
accident is ongoing, it is understood to be a confluence of
critical human errors and the failure of certain equipment
designed to stop such an incident.
Initial investigations of the Deepwater Horizon incident
indicate that, in addition to a series of operator errors that
compromised wellbore integrity, the highest-consequence
technology failure lay in the inability of the Blowout
Preventer (BOP) in immediately terminating oil and gas flow
from the well. The BOP is a very large mechanism positioned at
the wellhead on the seafloor, and is comprised of a series of
high pressure hydraulic valves designed to stop an uncontrolled
flow of oil and gas from the well. As a failsafe option of last
resort, a BOP includes at least one `blind shear ram' which
uses two blades to cut through the metal drill pipe and seal
the wellbore. A BOP can be activated by personnel from the
drill rig, automatically via a `deadman switch', via acoustic
signal from a vessel other than the drill rig, or manually by
remotely-operated vehicles (ROV). ROVs also perform a range of
other deepwater functions. The crew aboard the Deepwater
Horizon attempted unsuccessfully to activate the BOP before
evacuating the rig, and subsequent attempts to activate the BOP
using ROVs and other methods also failed. A number of
stakeholders inside and outside of the industry, including the
CEO of BP, have concluded that the design of blowout preventers
must be rethought altogether. Witnesses at the June 9th, 2010,
and June 23rd, 2010, Science and Technology Committee hearings
testified about the need for industry and government-sponsored
research into BOPs and a range of other accident prevention and
mitigation technologies and practices.
Deepwater drilling presents a unique set of technological
challenges, including for environmental and worker safety, and
accident prevention and mitigation. Operations must be
optimized for the extreme pressures, stresses, and temperature
variations that can affect the subsea and surface equipment and
architecture, drilling materials, and the hydrocarbon reservoir
itself. Consequently, the industry has invested billions of
dollars in researching and developing advanced drilling systems
specific to the deepwater and ultra-deepwater, especially those
technologies which represent an increase in production
efficiency. However, many contend that the industry has not
devoted comparable resources to the development of technologies
and methods for accident prevention and mitigation in the
deepwater. Furthermore, while the technological demands differ
between onshore and offshore, the onshore industry sector,
including small producers, faces similar challenges in ensuring
the safe and environmentally responsible exploration and
production of oil and natural gas.
Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the
Secretary of Energy to establish an `Ultra-Deepwater and
Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum
Resources' research and development program. Management of the
999 program was awarded to a research consortium known as the
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA),
which is overseen for DOE by the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL). The program is funded through $50 million in
annual mandatory spending from offshore oil and gas royalty
revenues collected by the Department of Interior. Of this, DOE
conducts approximately $12.5 million (25 percent) of `in-house'
research at NETL. The remaining $37.5 million (75 percent) is
managed by the research consortium, RPSEA, and is divided into
three parts: ultra-deepwater architecture and technology;
unconventional onshore natural gas and other resources; and
technology challenges of small producers. RPSEA currently has
approximately 170 members, with representation from industry,
academia, NGOs, and government laboratories and programs.
In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, questions
have arisen as to how the program activities authorized by
Section 999 could better serve the nation in the development of
advanced environmental and worker safety technologies and
practices for oil and gas exploration and production, while
also bolstering the federal government's technical expertise on
deepwater, ultra-deepwater, and unconventional onshore drilling
technologies.
Legislative History
H.R. 5716 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on
July 13, 2010 and referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology and the Committee on Natural Resources.
The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider the
bill on July 14, 2010. The Committee on Science and Technology
agreed to report the bill to the House by voice vote. The
Committee on Science and Technology reported the bill, as
amended, to the House on July 21, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-554). The
Committee on Natural Resources discharged the bill on July 21,
2010.
The House considered the bill under suspension of the rules
on July 21, 2010. The bill was agreed to by voice vote.
H.R. 5716 was received in the Senate on July 22, 2010. No
further legislative action was taken on the bill.
2.32--H.R. 5781, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the science,
aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration programs of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for
the fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and address space and
aeronautics policy and programmatic issues.
The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 provided
policy and programmatic guidance for NASA that made clear that
NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a
balanced portfolio of programs in science, aeronautics, and
human space flight, including human and robotic exploration
beyond low Earth orbit. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010
reaffirms the basic principles espoused in the earlier NASA
Authorizations while emphasizing the need to reinvigorate
NASA's capability to undertake innovative space technology and,
replenish our Earth observations assets and capabilities, and
restructure NASA's existing exploration program so that it can
be both executable and productive in spite of a very
challenging budgetary environment. It also reaffirms the 2008
Authorization's support for a healthy commercial space sector
and includes provisions to foster its growth. The need for the
legislation at this time is due to the expiration of the
previous authorization and the fact that major changes to
NASA's programs have been proposed by the Administration and
debated by Congress over the past year. Without a clear
statement of congressional priorities and policies for NASA,
the nation runs the risk of serious drift in our space program,
with a resultant cost in time and resources and loss of
critical capabilities.
Legislative History
H.R. 5781 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on
July 20, 2010 and referred to the House Science and Technology
Committee. The Committee met to consider the bill on July 22,
2010. The Committee agreed to report the bill to the House, as
amended, by voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 5781, as
amended, on July 28, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-576). No further
legislative action was taken on H.R. 5781. However, the Senate
companion to H.R. 5781 was subsequently enacted (see P.L. 111-
267 in Chapter I for more information).
2.33--H.R. 5866, NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
Today in the United States there are 104 nuclear reactors
producing approximately 20 percent of our nation's electricity
supply and 70 percent of our emissions-free energy. However,
nuclear power as it exists today relies on a `once-through'
fuel cycle that produces high level radioactive waste from
enriched uranium. In the United States, there exists a
stockpile of approximately 63,000 metric tons of nuclear waste
from reactors which generate roughly 2,000 more tons per year.
Furthermore, the capital costs of nuclear plants have risen
steeply and present a high hurdle to deployment of new
reactors. Some have argued that without a fully developed
strategy to deal with these challenges, nuclear power will be
unable to compete with other fuel sources. Furthermore, in any
carbon dioxide restrained regime, nuclear power will play a
large role in energy production. To attain the 2030 reduction
goals set in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R.
2454, the Energy Information Administration estimated that at
least 96 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity would be needed.
To address these challenges, the Nuclear Energy Research &
Development Act of 2010 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
modify and augment existing nuclear research and development
programs at the Department of Energy. The primary goals of this
bill are to mitigate the problems associated with nuclear waste
and reduce the capital costs of nuclear power through a robust
and integrated research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application program.
The bill repeals the requirement that the Secretary of
Energy implement the nuclear power 2010 program, the generation
IV nuclear energy systems initiative, and the reactor
production of hydrogen. The bill also directs the Secretary to
implement research and development to advance fission power
systems and technologies (reactor concepts) to sustain
currently deployed systems, a small modular reactor program to
promote research and development of small modular reactors, and
research and development on fuel cycle options that improve
uranium resource utilization, maximize energy generation,
minimize nuclear waste creation, improve safety, and mitigate
risk of proliferation in support of a national strategy for
spent nuclear fuel and reactor concepts. Additionally, H.R.
5866 instructs the Secretary, in carrying out certain optional
initiatives, to consider the final report on a long-term
nuclear waste solution produced by the Blue Ribbon Commission
on America's Nuclear Future, directs the Secretary to conduct a
program to support the integration of certain activities
undertaken through R&D programs for reactor concepts and
crosscutting nuclear energy concepts, and requires the
Secretary to report to Congress on the quantitative risks
associated with the potential of a severe accident arising from
the use of nuclear power and current technologies to mitigate
the consequences of such an accident. The bill changes the
location of the prototype Next Generation Nuclear reactor and
associated Plant from the Idaho National Laboratory (IDL) to a
construction site determined by the IDL-organized consortium of
appropriate industrial partners through an open and transparent
competitive selection process, directs the Comptroller General
to submit to Congress a status update of the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant program, and finally requires the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
establish a nuclear energy standards committee to facilitate
the development or revision of technical standards for new and
existing nuclear power plants and advanced nuclear
technologies.
Legislative History
H.R. 5866 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on
July 27, 2010 and referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the House Science and Technology Committee. The
Subcommittee met to consider the bill on July 28, 2010 and
forwarded to the full committee by voice vote. The bill was
reported, as amended, to the House by the Science and
Technology Committee on November 18, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-658).
The House considered the bill under suspension of the rules on
November 30, 2010. The bill, as amended, was agreed to by voice
vote.
H.R. 5866 was received in the Senate on December 1, 2010,
read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. No further legislative action was taken on
H.R. 5866.
2.34--H.R. 6160, RARE EARTHS AND CRITICAL MATERIALS REVITALIZATION ACT
OF 2010
Background and Need for Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 6160 is to develop a rare earth
materials program, to amend the National Materials and Minerals
Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and for other
purposes. Rare earth materials, or rare earths, are critical
components of a broad range of technologies with applications
in important industrial sectors such as defense, manufacturing,
energy, transportation, optics, and electronics. Weapons
guidance systems, petroleum refining catalysts, advanced
vehicle batteries, wind turbine motors, jet engines, miniature
disk drives and speakers, televisions and monitors, compact
fluorescent light bulbs, and optical cable are just a few
examples of technologies that cannot currently be made without
rare earths. And, demand for rare earths for these and other
technologies is only expected to increase. However, for the
past decade, the United States and the rest of the world have
been almost entirely dependent on China to supply rare earths.
The purpose of H.R. 6160 is to spur U.S. research,
development and education in rare earths; to help facilitate
investment in domestic production facilities across the entire
rare earths supply chain; to promote international
collaboration in the field; and to catalogue and disseminate
research results and other information on rare earths. Many
experts agree that actions are needed to expand the limited
capabilities left behind from the Nation's former world
leadership in these technologies, and to train the new
scientists and engineers who will restore our ability to
compete in the global market.
The U.S.'s mechanism for establishing a materials policy
and monitoring the materials industry has also significantly
diminished over the last three decades. The Congress passed the
National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and
Development Act in 1980 to address concerns with bottlenecks in
the production of tungsten and the platinum group metals. That
law required both the Executive Office of the President and the
Cabinet Departments to identify, track, and act to avert
impacts on national security or the economy from a lack of
materials. Four years later, dissatisfied with the progress of
implementation, Congress passed the National Critical Materials
Act, creating a National Critical Materials Council to serve as
the President's primary advisers on materials issues and to
oversee implementation of the 1980 Act. The mechanisms set up
by the 1980 Act had since atrophied--the Committee on Materials
formerly constituted within the Office of Science and
Technology Policy no longer exist, the Bureau of Mines of the
Department of the Interior has been disbanded, and there is no
identifiable `early warning' system as called for in the law.
The National Critical Materials Council had little perceptible
input on U.S. materials policy, and was ultimately terminated
early in the Clinton administration.
H.R. 6160 amends provisions in the 1980 National Materials
and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act to remove
obsolete provisions and require the Executive Office of the
President and the Cabinet agencies to be attentive to the state
of materials supply to meet the Nation's various needs.
Particularly important is the design and maintenance of an
`early warning' system to prevent the U.S. from encountering
emergency situations in regards to supplies of materials like
rare earths. Finally, given the difficulties encountered by the
National Critical Materials Council in overcoming bureaucratic
resistance within the White House and the agencies, and the
fact that its dissolution in 1993 has had very little effect on
the Nation's national materials policy, H.R. 6160 repeals the
underlying 1984 statute. Doing so returns accountability for
materials issues to the Executive Office of the President and
the Cabinet agencies.
Legislative History
H.R. 6160 was introduced on September 22, 2010 by
Representative Kathleen Dahlkemper and referred to the House
Science and Technology Committee. The Committee met to consider
the bill on September 23, 2010 and agreed, by voice vote, to
report the bill to the House. The bill, as amended was reported
to the House on September 28, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-644).
The House considered the bill under suspension of the rules
on September 28, 2010. The bill, as amended, was agreed to by a
recorded vote of 325-98 (Roll Call No. 555).
H.R. 6160 was received in the Senate on September 29, 2010,
read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. No further legislative action was taken on H.R.
6160.
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on
Science and Technology and Passed by the House of Representatives
3.1--H. CON. RES. 167, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL
AEROSPACE DAY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Con. Res. 167 supports the goals and ideals of National
Aerospace Day, and recognizes the contributions of the
aerospace industry to the history, economy, security, and
educational system of the United States.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 167 was introduced by Representative Vernon
Ehlers and solely referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology on July 20, 2009. On September 9, 2009 the House
debated the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed
the resolution by voice vote. It was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on September 10, 2009.
3.2--H. CON. RES. 292, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL
AEROSPACE WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Con. Res. 292 supports the goals and ideals of National
Aerospace Week, and recognizes the contributions of the
aerospace industry to the history, economy, security, and
educational system of the United States.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 292 was introduced by Representative Vernon
Ehlers and solely referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology on June 30, 2010. On July 21, 2010 the House debated
the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the
resolution, 413-0. It was received and agreed to in the Senate
on September 13, 2010 without amendment and with a preamble by
Unanimous Consent.
3.3--H. RES. 67, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA), THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY (JPL),
AND CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE MARS EXPLORATION ROVERS,
SPIRIT AND OPPORTUNITY, ON THE 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROVERS'
SUCCESSFUL LANDING
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 67 commends the engineers, scientists, and
technicians of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Cornell
University for their successful execution and continued
operation of the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and
Opportunity, and recognizes the success and significant
scientific contributions of NASA's Mars Exploration Rovers.
Legislative History
H. Res. 67 was introduced by Representative David Dreier
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
January 15, 2009. On March 11, 2009 the House debated the
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the
resolution, Y-421, N-0 (Roll Call No. 116).
3.4--H. RES. 117, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS
WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 117 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.
Legislative History
H. Res. 117 was introduced by Representative Dan Lipinski
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
on February 4, 2009. On February 12, 2009 the House agreed to
the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-422, N-0 (Roll
Call No. 64).
3.5--H. RES. 224, SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF PI DAY, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Greek letter (Pi) is the symbol for the ratio of the
circumference of a circle to its diameter. The ratio Pi is an
irrational number, which will continue indefinitely without
repeating, and has been calculated to over one trillion digits.
Pi has been studied throughout history and is central in
mathematics as well as science and engineering. Pi can be
approximated as 3.14, and thus March 14, 2009 was designated
``National Pi Day''. H. Res. 224 supports the designation of
``Pi Day'' and its celebration around the world, and recognizes
the continuing importance of National Science Foundation's math
and science education programs.
Legislative History
H. Res. 224 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
on March 9, 2009. On March 12, 2009 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-391, N-10 (Roll
Call No. 124).
3.6--H. RES. 387, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL HURRICANE
PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 387 supports the goals and ideals of National
Hurricane Preparedness Week, encourages the staff of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially the
National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center, and
other appropriate Federal agencies, to continue their
outstanding work of educating 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 in forecasting
hurricanes and educating citizens about the potential risks of
the storms.
Legislative History
H. Res. 387 was introduced by Representative Mario Diaz-
Balart and solely referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology on April 30, 2009. On May 12, 2009 the House debated
the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the
resolution by voice vote.
3.7--H. RES. 413, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF ``IEEE ENGINEERING
THE FUTURE'' DAY ON MAY 13, 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
The IEEE is the world's largest technical professional
society, with more than 375,000 members, including more than
210,000 members in the United States. The IEEE members are
engineers, scientists, and other professionals whose technical
interests and rooted in electrical and computer sciences,
engineering, and related disciplines. The resolution recognizes
the importance of engineering and technology to meeting our
Nation's most pressing challenges, congratulates IEEE on its
125th anniversary, and supports the goals and ideals of ``IEEE
Engineering the Future'' Day.
Legislative History
H. Res. 413 was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
on May 6, 2009. On May 12, 2009 the House debated the
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the
resolution, Y-409, N-0 (Roll Call No. 244).
3.8--H. RES. 447, RECOGNIZING THE REMARKABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES FOR ITS 100 YEARS OF SERVICE
TO THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRY AND THE NATION
Background and Summary of Legislation
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and
its thousands of members firms celebrated the Council's 100th
anniversary in 2009. The ACEC is the oldest and largest
business association of America's engineering industry,
representing more than 5,000 engineering firms that employ
500,000 professionals, engaged in a wide range of practices
that propel our economy and ensure a high quality of life for
all people in the United States. H. Res. 447 congratulates the
American Council of Engineering Companies for its 100 years of
service.
Legislative History
H. Res. 447 was introduced by Representative Heath Shuler
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
on May 14, 2009. On September 9, 2009 the House debated the
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the
resolution, Y-420, N-0 (Roll Call No. 690).
3.9--H. RES. 492, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE
BUILDING WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 492 supports the goals and ideals of High-
Performance Building Week and recognizes and reaffirms the
Nation's commitment to High-Performance Buildings by promoting
awareness about their benefits and by promoting new education
programs, supporting research, and expanding access to
information. The resolution also recognizes the unique role
that the Department of Energy plays through the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Building Technologies
Program, which works closely with the building industry and
manufacturers to conduct research and development on
technologies and practices for building energy efficiency, and
recognizes the important role that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology plays in developing the measurement
science needed to develop, test, integrate, and demonstrate the
new building technologies. The resolution also encourages
further research and development of high-performance building
standards, research, and development.
Legislative History
H. Res. 492 was introduced by Representative Russ Carnahan
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
on June 2, 2009. On June 8, 2009 the House debated the
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the
resolution by voice vote.
3.10--H. RES. 558, SUPPORTING THE INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF, AND
INTEREST IN, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTING CAREERS AMONG THE PUBLIC
AND IN SCHOOLS, AND TO ENSURE AN AMPLE AND DIVERSE FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
WORKFORCE THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
EDUCATION WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 558 supports the designation of National Computer
Science Education Week and encourages schools, teachers,
researchers, universities, and policymakers to identify
mechanisms for teachers to receive cutting edge professional
development to provide sustainable learning experiences in
computer science at all educational levels and encourages
students to be exposed to computer science concepts. The
resolution also encourages opportunities, including through
existing programs, for females and underrepresented minorities
in computer science and supports research in computer science
to address what would motivate increased participation in this
field.
Legislative History
H. Res. 558 was introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers
and referred to the House Committee and Science and Technology,
and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor on June
18, 2009. On October 20, 2009 the House debated the resolution
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution, Y-405,
N-0 (Roll Call No. 792).
3.11--H. RES. 607, CELEBRATING THE FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APOLLO
11 MOON LANDING
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 607 celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Apollo
11 lunar landing, honors the brave crew of the Apollo 11
mission--Neil Armstrong, ``Buzz'' Aldrin, and Michael Collins,
and commends all those individuals and organizations who
contributed to such a historic achievement that continues to be
an inspiration to the Nation and the world.
Legislative History
H. Res. 607 was introduced by Representative Ralph Hall and
solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology on
July 7, 2009. On July 20, 2009 the House debated the resolution
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution, Y-390,
N-0 (Roll Call No. 594).
3.12--H. RES. 631, CONGRATULATING CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ON ITS 75TH
ANNIVERSARY
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 631 recognizes the 75th anniversary of operations
by Continental Airlines and congratulates the employees of
Continental Airlines for the numerous awards and accolades they
have earned for the company over the years.
Legislative History
H. Res. 631 was introduced by Representative Gene Green on
July 10, 2009. On July 22, 2009 the Committee on Science and
Technology was discharged from public consideration of the
resolution and that it was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce. On July 29, 2009 House debated the resolution
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution by
voice vote.
3.13--H. RES. 793, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL
CHEMISTRY WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 793 recognizes that the contributions of chemical
scientists and engineers have created new jobs, boosted
economic growth, and improved the Nation's health and standard
of living, supports the goals and ideals of National Chemistry
Week, and encourages the people of the United States to observe
National Chemistry Week with appropriate recognition,
activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of
chemistry to everyday life.
Legislative History
H. Res. 793 was introduced by Representative Silvestre
Reyes and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on October 1, 2009. On October 20, 2009 House
debated the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed
the resolution by voice vote.
3.14--H. RES. 797, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO
RAISING AWARENESS AND ENHANCING THE STATE OF CYBER SECURITY IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE SIXTH ANNUAL
NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 797 recognizes that cyber security is a critical
part of the Nation's overall homeland security. The resolution
express that the House of Representatives supports the goals
and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness month and
intends to work with Federal agencies, national organizations,
businesses, and educational institutions to encourage the
development and implementation of existing and future cyber
security consensus standards, practices, and technologies in
order to enhance the state of cyber security in the United
States.
Legislative History
H. Res. 797 was introduced by Representative Yvette Clarke
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on October 6, 2009. On October 22, 2009 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-415, N-0 (Roll Call
No. 800).
3.15--H. RES. 935, HONORING JOHN E. WARNOCK, CHARLES M. GESCHKE,
FORREST M. BIRD, ESTHER SANS TAKEUCHI, AND IBM CORPORATION FOR
RECEIVING THE 2008 NATIONAL MEDAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 935 honors John E. Warnock, Charles M. Geschke,
Forrest M. Bird, Esther Sans Takeuchi, and IBM Corporation for
receiving the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation,
which is the highest honor for technological achievement given
by the President to the country's leading innovators.
Legislative History
H. Res. 935 was introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on November 19, 2009. On March 9, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-402, N-0 (Roll Call
No. 94).
3.16--H. RES. 1027, RECOGNIZING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HISTORIC
DIVE TO THE CHALLENGER DEEP IN THE MARIANA TRENCH, THE DEEPEST POINT IN
THE WORLD'S OCEANS, ON JANUARY 23, 1960, AND ITS IMPORTANCE TO MARINE
RESEARCH, OCEAN SCIENCE, A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PLANET, AND THE
FUTURE OF HUMAN EXPLORATION
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1027 recognizes the 50th anniversary of the
historic dive to the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, the
deepest point in the world's oceans, on January 23, 1960, and
its importance to marine research, ocean science, a better
understanding of the planet, and the future of human
exploration.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1027 was introduced by Representative Gregorio
Sablan and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on January 21, 2010. On March 19, 2010 the House
agreed to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-398,
N-2 (Roll Call No. 126).
3.17--H. RES. 1055, SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL ROBOTICS
WEEK AS AN ANNUAL EVENT
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1055 supports the designation of National Robotics
Week (NRW) as an annual event and encourages institutions of
higher education and companies which utilize robotics
technology to hold open houses during NRW to help explain the
technology and its applications. The resolution also encourages
science museums to organize events and demonstrations during
NRW that help to educate and engage the public about robotics
technology. The resolution also encourages additional
educational activities related to robotics and affirms the
growing importance of robotics technology.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1055 was introduced by Representative Michael Doyle
and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in
addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, on February
2, 2010. On March 9, 2010 the House debated the resolution
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution by
voice vote.
3.18--H. RES. 1069, CONGRATULATING WILLARD S. BOYLE AND GEORGE E. SMITH
FOR BEING AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1069 congratulates Willard S. Boyle and George E.
Smith for being awarded the Nobel Prize in physics and
recognizes Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, as a
contributor to leadership in scientific research and innovation
in the United States.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1069 was introduced by Representative Lance Leonard
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on February 3, 2010. On March 9, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-402, N-0 (Roll Call
No. 93).
3.19--H. RES. 1097, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL
ENGINEERS WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1097 supports the goals and ideals of National
Engineers Week to increase the understanding of and interest in
engineering careers and to promote technological literacy and
engineering education, and resolves that the House of
Representatives will continue to work with the engineering
community to ensure that the creativity and contributions made
by engineers can be expressed through research, development,
standardization, and innovation.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1097 was introduced by Representative Daniel
Lipinski and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on February 23, 2010. On March 2, 2010 the House
agreed to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-382,
N-0 (Roll Call No. 77).
3.20--H. RES. 1133, RECOGNIZING THE EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF AFRICAN-
AMERICANS WHO HAVE OVERCOME SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES TO ENHANCE INNOVATION
AND COMPETITIVENESS IN THE FIELD OF SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1133 recognizes the extraordinary number of
African-Americans who have overcome significant obstacles to
enhance innovation and competitiveness in the field of science
in the United States, honors and recognizes all African-
American innovators who have contributed to scientific
education and research, directly and indirectly, whose
contributions have increased economic empowerment in the United
States, and encourages the Administration to invest in programs
that proven effective to lessen the achievement gap of African-
Americans as well as other minority and disadvantaged groups in
the sciences and ultimately strengthen competitiveness in the
United States.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1133 was introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice
Johnson and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on March 2, 2010. On March 19, 2010 the House agreed
to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-399, N-0
(Roll Call No. 145).
3.21--H. RES. 1213, RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO IMPROVE THE PARTICIPATION
AND PERFORMANCE OF AMERICA'S STUDENTS IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) FIELDS, SUPPORTING THE IDEALS OF
NATIONAL LAB DAY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1213 supports the ideals of National Lab Day, calls
upon the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
National Science Foundation to continue fostering partnerships
such as those involved in National Lab Day, and encourages
scientists, volunteers, and educators to participate in
National Lab Day.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1213 was introduced by Representative Marcia Fudge
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on March 24, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-378, N-2 (Roll Call
No. 244).
3.22--H. RES. 1231, CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNITED
STATES TELEVISION INFRARED OBSERVATION SATELLITE, THE WORLD'S FIRST
METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITE, LAUNCHED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION ON APRIL 1, 1960, AND FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD TO PROMOTE THE
PEACEFUL USE OF SPACE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1231 celebrates the achievement of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Television
Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS I) team who worked
together to enable the successful launch and operation of TIROS
I by the United States to establish applications of space
systems and technology for the benefit of people worldwide. 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.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1231 was introduced by Representative Rush Holt and
referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology on
March 24, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
3.23--H. RES. 1269, COMMEMORATING THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST
USE OF THE TELESCOPE FOR ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATION BY THE ITALIAN
SCIENTIST GALILEO GALILEI
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1269 commemorates the 400th anniversary of the
first use of the telescope for astronomical observation by the
Italian scientist Galileo Galilei for astronomical observation
and marks this discovery as one of the major events impacting
making, and expresses its gratitude for Galileo's expansion of
the universe and mankind's understanding of his place in the
cosmos.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1269 was introduced by Representative Patrick
Tiberi and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on April 15, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed
to the resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
3.24--H. RES. 1307, HONORING THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FOR 60
YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE NATION
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1307 recognizes the significance of the anniversary
of the founding of the National Science Foundation,
acknowledges that 60 years of National Science Foundation
achievements and service to the United States have advanced our
Nation's leadership in discovery, innovation, and learning in
science, engineering, and mathematics, and reaffirms the House
of Representatives commitment to support investments in basic
research, education, and technological advancement through the
National Science Foundation, one of the premier scientific
organizations in the world.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1307 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on April 29, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-370, N-2 (Roll Call
No. 243).
3.25--H. RES. 1310, RECOGNIZING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LASER
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1310 recognizes the 50th anniversary of the laser
and also recognizes the need for continued support of
scientific research to maintain America's future
competitiveness.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1310 was introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on April 29, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
3.26--H. RES. 1388, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL
HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1388 supports the goals and ideals National
Hurricane Preparedness Week, encourages the staff of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to continue
educating 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 in forecasting hurricanes
and educating citizens about the potential risks of the storms.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1388 was introduced by Representative Mario Diaz-
Balart and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on May 24, 2010. On June 23, 2010 the House agreed
to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-419, N-0
(Roll Call No. 384).
3.27--H. RES. 1407, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE
BUILDING WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1407 supports the goals and ideals of High-
Performance Building Week, recognizes and reaffirms the
Nation's commitment to high-performance buildings by promoting
awareness about their benefits and by promoting new education
programs, supporting research, and expanding access to
information. The resolution also recognizes the unique and
important roles that the Department of Energy and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology play with respect to
building technologies, and encourages further research and
development of high performance building standards, research,
and development.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1407 was introduced by Representative Judy Biggert
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on May 27, 2010. On June 22, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-371, N-20 (Roll
Call No. 378).
3.28--H. RES. 1421, RECOGNIZING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APOLLO 13
MISSION AND THE HEROIC ACTIONS OF BOTH THE CREW AND THOSE WORKING AT
MISSION CONTROL IN HOUSTON, TEXAS, FOR BRINGING THE THREE ASTRONAUTS,
FRED HAISE, JIM LOVELL, AND JACK SWIGERT, HOME TO EARTH SAFELY
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1421 recognizes the 40th anniversary of the Apollo
13 mission and the bravery and heroism of the Apollo 13
mission, as well as the men and women in mission control. The
resolution reaffirms the House of Representatives' support of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
human space flight and recognizes the tremendous advances to
science and technology in the United States that were spurned
by the Apollo space program.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1421 was introduced by Representative Ted Poe and
referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology on
May 28, 2010. On September 28, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
3.29--H. RES. 1560, SUPPORTING THE INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF, AND
INTEREST IN, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTING CAREERS AMONG THE PUBLIC
AND IN SCHOOLS, AND TO ENSURE AN AMPLE AND DIVERSE FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
WORKFORCE THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
EDUCATION WEEK
Background and Summary of Legislation
This resolution supports the designation of National
Computer Science Education Week and encourages schools,
teachers, researchers, universities, and policymakers to
identify mechanisms for teachers to receive cutting edge
professional development to provide sustainable learning
experiences in computer science at all education levels and
encourage students to be exposed to computer science concepts.
The resolution also encourages opportunities for females and
underrepresented minorities in computer science and expresses
support for research in computer science to advance what would
motivate increased participation in the field.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1560 was introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on July 27, 2010. On September 23, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
3.30--H. RES. 1660, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE
INAUGURAL USA SCIENCE & ENGINEERING FESTIVAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1660 expresses support for the goals and ideals of
the inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival to promote
science scholarship and an interest in scientific research and
development as the cornerstones of innovation and competition
in America. The resolution also congratulates all the
individuals and organizations whose efforts will make the USA
Science & Engineering festival possible, and encourages
families and their children to participate in the activities
and exhibits which will occur on the National Mall and across
America as satellite events to the USA Science & Engineering
festival.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1660 was introduced by Representative Brian Bilbray
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology
on July 27, 2010. On September 28, 2010 the House agreed to the
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.
3.31--H. RES. 1714, CONGRATULATING THE ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS,
PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND STAFF OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION (NASA) FOR HELPING TO SUCCESSFULLY RESCUE 33 TRAPPED
CHILEAN MINERS FROM A COLLAPSED MINE NEAR COPIAPO, CHILE
Background and Summary of Legislation
H. Res. 1714 congratulates the engineers, scientists,
psychologists, and staff of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for helping to successfully rescue 33 trapped
Chilean miners from a collapsed mine near Copiapo, Chile. The
resolution also recognizes that the experience and knowledge of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has acquired
through space flight is beneficial to human life on Earth and
was critical to the successful rescue of the Chilean miners.
Legislative History
H. Res. 1714 was introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice
Johnson and referred solely to the Committee on Science and
Technology on November 15, 2010. On November 16, 2010 the House
agreed to the resolution under suspension of the rules by voice
vote.
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)_Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and Innovation
to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle
February 11, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-1
Background
On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to discuss draft legislation entitled the Electronic
Waste Research and Development Act of 2009. The purpose of the
hearing was to discuss ways in which research and development
can help address the challenge of managing the disposal of
electronics products in the United States.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Valerie Thomas, Anderson
Interface Associate Professor at Georgia Institute of
Technology; (2) Dr. Paul Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III
Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment and
Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green
Engineering, Yale University; (3) Mr. Philip Bond, President of
TechAmerica; (4) Mr. Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director of the
Green Electronic Council and Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT); and (5) Mr. Willie Cade, Chief
Executive Officer of PC Rebuilders and Recyclers.
Summary
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by noting that this was
the Science and Technology Committee's second hearing on the
problem of electronic waste, or e-waste. He explained that
Americans are discarding an increasing number of obsolete or
broken electronic devices and that the majority of these items
end up in landfills, rather than in the hands of recyclers. In
addition to raising environmental concerns, this practice
wastes the valuable materials, such as gold and copper,
contained in electronics that could be recycled. Moreover, many
discarded electronics are shipped overseas where low-wage
workers, often children, disassemble them under unsafe
conditions. Chairman Gordon then explained his draft
legislation, which would direct the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to support research and development to make it
easier and less costly to recycle electronics and to make
electronics themselves more environmentally friendly. Ranking
Member Hall talked about the fast pace of innovation and
improvement in electronic devices. He also mentioned programs
and guidelines already in place at EPA and wondered how the
draft legislation would complement these existing programs and
guidelines.
Dr. Thomas explained that the electronic supply chain is
not designed with recycling in mind. She suggested possible
methods to make recycling easier, such as including an
identifying tag on electronics (such as a bar code or a radio
frequency identification tag) that would allow recyclers to
identify the make and model of a product. She noted too that
recycling rates are low because the existing collection
programs are often difficult to use. She expanded upon the
identification tag idea and suggested that recycling bins could
be made to scan the identification tags and arrange for pick-
up. Dr. Thomas noted that students are eager to work on
environmental issues, and the draft legislation would help
encourage students to work in the engineering field.
Dr. Anastas testified that e-waste is a serious problem,
but that it is only one aspect of a much larger problem. He
said that electronics production is both energy- and resource-
intensive, and more work needs to be done to reduce the
environmental impact of the entire life cycle of electronic
products. He also explained that there are existing green
chemistry and green engineering principles, some of which are
already in use, which could be used to make electronic devices
more environmentally friendly. However, he noted that the
majority of products on the market do not make use of this
design knowledge. Dr. Anastas named a number of research
priorities that could help address the e-waste problem and make
electronics more environmentally sustainable. For instance, he
suggested that there are a number of ways to use old
electronics in new applications, and noted that research could
yield new design options (including new material joining
options) to aid in disassembly. Finally, Dr. Anastas testified
that research was imperative in addressing the e-waste
challenge and in creating a more sustainable electronics
industry.
Mr. Bond noted some environmental success in the
electronics industry, including increased energy efficiency of
technologies and reduction in the use of toxic substances with
less harmful materials. He also praised the legislation
proposed by Chairman Gordon, specifically for authorizing a
study by the National Academy of Sciences on the disposal of e-
waste, supporting research and development for environmentally
friendly alternatives, and requiring universities to partner
with industry to improve the training of undergraduate and
graduate students.
Mr. Omelchuck noted that despite their extraordinary
utility, electronic devices are among the most energy- and
resource-intensive products in production today. To support his
assertion, he cited the fact that approximately 80 percent of
the environmental impact associated with desktop computers
occurs during the material extraction and manufacturing phase,
not from the use of the product. As a result, Mr. Omelchuck
supported prolonging the useful life of each product. With
regard to recycling, Mr. Omelchuck testified that the most
important action is to stop irresponsible recycling, where e-
waste is exported to poorer countries and recycled by methods
that are harmful to human health and the environment. Mr.
Omelchuck noted that recycling the huge volume of legacy
electronics was imperative in order to recover valuable
materials and reduce their volume in landfills; however, he
also cautioned that any e-waste management system must
responsibly handle the toxic material in the electronic
products. Mr. Omelchuck also advocated for a green purchasing
system that would educate consumers about more environmentally
friendly electronics, and therefore incentivize producers to
design products that are more environmentally friendly.
Finally, he suggested that the legislation under discussion
include policy and economic research to evaluate funding and
governance mechanisms for e-waste recycling.
Mr. Cade discussed the importance of refurbishment in
addressing the e-waste challenge and testified that e-waste was
actually a great opportunity to provide computers to people who
might not otherwise be able to afford such equipment. He
expressed his support for the legislation but suggested several
changes. For instance, he suggested clearly defining
``recycling'' to include activates such as repair and
refurbishment, and including a definition of ``hazardous.''
Throughout his testimony, Mr. Cade advocated for changing
consumer attitudes about old electronic equipment to ensure re-
use options are well considered.
4.1(b)_Impacts of U.S. Export Control Policies on Science and
Technology Activities and Competitiveness
February 25, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-4
Background
On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, at 10:00 am in room 2318 Rayburn House Office
Building, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to review the impacts of current export control
policies on U.S. science and technology activities and
competitiveness and to examine the findings and recommendations
of the National Academies study, Beyond ``Fortress America'':
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a
Globalized World. There were five witnesses: (1) Lieutenant
General Brent Scowcroft, Co-chair of the National Academies
Committee on Science, Security and Prosperity; (2) Mr. A.
Thomas Young, Co-chair of the Strategic and International
Studies Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space
Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls; (3) Dr.
Claude R. Canizares, Vice President for Research and Associate
Provost at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (4) Maj.
General Robert Dickman, Executive Director of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Summary
Chairman Gordon raised concerns over the findings of
several national reports regarding export controls. Chairman
Gordon wanted to ensure that the nation's export controls were
working effectively and without unintended adverse impacts.
Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-X) expressed that changes were
needed on export controls, but in a manner that maintains
American security. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) agreed with
Ranking Member Hall that changes needed to be made, but he was
adamant that any changes must provide for careful evaluation of
future trade partners.
Lieutenant General Scowcroft provided testimony on the
National Academies report, ``Beyond `Fortress America':
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a
Globalized World.'' Lt. General Scowcroft pointed out that
current export controls were outdated, and their regulations
were more applicable to the Cold War era. Lt. General Scowcroft
added that there was a better way to manage export controls and
suggested that ``we need to turn to an open mindset and export
unless there is a reason not to.'' Mr. Young agreed with Lt.
General Scowcroft's assessment of current export controls. He
expanded in greater detail about their negative effects on the
space commercialization industry, and specifically on the
second and third tier space industrial base. Dr. Canizares
discussed the diminishing effects that export controls levied
on America's once dominant scientific leadership. Major General
Dickman agreed with much of what had been said by the previous
panelist, but added a sobering statement that described the
real effects of export controls on the state of America's
aerospace professionals: ``In a very real sense, we the
American taxpayer, are subsidizing the development of the
technical workforce that is building the systems that are
taking business away from U.S. companies and threatening our
security.''
4.1(c)_21st Century Water Planning: The Importance of a
Coordinated Federal Approach
March 4, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-6
Background
On Wednesday, March 4, 2009, with the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held
a legislative hearing to discuss Federal coordination of water
research and management policies and Committee draft of H.R.
1145: the National Water Research and Development Act. The
third of three such hearings since May of 2008, the meeting
aimed to address the supplies of clean water and climate change
impacts on resource availability. Mr. Gordon introduced H.R.
1145 at the end of the 110th Congress and reintroduced it in
February of 2009. The bill requires the establishment of a
National Water Research and Development Initiative to improve
the federal government's role in water research, development,
demonstration, data collection and distribution and education
and technology transfer activities to address changes in U.S.
water use, quality, supply and demand. The bill also calls for
the establishment of an interagency committee to ensure the
implementation of the program.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Henry Vaux, Jr.,
Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley
and Associate Vice President Emeritus of the University of
California System; (2) Dr. Peter H. Gleick, Co-Founder and
President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security; (3) Mr. F. Mark Modzelewski,
Executive Director of the Water Innovations Alliance; (4) Ms.
Nancy K. Stoner, Co-Director of the Water Program at the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); and (5) Ms. Christine
Furstoss, General Manager of Technology of GE Water and Process
Technologies at the General Electric Company.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon called attention
to projected drought conditions across the U.S. and noted that
while the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had committed
some funds to improving water infrastructure, H.R. 1145 is
needed to fill critical gaps in water research and development
coordination. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) recalled some of the
Committee's past water initiatives and called for thorough
collaboration with both its Senate counterparts and the various
agencies involved in Federal water research.
During the witnesses' testimony, Dr. Vaux lamented the
trend of short-term-focused research initiatives and
communication problems and provided four recommendations for
achieving a more efficient use of funds and a comprehensive,
streamlined research strategy. Dr. Gleick noted the progress of
the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) in
coordinating twenty-plus agencies and establishing a national
water agenda. He also commented on H.R. 1145 and provided
feedback and suggestions for additions to the bill. Mr.
Modzelewski lamented low funding levels for water R&D and
coordination and made suggestions for the bill regarding
infrastructure assessment, information technology standards,
the National Science Foundation Centers, and a national water
pilot testing facility. Ms. Stoner evinced the need for more
careful attention to national water resources and called for
consideration of climate change water interactions, advanced
treatment technologies, pollution prevention, and water use
monitoring in the U.S. Census. Ms. Furstoss argued for the
coordination of private industry, academic, and federal
agencies and emphasized the importance of the relationship
between water and energy resources.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed the efficacy of alternative and existing
programs, strategies for effective interagency coordination,
the possibility of a ``smart water grid,'' treatment of oil-
contaminated water, promising technological applications,
energy efficient, cost effective treatment systems, reducing
consumer costs, recent developments in water efficiency, the
role of the private sector, and effective conservation
strategies. A major theme was that while water management is an
intrinsically local issue, a national assessment of resources
and best practices is critical to address future water
shortages. The Members and witnesses agreed that the U.S.
should commit to water management as a global issue through
international aid, coordination, and information sharing.
4.1(d)_New Directions for Energy Research and Development at
the U.S. Department of Energy
March 17, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-11
Background
On Tuesday, March 17, 2009, with the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held
a hearing to examine President Obama's research and development
priorities and activities at the Department of Energy (DOE) as
well as opportunities for innovation at DOE under the Offices
of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, and the Loan Guarantee program, and the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
Dr. Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy, was the only
witness. He was sworn in to office on January 21, 2009.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon noted the work of
Dr. Chu and the Committee in developing the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program and the specific
challenges of domestic energy production, nuclear waste, and
wise expenditure of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funds. Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) lauded the
President's budget support for energy R&D and low carbon coal
technologies, but called for increased dedication to oil and
gas research, specifically the Ultra Deepwater and
Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research
program.
During his testimony, Secretary Chu discussed four main
topics: how to best nurture science and scientists to solve our
energy and climate change problems; the need to support
transformational research projects; how DOE can foster research
collaboration among universities, industry, and other nations;
and the goal of demonstrating and commercializing next-
generation, clean energy technologies. He expressed his
commitment to facing the national security and green house gas
challenges of domestic energy policy, and thanked the Committee
for its commitment to ARPA-E. Secretary Chu also called for
increased and focused funding for the basic sciences and a
stronger commitment to nurturing American intellectual capital
in the sciences.
During the question and answer period, Secretary Chu
discussed various DOE project timelines and the potential for a
variety of burgeoning technologies at the Department. These
issues included ARPA-E, carbon capture and sequestration,
standards and interoperability with emissions trading and Smart
Grid energy distribution programs, the DOE loan guarantee
program, peak oil and international security concerns, evidence
of climate change, vehicle electrification, oil dependency, and
the state of nuclear plant development.
Several members brought up the energy issues that directly
relate to their own districts, including the Ultra Deepwater
program, commercialization of solar power, corn-based ethanol,
petroleum, carbon cap-and-trade issues, coal-to-liquid fuel
production, and solar nanotechnology in paint products.
Secretary Chu stressed the needs for international cooperation
on research initiatives and standards development, developing a
broad and varied ``tool set'' of alternative energy sources,
increasing consumer product efficiencies, scientific
cooperation between universities, national labs, and industry,
and careful consideration of the economic issues that accompany
new policies and programs.
Secretary Chu also expressed support specifically for algal
biofuels, proliferation-resistant nuclear waste recycling,
technology commercialization initiatives, harnessing the
national interest to address the Nation's energy issues at the
individual level, battery development, and accounting for
economic externalities in the environment, such as carbon.
4.1(e)_Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Act of 2009
April 1, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-17
Background
On Wednesday, April 1, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to receive testimony on the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Act of 2009.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Chris L. Greer,
Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development; (2) Dr. Peter
Lee, Professor and Head, Computer Science Department, Carnegie
Mellon University; (3) Mr. Amit Yoran, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation; and (4) Dr. Deborah
Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing,
University of California, Los Angeles
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon described the
goal of the legislative proposal. He indicated that the
legislation responded to two categories of recommendations
included in the assessment of the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program conducted
by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST): the need to strengthen the program's
planning and coordinating functions and the balance of the
research portfolio supported by the program.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Greer stated that the
PCAST recommendations and the interests of the Committee as
expressed in the proposed legislation were helpful in improving
the NITRD framework and that the goal of the National
Coordination Office was the same as the Committee, to enable
the NITRD program to serve the nation more effectively. Dr. Lee
expressed his support for innovative, high-risk research and
the provisions within the proposal that promoted large-scale,
multidisciplinary research. He also indicated a need to
increase the number of women and underrepresented minorities
pursuing degrees in computer science. Mr. Yoran was unable to
appear before the Committee, but his written testimony was
included as part of the hearing record. Dr. Estrin added her
support for the proposed legislation and described the
importance of research in cyber-physical systems and the role
of multidisciplinary research centers in advancing networking
and information technology research.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the security of our networked systems and
the basic research needed to ensure their reliability and
integrity, how to improve public-private partnerships in
networking and information technology and the transfer of
research results into the marketplace, and obstacles to and
incentives for increasing the recruitment and retention of
women and minorities in computer science.
4.1(f)_Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and Academic Research and
Monitoring Programs
April 22, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-18
Background
On Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, with the Honorable Bart
Gordon (D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and
Technology held a hearing to discuss existing and planned
federal greenhouse gas (GHG) monitoring and verification
systems and how these could support research, policy
evaluation, projections, and compliance with potential climate
agreements. This hearing was the second on this topic,
following a Subcommittee meeting on February 24, 2009.
There were seven witnesses: (1) Dr. Sandy MacDonald,
Director of the Earth Systems Research Laboratory for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) Dr.
Beverly Law, Professor of Global Change Forest Science at
Oregon State University and Science Chair of the AmeriFlux
Network; (3) Dr. Richard Birdsey, Project Leader of the
Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Science for the USDA Forest
Service and Chair of the Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering
Group; (4) Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science
Division for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA); (5) Ms. Dina Kruger, Director of the Climate Change
Division in the Office of Atmospheric Programs at the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (6) Dr. Patrick D.
Gallagher, Deputy Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST); and (7) Dr. Albert Heber,
Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering and
Science Advisor of the National Air Emission Monitoring Study
at Purdue University.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon discussed the
current state of monitoring and requested ideas from the
witnesses about how to design and implement a more reliable
federally sponsored nation-wide monitoring system for
greenhouse gases. Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) echoed the
sentiment that more robust GHG monitoring and verification
capabilities are critical to environmental policy-making.
During the witnesses' testimony, Dr. McDonald discussed how
further funding at NOAA could help to create a more robust and
complete emissions data inventory to provide a check on the
success of a mitigation effort. Dr. Law described the AmeriFlux
Network and the potential to quantify fluxes from natural and
managed systems in the context of GHG emissions. Dr. Birdsey
explained how USDA's inventory and monitoring programs could be
used to verify GHG mitigation activities and the successes of
interagency working groups such as the Carbon Cycle Interagency
Working Group and the Carbon Cycle Steering Group. Dr. Freilich
defined NASA's role in providing global remote sensing products
as part of an interagency approach to establishing an all
encompassing GHG monitoring, measuring, and verification
program. Ms. Kruger described current EPA activities involving
GHG monitoring, measuring, and verification and discussed the
challenges in acquiring reliable international emissions data
especially from developing nations. Dr. Gallagher highlighted
how NIST works with other agencies to support climate
monitoring and GHG measuring. Dr. Heber explained how livestock
operations, which account for around 2.5% of United States GHG
emissions, are developing baseline data on which they can
develop a more informed mitigation scheme.
During the question and answer period, the Members and the
panelists discussed international climate modeling programs,
remote sensing data and standards coordination, monitoring
resources, regulating carbon credit sources, establishing
reliable baselines, climate change skepticism, forest
degradation, gaps in the National Observation Network, GHG
measuring, ocean acidification, coordination data collection,
the economics of establishing a mitigation strategy, the carbon
cycle, and America's role in global GHG emissions.
4.1(g)_An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for FY 2010
May 14, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-26
Background
On Thursday, May 14, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-TN)
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the Administration's proposed fiscal year
(FY) 2010 funding for Federal research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application programs, in
particular at agencies within the jurisdiction of the
Committee, and to explore how the 2007 America COMPETES Act
programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee were treated
in the budget.
There was one witness: Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology, Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and Co-Chair of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon (D-TN) focused on
supporting the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
strengthening STEM education, and cooperation between the
federal science agencies. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) commended
President Obama for continuing the commitment to double funding
in key science agencies, expressed concern about the NASA
program, and noted questions he had concerning the President's
goals for R&D investments in relation to GDP.
During his testimony, Dr. Holdren discussed the President's
budget for research and development for the 2010 fiscal year.
He spoke about the President's initiatives for science,
technology and innovation, which included increasing R&D
budgets as well as providing R&D tax credits and establishing
guidelines for federally-funded stem cell research. The budget
proposed $147.6 billion in federal funding for research and
development across all agencies. Holdren's testimony included
summaries of the R&D and STEM education budgets for NSF, NIH,
NASA, NIST, NOAA, DOE, EPA, and the U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation,
and the Department of Defense. He also discussed interagency
initiatives, including the Networking and Information
Technology R&D program, the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
and the Climate Change Science Program. Holdren stated that the
challenges facing the United States, including the economy,
health, energy, the environment, and national and homeland
security, are seen by President Obama as opportunities for
science, technology and innovation, and said, ``[the President]
has been clear about his commitment to providing the resources,
the incentives, and the ground rules that science, technology,
and innovation will need in order to realize that potential.''
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists discussed the role of oceans in climate change and
acidification, the role of social science in research, science
diplomacy, international cooperation in space technology and
other space endeavors, integrity in science, the percentage of
GDP dedicated to R&D, the development of environmentally
sustainable biofuels, the Blue Ribbon Task Force review of the
Human Space Flight Program, using Energy Innovation Hubs as
collaborations between existing institutions to promote energy
innovation, `green' buildings in relation to net zero energy
and high performance buildings, energy storage with the Energy
Frontier Research Centers, including Los Alamos National
Laboratories, and improving funding for solar and other types
of renewable energies.
4.1(h)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request
May 19, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-28
Background
On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-TN)
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Request, NASA's proposed FY
2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds provided through the
Recovery Act. There was one witness: (1) Mr. Christopher
Scolese, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Summary
Chairman Gordon began by thanking Mr. Scolese for his
service as Acting Administrator. He also commented on the
recent NASA mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.
Chairman Gordon then went on to state the benefits from
research and development from NASA as the reason why Congress
increased funding for NASA. However, he expressed concern with
the Administration's planned future budgets for NASA.
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) first thanked Mr. Scolese for
his service and stated his belief that NASA is one area of the
federal budget where increases are justified. He stated his
approval of the selection of Norm Augustine to lead the
independent review panel for NASA. Mr. Hall said that he was
concerned that the budget deleted out-year funding for the
lunar landing and the heavy-lift Constellation launch vehicle.
Mr. Scolese began his testimony by noting the increase in
NASA's budget in the regular appropriation along with allocated
funds from the Recovery Act. He commented on the status of
currently planned missions related to science, including the
James Webb Space Telescope. Mr. Scolese also gave the current
plans and budget for NASA's human space flight operations. He
then discussed the independent review of the U.S. human space
flight program and NASA's role in the review.
4.1(i)_Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What
Should Our Research, Development and Demonstration Strategy Be?
June 17, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-35
Background
On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the various benefits, risks, expenses and
time frames associated with recycling of spent nuclear fuel.
The discussion was particularly pertinent due to a national
commitment to and increasingly apparent need for U.S. energy
independence and low-carbon means of production. The hearing
purported to address the inevitable increase in nuclear fuel
waste from planned growth in the U.S. nuclear energy program,
including materials slated to retain their radioactive
properties for thousands of years, and potential technological
advancements for managing and treating such waste.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy
Associate Laboratory Director for Argonne National Laboratory,
(2) Dr. Alan S. Hanson, Executive Vice President for Technology
and Used Fuel Management at Areva, Inc., (3) Ms. Lisa Price,
Senior Vice President for GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Chief
Executive Officer of Global Nuclear Fuel, LLC and (4) Dr.
Charles D. Ferguson, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science
and Technology for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon expressed his
support for nuclear power as a means to American energy
independence and noted the eventual need for materials
reprocessing in a uranium-limited market. He asked the
witnesses to address the question of whether to move forward
with current reprocessing techniques or simply use existing
waste storage systems in anticipation of more advanced
technological solutions to come. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI),
sitting in for Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), encouraged
increased nuclear plant development and the Committee's
participation in nuclear waste issues, noting his opposition to
White House plans to abandon the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository plans.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Peters provided some
background information and identified several nuclear research
and development needs, calling for increased federal funding to
these ends. He argued for developing fully closed-cycle
materials treatment process, noting that an open, once-through
fuel cycle will not be a sustainable practice in the future of
domestic nuclear power use. Dr. Hanson provided Areva's
recycling facility perspective, arguing that a robust recycling
program would contribute to nonproliferation and large
decreases in waste volume, and called for a near-term
implementation of nuclear recycling in the U.S. Ms. Price
detailed GE-Hitachi's suggested approach to and support for
nuclear fuel recycling, and provided four recommendations to
the Committee for promoting timely R&D efforts. Dr. Ferguson
detailed international nuclear reprocessing activities, arguing
against closed-cycle reprocessing due to proliferation risk and
current economic conditions.
The question and answer period focused on economic
feasibility, development timelines and toxic and volatile
material safety issues. The witnesses and Members discussed
geologic repositories for nuclear materials, comparative
weapons proliferation risk, the distribution and operational
success of storage facilities in the U.S. and abroad, sodium
cooled and water moderated nuclear reactors, the comparative
short- and long-term economic costs of recycling, international
cooperation, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. The
panelists also discussed the quantities available of and market
for pure uranium, the costs of locating and monitoring geologic
repositories, plant licensing issues, mixed oxide (MOX) fuel,
the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility, public
acceptance of nuclear power, anticipated waste management and
alternative energy needs, subsidy and loan guarantee programs
and the lifecycle carbon footprints of various means of energy
production.
While there was no consensus on the appropriate timeframes
and resource levels for next generation recycling technologies,
the Members and witnesses agreed on the need for coordinating
research and development activities with foreign nations, a
comprehensive nuclear roadmap weighing pace of technology
development with increasing clean energy needs, a
nonproliferation-conscious waste management policy, and a more
comprehensive, diverse mix of alternatives to petroleum-based
energy.
4.1(j)_Strengthening Regional Innovation: A Perspective From
Northeast Texas
September 14, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-50
Background
On Monday, September 14, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Science and Technology Committee held a
field hearing in McKinney, Texas to examine the importance of
regional innovation centers to the U.S. economy and global
competitiveness, and the roles of Federal, state, and local
governments in supporting such centers.
There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Carey Israel, President,
Collin County Community College, (2) Dr. Dan Jones, President,
Texas A&M University-Commerce, (3) Mr. Patrick Humm, President,
Hie Electronics, (4) Dr. Martin Izzard, Vice President and
Director, Digital Signal Processing Solutions R&D Center, Texas
Instruments, (5) Mr. Bill Sproull, Vice-Chairman, Texas
Emerging Technology Fund Advisory Committee, and (6) Mr. Tom
Luce, Chief Executive Officer, National Math and Science
Initiative.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon noted that
regional innovation centers are a key component of our national
competitiveness and that fostering local cultures of innovation
creates jobs and boosts economic development. Representative
Hall (R-TX) discussed the need to improve our long-term
competitiveness along with the benefits derived from the
innovation and economic growth taking place in Northeast Texas.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Israel shared his
thoughts about science and technology in higher education, and
discussed the benefits of local collaboration. Dr. Jones
testified about initiatives that have been successfully
implemented at Texas A&M University-Commerce that have
strengthened the ties between education and industry. Mr. Humm
talked about his company's role in technology manufacturing,
the role such companies play in the economy, and the need for
early stage capital funding for small high tech companies. Dr.
Izzard focused on the research and education partnerships that
Texas Instruments has formed within the North Texas innovation
ecosystem. Mr. Sproull described the Emerging Technology Fund
and detailed his view on the most important elements necessary
to develop regional innovation capacity and grow the high-tech
economy. Mr. Luce discussed the National Math and Science
Initiative and is role in supporting a much-needed pipeline of
highly qualified math and science teachers and students to keep
the U.S. from losing ground to its foreign competitors.
During the question and answer period, members focused on
ideas to encourage students interested in teaching to take
advantage of programs in math and science education. They also
discussed ways to streamline various bureaucratic issues
currently impeding innovation.
4.1(k)_Options and Issues for NASA's Human Space Flight
Program: Report of the ``Review of the U.S. Human Space Flight
Plans'' Committee
September 15, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-51
Background
On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the summary report of the Review of U.S.
Human Space Flight Plans Committee that was established by NASA
under the direction of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and to consider implications and related issues for
NASA.
There were two panels of witnesses: on the first panel was
(1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair of the Review of U.S. Human
Space Flight Plans Committee; on the second panel there were
(2) Vice-Admiral Joseph W. Dyer USN (Ret.), Chair of the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) at NASA; and (3) Dr.
Michael D. Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville.
Summary
In Chairman Gordon's opening remarks, he stated his belief
that NASA is not given the budget it needs to handle all of the
projects it is instructed to undertake. Therefore, either the
budget must be increased, or NASA's responsibilities narrowed.
Meanwhile, he also said that since so many billions of dollars
have been invested in the Constellation program, there would
need to be a very compelling reason to cancel the program.
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) began his opening remarks by
reminding the Committee that the Columbia incident could be
attributed to NASA's inability to complete projects aimed at
replacing the ailing Shuttle program. Rep. Hall then questioned
why it was even necessary to look at new options, since
previous congresses had already agreed on a program of action.
Stated that safety, not lowest cost, should always take
priority.
Mr. Augustine began by announcing that while many look to
Mars as the ultimate destination of the Human Spaceflight
Program, safety concerns made any trip to Mars in the near
future improbable. Mr. Augustine included four alternatives to
NASA's baseline program in his written testimony. He told the
Committee that the imbalance between tasks to be performed and
funds available made it impossible to execute the current
program of record. Moreover, the panel determined that NASA's
budget would need to linearly increase to $3 billion above the
FY 2010 budget guidance by FY 2014 and then increase by an
estimated annual inflation rate of 2.4 percent to conduct any
viable human space flight and exploration program. Mr.
Augustine summed up his remarks by telling the Committee that
the great risk involved in human space flight made it
irresponsible to cut corners on funding.
The Committee then granted Mr. Augustine's request to be
joined by another member of his panel, Dr. Edward F. Crawley,
to help answer any questions the Committee might have.
Vice-Admiral Dyer opened the second panel by focusing on
safety and safety-related opportunities and issues. While he
observed that canceling existing programs and starting over
would only lengthen the period of time in which the U.S. would
be incapable of transporting humans into space, he reiterated
that ASAP did not support extending the Space Shuttle program.
Vice-Admiral Dyer added to the previous critiques of commercial
solutions to the gap, saying that the Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services Project (COTS) was not subject to the
same human-ratings standards as NASA itself. He observed that
NASA would do well to develop a better process for integrating
manned and unmanned systems. Vice-Admiral Dyer also urged the
Committee to undertake a broader and more transparent
discussion of the great risks inherent in human spaceflight.
In his opening statement, Dr. Griffin focused on the recent
history of NASA's budget. He said that the budget cuts of 1994
had obviously not worked out. Dr. Griffin pointed out that
while $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, if NASA funding
had been kept at the same level from 1993 to the present, there
would be even more money in the NASA budget than that requested
by the Augustine committee. He concluded that in order to
follow through on the directives laid out in the 2005 and 2008
NASA Authorization acts, Congress must increase NASA's budget.
4.1(l)_Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-
Scale Climate Intervention
November 5, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-62
Background
On Thursday, November 5, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held
a hearing to introduce the concept of geoengineering, or the
deliberate modification of climate systems beyond traditional
mitigation strategies, and explore some of its associated
scientific, regulatory, engineering, governance, and ethical
challenges.
There were five witnesses: (1) Professor John Shepherd,
Professional Research Fellow in Earth System Science at the
University of Southampton and Chair of the Royal Society
Geoengineering working group that produced the report
Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and
Uncertainty; (2) Dr. Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental
Science in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie
Institution of Washington and a co-author of the Royal Society
Report; (3) Mr. Lee Lane, Co-Director of the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) Geoengineering Project, (4) Dr. Alan
Robock, professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences
in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at
Rutgers University, and (5) Dr. Jim Fleming, Professor and
Director of the Science, Technology and Society Department at
Colby College and author of Fixing the Sky: The Checkered
History of Weather and Climate Control.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon introduced some
key challenges with geoengineering and described Committee
plans for future research and international collaboration. He
warned that geoengineering is not a substitute for a
comprehensive greenhouse gas mitigation strategy and would
require years of applied research before deployment.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Caldeira profiled the two
major categories of geoengineering, solar radiation management
(SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and called for a multi-
agency research program into both types. Professor Shepherd
described the goals, considerations and conclusions of the
Royal Society report and recommended a multidisciplinary
research initiative on geoengineering, including widespread
public engagement at a global scale. Mr. Lane argued for the
economic viability of and environmental and political need for
stratospheric injections, a solar radiation management
strategy. Dr. Robock identified some of the major risks and
uncertainties of geoengineering and noted the problems of
international disagreement on goals, the interruption of large
scale solar radiation management, and the impossibility of
small-scale tests of geoengineering, but argued for a
comprehensive research program to help inform future climate
policy decisions. Dr. Fleming provided a historical context of
weather modification and its concurrent governmental issues,
arguing that any geoengineering initiative must be
interdisciplinary, international, and intergenerational.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 as a
model for solar radiation management, the potential efficacy of
greenhouse gas mitigation goals, the need for continued
mitigation strategies and behavior change, the methane output
of livestock, the environmental impacts of stratospheric
injections, and the challenges of international collaboration.
They also reviewed climate modeling and simulation tools, the
power of American scientific innovation, skeptical arguments
against anthropogenic climate change, the possibilities of
distributed solar panels, the potential roles of several
federal agencies in geoengineering research and application,
and how to prioritize the different suggested strategies. The
panelists and Members agreed that the U.S. should avoid
applying of geoengineering before performing extensive applied
research and establishing governance mechanisms, and that a
research program should be multi-disciplinary and
internationally coordinated.
4.1(m)_Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for NASA:
What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and
Industrial Base?
December 10, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-69
Background
On Thursday, December 10, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing on the future direction and funding for NASA, and what
that future held for the U.S. aerospace workforce and
industrial base.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. David Thompson,
President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA); (2) Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and
CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); (3) Mr. A.
Thomas Young, retired Executive Vice-President of the Lockheed
Martin Corporation; and (4) Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice-Chairman
and Vice-President of Strategy and Technology at Moog Inc.
Summary
Chairman Gordon yielded to Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), Chairwoman
of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, to preside over
the hearing. Rep. Giffords began by noting that contracts with
the commercial sector already accounted for 80% of NASA's
budget. She said that support for NASA was therefore also
support for the commercial space sector, and the high-paying,
high-quality jobs it created. Chairman Gordon added that if
disbanded, the NASA workforce would be very difficult to
reassemble. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) waived his right to make
opening remarks, and instead Mr. Olson (R-TX) made a brief
statement urging the Committee to prevent the aerospace
industry from the kind of decimation endured by the automotive
industry. He was also concerned about the long-term effect
eliminating aerospace jobs would have on encouraging students
to enter the STEM fields.
Mr. Thompson spoke on behalf of the AIAA, representing more
then 36,000 aerospace scientists and engineers. He explained
that there were insufficient new aerospace engineers and
scientists to take the places of the increasing number of
retirees. He claimed that the aerospace sector would therefore
experience a dramatic decline in its technical workforce over
the next decade. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that although
U.S. human spaceflight programs employed less than 20% of the
country's aerospace workers, they had an enormous influence on
motivating young people to enter the field of aerospace science
and engineering in the first place. He concluded from this that
cuts to U.S. human spaceflight programs would stress an already
weak sector of the economy. Cutbacks to human spaceflight
programs could also weaken the industrial base of the entire
space and national security sector.
Ms. Blakey began by saying that aerospace talent and
facilities lost to other industries would be irretrievable.
Without the inspirational power of NASA programs, it would
become even more difficult to attract students to the study of
STEM fields. A commitment to a robust human spaceflight program
could have an enormous influence in attracting and retaining
new workers. Ms. Blakey added that the constantly fluctuating
budgets that have been a staple of the last decade adversely
affected the production and maintenance of a skilled workforce.
Moreover, such interruptions or cancellations were catastrophic
to small firms, whose expertise would then be lost forever.
Mr. Young remarked that without significant experience and
continuity of participation, intellectual capability was not
enough by itself to maintain a successful spaceflight program.
He thought that the attempt to move faster and go cheaper was
punching holes in the safety net necessary to prevent human
errors from warping into catastrophes. Mr. Young insisted that
the kind of uncompromising discipline necessary for safe
spaceflight required a permanent investment.
Dr. Aubrecht, an engineer for the precision motion control
company Moog, spoke of his company's work on fly-by-wire flight
control technology. He told the Committee that NASA programs
gave Moog the opportunity to develop the core technologies and
core knowledge that it eventually transferred to commercial
applications. Dr. Aubrecht explained it was common for NASA
contracts that accounted for only a small percentage of a
company's sales to form a majority of its research and
development. He concluded that consistent funding of the
Constellation program was necessary to carry on this system.
4.1(n)_America COMPETES: Big Picture Perspectives on the Need
for Innovation, Investments in R&D, and a Commitment to STEM
Education
January 20, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-70
Background
On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the role that science and technology play in
promoting economic security and maintaining U.S.
competitiveness and to understand the perspective of the
business community on the reauthorization of the America
COMPETES Act.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. John Castellani,
President, Business Roundtable; (2) Mr. Tom Donohue, President,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; (3) Governor John Engler, President,
National Association of Manufacturers; and (4) Ms. Deborah
Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness.
Summary
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by discussing the
America COMPETES Act, which was enacted in 2007. Chairman
Gordon explained that, prior to the passage of the America
COMPETES Act, the National Academies of Science published a
groundbreaking report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,'' which included a comprehensive set of recommendations
to create jobs and further U.S. competitiveness. The
recommendations from this report were heavily relied upon in
the development of the COMPETES Act. Among other things, the
COMPETES Act established grant programs to improve science,
technology, engineering and math (STEM) education and the
Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), which has
already awarded its first round of grants. Chairman Gordon
noted that the COMPETES Act is scheduled to expire this year
and expressed his hope that witnesses would be able to provide
guidance in its reauthorization.
Mr. Castellani expressed the Business Roundtable's support
for the reauthorization of COMPETES. He explained that
investments in research and education provide the tools for
accelerated technological innovation, which drives productivity
and growth. Innovation leads to new products and processes, and
even whole new industries. While the U.S. is currently
struggling with high unemployment and budget deficits, China is
pouring billions into research and education, which will
provide more competition for the American workforce in the near
future. Mr. Castellani claimed that the state of America's
public education system is one of the Nation's greatest
weaknesses. An independent commission the Business Roundtable
convened found that the gap between worker skills and the needs
of employers is widening. Strengthening science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM) education at all levels needs
focused attention now and in the future.
Mr. Donohue pointed out that high school dropout rates are
approaching 30 percent, and nearly 50 percent for minorities.
American 15-year-olds rank 21st out of 30 in science literacy
among their peers from developed countries and 25th out of 30
in math literacy. He therefore strongly supports the
reauthorization of COMPETES. COMPETES improves the number and
quality of STEM teachers, increases support and access for STEM
students, attracts underrepresented groups to STEM courses,
supports basic research, and establishes programs that will
help create new forms of energy and commercialize innovations.
Governor Engler also supported reauthorizing the COMPETES
Act. He touched on three main topics: ARPA-E, STEM education,
and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). ARPA-E
supports research in energy and also attempts to usher in new
generations of clean, efficient sources of energy. These are
areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake
because of technical and financial uncertainty. ARPA-E's first
round of funding, in May 2009, produced an outpouring of
applications. Governor Engler emphasized the importance of STEM
education to providing the necessary foundation for a technical
workforce. However, he also explained that the government's
emphasis on STEM skills often begins and ends with the academic
side of science and math. For manufacturers, the application of
STEM skills is critical. Programs outlined in the COMPETES Act
take a step towards better integration of the skills needed by
employers. Governor Engler highlighted MEP as another key
program. In previous years, MEP contributed to more than 57,000
jobs, helped deliver $1.4 billion in cost savings, and played a
role in generating more than $10.5 billion in sales.
Ms. Wince-Smith agreed with the other witnesses in
supporting the reauthorization of COMPETES. She said that
strength in STEM education for all Americans, irrespective of
their future careers, should be included in future
authorizations, as should steady and predictable increases in
federal research funding, greater coordination across federal
agencies in innovation policy, and new models for public-
private partnerships, such as ARPA-E. The importance of these
provisions has increased in the recent years, further
compounded by the global economic crisis and the highest
unemployment level in America since the Great Depression.
Global competition has accelerated, nearing that of the U.S.
Ms. Wince-Smith stated the United States needs a vibrant and
diversified high-tech manufacturing sector.
4.1(o)_The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E):
Assessing the Agency's Progress and Promise in Transforming the
U.S. Energy Innovation System
January 27, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-72
Background
On Wednesday, January 27th, with the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held
a hearing to review the activities of the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) approximately one year after
its initial funding, and to explore upcoming goals and
potential improvements to be made in the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010. ARPA-E was proposed in the
National Academies' report Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
authorized in the 2007 America COMPETES Act, and funded in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Arun Majumdar, Director
of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E); (2)
Dr. Chuck Vest, President of the National Academy of
Engineering; (3) Dr. Anthony Atti, President and CEO of
Phononic Devices, Inc.; (4) Mr. John Denniston, a Partner at
the venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins Caufield & Byers; and
(5) Dr. John Pierce, Vice President of Dupont Applied Sciences-
Biotechnology.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon provided
background information on ARPA-E and lauded the Agency staff
for their efforts in standing-up the program. Ranking Member
Hall (R-TX) expressed several concerns about the structure and
mission about ARPA-E but committed to work with Chairman Gordon
and seek to ensure the program's success.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Majumdar described the
first two program Funding Opportunity Announcements and
suggested using government purchasing power to create a demand
pull for American innovations. He also expressed confidence in
ARPA-E staff and grant recipients, as well as the United
States' ability to innovate and develop new energy solutions.
Dr. Vest explained the history that led the Rising Above the
Gathering Storm committee to suggest the concept of ARPA-E and
argued that Congress must enable ARPA-E to stick to its mission
of nimble, goal-oriented research, distinguish itself from
other energy research and development initiatives, and to
maintain strong ties to industry and entrepreneurial
communities. Dr. Atti relayed his experience with Phononic
Devices, whose research was once supported by DARPA, and
identified the risks, range of challenges, and key strategies
for early-stage technological developments. Mr. Denniston
offered the perspective of the venture capital community,
illustrated the risks of a Chinese competitive edge on clean
energy technologies, and urged the Members to extend additional
resources to ARPA-E. Dr. Pierce explained the role that ARPA-E
and other funding mechanisms can play to help larger industry
firms support new longer-term research that firms might
otherwise abandon because of long lead-times to market, and
provided recommendations on how the Agency can remain effective
in the future.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed how ARPA-E can most effectively support
energy innovation and encourage economic well-being in the
United States. They explored how to keep manufacturing jobs and
intellectual property in the U.S., strategies for scaling up
fledgling technologies, prioritization of goals for ARPA-E, and
how intellectual property relates to commercialization. Other
topics included STEM education and federal renewable
electricity standards, how to leverage government funding to
attract private investment, helping small businesses achieve
market breakthroughs, the structure of the ARPA-E grant system
and its criteria for funding project proposals, the global
solar power market, and national security. The witnesses agreed
that the United States should continue to enable high-risk,
high-reward research initiatives and that American
technological competitiveness with foreign nations will be
paramount to the country's economic success in the coming
decades.
4.1(p)_The Administration's FY 2011 Research and Development
Budget Proposal
February 24, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-78
Background
On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held
a hearing to examine the Administration's proposed fiscal year
(FY) 2011 funding for Federal research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application programs, in
particular at agencies within the jurisdiction of the
Committee. In addition, in preparation for a reauthorization of
the 2007 America COMPETES Act, the Committee examined the
status of programs authorized in the 2007 Act, as reflected in
the Administration's budget request.
There was one witness: Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon spoke about the
increases in funding for research and development in the
President's proposed budget in spite of the difficult economy.
He noted the importance of investing in innovation, discovery,
and transformative technology as a means to secure future
economic growth. Ranking Member Hall, in his opening statement,
expressed concern for some of the Administration's science
policy decisions, including the plan to modify NASA's human
space flight program and the elimination of Yucca Mountain as a
storage site for nuclear waste.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Holdren spoke about the
Obama Administration's commitment to invigorate American
economic growth by making targeted investments in science,
technology and innovation, thus creating more products and
services, new businesses and industries, and increased American
competitiveness and high-quality sustainable jobs. He noted
that the President's R&D budget proposal, which included a
$61.6 billion investment in civilian R&D, not including
facilities and equipment, is the very core of America's future
strength. He also expressed the Administration's understanding
of the importance of science, technology, and innovation in
addressing some of the country's most compelling present and
future challenges. Holdren stated that the President recognizes
the importance of the National Science Foundation, the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories, and is
still committed to doubling their budgets.
Dr. Holdren testified specifically about R&D budgets at the
Department of Energy, including the Advanced Research Projects
Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), as well as the tri-agency program,
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS). Holdren also mentioned funding for the
National Institutes of Health, the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (``NextGen''), the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), research under the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, and the multi-agency U.S. Global
Change Research Program. Finally, Holdren emphasized the
Administration's commitment to increase participation and
performance of American students in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in order to be
ranked among the top students globally. The 2011 budget would
invest $3.7 billion in STEM education programs, including $1
billion for improving math and science education among K-12
students.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed innovation hubs and clusters, the proposed
cancellation of NASA's Constellation program, the NPOESS
satellite program, STEM education in the NSF budget, R&D
funding as a percentage of GDP, global climate change and ocean
acidification, increased collaboration between national
laboratories and the private sector to drive innovation, Yucca
mountain as a storage site for nuclear waste and materials, the
President's commitment to doubling the R&D budget in a tight
economic situation, the backlog of infrastructure requirements
at the DOE, agency relationships with OSTP and the America
COMPETES Act, NASA's lack of ambition in only pursuing Low
Earth Orbit, the use of natural gas in pedestrian vehicles, the
politicization of global warming, and concerns about the ``Race
to the Top'' initiative.
4.1(q)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request and Issues
February 25, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-80
Background
On Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:00 am, the Committee
on Science and Technology held a hearing on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year (FY)
2011 Budget Request and Issues.
There was one witness: Charles F. Bolden, Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by commending the five-
year funding increase granted to NASA in the President's new
budget, as well as other positive features, such as the
increases for Earth sciences and aeronautics, the investments
in long-term technology development and the extension of the
lifetime of the International Space Station (ISS). However, he
also noted that other features of the new request had not
gained much support, namely, the radical new approach to human
spaceflight and exploration. The Chairman expressed his hope
that the Administrator would address the budget's reliance on
commercial crew transportation systems.
Mr. Bolden began his testimony by explaining that NASA's
future exploration effort would focus not just on our Moon, but
also on near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars and its
moons--with Mars as the ultimate destination. By investing in
the right technology, NASA would be able to map out a more
realistic path to that final goal. Mr. Bolden said that the
budget's renewed focus on R&D would produce new opportunities
for U.S. industry and spur the creation of new businesses. He
highlighted the sustainability and affordability of the new
approach. Mr. Bolden said that the lessons NASA had learned in
the course of the Constellation program would inform the
Agency's future flagship technology development and
demonstration program. He further noted the presence of
investments in heavy-lift R&D, climate change observations,
aeronautics and education initiatives.
4.1(r)_The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2011 Research and
Development Budget Proposal
March 3, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-81
Background
On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, with the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Science and Technology Committee held a
hearing to discuss the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011
research and development budget request for the Department of
Energy (DOE).
Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, was the only witness.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon thanked Dr. Chu
for his leadership at DOE and discussed a recent Energy
Innovation Summit held by the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) dispensed
with his opening remarks in the interest of time.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Chu highlighted several
key elements of the Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal's research
and development programs. He explained that the DOE's Energy
Innovation Hubs, ARPA-E, and Energy Frontier Research Centers
can drive energy technology innovation and job creation, and
help the United States maintain technological leadership in the
21st century.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on the following: job creation in the United
States; leveraging the Department of Defense to help create
domestic markets; the termination of fossil fuel research and
development; energy efficiency; licensing of solar and wind
projects; nuclear research and development programs; the
decline of oil reserves; problems in the innovation chain;
nonproliferation; hub-model laboratories; high-performance
computing facilities; spent nuclear fuel recycling; the
economic implications of implementing a cap-and-trade system
for managing carbon emissions from large sources; the state of
federally-managed and university-based domestic research
facilities; carbon capture and sequestration and the role of
coal in a clean energy economy; appliance efficiency standards;
and wind transmission capacity.
4.1(s)_Reform in K-12 STEM Education
March 4, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-82
Background
On Thursday, March 4, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to examine the role of the Federal agencies in
supporting improvements in K-12 STEM education and promoting
STEM literacy. The hearing was held in preparation for the
reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jim Simons, Founder and
Chairman of Math for America; (2) Ms. Ellen Futter, President
of the American Museum of Natural History; (3) Dr. Gordon Gee,
President of Ohio State University; and (4) Dr. Jeffrey
Wadsworth, President and CEO of Batelle Memorial Institute.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon focused on the
America COMPETES Act and the need for key stakeholders,
including those represented on the witness panel, to be
involved in K-12 STEM education. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX)
spoke about the need to invest in research, development, and
STEM education and scale up successful programs while still
maintaining fiscal restraint and reducing the budget deficit.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Simons discussed the need
to import workers and export jobs because of the shortages in
the STEM workforce, as well as his ideas about reforming the
teaching structure to improve STEM education in secondary
schools. Ms. Futter discussed the powerful role that informal
science education can play in developing STEM interest and
literacy, and the need to expand those opportunities in
COMPETES. Dr. Gee argued for a longer term COMPETES investment
and spoke about the need for better collaboration between
institutions of higher education and K-12 schools. Dr.
Wadsworth argued for a transition to more project-based
learning in the STEM field.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed the National Science Foundation's Noyce
program, specialized STEM school models, the discrepancy
between the United State's K-12 education system and more
successful institutions of higher education, difficulties in
hiring qualified teachers and administrators, the need to
expand partnerships between educational institutions, and tying
STEM to liberal arts studies, social justice problems and other
common issues.
4.1(t)_Fiscal Year 2011 Research and Development Budget
Proposals at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
March 10, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-84
Background
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to discuss the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 budget
requests for EPA and NOAA.
There were two witnesses: (1) Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (2) Dr. Jane
Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon reiterated his
support for EPA and NOAA and discussed his approval of certain
aspects of their proposed budgets as well as his concerns about
other specific areas and sections. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX)
expressed concerns about both proposed budgets, including the
dissolution of the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and the creation of a
NOAA Climate Service.
During his testimony, Dr. Anastas discussed the direction
and specifics of the EPA Fiscal Year 2011 budget request.
During the question and answer period, Dr. Anastas answered
questions regarding e-waste, social behavioral studies, and
ocean acidification. Several members discussed the 2009
greenhouse gas endangerment finding and the scientific criteria
used to make that finding.
During her testimony, Dr. Lubchenco described the
priorities in NOAA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal,
including refocusing many of NOAA's climate research and
outreach activities into a comprehensive Climate Service and
prioritizing commercial and recreational fishing issues. During
the question and answer period, Dr. Lubchenco responded to
Member questions about greenhouse gas monitoring; ocean
acidification; funding for the Aquarius Lab; harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia; Asian Carp issues; a NOAA Organic Act;
privatization of the NOAA fleet; environmental remediation of
the Chesapeake Bay; the restructuring of NPOESS; fish catch
shares; and NOAA's position on recreational fishing. Dr.
Lubchenco was pressed to explain how NOAA was reorganizing to
form the Climate Service without notifying the Committee. She
reassured the Members that NOAA's overall policies,
responsibilities and budget allocations would remain largely
the same, and that NOAA would continue to work closely with its
authorizing Committees.
4.1(u)_The Future of Manufacturing: What Is the Role of the
Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S.
Manufacturers?
March 17, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-87
Background
On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to receive testimony on the need for U.S. manufacturers
to adopt innovative technologies and processes in order to
remain globally competitive, and to determine the appropriate
role for the Federal government in supporting efforts by U.S.
manufacturers to innovate.
There were five witnesses: 1) Dr. Susan Smyth, Director of
Manufacturing, GM R&D, and Chief Scientist for Manufacturing,
General Motors Company; 2) Dr. Len Sauers, Vice President,
Global Sustainability, Procter & Gamble; 3) Mr. Debtosh
Chakrabarti, President and Chief Operating Officer, PMC Group
Inc.; 4) Dr. Mark Tuominen, Director, National
Nanomanufacturing Network; and 5) Mr. Wayne Crews, Vice
President for Policy and Director of Technology Studies,
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Summary
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by emphasizing the
importance of the manufacturing sector in the U.S. economy and
describing the role of innovation and workforce development in
addressing the challenges of global competition. Ranking Member
Hall expressed concern that increasing government regulation
has forced companies to shift resources away from manufacturing
research and development.
Dr. Smyth's testimony described General Motors'
collaborations in advanced manufacturing with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of
Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and voiced support for increased cross-agency
collaboration and public-private partnerships, as well as more
funding for manufacturing research and development at NIST and
DOE. Dr. Sauers discussed how Proctor and Gamble's investments
in research and development have increased the environmental
sustainability of their products and operations. He also
advocated for greater government focus on renewable energy
research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education; reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act;
increased government/industry collaboration through the
National laboratories; and the development of sound and
predictable policies, legislation and regulation to foster a
competitive manufacturing environment. Mr. Chakrabarti proposed
a three-pronged approach to addressing the increasing global
competition in chemical manufacturing: government support of
sustainable chemical manufacturing, transforming existing
facilities to produce renewable chemicals, and using technology
to improve productivity. Dr. Tuominen called for an increasing
government commitment to innovation in manufacturing and
emphasized the importance of Federal investments and public-
private partnerships in nanomanufacturing research. Mr. Crews
voiced general skepticism of government regulation and Federal
funding of research and development.
The witnesses generally supported greater interagency
cooperation and public-private partnerships to link research
with actual manufacturing and bring about manufacturing
innovation. Several of the witnesses stressed the need to
include small, medium, and large manufacturers in the planning
and execution of innovation policy. Mr. Chakrabarti said that
continuous feedback between industry and government agencies
was necessary to avoid losing U.S.-developed innovations to
overseas manufacturers. Dr. Smyth stressed the need for greater
government involvement in applying new technology. A number of
the witnesses described the burden of excessive or unstable
government regulation. The panel supported the use of prizes
and awards, such as the Malcolm Baldridge award and DARPA Grand
Challenges, to stimulate innovation in manufacturing and
confirmed the importance of Federal policies that support
education and build infrastructure.
4.1(v)_Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research
Governance
March 18, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-88
Background
On Thursday, March 18, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to explore the domestic and international governance
needs to initiate and guide a geoengineering research program
and which U.S. agencies and institutions have the capacity or
authorities to conduct geoengineering research. The hearing was
the third and final in the series, following meetings on
November 5, 2009 and February 4, 2010.
There were five witnesses. The first panel consisted of (1)
Member of Parliament Phil Willis, Chair of the Science and
Technology Committee in the United Kingdom House of Commons and
Representative of Harrogate and Knaresborough. The second panel
included (1) Dr. Frank Rusco, Director of Natural Resources and
Environment at the Government Accountability Office (GAO); (2)
Dr. Granger Morgan, Professor and Head of the Department of
Engineering and Public Policy and Lord Chair Professor in
Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; (3) Dr. Jane Long,
Deputy Principal Associate Director at Large and Fellow for the
Center for Global Strategic Research at Lawrence Livermore
National Lab (LLNL); and (4) Dr. Scott Barrett, Lenfest
Professor of Natural Resource Economics at the School of
International and Public Affairs and the Earth Institute at
Columbia University.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon welcomed the
honored guest, Chairman Willis, and emphasized that the
scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change is
overwhelming and that a more robust scientific and political
understanding of geoengineering's potential is needed. Ranking
Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) expressed reservations about
geoengineering and dispensed with further remarks in the
interest of time and courtesy to Chairman Willis.
After an introduction from Chairman Gordon, Chairman Willis
testified via live video on the background of the bi-national
geoengineering inquiry and introduced the U.K. Committee's
official report on the subject, The Regulation of
Geoengineering. He delineated some of the report's key findings
and recommendations, including key governing principles, and
stressed that while geoengineering would be an extremely
complex and challenging venture, it would be irresponsible not
to initiate appropriate regulation and research. During the
first question and answer period, Chairman Willis and the
Members discussed the potential for a comprehensive
international database on geoengineering information and
activities, the future of geoengineering research in the U.K.,
and additional opportunities for bilateral cooperation. They
also explored the role of public opinion and the media and how
the U.K. inquiry process engaged both the public and scientific
experts.
During the second panel, Dr. Rusco summarized key findings
of the Government Accountability Office's ongoing inquiry on
geoengineering, describing some of the existing, relevant
research activities in federal agencies and international
treaties. He also provided support for why some geoengineering
strategies should be regulated promptly. Dr. Morgan described
geoengineering research at Carnegie Mellon University and
argued for a cautious, risk-aware research program on solar
radiation management. He also argued that the National Science
Foundation should lead initial research efforts, that
transparency should be a priority, and that the potential
environmental impacts of specific research initiatives should
inform the international agreements and laws intended to
regulate them. Dr. Long discussed the key questions and
principles for governance and risk management, and urged that
identified benefits of any program must clearly outweigh the
risks. Dr. Barrett assessed the different scenarios in which
geoengineering might be used, warning that there would
certainly be winner and loser nations, and recommended seven
key governance rules.
During the second discussion period, the Members and
witnesses explored initial regulatory structures and debated
the appropriate research and management roles for the U.S.
Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other federal
agencies. They also discussed the national security and
geopolitical impacts of climate change itself and the need for
adaptive management. All panelists and witnesses agreed that
unilateral geoengineering could be very dangerous and should be
avoided. There was also a consensus that geoengineering is a
highly interdisciplinary, diverse topic and that any research
initiative may require several federal and university partners.
4.1(w)_Charting the Course for American Nuclear Technology:
Evaluating the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research
and Development Roadmap
May 19, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-94
Background
On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a
hearing to discuss the administration's research and
development options to advance clean and affordable nuclear
energy technology.
There were two panels consisting of six witnesses: (1) Dr.
Warren P. Miller, Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy at the
Department of Energy; (2) Mr. Christopher Mowry, President and
CEO of Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc.; (3) Dr. Charles
Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists;
(4) Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy Director for Programs at Argonne
National Laboratory; (5) Mr. Gary M. Krellenstein, Managing
Director for Tax Exempt Capital Markets at JP Morgan Chase &
Co.; and (6) Dr. Thomas L. Sanders, President of the American
Nuclear Society.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon reiterated his
support for nuclear energy but pointed out that waste
management issues must be resolved for full scale deployment of
next generation reactors. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-
CA) expressed frustration with the recent decision to shut down
Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for spent fuel but did
thank the Chairman for his shared support of nuclear power.
During the first panel, Dr. Miller briefly described DOE's
roadmap for nuclear energy research and development and
highlighted two programs, the small modular reactor program and
the modified open cycle program, that work to realize the
administration's objectives for the future of nuclear energy.
During the question and answer period, the Members and Dr.
Miller focused on cost-sharing limitations; global competition;
Yucca Mountain; supply of uranium; reprocessing of spent fuel;
alternatives to LWR's and types of SMR's; uranium legacy mine
cleanup efforts; proliferation risks associated with full-
recycle; modified open cycle; expediting licensure; and the
economics of nuclear power.
In the second panel, Mr. Mowry described the Babcock &
Wilcox mPower reactor and complained that the roadmap's cost-
sharing program doesn't go far enough to mitigate the
significant capital costs in deploying a SMR. Dr. Ferguson
pointed out how far behind the United States is in global SMR
demonstration but suggested that we could still set the
precedent in waste concerns, safety, reliability, and cost. He
also asked how we should respond to waste concerns in client
countries and called for an establishment of market incentives
for waste disposal. Dr. Peters recommended closed fuel cycles
as an ultimate goal but urged current funds to go to deployment
of advanced systems. Representing Argonne, Dr. Peters supported
the roadmap and encouraged the rapid installment of domestic
demonstration activities. Mr. Krellenstein spoke to the
financial-related issues associated with SMR's and the
potential for the roadmap to improve investment fundamentals
for nuclear power in the US. Dr. Sanders called the roadmap a
good start but would rather see more focus on deployment of
readily available technologies. In his view, the US could and
should become a major supplier to the global marketplace.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on regaining leadership in the global
marketplace; the slow permitting process; alternatives to loan
guarantees and other methods of speeding up deployment;
competitiveness of SMR's versus fossil fuels; existing SMR
technology; brownfield deployment; and DOE budget issues.
Everyone agreed that deploying the readily available
technologies, finding a waste management solution, and
minimizing the risk of proliferation should be the DOE's top
priority.
4.1(x)_Review of the Proposed National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Human Spaceflight Plan
May 26, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-96
Background
On May 26, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, the
Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on the
proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Human Spaceflight Plan. The purpose of the hearing was to
continue the examination of the proposed NASA human spaceflight
plan and to review issues related to the budget, cost, schedule
and potential impacts of the plan.
The hearing examined: 1) the Administration's proposed
goals, strategies and plans for NASA's human spaceflight and
exploration programs, including the revisions announced by the
president on April 15, 2010; 2) the assumptions, basis,
feasibility and sustainability of those plans within the FY
2011 budget plan and outyear funding plan; 3) the key
challenges and risks involved in implementing the proposed
change of course for NASA; and 4) what outstanding questions
and issues needed to be addressed, and what information was
needed for Congress' consideration of the proposed future
direction for NASA's human spaceflight and exploration
programs.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Charles Bolden,
Administrator of NASA; (2) Mr. Neil Armstrong, Commander of
Apollo 11; (3) Capt. Eugene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17; (4)
Mr. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin.
Summary
Chairman Gordon (D-TN) opened the hearing by reminding
Administrator Bolden of the Administration's responsibility to
demonstrate the feasibility of the new budget for human
spaceflight. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) said that before
investing in commercial crew, the government should wait to
observe the progress of commercial cargo services.
Administrator Bolden testified that the new budget set the
agency on a sustainable path, progressing step by step from a
mission to an asteroid by 2025 to a mission to Mars orbit by
the 2030s. He said that NASA would build on its work on the
Orion to develop a Crew Rescue Vehicle which could in the
future be leveraged into spacecraft for deep-space missions.
Meanwhile in the present, the construction of a rescue vehicle
would preserve critical high-tech-industry jobs.
Chairman Gordon then called in the second panel. In his
testimony, Mr. Armstrong enumerated the reasons to return to
the Moon. He said that the lunar vicinity was an exceptional
location to learn about traveling to more distant and more
difficult destinations. He also cited the many scientific
challenges to address regarding Helium-3, platinum group metals
and how to survive on the lunar surface. Mr. Armstrong added
that his priorities for the human space program were
maintaining American leadership, access to low-Earth orbit and
capability to explore.
Captain Cernan referred to a letter he wrote along with Mr.
Armstrong and Mr. Lovell in which they expressed their concerns
regarding the new plan. He said it would take the private
sector as long as ten years to access low-Earth orbit safely
and cost-
effectively. Relying solely on the commercial sector could thus
lead to abandoning American involvement in the ISS entirely.
Constellation, on the other hand, had already been debated and
vetted by Congress and federal agencies from OMB to DoD. He
said that exploration was necessary to drive technology
innovation, not the reverse.
Mr. Young concluded that NASA's success stemmed from its
meld of institutional continuity and expertise with industry
capability. He thought that the Administration's proposal
abandoned this model, leaving NASA with a purely advisory role.
If implemented, this would be similar to the failed acquisition
reform the Air Force undertook in the 1990s. Mr. Young also
said that the proposed FY 2011 budget could not support both an
adequate ISS program and exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
4.1(y)_Averting the Storm: How Investments in Science Will
Secure the Competitiveness and Economic Future of the U.S.
September 29, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-111
Background
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held
a hearing to receive testimony from distinguished members of
the 2005 ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' Committee who
participated in a recent review of the 2005 report and produced
an updated report entitled, Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Witnesses commented
on the findings included in the new report, and offered
recommendations to the Committee and to Congress on how to
maintain U.S. competitiveness and economic security for the
long-term.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine,
retired Chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation and
former Undersecretary of the Army; (2) Dr. Craig Barrett,
retired Chairman and CEO of Intel; (3) Mr. Charles Holliday,
Jr., Chairman of the Board of Bank of America and retired
Chairman of the Board and CEO of DuPont; and (4) Dr. C.D. (Dan)
Mote, Jr., President Emeritus of the University of Maryland and
Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of Engineering.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon focused on the
United States' continuing decline in competitiveness since the
original Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was released,
and emphasized the importance of reauthorizing the America
COMPETES Act during the 111th Congress. Ranking Member Hall (R-
TX) noted that the challenges laid out in the original report
are even more difficult to confront under the current economic
circumstances. He suggested that government investments need to
be made more efficiently and that the private sector, teachers,
and families need to increase their efforts in addition to the
ongoing investments of the Federal government.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Augustine lauded the
success of the 2007 America COMPETES Act but noted that most of
the funding for COMPETES-authorized programs came from Recovery
Act appropriations, and that increasing financial constraints
on the federal budget and university budgets continues to
threaten American competitiveness. Dr. Barrett spoke about the
three factors that make up the international `competitiveness
quotient': the education level of the workforce; the investment
in new ideas; and the competitive environment, including
government regulations, taxes, and intellectual property
protection. He suggested that the United States is not doing
very well in any of these areas. Barrett also expressed his
full support for COMPETES, but indicated that the private
sector needs to get behind these other issues as well.
Mr. Holliday focused on the importance of developing low-
cost, clean energy, and listed the conditions under which such
a development would be realistic, including continuity in the
field of research, $11 billion in funding, geographic clusters
of technology developers and business partners, and government-
funded or assisted prototype facilities. Lastly, Dr. Mote noted
that while the America COMPETES Act and other U.S. initiatives
have had some success, other countries are investing much more
aggressively in their global competitiveness and the United
States is farther behind now than in 2005 when the original
report was released. He argued that science, technology, and
innovation must become a true priority in order to secure
future American prosperity and national security.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists discussed why the government should leverage private
sector research investments, the importance of clean and low-
cost energy to the rest of the American economy, how to keep
new technology and manufacturing in the United States, how and
whether to issue visas in order to keep foreign-born, American-
educated STEM students in the U.S., co-location of research and
manufacturing, connecting K-12 education with workforce
development, the research and development tax credit, industry
incentives for keeping jobs in the United States, the corporate
tax rate, the symbolic importance of passing the America
COMPETES Act, how to educate leaders and Members of Congress
about the importance of investing in research, education and
innovation, how to incentivize the energy sector to invest in
petroleum alternatives, free-trade agreements and protection of
American intellectual property, whether to prioritize funding
for basic research or applied research and commercialization,
and the importance of having certified teachers for K-12 math
and science education.
4.1(z)_Options and Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy
Integration
November 15, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-113
Background
On Monday, November 15, 2010, with the Honorable Russ
Carnahan (D-MO) presiding, the Committee on Science and
Technology held a hearing to discuss integrating renewable
energy systems in the built environment. The hearing was held
in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago, IL with Mr.
Carnahan serving as Chairman and Ms. Biggert (R-IL) as Ranking
Member.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Joseph Ostafi, Regional
Leader for the Science and Technology Division and Group Vice
President of HOK; (2) Mr. Michael Lopez, Director of Facility
Operations for Bolingbrook High School; (3) Mr. Daniel
Cheifetz, Chief Executive Officer of Indie Energy Systems
Company; (4) Dr. Jeffrey P. Chamberlain, Department Head for
Electrochemical Energy Storage and Energy Storage Major
Initiative Leader of the Chemical Sciences and Engineering
Division at Argonne National Laboratory; and (5) Ms. Martha G.
VanGeem, Principal Engineer and Group Manager of Building
Science and Sustainability of CTL Group.
Summary
In his opening statement, Mr. Carnahan discussed the role
of buildings in the Nation's environmental footprint,
activities of the bipartisan High-Performance Building
Congressional Caucus, and the opportunities that lie ahead for
integration of renewable energy systems in the built
environment. Ms. Biggert presented some examples of high-
performance buildings in and around Chicago, discussed the
importance of building efficiency programs, and asked the
witnesses to elaborate on the challenges of deploying some
technologies.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Ostafi discussed the role
of architects, engineers, and planners in developing
innovations and opportunities for on-site renewable energy
integration and highlighted that political and financial
obstacles to implementing these programs are still major
barriers. Mr. Lopez talked about the benefits of integrating
renewable energy in schools and other environments. Mr.
Cheifetz described his work to develop onsite geothermal energy
systems and related monitoring technologies. Dr. Chamberlain
described a variety of energy storage technologies and their
role in both small and large scale systems. Ms. VanGeem
discussed how renewable-ready requirements a compromise between
cost-effectiveness and the goal of renewable energy in all
buildings.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on the impact renewable energy integration
would have on the economy and job creation; initial investment
versus payback periods; training a new workforce; the ``valley
of death'' between technology demonstration and
commercialization; the benefits of new building requirements
and standards; educating users and business leadership;
strategies and challenges with ``greening'' school districts;
saving energy by targeting human behavior; curtain wall
systems; double-duty renewable energy systems; energy storage
needs and opportunities; and potential next steps for
legislation.
4.2--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
4.2(a)_How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring,
Reporting, and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions
February 24, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-3
Background
On Tuesday, February 24th, 2009, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a
hearing to discuss the federal role in supporting researching
and development of monitoring technologies, emissions factors,
models, and other tools necessary to support reliable
accounting of establishing a baseline for greenhouse gas
emissions and changes in emissions relative to the baseline
under a regulatory program for greenhouse gases.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. John Stephenson,
Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the Government
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Ms. Jill Gravender, Vice
President for Policy at The Climate Registry; (3) Ms. Leslie
Wong, Director of Greenhouse Gas Programs for Waste Management,
Inc.; (4) Mr. Rob Ellis, Greenhouse Gas Program Manager for
Advanced Waste Management Systems, Inc.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird emphasized the
imminent risks of global overheating and ocean acidification
and called for tools to allow regulated entities to track their
emissions in order to support an effective GHG mitigation
strategy. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) discussed his proposal
for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, an alternative to a cap-and-
trade system for GHG management. He also urged that a GHG
mitigation system be equitable to American manufacturers, in
part by applying equitable tax structures to both domestic and
imported goods.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Stephenson noted that the
data needs depend on the point at which a regulatory program
regulates emissions and that existing cap-and-trade programs
have highlighted the criticality of quality emissions data. He
also argued that all GHGs, not just CO2, must be
accommodated in a meaningful emissions inventory, and that
while there are several useful GHG registries in operation,
none are at the scope or complexity needed for a nationwide
program. Ms. Gravender provided background on The Climate
Registry, a voluntary program which requires annual third-party
verification. She explained that while it is possible for most
organizations to accurately account for, report, and verify
emissions today, organizational challenges and scientific
uncertainties must be addressed. Ms. Wong described Waste
Management's GHG programs, noting its contributions to
decreasing landfill emission. She also argued for a phased
approach to federal reporting requirements and sufficient time
for the joint Waste Management/EPA testing of landfill gas
emissions under a variety of conditions before requiring site-
specific reporting of landfill GHG emissions. Mr. Ellis warned
that with GHG reporting, the consequences of error and
opportunity for fraud are high without third party
verification, which Advanced Waste Management Systems provides.
He described the verification process and emphasized the need
for due attention to verifiers' potential conflicts of
interest.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed upstream versus downstream analysis and
monitoring, international coordination on GHG monitoring,
carbon tax structures, how to coordinate federal agencies and
States, monitoring standards development, methane and water
vapor, the various existing carbon monitoring and change
registries. They also reviewed life cycle product pricing,
preventing carbon market manipulation and fraud, voluntary
versus mandatory standards and reporting, public information,
and international carbon control agreements. Not all Members
and panelists agreed, however, on the scientific evidence of
climate change, leading some Members to criticize the large
amounts of government money being spent on monitoring programs.
4.2(b)_FutureGen and the Department of Energy's Advanced Coal
Programs
March 11, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-9
Background
On Wednesday, March 11, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met
to discuss the FutureGen program and strategies for
accelerating research, development and demonstration of
advanced technologies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from coal-fired power plants. FutureGen, a collaboration
between the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry, is
one of DOE's key initiatives for research, development, and
demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on
coal-fired turbines. The program was initiated in 2003 and
underwent restructuring in January 2008.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Victor Der, Acting
Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy's Office of
Fossil Energy, (2) Mr. Mark Gaffigan, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment Team at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO), (3) Dr. Robert J. Finley,
Director, Energy and Earth Resources Center for Illinois State
Geological Survey, (4) Mr. Larry Monroe, Senior Research
Consultant at Southern Company, and (5) Ms. Sarah Forbes,
Senior Associate, Climate and Energy Program at the World
Resources Institute.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird stated that the
problems of overheated gas and ocean acidification are a global
problem as the use of coal has expanded. Ranking Member Inglis
(R-SC) stressed the importance of technology breakthroughs to
retain coal-dependent jobs while controlling carbon dioxide.
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) then stated his disappointment at
the termination of FutureGen during the last Presidential
Administration and called for a renewed commitment to the
program.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Der described the current
state and projected actions for DOE's advanced coal program for
carbon capture and storage. Mr. Gaffigan summarized the GAO's
report on the restructured FutureGen program and the
conclusions for a path forward on policy decisions. He
emphasized that the restructured FutureGen is fundamentally
different from the original 2003 program. Dr. Finley provided
an update on CCS activities at the Midwest Geological
Sequestration Consortium and information about the injection
site selection process and site monitoring strategies. Mr.
Monroe described Southern Company's role in developing and
demonstrating advanced coal technology with the goal of
commercial viability, calling cost and timing the two greatest
challenges for large scale deployment of CCS. Ms. Forbes
described the World Resources Institute's ongoing activities to
establish guidelines and recommendations for the deployment of
carbon capture and storage technologies as well as activities
and initiatives underway facilitating international
collaboration on advanced coal technologies.
During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses
considered project scalability, potential coal plant emissions
reductions, lessons learned at the Midwest Geological
Sequestration Consortium, marketplace carbon pricing, lessons
from small-scale projects, and public service commission
challenges. Specific to FutureGen, they examined the reasons
for program restructuring, cost escalations and
miscalculations, the details of the cost sharing agreements
with private industry, future international collaboration and
sharing of intellectual property, and the importance of
FutureGen research to inform future climate change legislation.
It was agreed that for carbon capture and sequestration to be
successful, there must be incentives for industry to
participate and greater public access to information about the
safety of CCS technologies.
4.2(c)_Examining Federal Vehicle Technology Research and
Development Programs
March 24, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-13
Background
On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Vehicle Technologies research and development programs,
including light and heavy duty vehicle development and the
``FreedomCar'' and ``21st Century Truck Partnership'' programs,
and to discuss potential program changes.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), (2) Dr. Kathryn
Clay, Director of Research for the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, (3) Mr. Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President of
Engineering for BMW of North America, (4) Dr. John H. Johnson,
Presidential Professor at Michigan Technological University,
and (5) Mr. Anthony Greszler, Vice President of Government and
Industry Relations for Volvo Powertrain North America.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird discussed
challenges faced in federal vehicles research and urged a shift
in program priorities, stressing the need for a diverse
portfolio of technologies and more consistent, long-term
research funding. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) urged innovation
due to the industry's immense oil consumption and contribution
to greenhouse gases and recognized Witness Baloga and BMW for
their innovative practices and economic benefit to South
Carolina.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Chalk profiled the DOE
contribution to advanced vehicle technology development,
stressing the importance of R&D alliances with industry and
integrated design strategies during economic recession. Dr.
Clay offered several guiding principles for the Vehicle
Technology Program, emphasizing diverse and high-risk research
efforts, and expressed support for DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Learning Demonstration and Advanced Battery Manufacturing
Programs. Mr. Baloga provided several program recommendations
and detailed BMW's innovative projects and priorities,
including those funded in part by DOE. He emphasized the need
for research in electric battery and hydrogen-powered vehicles
and for support of a diverse technology mix. Dr. Johnson
presented recommendations for priorities and funding levels for
Vehicle Technologies programs from his perspective as a
participant of the 21st Century Truck Partnership and the
National Academy's Committees on Light-Duty Fuel Economy and
Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy. Mr. Greszler spoke on
behalf of the industry members of the 21st Century Truck
Partnership, describing several heavy-duty vehicle specific R&D
needs and calling for $200 million in federal funding to
support heavy-duty vehicle development.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists debated the relative merits of various existing
transportation innovations and the most effective and
appropriate means of achieving an energy independent,
environmentally sustainable vehicle fleet. They discussed such
topics as the distribution of American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act funding, electric battery research and
development, domestic job creation, training and retention,
waste heat recovery and thermal electrics, ethanol and fuel
efficiency standards, flex fuel vehicles, innovations in fuel
efficiency, hydrogen fuel, funding levels and sources, and
European innovations to date. A major theme was the economic
opportunity the burgeoning vehicle technologies present, both
for American industry's international leadership and domestic
job creation. The panelists and Subcommittee agreed that key
strategies are investment in an array of diverse technologies
and strong, collaborative research partnerships between
government, private industry, and universities.
4.2(d)_Continued Oversight of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Geostationary Weather Satellite
System
April 23, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-19
Background
On Thursday, April 23, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing to
discuss the status of the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES) series being developed by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
satellites are used to detect and track weather systems
affecting the Western Hemisphere and are managed in
collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
There were three witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director
of Information Technology Management Issues at the Government
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Ms. Mary Ellen Kicza,
Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);
and (3) Mr. George Morrow, Director of the Flight Projects
Directorate at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird warned of
interagency friction, budget overruns, and schedule delays with
the GOES program, but noted how critical the imagery the
satellites provide are to public health, safety, and economies
in the U.S. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) expressed concerns
that a satellite service outage would have great negative
effects and committed to identifying potential fixes for the
program.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Powner summarized GAO's
findings on GOES current costs and schedule estimates, how
satellite capability and coverage could be affected, and key
recommendations going forward. Ms. Kicza described steps taken
at NOAA to provide early warnings of risk and addressed several
of the recommendations issued in the GAO report on the GOES
program. Mr. Morrow outlined steps at NASA to minimize costs,
schedule and performance risks on satellite GOES-R and
explained its efforts to coordinate closely with NOAA on the
program.
During the question and answer period, the Members heard
from the panelists largely on the circumstances leading to
budget and schedule overruns and how to incorporate
recommendations and prevent future problems. They also
discussed their expectations for GOES, achieving accurate cost
estimates, the appropriate role for Congress in achieving
success with the GOES program, and the benefits to be realized
from such success.
4.2(e)_Pushing the Efficiency Envelope: R&D for High-
Performance Buildings, Industries and Consumers
April 28, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-21
Background
On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing on the role of the Department of Energy's
research and development programs in developing technologies,
codes, and standards to enable deployment of net-zero energy,
high-performance buildings and support energy efficiency in
domestic industries.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), (2) Mr. William
J. Coad, President of Coad Engineering Enterprises and Chairman
of the High-Performance Building Council of the National
Institute of Building Sciences; (3) Mr. Paul Cicio, President
of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, (4) Dr. Karen
Ehrhardt-Martinez, Research Staff for the Economic and Social
Analysis Program at the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE), and (5) Dr. J. Michael McQuade,
Senior Vice President of Science and Technology at United
Technologies Corporation.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird noted that
buildings consume 40% of energy in the U.S. and explained that
several different government programs must coordinate efforts
in order to reduce the building and industrial sectors' energy
use. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) asserted that because price
signals have not encouraged consumer energy efficiency,
technology and policy developments may be needed to promote
more efficient building design.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Chalk noted that every
gain in building efficiency represents a reduction in
greenhouse gases and described the Department of Energy's
initiatives toward the goal of affordable net-zero energy
residential and commercial buildings by 2020 and 2025,
respectively. Mr. Coad provided some historical context for the
development of energy efficient buildings and highlighted the
urgent need for efficiency in light of the earth's rapidly
dwindling fossil fuel resources. Mr. Cicio argued for federal
support of U.S. manufacturing in support of efficiency goals,
job creation and retention, and global competitiveness. Dr.
Ehrhardt-Martinez provided information on the role of social
and behavioral sciences in reducing energy consumption in
buildings and made suggestions for program changes at DOE. Mr.
McQuade cited the key role of building efficiency in meeting
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations
and called for a $250 million federal investment over five
years to support the research and development needs for
optimizing buildings as whole systems.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on how to execute best practices in the
public, consumer education, the challenges and benefits of
building retrofits, consistent labeling, green building
standards, efficiency in federal government buildings,
implementation of demonstration projects, appropriate funding
levels, life-cycle energy pricing, and distributing consumer
information. There was an emphasis on social and behavioral
research in an integrated approach to energy efficiency and the
critical role of efficiency in addressing climate change.
4.2(f)_Expanding Climate Services at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Developing the National
Climate Service
May 5, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-24
Background
On Tuesday, May 5, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing to
examine potential features of a national entity for climate
information collection, presentation, and dissemination, or a
National Climate Service (NCS), to be administered under the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
There were nine witnesses divided into three panels. On
Panel I: (1) Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary for NOAA.
On Panel II: (1) Dr. Arthur DeGaetano, Director of the
Northeast Regional Climate Center, (2) Dr. Eric J. Barron,
Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), (3) Dr. Philip Mote, Director of the Oregon Climate
Change Research Institute and Oregon Climate Services at Oregon
State University, and (4) Mr. Richard J. Hirn, General Counsel
and Legislative Director for the National Weather Service (NWS)
Employees Organization.
On Panel III: (1) Dr. Michael L. Strobel, Director of the
National Water and Climate Center at the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), (2) Mr. David Behar, Deputy
to the Assistant General Manager for the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission, (3) Mr. Paul Fleming, Manager of the
Climate and Sustainability Group for Seattle Public Utilities,
and (4) Dr. Nolan Doesken, State Climatologist for Colorado and
Senior Research Associate at Colorado State University.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird cited droughts as
an example of why a National Climate Service is necessary and
called for regionally- and locally-scaled information resources
to best implement climate adaptation plans.
During the witnesses' testimony, Dr. Lubchenco evinced the
demand for an NCS, identifying its primary purpose as an
information source for effective decision-making, and pledged
NOAA's commitment to thoroughly cooperate with other federal
agencies. During the discussion period, the Members and Dr.
Lubchenco examined potential structures, coordination
strategies, and applications of a NCS. They also discussed
greenhouse gas monitoring, observable evidence of climate
change, and ocean acidification.
In Panel II, Dr. DeGaetano identified the key
characteristics of an effective climate services, including
partnership and information integration, strong stakeholder
relationships, interactive climate analyses and decision tools,
a robust computer infrastructure, and responsiveness to local
and regional issues. Dr. Barron argued for a comprehensive and
authoritative data source and presented key recommendations
from the NOAA Science Advisory Board's Climate Working Group
Report, Options for Developing a National Climate Service. Dr.
Mote described the climate change monitoring work of NOAA's
nine Regionally Integrated Science and Assessments teams
(RISAs) and offered five RISA recommendations for features of a
NCS. Mr. Hirn argued that a NCS would duplicate existing
efforts at the National Weather Service and suggested instead a
consolidation of standing, disparate climate programs at NOAA
and NWS. During their discussion period, the Members and
witnesses considered past successes of climate forecasting,
more on the NCS structure, current inter-office coordination
efforts, international coordination, best practices of an NCS,
and potential changes at NOAA.
During Panel III, Dr. Stroebel illustrated the information
management functions of the Snow Survey, the Water Supply
Forecasting Program, and the Soil Climate Analysis Network
(SCAN), all under the National Water and Climate Center at
USDA. Mr. Behar depicted the water utilities industry's need
for ``actionable science'' via a NCS to inform regional water
activities. Mr. Fleming identified six essential
characteristics of a NCS to be strengthened and streamlined
from the RISA model as a starting point and recommended strong
collaboration with the water utilities sector. Mr. Doesken
related how local- and state-level climate experts disseminate
information and collaborate with regional and federal partners,
and expressed the American Association of State Climatologists'
support for a NCS. During their discussion period, Panel III
and the Members discussed the organizational structure of a
NCS, interagency coordination, lessons from State climate
offices, and the prevention of duplicating services within the
federal government.
4.2(g)_A New Direction for Federal Oil Spill Research and
Development
June 4, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-29
Background
On Thursday, June 4, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-WA)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in a
legislative hearing to discuss the current federal research and
development efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil
discharges and to receive testimony on the Federal Oil Spill
Research Program Act of 2009 offered by Representative Lynn
Woolsey (D-CA).
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Douglas Helton, Incident
Operations Coordinator at the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration
(OR&R), (2) Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA ORD), (3) Rear
Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention Policy for Marine
Safety, Security and Stewardship for the United States Coast
Guard (USCG), and (4) Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the
Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) at the
California Department of Fish and Game.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird recalled the Exxon
Valdez and Cosco Busan oil spills, noting that there are oil
spill mitigation and cleanup needs that remain unmet by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). Rep. Woolsey introduced her
bill and emphasized that it will coordinate federal research
and development in a way that ensures interagency cooperation.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Helton expressed concerns
that the research and development envisioned by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 had not been achieved. Dr. Venosa
discussed the EPA's Oil Spill Research Program and why oil
spill research activities should continue in the federal
government. Admiral Watson described the Coast Guard's current
role in oil spill research and development, and stated that
more R&D was needed in this area. Mr. Edinger shared a story on
an oil spill that occurred in San Francisco Bay and reiterated
the gaps in oil spill technology that remain an issue today.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed the potential impacts and needs for Rep.
Woolsey's bill, which streamlines oil spill R&D from 17
different agencies down to four: the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Interior's
Minerals Management Service. Topics discussed included the
specific role of each agency, inland oil spills, funding needs,
existing coordination structures, industry and university
incentives for performing research, the possibility of biofuel
spills, community engagement and cleanup volunteer training,
and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Key recommendations
included allocating research dollars and activities in
proportion to spill causes, coordinating research and sharing
information with universities and foreign nations, planning for
the best use of community volunteer resources, applying
financial risk assessments to the activities of oil companies,
further study of Arctic oil spills, improving spill modeling
technologies for research and monitoring purposes, and
exploring new applications of existing technologies, such as
remote sensing, to oil spills. Witnesses agreed that although
there has been significant improvement in spill mitigation,
response and restoration efforts since the Exxon Valdez spill
in 1989, there are still several key areas that need greater
resources and coordination, particularly in light of the
nation's growing energy demands.
4.2(h)_Environmental Research at the Department of Energy
June 9, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-30
Background
On Tuesday, June 9, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-WA)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to
discuss H.R. 2729 sponsored by Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) to
formerly authorize the seven existing National Environmental
Research Parks (NERPs) as permanent research reserves and to
provide guidance for research, education, and outreach
activities to be conducted on or in collaboration with the
Parks. The hearing also examined other climate and
environmental research programs conducted by the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Science.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Paul Hanson, Ecosystem
Science Group Leader at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (2) Dr.
David Bader, Director of the Program for Climate Model
Diagnosis and Intercomparison, (3) Dr. Nathan McDowell, Lead
Researcher in the Atmospheric, Climate, and Environmental
Dynamics Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and (4) Dr.
Whit Gibbons, Professor Emeritus of Ecology at the University
of Georgia and Head of the Environmental Outreach and Education
program at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird commended Rep.
Lujan for his initiative on the legislation. Rep. Lujan stated
that H.R. 2729 would provide core funding for an organizational
structure to support the important work at research parks.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Hanson discussed advances
in climate change science through DOE's support of terrestrial
ecosystem research, stressing the need for long-term and large-
scale analysis and identifying several key topics for future
inquiry. Dr. Bader testified on the importance of climate
modeling, simulation and prediction and the concurrent needs
for robust comparative computational systems and scientists.
Dr. McDowell highlighted the importance of research parks with
an example of activities conducted at the Los Alamos NERP and
applauded the Committee's initiative. Dr. Gibbons emphasized
the educational and public outreach enterprises at SREL and
emphasized its role in critical advancements in the ecology and
energy fields.
During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses
discussed potential for research park activities, research in
land remediation, funding sources, specific research park
projects, environmental degradation and water studies,
renewable energy source studies, climate modeling and evidence
of climate change. There was a strong emphasis on the benefit
of community outreach and education and research opportunities
for undergraduate and graduate students.
4.2(i)_Technology Research and Development Efforts Related to
the Energy and Water Linkage
July 9, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-41
Background
On Thursday, July 9, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing on the role of the federal government and
industry in developing technologies designed to address the
inextricable link between our energy and water resources and
how deployment of such technologies could help to avoid
resource supply disruptions.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Kristina Johnson,
Undersecretary of Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE); (2) Ms. Anu Mittal, Director of Natural Resources and
Environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO);
(3) Dr. Bryan Hannegan, Vice President of Environment &
Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); (4)
Mr. Terry Murphy, President of SolarReserve, LLC and (5) Mr.
Richard L. Stanley, Vice President of the Engineering Division
at GE Energy.
Summary
To open the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Baird and
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) dispensed with any opening
remarks in the interest of expedience. Dr. Johnson testified on
DOE's approach to increasing energy and water efficiency,
emphasizing the relationship between water resources and global
climate. Ms. Mittal detailed GAO's findings to date in three
key energy-water studies, identifying key emerging technologies
in power plant cooling technologies, challenges with biofuel
production, and specific federal research and development
needs. Dr. Hannegan profiled current industry research efforts
and the details of water use as a cooling agent in
thermoelectric power generation. Mr. Murphy described the needs
and particular challenges of water use in solar energy
generation and made suggestions for future policy decisions in
the field. Mr. Stanley offered four recommendations for public-
private partnerships to address the energy-water link and
described GE's emerging technologies in the field.
During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses
discussed the varied opportunities and limitations for
modifying water use in energy generation. They identified
several major themes including the relationship of carbon
emissions with both water and energy, a need for collaborative
research and development in industry, academia, domestic
federal programs, and other nations, the distinction between
water use and water loss, economic considerations of new energy
policies, and the need for simultaneous research on water and
energy due to their interdependency. Other topics included
projected national population growth and accompanying demand
for water and energy, uses for grey water, existing energy
power plant retrofits, a national goal for water reuse, energy
storage technologies and the Smart Grid, water use in biomass
crop production, gas turbine efficiency, water demands with
carbon capture and sequestration at coal plants, water
desalinization, industry enthusiasm for new technologies, water
use in cooling nuclear power plants, emissions trading schemes,
and job creation.
4.2(j)_New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar Research and Development
July 14, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-42
Background
On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing to examine the current status of wind and solar
energy research and development programs, and the need for a
comprehensive plan to guide future R&D. The Subcommittee
received testimony on H.R. 3165, sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko
(D-NY), a bill authorizing a comprehensive program to advance
wind energy technologies. The hearing also examined advanced
manufacturing techniques for solar equipment and how both solar
and wind technologies can help address the United States'
growing domestic energy needs.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Steve Lockard, Chief
Executive Office of TPI Composites and Research & Development
Committee Co-Chair of the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA); (2) Mr. John Saintcross, Energy and Environmental
Markets Program Manager for the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA); (3) Prof. Andrew Swift,
Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at
Texas Tech University; (4) Mr. Ken Zweibel, Director of the
George Washington University Solar Institute; (5) Ms. Nancy
Bacon, Senior Advisor for United Solar Ovonic and Energy
Conversion Devices, Inc.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird touched on the
enormous untapped potential of wind and solar to meet our
country's energy needs. He highlighted the need for a
significant upgrade to the transmission grid and substantial
investments in new generation equipment. Chairman Baird also
expressed his support for H.R. 3165.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Lockard, Mr. Saintcross
and Dr. Swift discussed wind energy. Mr. Lockard commended Mr.
Tonko's bill and recent industry growth but noted difficulties
in market acceptance and reliability, calling for a sustained
annual budget of at least $200 million. Mr. Saintcross
described NYSERDA's efforts in wind energy as a public
corporation at the state level and suggested further research
needs in computational modeling and offshore wind energy
technologies. Dr. Swift commented on wind turbine cost,
performance, reliability, justified the merits of the proposed
$200 million investment in wind energy, and highlighted the
need for workforce education.
Mr. Zweibel explained that while current solar power costs
are higher than other renewables, it has the potential for
greatest payoff over time through domestic competitiveness, job
creation, carbon reduction and affordability. He also described
the experience of First Solar, Inc. from its engagement in an
early government contract for solar film technologies
development. Ms. Bacon offered the perspective of a private
solar technologies firm, emphasizing the need for U.S.
leadership in solar, and explained how distributed
photovoltaics can address national energy needs with a host of
concurrent environmental and social benefits.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed economic and job creation potential,
offshore wind energy generation, energy storage and battery
development, government subsidy levels, wind farm efficiency
research, wildlife safety around wind turbines, service
reliability, feed-in tariffs and incentives to industry, net
metering and the smart grid, and solar panel durability. Major
themes included the importance of economies of scale in wind
and solar deployment, the need for distributed power generation
and transmission, and supporting American industry leadership
and domestic manufacturing. The Members and witnesses agreed
that a solar roadmap was very much needed, and that government
investments should work toward wind and solar competing with
traditional energy resources in the marketplace without
subsidy.
4.2(k)_Effectively Transforming Our Electric Delivery System to
a Smart Grid
July 23, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-46
Background
On Thursday, July 23, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held
a hearing to examine the roles of government and industry in
transitioning the Nation's current power generation, storage
and transmission system to a smart grid system. Such an
overhaul of our aging energy collection and transmission system
would be designed to promote desirable energy consumption
patterns and assuage consumer costs.
There were six witnesses: (1) Ms. Patricia Hoffman, Acting
Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, (2) Ms. Suedeen
Kelly, a Commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), (3) Dr. George Arnold, National Coordinator
for Smart Grid Interoperability at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), (4) Mr. Paul De Martini, Vice
President of Advanced Technology at Southern California Edison
(SCE), (5) Mr. Jeff Ross, Executive Vice President at
GridPoint, Inc., and (6) Mr. Michael A. Stoessl, Group
President for Cooper Power Systems.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird noted the smart
grid's economic benefits to consumers and the electricity
transmission industry in addition to its potential contribution
to climate change mitigation. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) also
lauded smart grid's potential benefits and expressed his
interests in the pace of implementation, agency coordination,
and private-public sector investment sharing.
During the witness testimony, Ms. Hoffman described how the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have contributed
to DOE's smart grid research, development, and demonstration
activities. Ms. Hoffman also identified key areas for future
research, such as cybersecurity and phasor measurement units.
Ms. Kelly detailed FERC's authority over smart grid issues and
its individual and collaborative research and development
initiatives to date. Dr. Arnold discussed NIST's efforts in
grid standards development and called for careful consideration
of security issues, strong public-private partnerships, and
international standards compatibility. Mr. De Martini provided
the private sector perspective on smart technologies in the
state of California, noting the consumer enthusiasm for an
updated grid and need for significant R&D and capital
investment at the Federal level. Mr. Ross argued for empowering
consumer decision making and called for: development of
software applications to help utility companies control the
electric load; more streamlined Federal smart grid incentives
to industry; and a greater number of technology demonstration
projects. Mr. Stoessl profiled several key hardware components
of an effective grid system and commended DOE for their ARRA
smart grid grants evaluation process.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed the key benefits of a smart grid and the
most effective steps toward a timely implementation of new
technologies and immediate energy savings. Topics included
``smart meters'' and net metering, international
interoperability standards, the fate of funds allocated to
smart grid in the ARRA, potential energy production savings,
peak load management, the need for demonstration projects,
superconductive materials, job creation, and workforce
development. The panelists agreed that cooperation between
agencies, state, and Federal entities, and private industry
would be critical to smart grid deployment. They also agreed
that a comprehensive smart grid program must consider cyber and
national security concerns, and that consumer interfacing,
information services, and price signals will be key strategies
to realizing energy savings.
4.2(l)_Biological Research for Energy and Medical Applications
at the Department of Energy Office of Science
September 10, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-49
Background
On Thursday, September 10, 2009, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to discuss the Department of
Energy's biological research activities as conducted through
the Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research
(BER) and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs, and their potential
practical applications.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Anna Palmisano, Director
of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) at
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Dr. Jay D. Keasling,
Acting Deputy Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
and Chief Executive Officer of the Joint BioEnergy Institute at
the U.S. Department of Energy; (3) Dr. Allison Campbell,
Director of the WR Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); (4)
Dr. Aristides A. N. Patrinos, President of Synthetic Genomics,
Inc. and (5) Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Director of the Facilities and
Project Management Division in the Office of Nuclear Physics at
the U.S. Department of Energy.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird briefly noted some
of DOE's main biological activities, including the Human Genome
Project, next-generation biofuels, carbon sequestration, and
non-commercial isotope production. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC)
also lauded the achievements of the Human Genome Project and
DOE biofuel development initiatives, noting his personal
interest in the BER program as it is supported by research
activities at Clemson University in South Carolina.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Palmisano described BER's
three major scientific research initiatives: genome-enabled
biology, climate change, and environmental sustainability and
stewardship, its three primary facilities, and the new
bioenergy research centers, and noted that BER seeks to
coordinate closely to other offices within DOE. Dr. Keasling
described activities in synthetic biology research at the Joint
BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), a DOE Bioenergy Research Center
(BRC). Dr. Campbell reviewed research activities at the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) and how the
Laboratory works with the National Institutes of Health, the
National Science Foundation, private universities and
international researchers. Dr. Patrinos described the public-
private partnership between BER and Synthetic Genomics, Inc.,
and recommended that BER be directed to pursue high-risk, high-
reward research, continue to nurture public-private
collaboration, and redouble its research efforts in genomic
science. Dr. Gillo delineated the key features and applications
of the DOE Isotope Program within the Office of Nuclear
Physics.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists explored opportunities for enabling interagency
coordination, the potential negative impacts of limiting the
scope of BER research to just transportation fuels, and the
need for flexible management structures and funding priorities.
They also discussed the Office of Nuclear Physics Isotope
Program, next steps in cellulosic ethanol and biofuels from
algae, technology commercialization through public-private
partnerships, beneficial reuse of carbon, nuclear medicine
issues, BER research on algae and harmful algal blooms, and the
most appropriate role for government in biological research for
energy.
4.2(m)_Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Formulating an Action
Plan
September 17, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-52
Background
On Thursday, September, 2009, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a
legislative hearing to examine research and response needs for
harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia and how draft
legislation, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 2009, can help meet those needs. The growth of
HABs are encouraged by over-accumulation of nutrients in the
water and can cause hypoxia, a depletion of oxygen in the
water, that in turn negatively impacts fish and other aquatic
life.
There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert Magnien, Director
of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (2) Ms.
Suzanne E. Schwartz, Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, (3) Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Lead Biologist on Coastal
Shellfish at the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife, (4) Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist of the
Biology Department and Director of the National Office for
Harmful Algal Blooms at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
(5) Dr. Greg L. Boyer, Director of the Great Lakes Research
Consortium and Professor of Biochemistry at the State
University of New York College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, and (6) Dr. Donald Scavia, Graham Family Professor of
Environmental Sustainability at the University of Michigan.
Summary
To open the hearing, Chairman Baird and Ranking Member
Inglis (R-SC) dispensed with their opening remarks in the
interest of time. During the witness testimony, Dr. Magnien
described NOAA's current role in HABs and hypoxia research as
authorized through the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA) and identified two key features
of the new draft legislation that would enhance these existing
activities and align with NOAA priorities. Ms. Schwartz
explained EPA's role in HAB and hypoxia mitigation, including
how the Agency works with individual States, and noted that the
non-point source toxins that exacerbate HABs have been
difficult to address. Mr. Ayers relayed the importance of
mitigation for the U.S. fisheries industry, in particular for
West Coast aquaculture, and recommended the establishment of a
regional HAB Event Response Program, as well as the continued
use of two additional programs, MERHAB (the Monitoring and
Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms Program) and ECOHAB
(the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program).
Dr. Anderson described technologies used to mitigate and
control HABs and called for authorization of additional
response and prevention strategies at the national level. Dr.
Scavia focused on the causes, consequences, and means for
controlling hypoxia.
During the question and answer period, Rep. Connie Mack (R-
FL) and Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) joined the Committee Members
and submitted statements for the record. The Members and
witnesses discussed the inefficacy of traditional water
treatment strategies to filter toxins and excess nutrients, the
trends in ocean ``dead zones'' and their causes, the state of
control and mitigation strategies today, the economic costs of
HABs and hypoxia, the role of the EPA in controlling freshwater
HABs, and research funding needed to study the causes of HABs
and hypoxia.
4.2(n)_Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and
Time
October 1, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-54
Background
On Thursday, October 1, 2009, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to discuss the fundamental physics
research activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science conducted through the High Energy Physics (HEP) and
Nuclear Physics (NP) programs and to examine how these areas of
study relate to the work of other DOE program offices and
federal agencies.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Lisa Randall, Professor
of Physics at Harvard University; (2) Dr. Dennis Kovar,
Director of the Office of High Energy Physics and former
Director of the Office of Nuclear Physics at the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE); (3) Dr. Piermaria Oddone, Director
of the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory; and (4) Dr.
Hugh Montgomery, Director of Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility.
Summary
In his opening statement, Subcommittee Vice Chairman Paul
Tonko (D-NY), substituting for Chairman Baird, recalled the
origins of high energy and nuclear physics research in the U.S.
through the Manhattan Project during World War II, and noted
current activities and investment levels for these research
priorities at DOE. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) expressed his
personal interest in the topic, noting the capacity of HEP and
NP to both inspire human curiosity and inform practical
technological solutions for our daily lives.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Randall described some of
the fundamental questions high energy physics is exploring and
warned that the revolutionary applications of some HEP
developments cannot often be predicted or sought directly. Dr.
Kovar described American leadership in HEP and NP and the
resulting benefits to society, calling for sustained federal
support and federal investments in scientific infrastructure
and research facilities on American soil. Dr. Oddone described
American research resources as a beacon to the rest of HEP and
NP world and noted that the Tevatron at Fermilab or the Large
Hadron Collider particle accelorators in Geneva, Switzerland
may soon be able to observe the predicted Higgs-Boson particle.
He also warned that protecting American leadership is essential
and described the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel
(P5) strategic advisory plan for the future of particle
physics. Dr. Montgomery described the three research thrusts
that define nuclear physics and noted the practical
applications of NP in cancer detection, medical testing on the
heart, national defense and environmental research.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses explored a number of technical topics in the HEP and
NP programs, including string theory, next generation particle
accelerators, and dark energy and matter. There was extensive
discussion on key strategies for international collaboration
and how basic science at DOE can realize the taxpayer
investments. The Members and witnesses agreed that more robust
outreach and education efforts are needed to communicate DOE's
research goals to the public.
4.2(o)_Biomass for Thermal Energy and Electricity: A Research
and Development Portfolio for the Future
October 21, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-56
Background
On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to examine the conversion of
biomass, or renewable organic materials such as wood products,
animal manures, agricultural crops and wastes, and aquatic
materials, into thermal energy and electricity (biopower), and
how the Department of Energy (DOE) and Congress can support
biopower research and development initiatives.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Don J. Stevens, Senior
Program Manager of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; (2)
Mr. Joseph J. James, President of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC; (3)
Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director of the Strategic Center for Coal
at the National Energy Technology Laboratory; (4) Mr. Eric
Spomer, President of Catalyst Renewables Corporation; and (5)
Dr. Robert T. Burns, Professor of Agricultural & Biosystems
Engineering at Iowa State University.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird provided some
general background information on biopower and emphasized its
immense potential as a fuel source in an increasingly
greenhouse gas-conscious and fossil fuel-constrained national
economy. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) called for more research
and technological innovation in renewable biomass fuels and
noted the recent bioenergy initiatives from Furman University
and the University of South Carolina and the industry's
potential to create jobs.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Stevens described the
technology option of pyrolysis for converting biomass into
biopower, specifically fast pyrolysis, and pointed to the need
for stabilization and upgrading as the primary technical
barrier to pyrolysis and bio-oil development. Mr. James
described the activities and challenges at Agri-Tech Producers,
a South Carolina-based company that processes cellulosic
material for fuel, and provided suggestions for Federal support
to the biopower industry. Mr. Klara described some technical
and historical aspects of co-feeding biomass materials with
coal and described the potential for biological capture of
CO2 through algae cultivation, pointing to biomass
availability and food security as key challenges affecting the
scale of bio-energy production in a given region. Mr. Spomer
described the woody biomass production activities at Catalyst
Renewables, based in New York State, and recommended
development and funding priorities for DOE. Dr. Burns discussed
the research and development needs regarding anaerobic
digestion of animal manures to produce energy via biogas.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed the contributions of methane to global
climate change and methane produced by anaerobic digestion of
manures, strategies for diversifying and improving biopower
programs at DOE, international intellectual property issues,
landfill biogas production, and the energy inputs for
processing the biopower fuel products. They also reviewed
further activities at Agri-Tech Producers, the relationship of
controlled deforestation to forest health, soil quality and how
to protect topsoils, the potential for biopower production in
urban areas, the sustainability of biopower resources, and the
option of using forest products from federal lands for biopower
generation. It was noted that any biopower initiative should
consider both food security and the energy input needed to
prepare biomass for conversion, and that biopower should be
carefully weighed in a carbon credits trading scheme.
4.2(p)_The Next Generation of Fusion Energy Research
October 29, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-61
Background
On Thursday, October 29, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing to examine research activities on fusion energy
conducted within the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program and
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at DOE and the
possibilities for international partnerships.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Edmund Synakowski,
Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences at the U.S.
Department of Energy, (2) Dr. Stewart Prager, Director of
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), (3) Dr. Thom Mason,
Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), (4) Dr.
Riccardo Betti, Assistant Director for Academic Affairs at the
Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester,
and (5) Dr. Raymond J. Fonck, Professor of Engineering Physics
at the University of Wisconsin.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird (D-WA) noted that
while harnessing fusion energy has thus far proven more
difficult than expected, recent reviews by the National
Academies and DOE show the recent improvements in the field and
potential for future applications. Rep. Ehlers (R-MI), sitting
in for the Ranking Member, expressed his enthusiasm for fusion
energy as an alternative to traditional sources.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Synakowski briefly
described some of the science of fusion energy and technologies
supporting its development, including the ITER experimental
fusion reactor in Cadarache, France, and noted three main
scientific challenges to advancing magnetic fusion. Dr. Prager
discussed magnetic fusion as informed by the ReNeW report,
commissioned by DOE, and the fusion activities at PPPL. He
called for greater research in heat- and neutron-tolerant
materials and for renewed U.S. leadership in the field as a
whole. Dr. Mason provided more information on ITER and Oak
Ridge National Lab's contribution to the project, including how
ITER and general fusion research can benefit DOE national labs,
U.S. universities and U.S. industry. Dr. Betti described the
research needs and status of inertial fusion and noted specific
needs in federal programs and facilities, including the
National Ignition Facility and the Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences at DOE. Dr. Fonck noted four key technical challenges
in fusion research and the problem of aging experimental
facilities in the U.S. He also provided a plan for encouraging
U.S. leadership, a robust fusion energy development program,
and world-leading fusion science under realistic budgets over
the next ten to twenty years and expressed his support for H.R.
3177, the Fusion Engineering Science and Fusion Energy Planning
Act of 2009.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed how fusion energy can actually become a
usable consumer product and what the consumer prices might
ultimately be, the relative merits of fusion to established
energy sources and its role in the energy mix as a whole, key
arguments for funding fusion research, and national security
considerations. They also reviewed some technical features of
plasmas in high-energy reactors, materials development,
electrifying our transportation systems, anthropogenic global
warming and potential carbon contribution of fusion energy, and
the appropriate homes for fusion research and regulation in the
federal government. There was some consensus that the U.S.
should pursue a renewed leadership role in fusion R&D and that
fusion can not serve as a substitute to energy conservation or
other renewable energy sources.
4.2(q)_Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Finding the
Path to Commercialization
December 3, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-67
Background
On Thursday, December 3, 2009, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to discuss the role of the Federal
government and industry in developing technologies related to
the burgeoning field of marine and hydrokinetic energy
generation, including wave, current (tidal, ocean and river),
ocean thermal energy generation devices and related
environmental monitoring technologies.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Jacques Beaudry-Losique,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy at the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE); (2) Mr. Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader at the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); (3) Mr. James
Dehlsen, Chairman and Founder of Ecomerit Technologies, LLC;
(4) Mr. Craig Collar, Senior Manager Energy Resource
Development for the Snohomish, Washington County Public Utility
District; and (5) Ms. Gia Schneider, Chief Executive Officer of
Natel Energy, Inc.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird noted that marine
and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies could fulfill 10% of U.S.
electricity needs and described the MHK industry's small slice,
to date, of federal research activities. Ranking Member Bob
Inglis (R-SC) added that conventional hydropower contributes 6-
9% of the current U.S. electrical supply and expressed
confidence in the potential of distributed micro-hydro sources
and marine hydropower from the coastal waters of South
Carolina.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Beaudry-Losique described
DOE's marine and hydrokinetics activities and collaborations
thus far and mentioned the Department's forthcoming industry
roadmap. Mr. Bedard noted significant progress in MHK
technologies and cost-competitiveness, calling for long-term
and consistent federal funding support, but noted the
challenges for industry to develop cost-effective operations
given the hostile operating environment and the lack of
standardized deployment infrastructure. Mr. Dehlsen established
the distinction between hydropower and hydrokinetics and
discussed the costs and pace of MHK development and deployment
in comparison to wind technologies. He also warned against
discontinuity in federal support of burgeoning technologies.
Mr. Collar described Snohomish PUD's deployment and monitoring
of marine ecosystems in preparation for demonstration-scale
tidal turbine energy devices at Admiralty Inlet and noted how
difficult or overly burdensome regulatory and licensing
requirements can preclude pilot R&D projects. Ms. Schneider
discussed her company's experiences with developing low head
hydropower sources and provided suggestions for catalyzing
innovation and overcoming environmental challenges. She also
argued that retrofitting existing irrigation districts,
conduits and canals with low-head technologies could provide a
cost-effective contribution to the energy grid.
During the question and answer period, the panelists
informed the Members in better detail of the processes by which
energy would be generated, what advancements are needed to
develop these various technologies, and comparative costs and
benefits of various energy technologies. They discussed the
problem of outsourced manufacturing and test beds, the pace of
test bed development, the safety of marine species and other
ecological concerns, turbine design, hydrokinetic potential in
the Great Lakes, low head technologies, lessons from Verdant
Power's experiences in New York State's East River, the impacts
of MHK installations on scenic views, funding in the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) for MHK, energy production
in the Gulf Stream waters, and thermal energy potential in the
oceans. The Members and witnesses also focused on the keys to
expediting project development, how wave and wind technologies
could be combined, the challenges of permitting and regulatory
structures, and the need for consistent, long-term and robust
federal support of MHK development and deployment.
4.2(r)_Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering
Challenges
February 4, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-75
Background
On Thursday, February 4, 2010, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, held a
hearing to explore the scientific foundation of several
geoengineering proposals and their potential engineering
demands, environmental impacts, costs, efficacy, and
permanence. The hearing was the second in a series on
geoengineering, following a November 5, 2009 meeting.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. David Keith, Canada
Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the University
of Calgary; (2) Dr. Philip Rasch, Laboratory Fellow of the
Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change Division and Chief
Scientist for Climate Science at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory; (3) Dr. Klaus Lackner, Ewing Worzel Professor of
Geophysics and Chair of the Earth and Environmental Engineering
Department at Columbia University; and (4) Dr. Robert Jackson,
the Nicholas Chair of Global Environmental Change and a
professor in the Biology Department at Duke University.
Summary
In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Baird and
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) dispensed with their opening
remarks in the interest of time and welcomed the expert
witnesses.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Keith emphasized the
distinction between the two types of geoengineering strategies,
solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal
(CDR), and compared geoengineering to chemotherapy as an
unwanted but potentially necessary tool in case of an emergency
situation. Dr. Rasch described solar radiation management
strategies and suggested first steps for developing an SRM
research program, noting that costs could be relatively low but
that more sensitive climate modeling tools would be needed. Dr.
Lackner described the CDR strategies of carbon air capture and
mineral sequestration. He noted that such technologies were
compatible with a continued global dependence on fossil fuels
and would address the causes, rather than the symptoms, of
climate change, but that high costs would be a challenge. Dr.
Jackson discussed bio- and land-based geoengineering strategies
in both the CDR and SRM categories. He explained that existing
regulatory structures and expertise could accommodate many of
these strategies fairly readily, but that both scalability and
the foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts on other valuable
natural resources, including water and biodiversity, would be
problematic.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
witnesses discussed the front end costs of geoengineering
compared to traditional mitigation alone, the costs and impacts
of atmospheric sulfate injections, and creative strategies for
chemical and geological carbon uptake. They also explored
public education and opinion on geoengineering, the innovative
success of the South Carolina company Protera, LLC, the
potential effects of increased structural albedo, and the
greatest political challenges of climate management. The
Members emphasized some existing tools that could reduce the
need for geoengineering, such as traditional carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) strategies, the availability and economic
viability of fossil fuel alternatives, and energy conservation.
All the witnesses agreed that a basic research program on the
subject is likely needed, whether for the ultimate goal of
deployment or for the sake of risk management.
4.2(s)_Deluge of Oil Highlights Research and Technology Needs
for Effective Cleanup of Oil Spills
June 9, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-98
Background
On Wednesday, June 9, 2010, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held
a hearing to explore the research, development, and technology
needs for the recovery of oil and effective cleanup of oil
spills.
There were nine witnesses divided into two panels. On the
first panel: (1) Mr. Douglas Helton, Incident Operations
Coordinator for the Office of Response and Restoration at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Captain
Anthony Lloyd, Chief of the Office of Incident Management and
Preparedness at the United States Coast Guard; (3) Ms. Sharon
Buffington, Chief of the Engineering and Research Branch of
Offshore Energy and Minerals Management at the US Minerals
Management Service; and (4) Dr. Albert Venosa, Director of Land
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
Management Laboratory for the Office of Research and
Development at the Environmental Protection Agency.
On the second panel: (1) Dr. Jeffrey Short, Pacific Science
Director at Oceana; (2) Dr. Samantha Joye, Professor of Marine
Sciences at the University of Georgia; (3) Dr. Richard Haut,
Senior Research Scientist at Houston Advanced Research Center;
(4) Dr. Nancy Kinner, Co-Director of the Coastal Response
Research Center at the University of New Hampshire; and (5) Mr.
Kevin Costner, Partner at Ocean Therapy Solutions and WestPac
Resources.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird expressed
frustration that the response to the recent BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill was inadequate, and he welcomed this hearing
as an opportunity to learn how to improve incident management
and response. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) reiterated his support
for off-shore drilling. Full Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-
TN) lamented the loss of life as a result of the Deepwater
Horizon blowout and also called for an improvement of current
oil clean up technologies.
In the first panel, Mr. Helton described the research
priorities that could lead to a better recovery of spilled oil
and then briefly described NOAA's current activities in the
Gulf of Mexico. Captain Lloyd listed the U.S. Coast Guard's
four main oil spill research objectives and accomplishments and
encouraged the government to maintain interaction between
federal agencies, the private sector, and non-profits to make
sure policy and technology breakthroughs are realized. Ms.
Buffington discussed the oil spill research at DOI related to
oil and gas exploration on the outer continental shelf and the
accomplishments of MMS in oil spill research, including the
Ohmsett National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test
Facility. In light of the recent oil spill, Ms. Buffington
suggested that new research priorities be established. Dr.
Venosa described EPA's oil spill research program, its
accomplishments, and further research plans.
During the question and answer session, the Members and the
panelists discussed the preparedness level of various federal
agencies; the role of regulators in oil spills; prevention
measures taken and plans for next-generation response and
prevention technologies; if one agency should take the lead
during oil spills; international collaboration in prevention
research and development; review of the response; the long term
effects of dispersed oil in the water column; the risk of
hurricanes in the cleanup efforts; response alternatives;
interagency communication; and oil spill forecasting. All
Members were concerned that the risks of deep water drilling
were overshadowed by the benefits and pressed the panelists to
comment on this. Several Members expressed frustration that the
federal agencies may not have done enough to accept and act on
public ideas of oil dispersion and cleanup. Several Members and
witnesses agreed that the response was likely inadequate and
that a shift towards renewable energy is just as important as
continuing to fund oil spill prevention research and
development.
In the second panel, Dr. Short pointed out that the United
States has the equipment and technology to respond to spilled
oil, but not at the scale that is currently being seen in the
Gulf. Dr. Short suggested that NOAA should receive more funding
for oil spill research and he called for a more aggressive
regulatory agenda. Dr. Joye discussed the large number of
unknowns that still exist in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
and called for a continuous monitoring and assessment program.
Dr. Haut spoke about DOI's 30 day report and the recent
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) white
paper. He then called for research into preventing incidents,
minimizing response times, and determining the value of
ecosystems in spill-prone areas. Dr. Kinner cited the
accomplishments of the Coastal Response Research Center, a
collaboration between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire,
before identifying the problems that hindered the advancement
of oil spill technologies prior to the recent spill and her
suggestions on how to move forward. Mr. Costner largely
described the development of his oil separation machine and the
frustration that came with its delayed deployment. He described
finding himself caught in a catch-22 between development and
deployment of oil spill technologies.
During the second question and answer session, Members and
panelists discussed whether oil spill cleanup and response
research at the federal level had been underfunded; the impact
of the Deepwater Horizon spill on the immediate water column;
the economics that led to the use of chemical dispersants
rather than collection methods; early warning sensors;
communication strategies between government agencies, non-
government scientists, and industry; technology transfer
between research and the marketplace; the possibility of on-
water controlled spills to test technologies; identifying a
lead agency to manage spills rather than several collaborating
agencies; and the economics of the spill recovery process.
4.2(t)_Real-Time Forecasting for Renewable Energy Development
June 16, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-100
Background
On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held
a hearing to discuss the roles of the public and private sector
in developing an efficient and accurate real-time forecasting
system for the integration of variable energy resources into
electric grids.
There were six witnesses: (1) Ms. Jamie Simler, Director of
the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission; (2) Dr. Alexander MacDonald,
Deputy Assistant Administrator of Laboratories and Cooperative
Institutes at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; (3) Dr. David Mooney, Director of the
Electricity, Resources, and Building Systems Integration Center
at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; (4) Dr. Pascal
Storck, Vice President of 3TIER; (5) Mr. Grant Rosenblum,
Manager of Renewable Integration at the California Independent
System Operator; and (6) Dr. Robert Michaels, Senior Fellow at
the Institute for Energy Research.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird highlighted the
enormous renewable energy potential the United States has and
how real-time, reliable forecasting could significantly reduce
the cost of delivering that energy. Serving as the Ranking
Member, Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) also stressed the importance of
reliable forecasting for renewable energy integration. In
addition, he raised questions about who would be responsible
for the additional costs associated with energy deployment.
During the witness testimony, Ms. Simler described the
feedback FERC received from its January 21, 2009 Notice of
Inquiry (NOI) that asked what barriers exist in impeding the
integration of variable energy resources (VERs). She also
defined centralized forecasts and decentralized forecasts and
suggested both be available to private industries possibly
through a consistent, public source such as NOAA. Dr. MacDonald
discussed NOAA's current activities in supporting the renewable
energy sector and gave examples of how NOAA could further
develop its support through improved observation facilities,
global models, predictions across a range of timescales, and
high-resolution forecasts. Dr. Mooney agreed that high-
accuracy, high-resolution forecasts are critical to enabling
cost-effective, reliable, large-scale deployment of renewable
power generation and that there was significant room for
improvement over our current forecasting abilities. He
emphasized how improving the public role in the prediction of
weather, through better observation methods, higher spatial and
temporal resolution, and a better understanding of the physical
systems, could aid the private sector's role of converting
those predictions into more reliable power plant outputs and
save millions of dollars. Dr. Storck, representing the private
industry, agreed that the government should make available
accurate global and local weather forecasting but not become an
alternative to the thriving small businesses that already
provide energy forecasting services. Mr. Rosenblum repeated the
suggestions of previous witnesses and argued that the federal
government should improve the quality, quantity, and temporal
scope of its weather forecasting. Dr. Michaels cautioned the
committee to support additional funding in forecasting because
of the yet unproved capabilities of wind energy which is
largely supported by subsidies.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on the potential economic savings of improved
forecasting; the roles of the public and private sector in
forecasting; difficulties in siting new projects; researching
the storage of energy and its role in integrating intermittent
energy sources to an existing grid; information gathering and
sharing; renewable energy's potential for job creation; and the
difficulties that lie ahead for wind power. The Members and
witnesses agreed that the public sector needed to improve its
weather forecasting for the benefit of the private sector and
that increasing America's renewable energy portfolio is the
right direction, though there was disagreement over whether it
created or destroyed jobs.
4.2(u)_Deepwater Drilling Technology, Research, and Development
June 23, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-101
Background
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010, with the Honorable Brian Baird
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing to examine the technologies, standards, and
practices for safe deepwater drilling operations, and the
government's role in sponsoring technology development and
commercial deployment. The hearing was held in light of the
April 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion at the
Macondo Prospect site in the Gulf of Mexico. The hearing helped
to inform H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling
Technology Research and Development Act.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. James Pappas, Vice
President, Research Programs at Research Partnership to Secure
Energy for America (RPSEA); (2) Dr. Benton Baugh, President,
Radoil, Inc.; (3) Mr. Erik Milito, Group Director, Upstream and
Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute (API); and
(4) Mr. Gregory McCormack, Director, Petroleum Extension
Service, University of Texas, Austin.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird stressed the
necessity for prioritizing safety in the fast moving, highly-
competitive field of energy technologies and called for users,
investors, and energy officials to all hold energy corporations
responsible for accident prevention.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Pappas described the
programs already underway at RPSEA relating to safety and
environmental studies. He proposed new programs to conduct
research and develop technologies that would enhance response
times to an incident and increase understanding of the
vulnerable ecosystems in the Gulf. Dr. Baugh delivered a
favorable opinion on the current safety level of drilling
equipment from the perspective of a manufacturer. He described
the multiple levels of testing that all drilling equipment must
go through and posited that the Macondo well blowout resulted
from operational failure, rather than equipment failure. Mr.
Milito addressed API's commitment to maintaining standards and
industry quality programs and described API's response to the
BP oil spill, which includes a reviewing of the failed systems,
improving existing standards, and creating new ones to raise
the level of safety in the oil industry. Mr. McCormack lamented
the shift of the petroleum industry over the past 40 years from
investment-driven to cost-driven and argued that industry
considers workforce training a cost, rather than an investment.
He provided suggestions on how the government can help promote
a better trained workforce.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the safety and improvement of current
technologies and systems; how to reduce human error through
better training; responsibilities of different government
entities (appropriators, regulators, coordinators, legislators)
in the improvement and deployment of safety systems; the
drilling moratorium; and an evaluation of government oil and
gas research and development programs. Both the Members and the
panelists agreed that many questions could not be answered
until a full investigation of the Macondo well blowout had been
completed.
4.2(v)_A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: The Science,
the Evidence, the Response
November 17, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-114
Background
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010, with the Honorable Brian
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to discuss the basic science,
evidence, and the response to climate change.
There were twelve witnesses on three panels. On the first
panel: (1) Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National
Academy of Science; (2) Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Meteorology for the Department of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology; (3) Dr. Gerald Meehl, Senior Scientist of the
Climate and Global Dynamics Division at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR); and (4) Dr. Heidi Cullen, Chief
Executive Officer and Director of Communications for Climate
Central. On the second panel: (1) Dr. Patrick Michaels, Senior
Fellow in Environmental Studies for the Cato Institute; (2) Dr.
Benjamin Santer, Atmospheric Scientist for the Program for
Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh
Professor for the Department of Geosciences and Earth and
Environmental Systems Institute at The Pennsylvania State
University; and (4) Dr. Richard Feely, Senior Scientist for the
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. On the third panel, (1) Rear
Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator of the U.S.
Navy; (2) Mr. James Lopez, Senior Advisor to the Deputy
Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; (3) Mr. William Geer, Director of the Center of
Western Lands for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership; and (4) Dr. Judith A. Curry, Chair of the School
of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Baird discussed
scientific integrity and called for a greater investment in
clean energy whether or not the science behind climate change
is acknowledged or not. Ranking Member of the Full Committee
Ralph Hall (R-TX) delivered a searing commentary of the Obama
Administration's plans to institute a cap and trade program and
called into question the motives behind scientific claims.
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee Bob Inglis (R-SC) called for
climate scientists to see the coming years under a more
skeptical Congress as an opportunity to teach.
During the witness testimony for the first panel, Dr.
Cicerone spoke about climate change in Earth's history, the
science of the greenhouse effect, anthropogenic emissions,
observed changes, and areas for further research. Dr. Lindzen
questioned the issues of concern around global warming, citing
the differences between model predictions and observations with
regards to climate sensitivity. Dr. Meehl delivered a history
of climatology and then described the stresses of adding GHG
into the atmosphere, the difference between climate modeling
and weather modeling, uncertainties in modeling, and the
implications of global warming. Dr. Cullen explained the
difference between climate and weather, how we measure
CO2, how we fingerprint CO2, and called
for preemptive action to combat the negative effects of global
warming. During the question and answer session, the Members
and panelists discussed the importance of CO2 in
surface temperature; the proportion of record highs to record
lows; additional forcing effects of water vapor and other
GHG's; equilibrium response of the climate system to a doubling
of CO2; the challenges of moving toward renewable
energy; the intersect of science and policy; and the role of
CO2 as a heat absorber.
During the witness testimony for the second panel, Dr.
Michaels downplayed the degree to which humans have influenced
climate, arguing that this influence is less than the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models
predict. Dr. Santer cited evidence that natural causes alone
are not sufficient for explaining recent changes in the climate
system. Dr. Alley discussed climate change as it relates to sea
level rise in and melting ice sheets. Dr. Feely explained the
evidence and the negative economic and environmental effects of
ocean acidification as a result of heightened emissions of
CO2.
During the third question and answer session, the Members
and panelists focused on ocean acidification; methods in
measuring ice sheets, CO2 fingerprinting; cooling
effect of sulfate aerosols; the role of uncertainties in the
scientific method; the role of the sun in the climate system;
and disagreements over how Greenland reacted to past warming
and cooling periods. Dr. Bartlett again called for a shift
towards renewable energy in the interest of national security
as well as for environmental considerations.
During the witness testimony for the third panel, Rear
Admiral Titley discussed why the Navy is interested in climate
change and how they are responding to the concurrent
opportunities and challenges. Mr. Lopez told the Members how
HUD is working to develop more sustainable, resilient
communities through partnerships with other agencies and within
the department. Mr. Geer described his experiences as a
wildlife biologist working with hunters and fishers to prepare
for the negative effects of climate change on wildlife
populations. Dr. Curry argued that the magnitude of
anthropogenic climate change is uncertain, critiqued the way
policy should handle the problem, and called for more
transparent, available data records and models.
During the third question and answer period, the Members
and panelists focused on the Navy's approach to weather
forecasting; the possibility of ice-free conditions in the
arctic; collaboration between agencies; making housing and
community infrastructure decisions in light of climate change
uncertainty; incorporating co-benefits into infrastructure; the
possibility of a government climate service and suggestions as
to how it could be structured; predictions of global warming's
effect on salmonid populations; invasive species; population
issues surrounding global warming; and the credibility of
various scientific outlets in the internet age.
4.3--SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
4.3(a)_The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR): Problems in the Past, Potential for the Future?
March 12, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-10
Background
On Thursday, March 12, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, held a hearing to examine weaknesses and problems in
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. The
Subcommittee previously held a hearing on ATSDR's health
consultation on formaldehyde exposure in FEMA trailers provided
to Hurricane Katrina and Rita victims in April 2008, and
subsequently released a staff report on the same topic in
September 2008. The hearing explored why ATSDR has refused to
change portions of a health report, described by the EPA as
``questionable'' and ``misleading,'' regarding asbestos
contamination on a beach on Lake Michigan in Chicago. In
addition, a British scientist described the flawed methods
ATSDR used to investigate depleted uranium exposures among
residents in Colonie, New York and how he and colleagues
succeeded in discovering depleted uranium exposures among 20%
of the resident population they tested there.
Eight witnesses testified on three panels: (1) Mr. Jeffery
Camplin, President, Camplin Environmental Services, Inc; (2)
Dr. Ronald Hoffman, Professor, Tisch Cancer Institute,
Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; (3)
Professor Randall Parrish, Head, Natural Environmental Research
Council (NERC) Isotope Geosciences Laboratory, British
Geological Survey; (4) Mr. Salvador Mier, Local Resident,
Midlothian, Texas, and Former Director of Prevention, Center
for Disease Control; (5) Dr. Henry S. Cole, President, Henry S.
Cole & Associates, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD; (6) Dr. David
Ozonoff, Professor of Environmental Health, Boston University
School of Public Health; (7) Mr. Ronnie Wilson, Former
Ombudsman, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
and (8) Dr. Howard Frumkin, Director, National Center for
Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller stated that ATSDR
is failing to perform its stated mission of protecting the
public, producing scientifically flawed analyses with a
resistance to peer review. Chairman Miller called for a hard
look at ATSDR because the American people and those dedicated
to protecting the public's health deserve better, hoping that
ATSDR could faithfully and effectively perform its stated
mission. Ranking member Dr. Paul Broun (R-GA) stated that
although ATSDR's work is complex, the public nevertheless
deserves to have an agency they can trust and hoped that the
hearing would help ATSDR learn how it needs to improve.
During the first panel of witnesses, Mr. Camplin stated
that ATSDR violated its mission to serve the public by failing
to use valid science, by not taking responsive public health
actions, and by providing untrustworthy health information. Mr.
Camplin said he was there to, ``demand accountability for the
harm caused to public health by the inexcusable and deliberate
behavior of ATSDR staff in downplaying elevated levels of
microscopic asbestos along the entire Illinois Lake Michigan
shoreline.'' Dr. Hoffman testified to ATSDR's lack of
scientific integrity and willingness to investigate potential
environmental causes of a polycythemia vera cancer cluster in
Pennsylvania, leading to false conclusions and a disregard for
important scientific evidence. Dr. Parrish drew on his
experience with ATSDR surrounding the pollution of Colonie, NY,
saying ATSDR's public health report falsely concluded there was
no threat of pollution, lacked depth and substance and failed
to address community concerns with adequate scientific data.
Mr. Mier testified that ATSDR did not conduct an analysis of
potential public health harm from cement kilns in Midlothian,
Texas, that was scientifically sound and that ATSDR ignored
empirical evidence and lacked the overall ability to perform an
objective analysis as their stated mission requires them to do.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on ATSDR's deficiencies and benefits of peer
review. Dr. Broun and panelists discussed ways to fix ATSDR,
focusing on the need for a new culture and leadership. Mrs.
Dahlkemper and panelists discussed the geographic prevalence of
deficiencies and the level of public awareness of public health
findings. Mr. Bilbray and panelists discussed the specifics of
asbestos. Mr. Grayson then spoke about Vieques, Puerto Rico and
Mr. Tonko discussed Colonie, NY with Dr. Parrish. The
discussion ended with Chairman Miller and Mr. Mier and Dr.
Hoffman discussing animals as sentinels of human health in
Midlothian, Texas.
During the second panel of witnesses, Dr. Cole stated that
ATSDR must undergo serious changes in the way it approaches and
conducts science as well as the way it relates to communities
if it is to deserve tax-payer funding. Dr. Ozonoff discussed
how work of ATSDR remains disappointing, stressing the agency's
need for new leadership. Mr. Wilson called for a reorganization
of ATSDR.
During the question and answer period for the second panel,
Chairman Miller and panelists focused on the need for peer
review within ATSDR and discussed the lack of public exposure
regarding the public health information gathered by ATSDR.
Chairman Miller and panelists also discussed how to effectively
approach inconclusive evidence as well as the difficulty of
epidemiology, all agreeing that sufficient investigation and
creativity is required for success. Dr. Broun and panelists
focused on potential fixes, with Dr. Ozonoff calling for an
increased passion for public health and research, and Dr. Cole
arguing that health is holistic and needs the participation of
many different organizations.
During the third panel, Dr. Frumkin noted ATSDR's various
successes and challenges while also stating that ATSDR is
taking action to improve its approach to carrying out its
mission, its review of scientific administration processes and
management practices, and overall improvement of scientific
procedures.
During the question and answer period for the third panel,
Chairman Miller asked Dr. Frumkin if he stood by his decision
to not look at animals for signs of potential human harm. Dr.
Frumkin responded that animals are very well-recognized
valuable sentinels, but that his small agency does not have the
skill set to look into such matters. Dr. Frumkin also said he
would be open to looking into a peer review process but was
concerned that it would hold back the reports from reaching the
communities in a timely manner.
4.3(b)_Follow the Money, Part I: Accountability and
Transparency in Recovery Act Science Funding
March 19, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-12
Background
On Thursday, March 19, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine the accountability and transparency
provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(hereafter cited as the Recovery Act). Of the agencies
receiving `stimulus' funds and represented at this hearing, the
Department of Energy (DOE) received $15.9 billion, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) received $1
billion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) received $3
billion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) received $580 million, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $830 million in
Recovery Act funding. A second hearing on this topic was held
on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, entitled ``Follow the Money Part II:
Government and Public Resources for Recovery Act Oversight.''
Nine witnesses testified at this hearing: On the first
panel: (1) Dr. Cora Marrett, Deputy Director (Acting) and
Senior Accountability Officer, National Science Foundation; (2)
Mr. Ronald R. Spoehel, Chief Financial Officer, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; (3) Ms. Ellen Herbst,
Senior Official for Recovery Implementation, Department of
Commerce; and (4) Mr. Matthew Rogers, Senior Advisor to the
Secretary, Department of Energy. Serving as the second panel
were (1) Mr. Tim Cross, Inspector General (Acting), National
Science Foundation; (2) Mr. Todd Zinser, Inspector General,
Department of Commerce; (3) Mr. Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector
General, Department of Energy; (4) Ms. Eileen Norcross, Senior
Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University;
and (5) Ms. Patricia Dalton, Managing Director, Natural
Resources and Environment Division, Government Accountability
Office.
Summary
Chairman Miller opened the hearing by noting that the need
to spend Recovery Act funds quickly does not relieve agencies
of the responsibility to distribute and monitor that funding
with utmost accuracy and accountability. The Chairman
acknowledged the difficulty of this task, but expressed high
expectations for the agencies. Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA)
expressed disappointment with the number of earmarks in the
Recovery Act, and in his opening statement, focused on the need
to prevent waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in agencies'
distribution of funding.
During the first witness panel, composed of accountability
officials from science agencies, Dr. Marrett expressed her
confidence in NSF's ability to meet high standards for
competitiveness, timeliness, and accountability in distributing
Recovery Act funding, as well as the readiness of the research
and education communities to receive it. Mr. Spoehel assured
the Subcommittee that NASA's preparation for Recovery Act
activities had been well underway for some time, and that the
Agency aimed to be consistent with Congressional and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Ms. Herbst spoke about
the coordination of the five different Commerce agencies
receiving stimulus funds, and noted that the Department
expected to be on time submitting its spending plans to
Congress. Mr. Rogers spoke about DOE Secretary Chu's four
objectives in Recovery Act activities: ``get projects underway
quickly, invest in projects with lasting value, exercise an
unprecedented degree of transparency and oversight, and deliver
a tangible down payment on the Nation's energy and
environmental future.''
During the question and answer period for the first panel,
the Members and panelists focused on the timeline for
distributing Recovery Act funding and whether or not agencies
are equipped to meet requirements for transparency. Other
topics discussed included the difficulty in measuring the
number of jobs created under Recovery Act projects and other
milestones used to measure success; the need to target the most
economically depressed areas of the country; ethanol, clean
coal and the definition of `green' energy; the needs of NOAA's
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS); interagency cooperation; and the ability of
agencies to manage Recovery Act funds when the amount
represents a major increase over a typical year's budget.
Ranking Member Broun also expressed concern with the
possibility of funding projects which do not meet standards of
scientific integrity or merit, including, he argued, those
related to the theory of global warming. Ranking Member Broun
and Rep. Bilbray (R-CA) both noted their fear of Recovery Act
census funding being awarded to organizations under criminal
investigation, including ACORN.
The second panel was composed of agency inspectors general
as well as representatives from a regulatory think tank and
GAO. Mr. Friedman outlined his risk-based oversight strategy
for evaluating internal controls, effectiveness, metrics for
success, and fraud awareness at DOE. Mr. Zinzer assured the
Subcommittee that Commerce had assigned some of its `very best
people' to lead and oversee Recovery Act activities, and
identified six areas of risk on which the Office of the
Inspector General intended to focus. Mr. Cross identified
stimulus-related challenges unique to NSF, including the
challenge of significantly, but temporarily, increasing
staffing levels in order to handle the Recovery Act workload.
Ms. Norcross of the Mercatus Center spoke to the critical need
for transparency in stimulus spending in order to restore
credibility in government. Given the incredible amount of data
to be collected and analyzed, she called it a ``monumental, if
not impossible, task for a centralized entity, no matter how
many auditors and analysts government commits to the job.'' She
pointed to the possibility of effectively monitoring this data
via `crowd sourcing,' as in the Wikipedia model of information
collection, but noted that this would require stronger and more
specific reporting requirements. Finally, Ms. Dalton spoke
about the accountability community responsible for overseeing
Recovery Act spending, which in addition to GAO, includes the
IGs, state auditors, local government auditors, and the
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, focusing
specifically on GAO's role and ongoing risk assessment
processes.
The second panel's question and answer discussion focused
on changes that needed to be made to the federal government's
procurement processes and to the Recovery.gov reporting
mechanism. Ranking Member Broun again encouraged the agencies
not to award funding to ACORN or any organizations under
investigation for criminal activities. The members and
witnesses also discussed the Recovery Accountability and
Transparency Board, composed of ten Inspectors General, and its
findings to date; further technical issues with the
Recovery.gov website; and whether or not the agencies were
equipped to handle the additional workload of Recovery Act
activities.
4.3(c)_The Role of Science in Regulatory Reform
April 30, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-23
Background
On Thursday, April 30th, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held a hearing examining President Obama's call for
updating the Federal regulatory review process and the role of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Two
previous Subcommittee hearings in the 110th Congress focused on
how the Bush administration used OIRA to block, hinder or
weaken federal regulation.
There were five witnesses: (1) Caroline Smith DeWaal,
Director, Food Safety Program, Center for Science in the Public
Interest; (2) Rick Melberth, Ph.D., Director, Federal
Regulatory Policy, OMB Watch; (3) Wesley Warren, Director of
Programs, National Resources Defense Council; (4) Cary
Coglianese, Ph.D., Associate Dean and Edward B. Shils Professor
of Law and Professor of Political Science, University of
Pennsylvania Law School; and (5) Rena Steinzor, Professor of
Law, University of Maryland.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller highlighted the
recent withdrawal of the Bush Administration's Executive Order
13422. Of the eight points that President Obama directed the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to address in its
recommendations, Rep. Miller clarified that this hearing would
focus on three: the relationship between OIRA and the agencies;
disclosure and transparency; and the role of cost-benefit
analysis in the regulatory process. Ranking Member Paul Broun
(R-GA) agreed on the importance of the hearing's topic, but
noted that people often disagree on whether decisions are made
based on policy instead of science.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Melberth discussed the
relationship between OIRA and the federal agencies responsible
for protecting the public, citing a report which holds that
agencies and not OIRA should be the decision- and regulation-
making bodies of the Federal government. Ms. DeWaal identified
a number of problems with OIRA's regulatory review process, and
argued that fundamental changes are necessary to eliminate
delays in processing regulation. Mr. Warren acknowledged the
important role that OIRA plays, and cautioned against the
Office's substituting their own scientific judgment instead of
simply overseeing the agencies' compliance with scientific
standards, citing political manipulation under the Bush
administration as one negative consequence of doing so. Dr.
Coglianese also cautioned against using science as a `cloak'
for the policy decision-making process, noting that agencies
sometimes misleadingly suggest that science is the basis for
political decisions. Ms. Steinzor argued that the OIRA
Administrator's new role should be helping agencies to pass
more regulation, not less--and that OIRA should stay out of
science policy altogether.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on appropriate roles for OIRA and the White
House in overseeing regulation, separating policy review from
science review, and potential fixes for OIRA. Other topics
included creating a more streamlined, reactive regulatory
review process, decoupling the science process from the policy
to allow faster updates to risk-oriented science databases, and
the use of OMB's Performance Assessment and Rating Tool (PART).
They also discussed EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), a centralized review of records, whether the Obama
administration should retain any features of Executive Order
13422, and the issue of granting greater public access to OIRA
communications.
4.3(d)_Follow the Money, Part II: Government and Public
Resources for Recovery Act Oversight
May 5, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-25
Background
On May 5, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC) presiding,
the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing
on the efforts to continue oversight of the accountability and
transparency provisions in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (hereafter cited as the ``Recovery Act'').
With the capabilities of the Internet, new channels for
gathering information increase the opportunity to forestall
misuse of government resources as they happen, not when they
are identified in audits months or years later. The Recovery
Act calls for citizen involvement; the Subcommittee has asked
the panel how to assure this happens.
Seven witnesses testified. Panel one consisted of: (1) Mr.
Earl Devaney, Chairman, Recovery Accountability and
Transparency Board; and (2) Mr. Gene Dodaro, Comptroller
General of the United States (Acting), Government
Accountability Office. On panel two: (1) Dr. Clarence Newsome,
President, Shaw University (Raleigh, NC), representing the
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education;
(2) Dr. Gary Bass, Founder and Executive Director, OMB Watch
(Washington DC); (3) Jerry Ellig, Senior Research Fellow,
Regulatory Studies Program, the Merctus Center, Georgia Mason
University (Arlington, VA); (4) Ms. Danielle Brian, Executive
Director, Project on Government Oversight (Washington DC); and
(5) Mr. Eric Gillespie, Senior Vice President, Products,
Technology and Information, Onvia (Seattle, WA).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller expressed
curiosity and concern regarding the distribution of Recovery
Act funds, where the money is going and whether it is being
fairly distributed. He also wondered if the act was improving
the economy, how many jobs had been saved and how many people
it has put to work. Additionally, Chairman Miller said the
hearing would raise some questions about the methods of
performance reporting. Finally, he touched on the importance of
protection for potential whistleblowers, a vital part of
measuring the Act's success and influence.
Ranking Members Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening
statement, stated that identifying waste, fraud and abuse is a
non-partisan endeavor, stressing the need for Congress to,
``accurately assess the effectiveness of the Act by using
metrics to track success and evaluate outcomes.'' Furthermore,
Dr. Broun stated that, ``the American people need to know what
they got for their money. Since the stimulus bill was sold as a
means to jumpstart our economy and create jobs, it is important
to identify baselines, track progress, and evaluate whether
those outcomes were the result of a stimulus act or by other
means.''
During the first panel's testimony, Mr. Devaney discussed
the efforts and progress of the Recovery Board, saying the
Board has a dual mission, establishing and maintaining a
website and coordinating and conducting oversight of Recovery
funds to help minimize fraud, waste, or mismanagement. The
Board has also created a Recovery funds working group created
to foster participation and input from all 28 IGs that oversee
agencies receiving Recovery Act funds. The Board has also
developed a procurement checklist to assist federal agencies
charged with spending Recovery Act funds. Because the states
also had important oversight roles, the Board sought to develop
immediate relationships to coordinate Recovery Act
responsibilities.
Mr. Dodaro spoke about the efforts of the GAO in
coordinating with the broader accountability community to
fulfill GAO's duty of providing bimonthly reviews of the uses
of the Recovery funds by selected states and localities. Mr.
Dodaro also discussed a series of recommendations meant to
strengthen the accountability features at the State level as
well as the challenges of accountability.
During the question and answer period for the first panel,
Members and panelists focused on the issues of information
transparency and compatibility, protection of whistleblowers,
indications of success, tracking money at the local level, and
agency compliance with Recovery Act requirements.
Opening the second panel, Dr. Newsome recounted the
problems that historically African American colleges and
universities encountered when seeking to compete fairly for
access to Recovery Act funds. Dr. Newsome cited the narrow
timeframe a recipient was required to stay within upon receipt
of an award. According to Newsome, ``many of the institutions
seeking these funds are not planning to use them to begin a new
program but to take a heretofore isolated program and expand it
to improve infrastructure and vastly improve academic programs
by institutionalizing them so they can be studied more
extensively and more inclusively than the current arrangement
allows.''
OMB Watch, according to Dr. Bass, sought improvements to
the Act's transparency mechanisms. First, making sure lower
tiers of recipients report information to catch the full
distribution of funds. The agencies should also be fully open
about allocation. Given the critical role of reporting
mechanisms for the public in achieving transparency, Dr. Bass
focused on the challenges of discerning what kind of data is
going to be reported, and at what level of detail, and where it
would be reported. He ended his testimony by saying that we
need to create a new dialogue for talking about Federal
spending, allowing new opportunities for sharing information
and improving the quality of government funded programs.
Dr. Ellig discussed his and his colleagues' efforts to
encourage the development, adoption, and use of performance
measurement and performance information by the Federal
Government. He also stated his support for the Obama
Administration's request for agencies to use the Government
Performance and Results Act's measures and goals in determining
the results of the Recovery Act spending. Dr. Ellig ended by
stating that in order to truly gauge the effect of this
spending and borrowing, macro-economic analysis should be used,
not only the numbers reported in the database. He said the data
only gives up some of the picture, and macro-economic analysis
will help fill in the rest.
Ms. Brian discussed recommendations for improving resources
for auditors, investigators and whistleblowers. She said there
are certain provisions that provide great opportunity for
oversight while other protections are insufficient or non-
existent, potentially allowing for fraud and misuse of funding.
She ended by saying that, ``the stars are not in complete
alignment for taxpayers to benefit from whistleblower
disclosures, audits and investigations of misconduct in the
Recovery Act spending, but the weaknesses are fixable.''
Mr. Gillespie discussed the difficulty of tracking vast
sums of money as well as various barriers to government
transparency. He also recommended ways of helping Recovery.org
become more successful, saying in particular, that, ``in order
to maximize use and adoption, the data has to be available in
formats that have low barriers to use.''
During the question and answer period following the second
panel, Members and panelists discussed achieving detail in data
tracking, monitoring job creation, and providing equitable
funding access. Chairman Miller ended the hearing by stating
the need for continued oversight and investigation on this
subject in order to ensure accountability.
4.3(e)_The Science of Insolvency
May 19, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-27
Background
On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine what it means for a financial
institution to be ``solvent'' given the complexity of global
financial markets. In order to do this, the Subcommittee asked
several prominent economists how the tools of their discipline
can be used in making determinations of current solvency and
projections of future solvency on an objective, scientific
basis.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Director,
The Earth Institute at Columbia University; (2) Dr. Simon
Johnson, Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship, MIT
Sloan School of Management; (3) Dr. Dean Baker, Co-Director,
Center for Economic and Policy Research; and (4) Mr. David
John, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller began by calling
the banking sector ``desperately ill,'' but also noted the
difficulty of concluding whether a single institution is
actually insolvent because of the problems of valuing illiquid
assets. The Chairman also discussed the validity and usefulness
of stress tests used to evaluate how the largest banks would
perform in a severe recession. Ranking Member Broun (R-GA),
noting that ``[y]ou can apply math to finance, but that does
not make it a science,'' cautioned the Committee against
relying on scientific or economic models as the sole basis for
decision making during this financial crisis or in any other
difficult situation.
During the testimony, Dr. Sachs stated that while there are
many things we do not know about the science of insolvency, we
do know that the high leveraging occurring in major banks
necessitates regulation. He argued that the FDIC receivership
model is the best model to use in dealing with financial
institutions in trouble, and proposed four other standards that
would better allow the government to prevent major financial
collapses.
Dr. Johnson noted three major issues highlighted by the
current financial crisis: the need to reevaluate incentives for
financial industry employees; the existence of perverse
economic and political incentives for the institutions
themselves; and the need for protection of consumers, who are
easily taken advantage of during times of economic upheaval.
Dr. Baker argued that bad mortgages were the real cause of
the crisis, that a market in residential real estate still
exists and is capable of properly pricing assets, and that the
government hasn't reacted correctly to the results of the
stress tests, whether or not the tests themselves were
inadequate.
Mr. John said that the stress tests, although primarily
designed to distract people from the crisis, had been
successful and cost-effective. He also stated that unregulated
sectors of the financial industry--often sectors that are
relatively new to the industry--are usually where problems
arise, and that it is difficult, but necessary, for the
government to establish some control over these sectors of the
economy.
During the question period, Members and panelists discussed
the implications of the stress tests, the current state of the
mortgage market and how to determine the right size for
financial firms. Other topics addressed were the validity of
stress tests; assessment criteria for banks; how to spot a
further economic downturn in advance; the influence of a
financial oligarchy; the role of a market-based system; how to
encourage lending; potential rules to limit systemic risk; the
possibility of a financial crisis being a symptom of other
problems; and insurance regulation.
4.3(f)_Fixing EPA's Broken Integrated Risk Information System
June 11, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-33
Background
On Thursday, June 11, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine the new Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) process in order to make sure it functions more
efficiently than past IRIS systems, which were documented to be
mismanaged and ineffective, compromising public health and
safety.
There were two witnesses: (1) Dr. Kevin Teichman, the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, Office and Research
and Development, The Environmental Protection Agency and, (2)
Mr. John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller discussed
the problems IRIS had in the past and the ways the new system
has been improved, but wanted to make sure the new process was
successful. Chairman Miller also said how important this system
is in maintaining public health, stating that, ``the American
people need and deserve credible, scientifically sound
assessments of the health effect of chemical exposures. Ranking
Member Dr. Broun (R-GA) stated that although there are
commendable aspects of the new IRIS, he was still skeptical of
the new process.
During the witness testimonies, Dr. Teichman discussed how
the new IRIS system has improved, including its new streamlined
approach to make sure that more new and updated assessments be
included in the system, as well as shortening the time it takes
to make chemical assessments available. Dr. Teichman
highlighted a few key improvements, including the fact that the
new process will be managed entirely by the EPA. He also noted
that there will no longer be an opportunity for another Federal
agency to prolong the process by asking for additional research
to be conducted before an assessment can be produced. Third,
all written comments from other Federal agencies and White
House offices will become part of the public record. He ended
his statement by saying that he was confidence that they can,
``continue to provide critical health risk information to EPA's
programs and regions that ensure the Agency's actions protect
the public health.''
In his testimony, Mr. Stephenson stated that although the
new system seems to be improved, he saw room for further
streamlining. He recommended that there be no required time
frames. He also did not see the purpose of the interagency
consultation process, particularly the role of OMB or other
White House offices in the process. Finally, Mr. Stephenson
stated that there is a need for statutory deadlines for
completing various activities in order to better ensure the
viability of the program.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on how to ensure EPA's control of the
program, the effects of an IRIS listing, how IRIS assessments
are used, and how to best build transparency into the IRIS
interagency review process.
4.3(g)_Continuing Independent Assessment of the National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
June 17, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-36
Background
On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
met for its ongoing oversight of the National Polar-Orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). Without
the benefits promised by NPOESS, agencies are at risk of losing
the flow of global data on weather conditions and climate
change that are critical to serving the needs of the United
States. In five previous hearings since 2003, the Committee on
Science and Technology has documented cost overruns and
schedule delays threatening to cut off critical weather
information. A recurring issue has been the ineffectiveness of
the program's Executive Committee (EXCOM), which consists of
the heads of the three agencies involved. With evidence that
the management structure is still failing to provide the
leadership needed for NPOESS program success, this hearing
investigated the question: Is there hope of repairing the flaws
of the organization? If not, what should replace it?
There were three witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director,
Information Technology Management Issues, Government
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Chair of
the NPOESS Independent Review Team (IRT); and (3) Ms. Mary
Glackin, Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller discussed the
long history of this system's failure to complete and launch
the NPOESS satellite series. Chairman Miller highlighted the
role of NPOESS data in producing the public's accurate weather
forecasts and the contribution to understanding climate
changes. Ranking Member Broun (R-GA) also stated NPOESS's
problems, including the program's inherent complexity and
program management problems. Dr. Broun ended by stating that
every American is impacted by this program, whether they know
it or not, and that it is the responsibility of lawmakers and
agencies to make sure everyone receives accurate weather and
climate information as well as put an end to waste,
inefficiency and duplication wherever possible.
During the witness testimony, Mr. Powner discussed the
GAO's latest NPOESS report, which included NPOESS's continued
problems as well as GAO's recommendations for near-term and
long-term improvements. For the near-term, GAO recommended a
new leadership strategy and the engaged participation of key
members, as well as a plan to address potential gaps in
satellite coverage. Long-term recommendations included the need
for an exit strategy to separate satellite acquisitions for the
next series of polar orbiting satellites.
Mr. Young discussed ten findings and recommended corrective
actions in order to improve upon NPOESS's extraordinarily low
probability of success. Along with other recommendations, Mr.
Young stated that the critical issue is the lack of alignment
of DOD/Air Force and NOAA priorities, recommending that all
responsibility of program decision-making and implementation be
assigned to just one organization. Because NOAA would obtain
the bulk of benefit from NPOESS, the IRT believed NOAA was the
better choice to serve as the overall manager. However,
bolstered by an experienced satellite procurement organization,
either NOAA or the Air Force was capable of completing the
program.
Ms. Glackin highlighted the steps the NOAA has taken to
improve the program including installment of a government
program manager at the subcontractor facility where the main
imaging sensor is being developed, and enabling the program to
better address the ongoing technical problems. Additionally,
Ms. Glackin stated that the NOAA has been working with DOD and
NASA to respond to proposed recommendations as well as with the
leadership of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy to resolve the differences that exist among the
agencies.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the problem of ensuring interagency
cooperation, the role of the OSTP, the selection of a
management strategy, program cost, the coordination of agencies
and technologies, and the keys to avoiding future problems. In
the end, however, the Subcommittee indicated that serious
consideration had to be given to following the IRT
recommendation to choose a single agency if the primary
bottleneck was to be untangled. This would require White House
intervention.
4.3(h)_The Science of Security: Lessons Learned in Developing,
Testing and Operating Advanced Radiation Monitors
June 25, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-38
Background
On Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable
Brad Miller (D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight, met to examine problems with the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to acquire its
next generation of radiation portal monitors, known as Advanced
Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs).
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Gene Aloise, Director,
Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability
Office, (2) Dr. Micah Lowenthal, Division on Earth and Life
Studies, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Research
Council, The National Academy of Sciences, (3) Dr. William
Hagan, Acting Deputy Director, Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and (4)
Mr. Todd C. Owen, Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office
of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller stated that
preventing the detonation of a nuclear or radiological device,
a dirty bomb, in the United States has become a top national
security objective. He also voiced his concerns with the ASP
program. Ranking Member Dr. Broun (R-GA) hoped DHS would take
GAO's recommendations seriously. He stated that DHS should,
``conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the program that
takes into account updated threat assessments, a review of all
variations of concepts of operations, potential upgrades to
existing technologies and independent cost estimates.''
During the first panel of witnesses, Mr. Aloise discussed
GAO's most recent report of ASP testing including lessons
learned from such testing. In all, Mr. Aloise expressed
concerns about whether the benefits of ASPs justified their
high cost. Dr. Lowenthal discussed the congressionally mandated
report from the National Research Council on ASPs. Dr.
Lowenthal said the report recommends that DHS not proceed with
further procurement of ASPs until it has addressed the findings
and recommendations from the report, and until the ASP has been
shown to be a favored option in the cost-benefit analysis.
The question and answer period for the first panel began
with Chairman Miller asking the panel if DHS would have enough
information to make a decision on the program in October. Both
witnesses expressed their concern that all the necessary
testing would not be complete by then. Ranking Member Broun
then asked the panel to prioritize the upgrade to ASPs within
the entire global nuclear detection architecture. Chairman
Miller asked the panel about how the ASP project has been
managed. Mr. Aloise said that the immature technology was
pushed through by optimistic assumptions. Rep. Dahlkemper (D-
PA) inquired about what principles should guide DHS in a cost-
benefit analysis, and Mr. Aloise stated that it should be fact
based judgments from test results.
During the second panel of witnesses, Dr. Hagan discussed
DHS's current development and testing of ASPs. He also
discussed newly implemented steps to improve program
management. One such improvement, Dr. Hagan said, has been to
standardize test event planning, as well DHS-wide enhancements
to program management. Dr. Hagan also said that DHS felt that
the plans and procedures put in place would give the ASP
program, ``a strong foundation for future certification and
acquisition decisions.'' Mr. Owen told the Subcommittee about
the current capabilities of the CBP to scan incoming materials
at U.S. borders. Mr. Owen stated that, ``the ASP is expected to
enhance our detection capability while significantly reducing
the number of secondary examinations.''
The question and answer period for the second panel began
with Chairman Miller asking Dr. Hagan about why there is
urgency to certify ASP. Dr. Hagan disagreed that DHS was
rushing the process but said that DHS was moving as fast as it
could in a thoughtful manner. Dr. Hagan also said that ASP was
able to identify the source of radiation, which the current
system cannot do. Ranking Member Broun asked Dr. Hagan about
ASP's abilities to detect heavily and moderately shielded
radiation. Dr. Hagan responded that the current system and ASPs
have limitations with high shielding but other inspection
methods are used in order to attempt to identify highly
shielded cargo that could pose a potential threat. The hearing
closed with Rep. Dahlkemper asking Mr. Owen about the trade-
offs of funding ASPs instead of adding more manpower and about
the maintenance costs of the ASPs. Mr. Owen said that these
issues currently need more consideration before CBP can make a
decision.
4.3(i)_Providing Aviation Weather Services to the Federal
Aviation Administration
July 16, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-43
Background
On Thursday, July 16, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)'s efforts to reorganize the Aviation Weather Services
provided by the National Weather Service (NWS). The FAA sought
changes to improve consistency in aviation weather product and
services and in hopes of reducing costs. However, the
justification for the proposed changes had earlier failed to
convince the Committee on Science on Technology that the
reorganization was warranted. This hearing intended to learn if
continuing negotiations between the two agencies had produced a
more desirable outcome.
There were three witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director,
Information Technology Management Issues, Government
Accountability Office; (2) Dr. John L (Jack) Hayes, Assistant
Administrator for National Weather Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and (3) Mr. Richard Day,
Senior Vice President for Operations in the FAA's Air Traffic
Organization.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller said that the FAA
had regularly pressured NWSS for a plan to consolidate aviation
weather services. FAA's inability to clearly articulate the
need to be satisfied made it difficult for NWS to respond
appropriately. FAA's hope to consolidate CWSU activity at a
single site left many Members concerned about resulting risk.
Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA) discussed the problematic
dynamic between FAA and NWS and the need for increased
coordination, stressing that this relationship has real-world
implications to both commerce and airline passenger safety.
GAO reminded the Subcommittee about the results from its
earlier report examining the dispute. Mr. Powner noted that the
CWSUs had indeed provided inconsistent product and services to
FAA, but that the Weather Service had moved forward to improve
training and product design to eliminate disparities between
Centers. He also recalled the lack of performance measures to
ensure high quality of weather observations, and stated the
multiple proposals to restructure that we were each rejected.
Changes in the CWSUs would create several major challenges if
their structure was, indeed, changed.
Dr. Hayes discussed the NWS's attempts to be responsive to
FAA. A revised proposal was delivered in June that refined
service requirements. He promised that the NWS would work
collaboratively with the FAA to ensure that the proposed
structure does not degrade aviation weather services. The
development of baseline performance measures was underway, and
there would be extensive testing to demonstrate no loss of
safety before putting the new system into daily operation.
With his testimony, Mr. Day hoped to allay the Members'
concerns and to clarify what FAA hoped for from the
consolidation. FAA hoped that weather services would be
available to the en route traffic control centers around the
clock. Applying new technology and measuring service quality
were other goals from the proposed consolidation. Day assured
the Subcommittee that the current configuration would not be
changed until a, ``demonstration and validation show that we
are able to effectively disseminate the most timely and
accurate weather forecasting for the safe operation of flights
in out system.''
That demonstration and validation requirement was
repeatedly raised in the question and answer sessions. Mr.
Powner noted that success in this testing phase was central to
assuring safety in the system after adoption of the new
organization. Rep. Miller wondered about the effects of the
proposed changes on staffing levels for meteorologists and how
the demonstration could even be conducted without the agreement
on baseline metrics between the NWS and FAA. At the end, Rep.
Dahlkemper's (D-PA) questions indicated that the question of
fixing problems that did not exist was still open.
4.3(j)_The Risks of Financial Modeling: VaR and the Economic
Meltdown
September 10, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-48
Background
On Thursday, September 10, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Science and Technology
held a hearing to examine the role of risk modeling in the
global financial meltdown. Risk models, and specifically a
method of risk measurement known as Value-at-Risk, or VaR, are
widely viewed as contributory to the extreme risk-taking by
financial institutions that led to the recent economic
upheaval. Relied on to guide the decisions both of financial
firms in their assumption of risk and of Federal regulators in
determining whether such firms held sufficient capital to
support the risk they assumed, the VaR, whether it was misued
or not, was involved in inducing or allowing excessive risk.
The Subcommittee wished to examine the role of the VaR and
related risk-measurement methods in the world financial crisis;
the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of the usefulness of the
VaR; the degree to which the VaR is understood, and may be
manipulated, within the institutions where it is in use; and
the capabilities and needs of Federal supervisors who may be
called upon to work with the VaR in carrying out their
regulatory duties. From a policy perspective, the most
important question is how regulators will use VaR numbers
produced by firms and whether these number provide an
appropriate guide to setting capital reserve requirements. This
is the second in a series of hearings on how economic thinking
and methods have been used by policymakers both inside and
outside of government.
Six witnesses testified in two panels. Panel one: (1) Dr.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Distinguished Professor of Risk
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, (2)
Dr. Richard Bookstaber, Financial Author. Panel two: (3) Dr.
Gregg Berman, Head of Risk Business, RiskMetrics Group, (4) Dr.
James G. Rickards, Senior Managing Director, Omnis Inc., (5)
Mr. Christopher Whalen, Managing Director, Institutional Risk
Analytics, and (6) Dr. David Colander, Christian A. Johnston
Distinguished Professor of Economics, Middlebury College.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller (R-NC)
addressed the problems inherent in the VaR and said that it and
related risk-measurement methods needed to be evaluated. He
asked: ``Can mathematics, statistics, and economics produce
longer-range models--models that could give us early warning of
when our complex financial system is heading for trouble?''
Furthermore, Chairman Miller asked, ``if models cannot be a
useful guide for regulation, should we just abandon this
approach and simply increase reserves, reducing profits and
perhaps some useful economic conduct in the short run, but
protecting taxpayers and the world economy in the long run?''
In his opening statement, Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA)
emphasized that models are tools that are meant to describe,
not prescribe. He also pointed out that it is necessary to
understand and appreciate the complexity of models and that
understanding the limitations and intended purposes of
financial models is just as important as what the models
indicate.
During the first panel's testimony, Dr. Taleb explained the
VaR and pointed out the history of financial bubbles, saying:
``Data shows that banks routinely lose everything earned in
their past history in single blowups . . . [E]very time society
bails them out--while bank risk-takers retain their past
bonuses and start the game afresh. This is an aberrant case of
capitalism for the profits and socialism for the losses.'' He
asserted that there are numerous significant problems
associated with VaR-style risk measurement, charging that the
VaR is ineffective and lacks robustness; that it encourages
low-volatility, high-blowup risk taking, which can be gamed to
suit the Wall Street bonus structure; and that VaR-style
quantitative risk measurement is the engine behind leverage,
the main cause of the current crisis. He emphasized the
immediate need for ``hard,'' non-probabilistic measures rather
than more error-prone ones.
Dr. Bookstaber also discussed what VaR is and how it can be
used and misused, focusing on the limitations of VaR in
measuring crisis risk. He then discussed the role of VaR in the
recent market meltdown, concluding with suggestions for ways to
fill in the gaps left by the limitations of VaR.
During the first panel's question period, Members and
panelists discussed whether economic events can be predicted,
the overall regulation of financial products, how banks become
too big to fail, Wall Street's dependence on government
bailouts, and the risks taken by different types of
institutions. They also discussed incentive structures for
traders, ways of holding Wall Street accountable for bonuses,
malpractice in risk management, clawback provisions, credit
default swaps (CDS), and whether the bailouts and stimulus
package were necessary to the health of the Nation's economy.
In the second panel's testimony, Dr. Berman stated that the
current crisis was not unpredictable, unforeseeable or
unknowable, but rather was caused by the coupling of two
fundamental problems: the inability of market participants to
acknowledge and prepare for the consequences of long-term
trends, such as a protracted downward spiral in home prices or
leveraging of the credit market through the use of CDS; and the
inability of market participants to recognize the exposure they
had to those trends through holding asset-backed securities and
other derivative contracts.
Mr. Rickards charged that the VaR is unreliable because it
is based on false assumptions, which he explained in detail. He
put forward policy recommendations designed to limit the scale
of exposure, controlling cascades and securing informational
advantage. In particular, he argued, de-scaling can radically
reduce risk and restore stability not only to individual
institutions but to the financial system as a whole.
Mr. Whalen urged that the Members bear in mind the
distinction between objective and subjective measures when
discussing the use of models in finance. ``Obtaining a better
understanding of the role of inserting subjectivity into models
is critical for distinguishing between useful deployments of
modeling to manage risk and situations where models are the
primary failure pathway towards creating systemic risk, and
thus affect economic stability and public policy,'' he said.
Mr. Whalen suggested that national interests demand a higher
standard of tangible proof from ``outcome designers'' of public
policies. He added: ``If financial markets and the models used
to describe them are limited to those instruments that can be
verified objectively, then we no longer need to fear from the
ravages of Black Swans or systemic risk.''
Dr. Colander stated that the financial crisis was not due
to highly technical models, but rather to the way economic
models are used. He ended with two suggestions: ensure that
National Science Foundation peer-review panels included
representatives of a variety of approaches to economics, and
increase the number of researchers trained to interpret models.
During the second panel's question period, Members and
panelists discussed appropriate uses of financial models,
proposals for avoiding recurrences of financial problems, abuse
of the VaR, and past attempts to regulate the financial
industry. Other topics included whether a government agency
should test financial products for usefulness, consequences of
``too big to fail,'' and monitoring and analyzing hedge fund
activity and risk.
4.3(k)_The Science of Security, Part II: Technical Problems
Continue to Hinder Advanced Radiation Monitors
November 17, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-63
Background
On Tuesday, November 17, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, held a hearing to examine continued problems with
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to acquire
its next generation radiation monitors known as Advanced
Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs). This is a follow-up to the
hearing the Subcommittee held on June 25, 2009, titled: The
Science of Security: Lessons Learned in Developing, Testing and
Operating Advanced Radiation Monitors. Since the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), a DHS component, was created
in 2005 they have been responsible for researching, developing,
testing and managing the program. The ASP program is estimated
to cost $2-to-$3 billion and has been under scrutiny since 2006
for failing to have clear-cut requirements, an adequate test
plan, sufficient timelines, development milestones or a
transparent and comprehensive cost benefit analysis.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Gene Aloise, Director,
National Resources and Environment, Government Accountability
Office (GAO), (2) Dr. Timothy M. Persons, Chief Scientist,
Government Accountability Office (GAO), (3) Mr. Todd Owen,
Executive Director for Cargo and Conveyance Security, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), (4) Dr. William Hagan, Acting Deputy Director,
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller pointed out the
problems found with DHS's radiation monitors, saying that the
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitor (ASP) does not work as
advertised and does not justify its cost and replacement of
current generation polyvinyl toluene (PVT) radiation portal
monitors. Furthermore, Chairman Miller said the Department of
Energy's approach to identifying radiation should be
instructive to DHS. He ended by saying DHS still faced a long
list of tests and validations before they could even speak
sensibly about replacing PVTs with ASPs. In his opening
statement, Ranking Member Dr. Broun (R-GA) hoped that the DNDO
and CBP would be able to update the committee on how they are
responding to GAO recommendations as well as what to expect
from them in the future. He also stressed that many of the
problems confronting the DNDO could have been prevented by
engaging the end users earlier in the process.
During the witness testimonies, Mr. Aloise discussed the
critical failures of ASPs including its performance histories
and high numbers of false positives for the detection of high-
risk nuclear material. Additionally, Mr. Aloise said that,
``DNDO's proposed solutions to these critical failures raise
questions about whether the ASPs will provide any meaningful
increase in the ability to detect certain nuclear materials.''
Dr. Person did not give a spoken testimony since he shared one
with Mr. Aloise.
Dr. Owen said that the ASPs, are ``expected to enhance our
detection capability while significantly reducing the number of
secondary examinations,'' due to its ability to distinguish
between actual threats and natural or medical radiation sources
that are not security threats. Additionally, he stated that,
``the decision to purchase and deploy ASPs in the operational
arena will be based on CBPs mission needs and operational
requirements, a comprehensive cost benefit analysis to include
a full understanding of the maintenance and operational cost
and analysis of alternatives and other considerations.''
Dr. Hagan stated that DNDO has conducted field tests and
has worked to address all initially identified issues and is
working to solve the remaining problems. In his opening
statement Dr. Hagan alerted the Subcommittee and the public to
the critical shortage his agency and the U.S. government at
large was encountering with acquiring Helium-3, a critical non-
radioactive isotope that is a key ingredient in radiation
detection systems to detect neutron emitting radiation sources,
such as plutonium. The shortage was so severe that Dr. Hagan
informed the Subcommittee, for the first time, that the
Administration had halted the use of Helium-3 for radiation
portal monitors, including the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals
(ASPs), in September 2010. Members were troubled that neither
they nor their staffs had been informed of this extremely
important and far-reaching development prior to the hearing.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists discussed CBP procedures after a primary alarm and
the effect of false positives, steps taken to reduce false
positives and negatives, mission critical failure, energy
windowing to improve PVT performance, and the CBP inspection
system. They also discussed the helium-3 shortage and potential
alternative materials, what circumstances ASP's should be
deployed in, expectations of a cost-benefit analysis on ASPs,
and metrics and timelines for making decisions about ASPs.
4.3(l)_Independent Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
December 3, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-68
Background
On Thursday, December 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight convened a joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for the purpose of
receiving the annual independent auditor's report on the
financial status of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Ernst & Young, the agency's auditor, had
issued a so-called ``disclaimed opinion,'' indicating that the
agency financial statements did not fairly represent NASA's
accurate financial condition. Since 1990, NASA has invested
significant time and effort in three attempts to develop an
acceptable financial management system. While the audit report
credited NASA with notable progress in correcting its
weaknesses, Ernst & Young considered efforts to properly value
legacy equipment on the balance sheets to fall short of
government accounting standards. The hearing was called to
determine what would be needed for NASA to receive unqualified
opinions in subsequent annual audits.
Testifying at the hearing were: (1) Hon. Paul Martin, the
newly-appointed Inspector General of NASA (accompanied by his
deputy, Mr. Tom Howard); (2) Mr. Paul Murrin, Ernst & Young's
senior auditor for the NASA contract since 2004 and Partner in
the company's Assurance and Advisory Business Services; and (3)
Hon. Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's new Chief Financial Officer.
Summary
Chairman Miller (D-NC) opened the hearing by noting that
while NASA's independent auditors decided not to render an
opinion on the agency's fiscal condition in FY2009, NASA had
nevertheless made significant progress since first being put on
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) high-risk list
seventeen years earlier. Nevertheless, this ``disclaimed
opinion'' did not constitute a passing grade. Chairman Miller
said that NASA's failure to set an asset value on the Shuttle
and the Space Station programs was the most significant
remaining problem. Ernst & Young, the independent auditors,
also identified environmental liabilities which greatly
concerned the Chairman. The Chairman then recognized Rep. Broun
(R-GA), the Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee. Rep. Broun was pleased to observe that NASA had
brought in a single-standards accounting system in place of the
multiple fiefdoms present in the past.
Next, the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), gave a brief opening
statement in which she commended the hard work of the dedicated
government employees who had brought NASA so close to closing
the books on the agency's fiscal problems. Rep. Olson (R-TX),
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
recognized the work of former NASA CFO Ron Spoehel in realizing
NASA's progress. Like previous speakers, he emphasized that
NASA should not be given more funds until Congress was
confident that current funds were being spent efficiently and
effectively.
One of the responsibilities of an agency Inspector General
is to manage the contract providing for the audit of the
agency's financial statements by an independent private firm
every year. Mr. Martin's testimony summarized the results of
the Fiscal Year 2009 audit, where auditor Ernst & Young was not
willing to state an opinion on whether the statements ``fairly
represented'' the agency's assets and liabilities. For the past
two decades, NASA has struggled with financial management
systems that have been unable to reliably track and report on
fund management and control. This has repeatedly been
highlighted by the Inspector General's office and the
Government Accountability Office as a primary management
challenge for NASA.
According to Mr. Murrin, NASA was in the end unable to
provide adequate and appropriate documentary evidence that the
values assigned by the agency to older property, plant and
equipment used in programs such as the Space Shuttle and Space
Station. This has been a persistent issue highlighted by
previous audit reports and the focus of continuous
collaboration by NASA and Ernst & Young to correct the
problems. While Mr. Murrin's testimony described the procedural
changes NASA has applied in its effort to clear this material
weakness, the audit notes that these are primarily applied to
current and prospective contracts. The major problem remains
that the financial controls in previous years failed to
preserve the required information.
It falls to Dr. Robinson to manage the corrective actions
needed to eliminate the weak spots identified by the audit. In
her testimony, she described the continuing efforts since 2002
aimed at bringing the upgraded financial management systems
into compliance with modern standards and best practices.
Identifying and correcting data discrepancies and improving
staff skills have occupied much time.
In the particular item providing for the disclaimer of
opinion, Dr. Robinson stated that it originated in a 1998
decision to change the accounting process for space equipment
so that it was no longer fully captured in the year such
equipment was obtained. NASA found that its contracting process
and method failed to adapt to the new accounting requirement
and thus failed to obtain and retain the records and
information needed to conform. With the failure to correct this
deficiency, the gaps in records grew and led auditors to
express growing discomfort about the effect on the accuracy
agency financial records.
In addition to NASA's direction to change agency practice
in contracting, a new Federal accounting standard is now in
place that will assist NASA--and other agencies like DOD in
similar straits--to deal with the missing historical records.
While significant resources have been applied to reconstruct
the evidence in an attempt to satisfy the requirement for
actual documentation, the new standard allows for the
development of appropriate estimating methods to generate
reasonable approximations of the property, plant and equipment
at issue.
While displeased with the situation, Members also
recognized that it resulted from poor practices over many years
and that the agency was hamstrung by the bulk of missing
information. Much of the discussion with the witnesses
concerned the need for continuing collaboration to assure that
the agency and the auditors shared a common view of the proper
implementation of the new standards for estimation. Members
also sought assurances that the other risks highlighted in the
audit report, relating to the calculation of NASA's
environmental liabilities and the need to finish bringing the
financial management systems up to legal standards, were not
waiting to replace legacy asset valuation as the basis for a
disclaimed opinion in the next audit. The witnesses express
confidence that NASA would finally begin receiving unqualified
opinions beginning with the fiscal year 2010 audit.
4.3(m)_Rare Earth Minerals and 21st Century Industry
March 16, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-86
Background
On Thursday, March 16, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine ways of redressing the expected
imbalance between available supplies of rare earth minerals and
the Nation's need for them. The hearing also asked why the
policy structure put in place thirty years ago precisely to
identify and respond to potential shortages of critical
materials before they became acute had failed to do its job.
The United States finds itself dependent on the People's
Republic of China for a commodity without which it is difficult
to compete in many high-tech industries. With a near-monopoly
on supplies of rare earths, the Chinese government threatens to
limit exports and is trying to induce foreign manufacturing
firms to locate production facilities in Inner Mongolia. The
main American rare earths supplier is seeking funds to restart
its mining operation, which closed in 2002, having suffered
from low prices as China expanded into the market and from a
late start on renewing its environmental permits in California.
Additionally, support for research on rare earths has greatly
diminished in the United States.
There were five witnesses. (1) Dr. Stephen W. Freiman,
President, Freiman Consulting Inc, member, National Research
Council Committee on Critical Mineral Impacts on the U.S.
Economy, (2) Dr. Steven Duclos, Chief Scientist and Manager,
Material Sustainability, General Electric Global Research, (3)
Dr. Karl Gschneidner, Anson Marston Distinguished Professor,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Iowa State
University, (4) Mr. Mark Smith, Chief Executive Officer,
Molycorp Minerals, LLC, and (5) Mr. Terence Stewart, Esq.,
Managing Partner, Stewart and Stewart.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC)
discussed the question of how the United States might compete
in attracting and retaining manufacturing firms that need
access to rare earth elements in light of China's current near
monopoly and its willingness to use this monopoly power to the
United States' disadvantage. Chairman Miller stated the
necessity of producing, recovering and recycling rare earth
materials and of looking for substitutes. Full Committee
Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), in his opening statement, recalled
that in 1980 the Committee successfully put forward legislation
that established a national minerals and materials policy,
which in part called for support of a ``vigorous, comprehensive
and coordinated program of materials research and
development.'' Chairman Gordon noted that this effort had
fallen by the wayside, saying: ``Now it is time to ask whether
we need to revive a coordinated effort to level the playing
field in rare earths in order to support American business and
American jobs.'' Ranking Member Broun (R-GA), in his opening
statement, said that rare earths are ``slated to play an
increasingly important role as we seek to meet out future
energy needs, remain competitive in the international
marketplace and continue to defend our Nation.''
During the witness testimonies, Dr. Freiman outlined the
supply risks for certain minerals and their implications,
specifically identifying gaps in minerals information. Dr.
Freiman recommended that the Federal government enhance the
types of data and information it collects, disseminates and
analyzes on minerals and mineral products, especially as these
data and information relate to minerals whose supplies are or
may become critical. He also recommended that Federal agencies
develop and fund activities, including basic science and policy
research, to encourage U.S. innovation in the area of critical
minerals and materials to enhance understanding of global
mineral availability and use.
Dr. Duclos discussed how GE manages shortages of scarce
materials and commodities critical to their manufacturing
operations, as well as what steps the Federal government can
take to help industry minimize the risks and other issues
associated with these shortages. He recommended appointing a
lead agency in the government with ownership of early
assessment and authority to fund solutions, including
increasing the Nation's ability to monitor and assess
industrial materials supply in both the short and long term. He
also recommended sustained funding for research focusing on
materials substitutions, recycling technologies, development of
alternative materials, new systems solutions and manufacturing
efficiency.
Dr. Gschneidner discussed the history of rare earth
research and, in particular, the history of the Department of
Energy's Ames Laboratory, whose achievements in research may
prove helpful in the future. He argued that the best way to
work through the rare-earths shortage now facing the United
States would be by creating a research center where scientists,
engineers and technicians would focus on innovations in high-
tech areas.
Mr. Smith stated that ``disruption in the global supply of
rare earths poses a significant concern for America's security
and clean-energy objectives, its future defense needs, and its
long-term global competitiveness.'' He stressed the need to
rebuild processing capacity for rare earth metals in the United
States. Mr. Smith also described Molycorp's ``mining to
magnets'' strategy, which he touted not only for its potential
to create new business but also as a catalyst for the United
States' ``development of a clean-energy economy and the
resurgence of domestic manufacturing.''
Mr. Stewart interpreted China's actions in the area of rare
earth minerals, saying the Chinese government is trying both to
encourage foreign investors to move production of downstream
products to China and to ensure low-priced supplies for sectors
that China has targeted for rapid industrial growth. Mr. Smith
also made recommendations for the government and private
sector, including encouraging the U.S. and its trading partners
to consider a second trade action against China on the range of
export restraints being imposed on rare earths.
During the question period, Members and panelists discussed
ways to overcome the expected imbalance between available
supplies of rare earth minerals and the nation's need for them,
including: increasing exploration for domestic sources, finding
new overseas suppliers, funding research to find substitute
materials to reduce the amount of rare earths needed in a given
produce, and increasing the recycling of rare-earth materials.
4.3(n)_Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the
Helium-3 Supply Crisis
April 22, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-92
Background
On Thursday, April 22, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held a hearing to examine the causes and consequences of the
Helium-3 (He-3) supply crisis. He-3 is a rare, nonradioactive
gas that has been produced in both the United States and Russia
as a by-product of nuclear weapons development. Tritium, which
helps boost the yield of nuclear weapons, decays into Helium-3
gas after approximately 12 years, but has not been produced
since 1988. The result is a declining supply of He-3. However,
because it was viewed as an excess commodity after the end of
the Cold War, He-3 was packaged, managed and sold at cost
through Department of Energy's Isotope Program in the Office of
Nuclear Energy. (The Isotope Program was moved to the Office of
Science in FY2009.) After the September 11, 2001, attack on the
World Trade Center, demand for He-3 as a radiation detector
exploded and consumed most of the supply. DOE's failure to
manage the stockpile with an understanding of future demand,
supply and needs has had negative consequences not only for
security devices but for many scientific applications,
including neutron scattering and cryogenics research.
In this hearing, the Subcommittee met to discuss the
processes that the federal agencies are implementing to manage
and set priorities for use of the limited He-3 supply and to
discuss the search for alternative sources and gases.
Six witnesses on two panels testified at this hearing.
Panel one: (1) Dr. William Hagan, Acting Director, Domestic
Nuclear Detention Office (DNDO), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), (2) Dr. William Brinkman, Director of the
Office of Science, Department of Energy (DOE), accompanied by
Dr. Steven Aoki, Deputy Undersecretary of Energy
Counterterrorism and Member of the White House He-3 Interagency
Policy Committee (IPC) Steering Committee). Panel two: (3) Mr.
Tom Anderson, Product Manager, Reuter-Stokes Radiation
Measurement Solutions, GE Energy, (4) Mr. Richard L. Arsenault,
Director of Health, Safety and Security and Environment,
ThruBit LLC, (5) Dr. William Halperin, John Evans Professor of
Physics, Department of Physics, Northwestern University, (6)
Dr. Jason Woods, Assistant Professor, Radiology, Mallinckrodt
Institute of Radiology, Biomedical MR Laboratory, Washington
University in St. Louis and Program Director, Hyperpolarized
Media MR Study Group, International Society for Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller stated that the
impacts of the He-3 shortage are real and painful. Furthermore,
because of its unique physical properties, He-3 plays a crucial
role in oil and gas exploration, cryogenics, quantum computing,
neutron scattering facilities and medical lung imaging
research. Over the past year, Chairman Miller said, the cost of
obtaining helium-3 had risen from $200 per liter to more than
$2,000 per liter. He said that it matters that if DOE had
noticed the disconnect between growing demand and declining
supply, it could have managed that stockpile with clear
prioritization for highest use and led an aggressive and timely
search for alternatives to helium-3. The Chairman ended by
noting that the Subcommittee was not as prepared for the
hearing as they should have been due to the failure of the
White House and certain agencies to produce documents, or
explain why they could not, when asked by the Subcommittee.
Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement,
expressed his disappointment in the state of our He-3 supply
and at the tendency to act only after a crisis has emerged. He
said he hoped that the agencies would assist the Committee in
meeting its oversight responsibilities in a more cooperative
fashion and expressed his commitment to work with the Chairman
to ensure that the Federal Government does a better job of
predicting and mitigating these supply shortages.
In the first panel, Dr. Hagan discussed how DNDO became
aware of the shortage of He-3 and how they have responded to
it. He also highlighted that DNDO had reduced the number of
portal monitors using He-3 under the Advanced Spectroscopic
Portal (ASP) program, the impact of the shortage of DNDO's
radiological and nuclear detection programs, and finally, the
status of their work in identifying alternative technologies to
replace He-3 as a neutron detector. Dr. Brinkman discussed the
role of DOE in He-3 production and distribution, its
realization of, and response to, the He-3 shortage, the impact
of the He-3 shortage, potential alternative sources , and the
current actions and allocation process.
During the first panel's question and answer period,
Members and panelists discussed the failure of the DOE to
recognize and address the He-3 supply and how to keep an
inventory of isotopes to avoid another shortage. Other topics
included shifting the United States away from being the world's
primary supplier of He-3, funding for the development of He-3
alternatives and yearly demand of He-3. They also discussed the
possibility of extracting He-3 from the moon and making He-3
through other means.
In the second panel, Mr. Anderson spoke about the impact
the He-3 shortage has had on GE Energy's business and
customers. He said that a drop-in replacement technology for
He-3 did not exist at this time and as many as six different
neutron detection technologies may be required to best address
the various performance requirements for different
applications. Mr. Anderson also said that significant research
was required immediately to develop new neutron detection
technologies, and that Federal funding was essential in
accelerating such development. He also spoke about GE's ideas
to manage the problem in the future. Mr. Arsenault spoke about
how the He-3 shortage has impacted his and other companies in
need of neutron detectors. Specifically, the high cost and low
availability of He-3 makes it hard for his small company to
bring new technologies to the market. Furthermore, he said, the
shortage of He-3 is starting to impact the entire oil and gas
industry--an industry that is a vital part of national security
and energy independence.
Dr. Halperin described how the shortage of He-3 has
negatively impacted scientific research. He said that he relies
heavily on He-3 to carry out scientific research at low
temperatures, which is essential for studying certain
properties of materials such as superconductivity and magnetism
and for developing various advanced materials. Low temperature
research, Dr. Halperin said, is also critical for future
improvements in metrology and high-speed computation, including
quantum information technology. Dr. Woods discussed how the
shortage has impacted his field of He-3 MRIs. He said that He-3
MRI has illuminated pulmonary ventilation and microstructure.
Its physical properties make it unique and irreplaceable in
many instances. Dr. Woods also explained He-3's potential for
guiding interventions in drug development and how developing
technology to recycle 2,000 liters of He-3 annually could allow
for significant and sustained research into the future.
During the second panel's question and answer period,
Members and panelists discussed the DOE's failure to
communicate He-3 supply shortages and the lack of substitutes
for cryogenics. Other topics included the development of He-3
alternatives and their viability, the need for Federal research
and development, and recycling He-3.
4.3(o)_Preventing Harm_Protecting Health: Reforming CDC's
Environmental Public Health Practices
May 20, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-95
Background
On Thursday, May 20, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
met to examine the policies and procedures used by the National
Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) of the Centers of Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) to assess, validate and release public
health documents and to detail specific instances where these
offices have relied upon flawed science and incomplete data to
draw critical public health conclusions. Resolving these policy
and procedural issues within ATSDR and ensuring that the CDC's
public health documents in general rely upon sound scientific
data to reach public health conclusions is essential to
ensuring the health and safety of the public. The purpose of
this hearing was to help lay down a new road map for CDC in
helping to reform its environmental public health practices,
largely carried out by NCEH/ATSDR. This was the third hearing
the Subcommittee held in the past two years to examine the
performance of ATSDR.
Five witnesses testified on two panels. Panel one: (1) Ms.
Cynthia A. Bascetta, Director, Public Health and Medical
Services, Government Accountability Office (GAO), (2) Mr.
Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health,
Environment & Justice (CHEJ), (3) Dr. John Wargo, Professor of
Environmental Risk Analysis, Yale University, (4) Dr. Marc
Edwards, Charles P. Lunsford Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Panel two: (5) Dr.
Robin M. Ikeda, MD, MPH, Deputy Director of the Office of
Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health and
Acting Director for the National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Summary
During his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller stated
that in order for ATSDR and NCEH to succeed, they must no
longer analyze data that is incomplete, inaccurate, or
irrelevant to the underlying question without disclosing the
known limits of the data. Also, the Chairman said ATSDR must no
longer respond to critics by attacking their knowledge or their
motives. They have failed, said the Chairman, to have rigorous
and consistent reviews of study design, data collection and
quality and analytical methods and conclusions. ATSDR,
according to the Chairman, also failed to have consistent
policies and procedures for conducting public health research,
interventions, and publications. The Chairman said that
although much of ATSDR's and NCEH's problem is a failure to
communicate, there is also substantial evidence that their
quality of science is not as consistent as it should be.
Ranking Member Dr. Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement,
discussed ATSDR's history of problems and said that despite the
complexity and difficulty of the agency's work, the public
deserves to have an agency that they trust, and hoped the
hearing would help shed light not only on how the agency can
better protect public health and safety, but also how it can
adapt to its evolving mission.
During the first panel of witness testimonies, Ms. Bascetta
discussed GAO's April 2010 ATSDR report. She said that GAO
found that ATSDR's policies and procedures were deficient in
the three phases of preparation of public health products: (1)
initiation, which includes a decision by the agency to begin
work on a public health product and the assignment of staff to
prepare the product; (2) development, which includes management
approval to proceed with the development of a product and the
actual drafting of the public health product; and (3) review
and clearance, which is the process by which a product is
internally or externally reviewed and disseminated as a final
public health product. Mr. Lester, in his testimony, said that
ATSDR has failed to act on the Center for Health, Environment,
and Justice's (CHEJ) recommendations to fix ATSDR's inadequate
and inappropriate methods of assessing health problems, which
have kept communities from getting the information, assistance,
and medical treatment they need to protect themselves and their
children from chemical exposures.
Dr. Wargo discussed his experience with ATSDR, saying the
agency's assessments of contamination on the island of Vieques
contained serious flaws. He said that the central problem is
cultural in that the agency has misperceived its intended
mission. Specifically, Dr. Wargo said, ATSDR sees their mission
as the need to prove danger when it should instead demonstrate
a reasonable certainty of no harm. Dr. Edwards discussed his
experience related to the 2001-2004 D.C. lead-in-water crisis,
saying CDC published a flawed assessment and refused to correct
the scientific record after the fact, which lead to
misinformation and false conclusions. He ended his testimony by
saying that he has found there to be a, ``culture of scientific
corruption in branches of this important agency and there is no
evidence it has the capability for self-correction.''
During the first panel's question and answer period,
Members and panelists discussed how to fix these agencies, how
President Obama's cancer panel addressed the risk of
environmentally caused cancer versus other causes, and the
failure of the CDC to communicate negative health effects of
lead poisoning from elevated lead levels during the DC lead-in-
water crisis. Other topics included ATSDR's reactions to
criticism and recommendations, the residents of Vieques, the
flaws in the CDC's 2004 cross-sectional study regarding the DC
lead-in-water crisis, and the need for peer-review of ATSDR's
critical public health documents.
During the second panel of witnesses, Dr. Ikeda discussed
the improvements underway within NCEH and ATSDR, the National
Conversion, CDC's work on elevated lead in water in Washington
D.C.'s drinking water and the environmental public health
issues on the island of Vieques. Dr. Ikeda described the
various steps CDC is taking to make its work more consistent
internally and the agency's reanalysis of the DC lead-in-water
crisis. Dr. Ikeda claimed that CDC's more comprehensive
analysis did not fundamentally change their 2004 findings.
ATSDR also re-evaluated its past studies regarding Vieques,
said Dr. Ikeda, and is in the final stages of completing a
report that will be peer-reviewed.
During the second panel's question and answer period,
Members and panelists discussed how ATSDR can move forward, how
to correct the record on lead-in-water in DC after CDC
published a misleading publication in 2004, and how CDC can
ensure that it receives appropriate samples and data to
adequately characterize exposure and risk in the future. Other
topics included how to communicate results better, how to
implement a peer-review process for CDC, the environmental
public health issues on the island of Vieques, and what CDC can
do for families in Washington, D.C. whose children have been
identified as having lead poisoning that may be due to having
been exposed to elevated water lead levels in their drinking
water.
4.3(p)_Setting New Courses for Polar Weather Satellites and
Earth Observations
June 29, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-102
Background
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
convened to receive testimony on the Administration's proposal
to restructure the National Polar-Orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). After months of
analysis following the President's inauguration, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy concluded that returning to the
state before 1993, where the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) each
designed, procured and operated satellites intended to support
their own primary requirements, would be the best chance for
avoiding gaps in weather and climate data acquisition and the
threat of interrupted military and civilian forecasting.
The Subcommittee also invited the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to critique the Administration decision, based on
its ongoing assessment of the NPOESS program. GAO was able to
incorporate comments based on its report to the Subcommittee
discussing a national strategy for Earth observations and
restoration of capabilities removed from NPOESS at the time of
its previous restructuring in 2005.
Five witnesses provided testimony: (1) Hon. Shere Abbott,
Associate Director, Energy and Environment Division, Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2) Ms. Mary Glackin,
Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
deputy administrator; (3) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA); (4) Mr. Gil Klinger, Director, Space and Intelligence
Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, DoD;
and (5) Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology
Management Issues, GAO.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Miller outlined the
history of difficulties and problems NPOESS has had, saying
that ``we have spent almost $6 billion already on the NPOESS
program . . . there is not a single completed satellite to show
for the time and money.'' He said that he hoped its new
management would solve what has long ailed the NPOESS program.
Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement,
described the plethora of problems NPOESS has had in the past
and questioned the course of the new program since little is
known about it.
Having directed the OSTP assessment team that recommended
splitting the program, Ms. Abbott discussed the process and the
findings that led to the decision. She said that despite a
``vision of coordination and efficiency and in spite of
multiple attempts to improve its execution, the program has
consistently been behind schedule, over budget and
underperforming.'' OSTP's task force concluded that significant
change needed to be made to the management structure, matching
those of the program Independent Review Team.
Ms. Glackin discussed NOAA's expanded responsibilities with
the new Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). Its revamped
program would draw on the progress that had been made with the
NPOESS Prepatory Program satellite to provide the follow-on
satellites in time to avoid gaps in observational coverage.
NOAA would continue, as it does now, to operate both satellite
constellations and the ground system delivering the data to
NOAA and DOD forecasting centers. She said that although the
transition might take time, NOAA believes it is the right step
for the United States in its need for uninterrupted, reliable
weather and climate data from space.
NASA's role in the new JPSS matches more closely its
traditional role as NOAA's technical arm. According to Mr.
Scolese, NASA's role in the restructured program will follow
the model of the successful Polar Operational Environmental
Satellite and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
program. In keeping with the IRT recommendations, NASA's earth
satellite management expertise at the Goddard Space Flight
Center will be made available to the JPSS program. NASA will
also assume leadership of the instrument development programs.
Having regained responsibility for managing satellites and
operations in the morning orbit, Mr. Klinger indicated that
DOD, in cooperation with NOAA/NASA, is completing an analysis
for fulfilling the morning orbit requirements, which will serve
as the basis for DOD's portion the restructured program. In its
initial planning, Klinger indicated that DOD expects to have
its first Defense Weather Satellite System spacecraft in orbit
by 2018, and the Department intends to adapt existing NPOESS
designs and technology to the extent it can.
Mr. Powner provided a more skeptical outlook on the
likelihood that NOAA and DOD would easily transition to their
separate acquisitions. Even with the changes, both agencies
would still find it necessary to cooperate on data sharing. Mr.
Powner's primary message to the Subcommittee was that `` . . .
until an interagency strategy for each earth observation is
established, and a clear process of implanting it is in place,
federal agencies will continue to procure their immediate
priorities on an ad hoc basis, the economic benefits of a
coordinated approach to investments in earth observation may be
lost, and the continuity of key measurements may be lost.'' GAO
also recommended that OSTP accelerate efforts to construct the
national strategy for earth observations to help in guiding
decisions on the satellite and ground networks now central to
our understanding of environmental change around the globe.
During the question and answer period, Members sought more
detailed information on the changes underway after OSTP's
decision, particularly in the DOD program. Ms. Glackin provided
assurances that the United States would continue to host
search-and-rescue transponders in orbit, even if it was not
aboard the JPSS or DWSS spacecraft. Even with the choice to
disentangle the two agencies, the witnesses continued to
caution the Members that serious risks remain to completing the
restructured program and constant attention to cost and
schedule issues will be needed.
4.3(q)_Building a Science of Economics for the Real World
July 20, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-106
Background
On Thursday, July 20, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
met to examine the promise and limits of modern macroeconomic
theory in light of the current economic crisis. The
Subcommittee had previously looked at how the global financial
meltdown of 2008 may have been caused or abetted by financial
risk models, many of which are rooted in the same assumptions
upon which today's mainstream macroeconomic models are based.
But the insights of economics, a field that aspires to be a
science and for which the National Science Foundation (NSF) is
the major funding resource in the Federal government, shape far
more than what takes place on Wall Street. Economic analysis is
used to inform virtually every aspect of domestic policy. If
the generally accepted economic models inclined the Nation's
policy makers to dismiss the notion that a crisis was possible,
and then led them toward measures that may have been less than
optimal in addressing it, it seems appropriate to ask why the
economics profession cannot provide better policy guidance.
Further, in an effort to improve the quality of economic
science, should the Federal government consider supporting new
avenues of research through the NSF?
Five witnesses testified. (1) Dr. Robert M. Solow,
Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, MIT; (2) Dr.
Sidney G. Winter, Deloitte and Touche Professor Emeritus of
Management, the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania; (3) Dr. Scott E. Page, Lenoid Hurwicz Collegiate
Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics,
University of Michigan; (4) Dr. V.V. Chari, Paul W. Frenzel
Land Grant Professor of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota;
(5) Dr. David C. Colander, Christian A. Johnson Distinguished
Professor of Economics, Middlebury College.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller noted that
the macroeconomic model known as the Dynamic Stochastic General
Equilibrium model (DSGE), which underpins a view of the economy
that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Allen Greenspan
admitted to be flawed, is still in favor today, both in
academia and at the world's central banks. The Chairman
explained that this model, designed as a theorist's tool, is
now a significant factor in many critical policy decisions,
with questionable results. The Chairman put forward the
questions of whether any existing economic models have the
potential to help the Nation find its way out of the current
recession and whether the Federal government should use its
funding of economic science to encourage the development of
alternative models, since the reigning models have performed so
poorly. Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening
statement, stressed that ``despite the attempts of many to
develop a scientific panacea for informing economic decisions,
models are only a tool employed by decision makers and
economists.''
During the witness testimonies, Dr. Solow discussed why the
approach to economics that dominates many elite universities
and central banks and has great influence in other policy
circles cannot solve the problems the United States faces. Dr.
Solow explained that this approach does not offer any guidance
or insight, and is in any case intrinsically bound to fail
because it is based on false assumptions. He emphasized,
however, that although there are huge gaps in our understanding
of the economy and some models have proven to be flawed, that
does not mean that macroeconomics as a whole should be
discarded or discredited. Instead, Dr. Solow said, the
economics profession must identify and get rid of models that
do not fundamentally make sense, such as the DSGE, and look for
alternatives that prove to be useful for practical ends, such
as informing policy that would counter the recession.
Dr. Winter, also discussing the shortcomings of the DSGE
model, focused on the realities of economic life that are
missing from it. Although all models simplify reality in a way
that tells the truth while not aspiring to tell the whole
truth, Dr. Winter said, DSGE is an extreme example of the
tendency to analyze hyper-stylized versions of economic
problems, thereby denying or suppressing observable and
verifiable realities. Dr. Winter continued by discussing the
important pieces missing from the model, how to integrate those
missing aspects, and finally, the need to extend the quest for
policy advice beyond models and their improvement.
Dr. Page argued for the benefits of using a variety of
models when trying to understand a complex system such as the
economy. Complex-systems models, he said, have a particular
ability to generate insights into complex phenomena, offering
the pace of innovation and market crashes as examples. Dr. Page
stressed that while single models are useful in predicting
physical phenomena accurately, they are less capable of
predicting economic outcomes because an economy, as a complex
system, is made up of diverse parts that interact and behave in
unpredictable ways. Dr. Page called upon economists to ``widen
our lens and use a crowd of models to predict bounds and the
likely fluctuations in the economy and to anticipate unintended
consequences and riskiness of policy decisions . . . ''
Dr. Chari described the various DSGE models that exist and
how they have been modified to take into account more factors
than previous DSGE models. He also discussed why the DSGE
models failed to see the crisis coming, explaining that a lack
of historical data and a disregard for experiences of other
countries on the part of modelers had narrowed the scope of
possible outcomes. Dr. Chari also said that government funding
for economics research is a great investment in the Nation's
future, as it will decrease the probability of another
financial crisis.
Dr. Colander stated that two structural changes must be
implemented in the NSF program funding economics research in
order to change the incentives that now promote economists'
basing concrete policy advice on abstract formal models. First,
diversity in the reviewer pool should be an explicit goal for
NSF grants in the social sciences. This change, said Dr.
Colander, would encourage more creative work and provide more
commonsense feedback from the real world. Dr. Colander's second
recommendation is to increase the number of researchers trained
in relating models to the real world, as opposed to just
constructing models, which, he said, could help reduce the
likelihood of financial meltdowns in the future.
During the question period, Members and panelists discussed
whether and how policy choices by government can be captured by
DSGE model, as well as the importance of not relying too
heavily on one model or one set of models and the role of
scientific and technological development in U.S. growth. Other
topics included the economic effect of extending unemployment
benefits, how to use the DSGE model from now on and how policy
advice based on it should be regarded, and the characteristics
and merits of alternative models. Members and panelists ended
by discussing new areas of economics research and the direction
of government-funded economics research.
4.3(r)_Camp Lejeune: Contamination and Compensation, Looking
Back, Moving Forward
September 16, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-108
Background
On Thursday, September 16, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller
presiding (D-NC), the Subcommittee Investigations and
Oversight, met to examine the toxic legacy of drinking water
contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North
Carolina. The hearing examined the Department of the Navy and
U.S. Marine Corps' knowledge of past contamination at Camp
Lejeune, as well as prior and current analyses by the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a sister
agency of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
regarding toxic exposures at Camp Lejeune. The hearing also
reviewed current cooperative efforts by the U.S. Navy and ATSDR
concerning the identification and access to records required to
complete these studies. In addition, the hearing examined the
process by which veterans have been compensated for illnesses
due to environmental exposures at Camp Lejeune and what steps
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Navy were
currently taking to ensure that Camp Lejeune veterans and their
dependents are quickly and appropriately compensated for any
illnesses or health issues related to toxic exposures while
serving at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base.
Eight witnesses testified on two panels. Panel one was
comprised of: (1) Dr. Richard Clapp, Professor Emeritus,
Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of
Public Health, environmental health policy consultant and
member of the ATSDR Camp Lejeune Community Assistance Panel
(CAP); (2) Mr. Mike Partain, Member ATSDR Camp Lejeune
Community Assistance Panel (CAP) and breast cancer survivor
born on Camp Lejeune; (3) Mr. Peter Devereaux, Former Marine
Corps Corporal and Camp Lejeune veteran diagnosed with breast
cancer; (4) Mr. Jim Watters, Director, Graduate Medical
Education, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, former
Navy Lieutenant, retired Commander, Navy Reserve, Medical
Service Corps and Camp Lejeune veteran diagnosed with kidney
cancer; (5) Mr. Michael Hargett, General Director, Anchimeric
Associates and former co-owner of Grainer Laboratories; Panel
2: (6) Dr. Chris Portier, Director, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR); (7) Mr. Thomas J. Pamperin,
Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs; (8) Major General Eugene G. Payne Jr.
Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics
(Facilities), Headquarters, United States Marine Corps.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller stated that
as many as one million Marines and their families training and
living on the base at Camp Lejeune were exposed to toxic
chemicals in their drinking water, including solvents such as
trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) and by-
products of fuel such as benzene. He continued by saying, ``We
will never be certain about all the adverse health consequences
that come from consuming that toxic cocktail, but we can be
certain that some Marines and some dependents will develop
cancers that will shorten their lives. We are certain that the
Marine Corps failed to close the wells promptly when they were
informed of the presence of TCE and PCE in their water.
Instead, they provided that water to their people for two more
years.'' The Chairman also discussed the failure of the Navy
and Marine Corps to admit and respond to their mistakes. He
also discussed ATSDR's 1997 inadequate Public Health Assessment
of human health hazards posed by Camp Lejeune's drinking water
supply that it withdrew in 2009, primarily because it failed to
address benzene contamination on the base. Ranking Member Paul
Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement, expressed the sacred
duty the United States government has to take care of its
troops. Dr. Broun also said that although he is pleased that
ATSDR is taking steps to further investigate this matter, and
the VA is working to ensure that Veterans and their families
are taken care of, this issue simply will not go away and needs
to be adequately addressed. Furthermore, Dr. Broun said that
protecting our service members and their families in return for
their dedication and service is the least we can do.
During the first panel, Dr. Clapp discussed the input he
provided to the National Research Council (NRC) committee, in
the form of a peer review, on the issue of Camp Lejeune's
drinking water. Dr. Clapp said, ``The degree of contamination
of drinking water at Camp Lejeune in the years between 1957 and
1985 is the highest I have observed in my career as an
environmental epidemiologist.'' He also said that water
modeling, based on chemical exposures, makes it possible to
examine the patterns of mortality from a wide range of cancers
and reproductive outcomes and childhood cancer. Dr. Clapp also
outlined steps the Department of Veterans Affairs can take to
address the effects of contamination.
Mr. Partain provided a detailed account of the water
contamination at Camp Lejeune. He brought forward a multitude
of evidence documenting the Navy and Marine Corps' neglect on
the issue and showed how the Marine Corps' statements do not
match historical documents. He called for Congress to act on
this issue since the Navy and Marine Corps are not helping the
Marines, Sailors, their family members, and base employees
sickened by the fouled water at Camp Lejeune, despite well
documented evidence of water contamination.
Mr. Devereaux discussed how his incurable metastatic breast
cancer has impacted his life and his family and the disease's
connection to the contaminated water he drank at Camp Lejeune.
He also discussed his experience fighting for support from the
VA, saying that although he finally received full disability,
many others are not as lucky.
Mr. Watters discussed how his cancer, renal cell carcinoma,
has impacted his life as well as his discovery, long after his
diagnoses, that the Marine Corps and Navy knew of Camp
Lejeune's water contamination and its connection to health
problems such as cancer, but did not offer help. Mr. Watters
also discussed his fight to obtain a disabilities claim with
VA. Additionally, he said, ``It is my firm belief that the U.S.
Marine Corps and Department of the Navy leadership have
abandoned and betrayed their wounded from Camp Lejeune,
including women and children, and left them to suffer and
die.''
Mr. Hargett discussed his experience working with the Navy
and Marine Corps to test Camp Lejeune's water, and the fact
that when contamination was found, leadership did not seem to
do much about it. There is no question, Mr. Hargett said, that
military personnel, dependents, and base personnel were exposed
to the hazard and that corrections were eventually
accomplished, but the poor interest from the Deputy Utilities
manager lead him to believe that the corrective actions were
slow.
During the first panel's question and answer period,
Members and panelists discussed the inconsistency between the
Marine Corps statements about Camp Lejeune and scientific data.
Members and panelists also discussed the appeals process for
obtaining benefits through the VA, the rarity of male breast
cancer in the general population as opposed to the population
from Camp Lejeune, and the documented diseases associated with
exposure to PCE, TCE and benzene.
During the second panel of witness testimonies, Dr. Portier
provided background on ATSDR's health assessments on Camp
Lejeune and the primary drinking water contaminants at Camp
Lejeune. Dr. Portier also discussed ATSDR's current activities
concerning Camp Lejeune, describing its work on water modeling
as a way to provide the best possible estimates on the levels
of chemical exposures for different populations.
Mr. Pamperin discussed what the VA has done to determine
whether studies, such as the one done by the NRC, provided a
sufficient scientific basis for determining whether the
population of Camp Lejeune has, in fact, ``suffered adverse
health effects as a result of exposure to contaminants in the
water supply.'' Mr. Pamperin also discussed the VA's claim
process, and ended by saying that the VA awards benefits to
Veterans who have demonstrated that they are suffering due to
adverse exposures at Camp Lejeune, but there is not, in their
eyes, sufficient evidence to justify all claims for Camp
Lejeune Veterans.
Major General Payne opened his testimony by stating that
the welfare of Marines and their family members as well as
civilian employees has always been of paramount importance to
the Marine Corps and Navy. Major General Payne discussed his
knowledge of past water contamination at Camp Lejeune, saying
that at the time, in the 1980s, there were inconsistent
findings concerning the water's chemical contamination. He also
said that there were no drinking water regulations in place
banning the existence of TCE or PCE at the time of their
discovery. He outlined the steps they took to investigate
contamination and to notify those who were exposed to
contaminants, well as their cooperation with ATSDR and other
health initiatives. He ended by saying, ``currently, scientific
studies haven't determined reliably whether diseases and
disorders experienced by former residents and workers at Camp
Lejeune are associated with their exposure to contaminants in
the water supply because of shortcomings and methodological
limitations.'' Both Dr. Clapp and Dr. Portier, however, pointed
out that there is a wide body of valid scientific studies that
have determined public health harm from exposure to the same
chemicals discovered in the drinking water supplies at Camp
Lejeune.
During the second panel's question and answer period,
Members and panelists discussed the influence of lawyers on the
second panel's testimonies and the apparent discrepancies in
Major General Payne's and Mr. Pamperin's testimonies and
supporting documents. They also discussed how the conclusions
reached by the NAS report compare to the evidence gathered and
reported by ATSDR over the last 20 years. They ended by
discussing the VA claims process and its fairness, as well as
the lack of urgency on behalf of the Marine Corps and Navy to
address the problem of toxic contaminants in the drinking water
supplies at Camp Lejeune when they were first discovered.
4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
4.4(a)_Beyond the Classroom: Informal STEM Education
February 26, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-5
Background
On February 26, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to explore the potential for informal STEM
learning to engage students in math and science in ways that
traditional formal learning environments cannot, as well as the
ways in which informal STEM education can complement and
enhance classroom STEM studies. Furthermore, the Subcommittee
received testimony on the National Academies report entitled,
``Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places,
and Pursuits.''
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy,
Division Director, Division of Research on Learning in Formal
and Informal Settings, Education and Human Resources
Directorate, National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Phillip Bell,
Professor, College of Education, the University of Washington,
Seattle; (3) Ms. Andrea Ingram, Vice President of Education and
Guest Experiences, Museum of Science and Industry-Chicago; (4)
Mr. Robert Lippincott, Senior Vice President for Education, the
Public Broadcasting Service; and (5) Dr. Alejandro Grajal,
Senior Vice President of Conservation, Education, and Training,
the Chicago Zoological Society.
Summary
Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by describing the wide
variety of educational activities that can take place outside
of the traditional classroom, and highlighted the role informal
education can play in promoting student interest and
participation in the STEM fields, particularly for individuals
from groups historically under-represented in STEM. Ranking
Member Ehlers (R-MI) echoed Chairman Lipinski's sentiment that
informal educators are uniquely positioned to engage students
and the general public. Mr. Ehlers also noted that there are
unique challenges to assessing and evaluating the effectiveness
of informal STEM education.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy described
the National Science Foundation's investment in informal STEM
education programming and research. In his testimony, Dr. Bell
described the findings and recommendations of the National
Academies report entitled, ``Learning Science in Informal
Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits.'' Dr. Bell also
highlighted the research and activities of the Learning in
Informal and Formal Environments Center, or LIFE Center, an
NSF-funded collaboration of the University of Washington,
Stanford University, and SRI International. In her testimony,
Ms. Ingram described the Museum of Science and Industry's
activities to promote STEM learning, specifically through the
museum's Center for the Advancement of Science Education whose
programming reaches both the general public as well as students
on school organized field trips, and the Institute for Quality
Science Teaching which partners with local schools and
universities to improve teacher training. Dr. Lippincott
described STEM educational programming offered by PBS, and the
role of digital and electronic media in exciting youth about
the STEM fields. Dr. Grajal described the activities of the
Chicago Zoo, specifically highlighting their extensive teacher
training programs and their partnerships with the Chicago
Public School System.
During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused
on: the need for improved coordination of informal and formal
STEM education activities and the importance of partnerships
between informal and formal educators, challenges to assessing
STEM learning in informal environments and barriers to
developing better metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of
informal STEM education, and the challenge of reaching students
and teachers from areas with limited access to traditional
informal learning environments such as museums or zoos.
4.4(b)_Coordination of International Science Partnerships
March 24, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-14
Background
On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to receive testimony on draft
legislation to recreate a committee under the National Science
and Technology Council for the coordination and planning of
international science and technology activities and
partnerships between and among Federal research agencies and
the Department of State.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jon C. Strauss, Chairman
of the National Science Board Task Force on International
Science; (2) Dr. Norman P. Neureiter, Director of the Center
for Science, Technology and Security Policy, American
Association for the Advancement of Science; (3) Mr. Anthony
``Bud'' Rock, Vice President for Global Engagement at Arizona
State University; and (4) Dr. Gerald Hane, Managing Director,
Q-Paradigm.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the
importance of international cooperation in science and
technology (S&T) and the history of mechanisms for interagency
coordination of international S&T activities. He then stated
that the purpose of the hearing was to receive comments on the
potential purpose, uniqueness, and efficacy of an interagency
coordinating committee for international S&T as described in
the proposed legislation. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) agreed
on the importance of international S&T cooperation and of
interagency cooperation on this topic and stated that he
supported the goals of the draft legislation.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Strauss elaborated on the
recommendations in the National Science Board report on
international science and engineering partnerships, including
the recommendation for an interagency committee that served as
the basis for the proposed legislation. Dr. Neureiter stated
that he supported the proposed legislation and offered some
specific recommendations about its role. He also recommended
that the legislation go further by helping to create a
dedicated fund for high priority S&T cooperation. Mr. Rock
stated that an interagency coordinating committee should first
and foremost be assigned the lead responsibility to define the
international dimensions of cross-cutting national research
priorities, that is, research and development areas that
require coordinated investment across multiple agencies. Dr.
Hane was unable to appear at the hearing due to unforeseeable
travel delays.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on the specific recommendations for how the
interagency committee proposed in the draft legislation should
and should not function, for example who should chair, what the
priorities of the committee should be, and how its role must be
unique from other interagency committees and individual
agencies. Members also asked panelists about other
recommendations for strengthening international S&T
cooperation, including recommendations to specific agencies
such as the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Agency for
International Development. Panelists also discussed how
partnerships are initially formed between foreign science
ministers and organizations and U.S. counterparts, but they
suggested that the interagency committee is not an appropriate
point of contact.
4.4(c)_Cyber Security R&D
June 10, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-31
Background
On Tuesday, June 10, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science held
a hearing to explore the state of federal cybersecurity
research and development and the adequacy of cybersecurity
education and workforce training programs.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Seymour Goodman,
Professor of International Affairs and Computing and Co-
Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center, Georgia
Institute of Technology; (2) Ms. Liesyl Franz, Vice President,
Information Security and Global Public Policy, TechAmerica; (3)
Dr. Anita D'Amico, Director, Secure Decisions Division, Applied
Visions, Inc.; (4) Dr. Fred Schneider, Samuel B. Eckert
Professor of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science,
Cornell University; and (5) Mr. Timothy Brown, Vice President
and Chief Architect, CA Security Management.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the
benefits of information technology, but also the vulnerability
of our networks to cyber attack. He cited the rising cost of
cyber crimes to the federal government, businesses and
individuals, and emphasized the role of cybersecurity R&D and
education in improving the security of cyberspace. Ranking
Member Ehlers (R-MI) expressed the importance of improving
cybersecurity for both the Federal Government and the private
sector and the need to foster trust and information exchange
between the public and private sector in the pursuit of common
goals.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Goodman discussed the
need for technical advancements in cybersecurity, but stressed
that advancements in non-technical areas such as human
behavior, policy, and economics are also critical. Ms. Franz
spoke about the importance of increasing public-private
collaborations and the role of the private sector in
cybersecurity. She recommended the establishment of a formal
mechanism for industry input into the federal cybersecurity R&D
portfolio. Dr. D'Amico discussed the role of the social
sciences in cybersecurity, and how the Federal Government
should foster collaborations between computer scientists and
social scientists in order to increase system security and
usability. Dr. Schneider spoke about increasing long-term
investments in cybersecurity R&D and expressed concern that
currently funded research is reactive rather than visionary.
Mr. Brown testified about the value of moving scientific
advancements from the laboratory to the marketplace.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the need for cybersecurity professionals
to receive a multidisciplinary education, including in
technical and non-technical areas, the need to design security
into hardware and software from the beginning, risks in the
supply chain, and research needed to detect component
modifications. The question and answer period also included a
discussion of incentives to improve the adoption of
cybersecurity measures, increasing consumer understanding of
cybersecurity risks, and ways to increase technology transfer
and foster university-industry research partnerships.
4.4(d)_Agency Response to Cyberspace Policy Review
June 16, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-34
Background
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation and
the Subcommittee on Research and Education held a joint hearing
to review the response of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to the findings and
recommendations in the Administration's 60-day Cyberspace
Policy Review.
There were four witnesses: (1) Ms. Cita Furlani, Director,
Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (2) Dr. Jeannette
Wing, Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer &
Information Science & Engineering, NSF; (3) Dr. Robert F.
Leheny, Acting Director, DARPA; and (4) Dr. Peter Fonash,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Cyber Security
Communications, DHS.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Wu cited his displeasure
with the effectiveness of previous government-funded
cybersecurity efforts and their levels of success. Chairman Wu
stated that this hearing would highlight the progress of the
four Federal agencies tasked with bolstering and maintaining
federal cybersecurity standards and what steps are being taken
for future improvements. Ranking Member Smith cited both the
previous and current Administration's commitment to the issue
of cybersecurity and said that, while there exists a consensus
for a strong bipartisan commitment to bolstering cybersecurity
both domestically and abroad, the country is still at the
earliest stages of doing so and that Congress must balance the
haste to find solutions with careful deliberation on the
solutions they choose. He wondered if enough effort is being
placed on cybersecurity research and development efforts,
whether $30 billion dollars is an appropriate amount to invest
in cybersecurity, and how we can improve the security of
private sector networks as well as public domains. Chairman
Lipinski stressed the need for more information sharing between
the public and private sectors and the challenges of
incentivizing agencies to better address the problems of
cybersecurity, as well as deficiencies in the information
technology education field. He called for a change in the
culture of how Americans practice their computer hygiene and
for the formation of a secure and resilient cyberspace for not
only the Federal Government, but the private sector as well.
Ms. Furlani said that NIST accelerates the development and
deployment of information and communication systems that are
reliable, usable, interoperable, and secure. She asserted that
NIST is actively engaged with private industry, academia, non-
national security federal departments and agencies, the
intelligence community, and other elements of the law
enforcement and national security communities in coordinating
and prioritizing cyber security research, standards
development, standards conformance demonstration, and cyber
security education and outreach.
Dr. Wing said that many cyber security measures deployed
today capitalize on fundamental research outcomes generated
decades ago. NSF agrees with the recent 60-Day Cyberspace
Policy Review that a national strategy to secure cyberspace in
both the near- and the long-term must include investments in
fundamental, unclassified, open, long-term research. Many of
the cyberspace security methods used today were developed by
the open research community, many with an application in mind
other than security.
Dr. Leheny talked about DARPA's role in cybersecurity
research and advancement, and specifically mentioned one
program, which develops a National Cyber Range. This range will
be a vehicle for significantly advancing progress in cyber
understanding and capabilities, serving as a tool for rapid,
realistic, and quantitative simulation assessment of cyber
technologies. He also talked about coordinating research with
other agencies, noting that--in general--program managers
engage with their counterparts in other agencies to scope out
the best way forward to achieve a specific research goal.
Mr. Fonash said that DHS leads a multi-agency approach to
coordinate the security of federal, civil, and executive branch
networks. He said that the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT) serves as the focal point for the
security of federal civil executive branch networks. Agencies
report instances to US-CERT, which then provides guidance to
agencies on enhancing detection capabilities and works with
them to mitigate information security incidents. DHS has also
led the Comprehensive Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) effort to
establish a front-line defense for the federal executive
branch. DHS also has plans to deploy EINSTEIN, an intrusion
detection system. He said that DHS works with industry and
government partners to secure the Nation's critical
infrastructure networks.
4.4(e)_Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in STEM
Fields
July 21, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-45
Background
On July 21, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to examine current research findings, best
practices, and the role of the federal agencies in increasing
the interest of girls in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) in primary and secondary school, and
addressing the challenges that deter young women from pursuing
post-secondary STEM degrees.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief
Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS); (2) Dr. Marcia Brumit Kropf, Chief Operating
Officer, Girls Incorporated; (3) Dr. Sandra Hanson, Professor
of Sociology, Catholic University; (4) Ms. Barbara Bogue,
Associate Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics and
Women in Engineering, Penn State College of Engineering; and
(5) Ms. Cheryl Thomas, President, Ardmore Associates LLC.
Summary
Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by describing the
disproportionately low number of women earning undergraduate
degrees in certain STEM fields such as engineering, computer
science, and physics. He stressed that broadening the STEM
pipeline is critical to our Nation's economic competitiveness.
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) echoed Chairman Lipinski's
sentiment, also citing statistics that demonstrate the
disparities in the participation of women in STEM.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Leshner discussed some of
the efforts of AAAS to increase the participation of women in
the STEM fields. He spoke about the challenges women face in
the scientific workforce and stressed that even among women who
do attain STEM degrees, many leave careers in science because
of work environments and institutional cultures that do not
support them and their needs related to balancing work and
family life. Dr. Kropf suggested that a major constraint for
women is the often perpetuated stereotype regarding gender and
the STEM fields, mainly that men are innately better at STEM
and are better suited for careers in STEM. She also stressed
the unique role informal learning can play in attracting women
to STEM. Dr. Hanson described her own research, which suggests
that young girls do not start out with low achievement in STEM,
rather they begin to lose interest at many points along the
pipeline, often due to a lack of support and encouragement. She
echoed Dr. Kropf's claim regarding stereotypes, arguing that
textbooks need to have more pictures of women scientists. She
also stressed the importance of looking at the intersection of
gender and race when examining barriers to increasing the
participation of underrepresented groups in STEM. Dr. Bogue
discussed the need for improved assessments and evaluation
techniques in order to better determine effective mechanisms to
recruit and retain women in the STEM fields. Dr. Thomas
stressed the negative impact of stereotypes, asserting that
girls are often deterred from pursuing STEM studies because
generally they are thought of as being reserved for men. She
discussed the need for girls to have strong, positive, female
role models in the STEM fields.
During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused
on: the importance of positive role models and mentors for
girls, the need to provide schools with better resources to
encourage young girls, the role of informal and hands-on
learning to encourage interest and participation of
underrepresented groups in STEM, and the role sports and other
out-of-school activities can play in increasing the confidence
of young girls and thus their willingness to pursue studies and
career tracks historically thought of as reserved for men.
4.4(f)_A Systems Approach to Improving K-12 STEM Education
July 30, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-47
Background
On July 30, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to examine how the many public and private
stakeholders in an urban K-12 system can work together to
improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education inside and outside of the classroom.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Wanda Ward, Acting
Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and Human
Resources, National Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Ms. Maggie
Daley, Chair, After School Matters; (3) Mr. Michael Lach,
Officer of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools; (4)
Dr. Donald Wink, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department
of Chemistry, and Director of Graduate Studies, Learning
Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago;
and (5) Ms. Katherine Pickus, Divisional Vice President, Global
Citizenship and Policy, Abbott.
Summary
Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by discussing the need
for more students to participate in education in the STEM
fields. He stated that there will be a wave of Americans
retiring from these fields and students in this country need to
enroll more frequently if the U.S. is to continue to lead in
the global economy. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) noted that the
hearing would help Members develop a greater appreciation of
the particular challenges facing large urban school districts
in their efforts to implement STEM education programs.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Ward stated that the NSF
vision is aligned with STEM priorities in the America COMPETES
Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She also
stated that it is important to utilize technology to enhance
learning. Ms. Daley talked about the importance of informal
education and hands on learning. She noted that students in her
program have higher graduation rates, lower dropout rates, and
fewer course failures, and mentioned the need for government
support of programs such as hers. Mr. Lach discussed the
challenges and economic constraints facing the public school
system in Illinois, and introduced key strategies to address
these challenges. He also stressed the importance of
partnerships between universities, businesses, museums, and
laboratories. Dr. Wink discussed the importance of improving
instruction and engaging students and STEM experts
simultaneously. Ms. Pickus stated that it is essential to
create a culture in which there is more interest in science.
She also emphasized the importance of partnerships between
programs with proven records and educational institutions.
During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused
on: the need to keep principals and administrators engaged and
to make sure they have high expectations for both teachers and
students to show proficiency in STEM content, the need to put
accountability tools and supports in place to help poor
minority students achieve, the importance of effective training
for teachers, the challenges facing rural districts and the
need to use computers for distance learning, the importance of
partnerships among university science and education faculty,
public schools, and other STEM institutions such as museums,
the salary differences between urban and suburban school
districts and the effects of the differential on science and
math education, and whether it would be beneficial for the city
of Chicago and other cities if the mayor was dedicated and
gathered decision makers together.
4.4(g)_Investing in High-Risk, High-Reward Research
October 8, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-55
Background
On Thursday, October 8, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine mechanisms for funding
high-risk, potentially high-reward research, and the
appropriate role of the federal government in supporting such
research.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Neal F. Lane, Malcolm
Gillis University Professor and Senior Fellow, James A. Baker
III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; (2) Dr. James
P. Collins, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences,
National Science Foundation (NSF); (3) Dr. Richard D.
McCullough, Professor of Chemistry and Vice President of
Research, Carnegie Mellon University; and (4) Dr. Gerald M.
Rubin, Vice President and Director, Janelia Farm Research
Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski stated his
concern that the peer-review system has become too conservative
in its funding decisions, expressed the Subcommittee's
intention to address high-risk, high-reward research during the
reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, and indicated his
interest in hearing about appropriate mechanisms to support
such research. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized the
importance of addressing transformative research within the
basic research portfolio.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Lane described
recommendations for NSF from the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences' report on high-risk, high-reward research, including
the establishment a targeted program to support high-risk
research, the development of metrics to evaluate the success of
the program, and the creation of other policies and mechanisms
to support high-risk research. Dr. Collins testified that NSF
is currently exploring methods and measures to understand the
contributions of high-risk research and to inform future
investments. Dr. McCullough indicated that the current peer-
review system is not conducive to high-risk research and
offered a number of recommendations, including the
establishment of a specific program for high-risk research, and
the development of special review panels to evaluate high-risk
research proposals. Dr. Rubin described the way in which the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute supports cutting-edge research
and the premise of their investigator program which is ``people
not projects.''
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the need for a diversity of funding
mechanisms to support high-risk research, including the seed
funding, prizes, and support for individuals over specific
projects. Members and panelists also discussed the need to
change the culture of review panels and the reward criteria at
institutions of higher education in order to encourage more
high-risk research.
4.4(h)_Engineering in K-12 Education
October 22, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-57
Background
On October 22, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
held a hearing to examine the potential benefits of, challenges
to, and current models for incorporating engineering education
at the K-12 level.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Linda Katehi, Chair,
National Academy of Engineering Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education, and Chancellor, University of California, Davis;
(2)Dr. Thomas Peterson, Assistant Director for Engineering,
National Science Foundation (NSF); (3) Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis,
President and Director, Museum of Science, Boston and Founder,
National Center for Technological Literacy; (4) Dr. Darryll
Pines, Dean and Nariman Farvardin Professor of Engineering, A.
James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park; and (5) Mr. Rick Sandlin, Principal, Martha and
Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School,
Texarkana, Texas.
Summary
Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by describing the
growing effort to develop effective models for teaching
engineering education at the K-12 level, and expressed his
interest in learning how the integration of engineering
concepts in K-12 math and science teaching could be used to
improve student achievement in all STEM fields. Ranking Member
Ehlers (R-MI) noted the unique and important role engineering
could play in elementary and secondary education, while
stressing the importance of building a strong research base
regarding the teaching and learning of engineering in the K-12
classroom.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Katehi described the
findings and recommendations of the National Academy of
Engineering study, entitled ``Engineering in K-12 Education.''
Specifically, she emphasized the benefits of an integrated
approach to STEM education, the need to improve professional
development opportunities in engineering education for K-12
teachers, and the role engineering education can play in
increasing participation of individuals from underrepresented
groups in STEM. Dr. Peterson described investments made by the
National Science Foundation in K-12 engineering education and
research. Dr. Miaoulus described the Museum of Science Boston's
activities to promote engineering literacy, specifically, the
development of engineering curriculum for elementary students,
the offering of teacher professional development opportunities,
and the development of university curricula to train future
teachers in engineering education principles. Dr. Pines
described outreach efforts, including student summer programs
and teacher professional development activities, supported by
the University of Maryland, School of Engineering. Mr. Sandlin
described the students' experience and the curriculum offered
at the Martha and Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering
Elementary School.
During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused
on: the relationship between engineering education and
technological literacy, NSF's investments in K-12 engineering
education and coordination of the programs being managed by
NSF's Engineering Directorate and the Education and Human
Resources Directorate, activities to increase student
engagement and recruitment into engineering, and professional
development for K-12 teachers.
4.4(i)_Strengthening Undergraduate and Graduate STEM Education
February 4, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-76
Background
On Thursday, February 4, 2010, the Honorable Daniel
Lipinski (D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to examine the current state
of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education
in undergraduate and graduate institutions. In particular, in
preparation for the Committee's reauthorization of the America
COMPETES Act, the hearing focused on the role of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in strengthening STEM education at
U.S. colleges and universities.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy,
Acting Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources at
the National Science Foundation; (2) Mr. Rick Stephens, Senior
Vice President for Resources and Administration at the Boeing
Company, and Chair of the Aerospace Industries Association's
(AIA) Workforce Steering Committee; (3) Dr. Noah Finkelstein,
Associate Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at
Boulder; (4) Dr. Karen Klomparens, Associate Provost and Dean
for Graduate Education at Michigan State University; and (5)
Dr. Robert Mathieu, Professor and Chair of Astronomy and
Director of the Center for the Integration of Research,
Technology and Learning (CIRTL) at the University of Wisconsin
at Madison.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the
significant increase in foreign investment in the STEM fields,
arguing that the U.S. needs to increase its own investment in
STEM education in order to keep up with the global pace of
competition and innovation. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI)
similarly noted the importance of investing in STEM education,
and he expressed concern that the fiscal year 2011 NSF budget
did not include funding increases for university-based programs
supporting the training of STEM teachers.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy discussed
NSF's mission as it relates to education, and described a
number of the Foundation's programs specifically designed to
help strengthen STEM education. Mr. Stephens discussed the
skills shortage in the aging science and technology workforce,
noting that defense contractors are particularly limited
because they often can only employ U.S. citizens. He also
discussed the negative portrayal of scientists and engineers in
the media, and described AIA's efforts to combat these
stereotypes.
Dr. Finkelstein argued that higher education is the
``critical lynchpin'' of the STEM education system, and noted
that despite knowing what needs to be done, successful models
of teaching and learning are not widespread in the STEM
community; scientists and educators are not applying scientific
methods to the problem of fixing STEM education itself. Dr.
Klomparens discussed the challenge of recruiting students to
the STEM fields, and recommended establishing better
connections between K-12, undergraduate and graduate
institutions. Dr. Mathieu focused on inadequate teacher
preparation and attrition as two of the major barriers to a
STEM-qualified workforce.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on metrics for and evaluations of NSF's
education initiatives, the chasm between schools of education
and science communities, the need for institutional support and
structure in order to scale up successful programs, the
effectiveness of using NSF CAREER awards and modified incentive
structures to encourage better teaching practices, the
characteristics of engineering schools which produce the most
effective workers, and the use of media to change perceptions
of the STEM fields.
4.4(j)_The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S.
Universities
February 23, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-77
Background
On Tuesday, February 23, 2010, the Honorable Daniel
Lipinski (D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to examine the research and
research training infrastructure of our universities and
colleges, including research facilities, and
cyberinfrastructure capabilities, the capacity of the research
infrastructure to meet the needs of U.S. scientists and
engineers now and in the future, and the appropriate role of
the Federal government in sustaining such infrastructure.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Leslie Tolbert, Vice
President for Research for the Graduate Studies and Economic
Development at the University of Arizona; (2) Mr. Albert
Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business at
Pennsylvania State University; (3) Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost at the Medical
University of South Carolina, and Chair of the State of South
Carolina EPSCoR Committee; and (4) Dr. Thom Dunning, Director
of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski noted the
importance of maintaining and modernizing research
infrastructure to ensure that federal research funding can be
used efficiently and on the most cutting-edge research. He
asked that the witnesses comment on how federal dollars should
be balanced between infrastructure needs and direct research
costs. Ranking Member Ehlers expressed concern about the need
to improve academic research infrastructure, but also noted
that the National Science Foundation's expertise and mission is
in funding peer-reviewed basic research and suggested that NSF
might not be an appropriate venue for infrastructure funding.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Tolbert noted that
increased mandates and reporting requirements, specifically for
research compliance, are increasingly consuming the
``facilities and administration'' reimbursements that have been
traditionally used to offset infrastructure costs. She also
noted, as a representative from a state university, that state
funding for new buildings and building maintenance is very low,
and commended federal programs such as the Academic Research
Infrastructure program and the Major Research Instrumentation
and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
programs for helping to cover these expenses. Mr. Horvath noted
that from a financial management perspective, major
infrastructure investments are particularly complicated and
expensive to establish and maintain, and that recent
uncertainty about funding and the consequences of the economic
downturn have made it even more difficult to fund new
infrastructure and to continue servicing debt on previous
projects.
Dr. Raymond discussed South Carolina's Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) grants from NSF and
NASA and the effect these grants have had on the state's
research infrastructure and capacity. He also suggested
improvements to that program, including dividing it into
research, education, and workforce components, increasing
funding, and adding new funds for maintenance of existing
research facilities as well. Dr. Dunning focused specifically
on cyberinfrastructure needs as related to high-performance
computing, including the need for increased user support at
universities, his concern about too-frequent competitions for
supercomputing contracts, balance between software and hardware
needs, and networks and their limited data capacities.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the infrastructure maintenance deficit,
the United States' competitiveness in supercomputing relative
to other countries, American students' declining interest in
computer science fields, state and industry support for higher
education investments, linking research investments to regional
economic goals, collaboration between federal agencies on
research funding, how infrastructure affects universities'
ability to compete with other American universities or with
foreign universities for top faculty and graduate students,
productivity loss due to infrastructure needs, administrative
burdens on research grant recipients, how EPSCoR could help
smaller universities, community colleges, technical colleges
and minority-serving institutions, and the effect of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on infrastructure
demands.
4.4(k)_The National Science Foundation's FY 2011 Budget Request
March 10, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-83
Background
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine the priorities in the
National Science Foundation's FY 2011 budget request. In
addition, in preparation for reauthorization of the 2007
America COMPETES Act, the Subcommittee examined core
activities, initiatives, and policy directions for research,
infrastructure, education and workforce training at the
Foundation.
There were two witnesses: (1) Dr. Arden Bement, Director of
the National Science Foundation (NSF); and (2) Dr. Steven
Beering, Chair of the National Science Board (NSB).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski expressed his
support for the overall increase in the NSF budget, but also
expressed concern about the lack of increase or, in some cases,
the decrease in funding in specific areas--namely the Education
and Human Resources Directorate, research infrastructure
funding, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative budget.
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) also expressed concern regarding
funding for education programs at NSF, especially for the Math
and Science Partnerships program and the Noyce program.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Bement noted that the 8
percent increase in the overall budget keeps the Foundation on
track to double its budget, as recommended in the America
COMPETES Act. He also said that the main driver for the budget
was the National Innovation Strategy, and went on to summarize
specific programs and areas of the budget that reflect the
Administration's priorities with respect to innovation and STEM
education. Dr. Beering discussed the implications of the
National Science Board's recently issued biannual statistical
report, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, and encouraged
Congress to fund in full the President's NSF budget request.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists discussed a number of issues, including science
diplomacy, NSF's role in federal STEM initiatives and in
partnering with the Department of Education, the budget for the
Engineering and Human Resources directorate, energy
independence, scientific integrity, NSF's proposed
consolidation of Broadening Participation programs, research
commercialization, research infrastructure, Recovery Act
spending, and transformative research.
4.4(l)_Broadening Participation in STEM
March 16, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-85
Background
On Tuesday, March 16, 2010, the Honorable Marcia Fudge (D-
OH) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine institutional and cultural
barriers to broadening the participation of students from
underrepresented groups pursuing degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), efforts to
overcome these barriers at both mainstream and minority serving
institutions, and the role that Federal agencies can play in
supporting these efforts.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Head
of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, (2) Dr.
Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor of Higher Education,
University of Southern California, (3) Dr. Keivan Stassun,
Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt
University, (4) Dr. David Yarlott, President of Little Big Horn
College, and (5) Ms. Elaine Craft, Director of the South
Carolina Advanced Technological Education National Resource
Center, Florence-Darlington Technical College.
Summary
In her opening statement, Vice Chairwoman Fudge stated the
need to produce more scientists and engineers, in addition to
creating a more STEM-literate workforce in order to fill the
growing number of technical jobs. She further emphasized the
need to develop all of the STEM talent the nation has to offer,
including by increasing the number of underrepresented minority
students pursuing STEM degrees, to meet the workforce demands.
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) suggested that while some progress
had been made in attracting and retaining underrepresented
minorities in STEM, the overall numbers are still discouraging
and that he was interested in learning how the Federal
government could leverage successful programs. Ms. Fudge and
Mr. Ehlers both expressed interest in hearing the panelists'
opinion on the National Science Foundation's proposal to
consolidate a number of broadening participation programs.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Malcom outlined the data
trends for the participation of women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in STEM and expressed the need to improve
federal coordination of broadening participation efforts.
Malcom also stated that in addition to diversifying the student
population, we need to focus on increasing the number of
individuals from underrepresented groups within STEM faculty.
Dr. Dowd described the role of community colleges in improving
the participation of Hispanic students in STEM, and the
importance of institutional change in increasing STEM
diversity. Dr. Stassun described the partnership between Fisk
University and Vanderbilt University to transition students
from Fisk's STEM master's degree programs to Vanderbilt's Ph.D.
degree programs. Stassun outlined the key strategies of the
successful program, which included recruiting minority students
with unrealized potential, strong mentorship, and dedicated
faculty. Dr. Yarlott described the importance of the National
Science Foundation's Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
(TCUP) as well as the unique challenges faced by tribal
colleges and the communities they serve. He offered several
recommendations on how to modify TCUP and other NSF-funded
programs to better serve tribal colleges. Ms. Craft described
the central role community colleges have to play in broadening
the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM. She
emphasized the need to improve STEM teaching and the
opportunity that exists to integrate STEM topics into remedial
courses that most community colleges students need to take
prior to pursuing a STEM degree.
During the question and answer period, the Members and
panelists focused on the importance of diversifying the STEM
faculty to provide role models for minority students, the
negative impact the lack of financial support has on a
student's decision to pursue a STEM degree, the need to improve
teaching strategies and methodologies, the importance of easing
the transfer of students from community colleges to 4-year
institutions, and the need to provide incentives such as a
broader impacts review criterion at all Federal science
agencies in order to encourage faculty and institutions of
higher education to focus on broadening participation efforts.
4.4(m)_From the Lab Bench to the Marketplace: Improving
Technology Transfer
June 10, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-99
Background
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine the process by which
knowledge and technology are transferred from academic
researchers to the private sector, and to identify best
practices, policies, and other activities that can facilitate
the commercialization of federally funded research for the
benefit of society and the economic competitiveness of the
United States.
There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Thomas W. Peterson,
Assistant Director of the Directorate for Engineering at the
National Science Foundation; (2) Ms. Lesa Mitchell, Vice
President of Advancing Innovation at the Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation; (3) Mr. W. Mark Crowell, Executive Director and
Associate Vice President for Innovation Partnerships and
Commercialization at the University of Virginia; (4) Mr. Wayne
Watkins, Associate Vice President for Research at the
University of Akron; (5) Mr. Keith L. Crandell, Co-founder and
Managing Director at ARCH Venture Partners; and (6) Mr. Neil D.
Kane, President and Co-founder of Advanced Diamond
Technologies, Inc.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the
need to turn discoveries at the academic level into
economically productive products, companies and jobs,
especially in light of increasing technological competition
from other countries. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized
his desire to learn about partnerships between universities,
industry, and the National Science Foundation.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Peterson described NSF's
role in supporting translational research, and focused on NSF's
Engineering Research Centers, the Industry/University
Cooperative Research Centers, and NSF's Small Business
Innovation Research and Small Business Tech Transfer programs
as examples of ways in which NSF has been able to successfully
support technology transfer and commercialization of new
technologies in academia. Ms. Mitchell called for an increase
in transparency of federally funded research, for funding
agencies to become more involved in the technology transfer
process, and for an increase in funding for proof-of-concept
centers and commercialization education programs. Mr. Crowell
noted the change in the technology transfer sector from being
largely reactive in the 1980s and 1990s to being highly
sophisticated and driven by best practices today, especially in
concentrated areas of entrepreneurial activity.
Mr. Watkins focused on the need for university
administrations to demonstrate commitment to innovation and
technology transfer, the need for tech transfer offices to be
flexible and adaptable, the appropriate roles that government
can play in the innovation process, and on the need for
universities, industry, and government to collaborate
effectively in the technology transfer process. Mr. Crandell,
drawing from his experience as a venture capitalist, discussed
the importance of commercialization metrics, the need to focus
added funding on the top one percent of scientists, a realistic
standard of conduct that relies on actual conflict of interest
and not the appearance of such, encouragement of exclusive
licenses, and his desire for investor-backed companies to
qualify for SBIR grants. Lastly, Mr. Kane focused on the
barriers that he has encountered in attempting technology
transfers from universities and federal labs, including
transaction costs of executing licenses, problems with
conflicts of interest or visas for foreign nationals wanting to
work in the United States, and the so-called ``valley of
death,'' or the gap between applied research and commercial
traction.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists discussed whether inventors or technology transfer
offices should control patent licensing, if the United States
has an advantage in industrial innovation and startup
companies, whether the link between research and
commercialization is an appropriate funding venue for the
National Science Foundation, given that its focus is on basic
research, how to alter the academic landscape or tenure
structure to reward innovation and entrepreneurship as well as
traditional research publishing, potential changes in visa
policies to accommodate research and technology transfer needs,
how promising university-industry relationships are identified,
and how NSF might facilitate those interactions, the STAR
METRICS initiative, and the qualities of an effective
technology transfer office.
4.4(n)_21st Century Biology
June 29, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-103
Background
On Tuesday, July 21, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine the future of the
biological sciences, including research occurring at the
intersection of the physical sciences, engineering, and
biological sciences, and to examine the potential these
emerging fields of interdisciplinary research hold for
addressing grand challenges in energy, the environment,
agriculture, materials, and manufacturing.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Chair of
the National Academy of Sciences and Board on Life Sciences and
Professor for the Department of Cellular and Molecular
Pharmacology at the University of California in San Francisco;
(2) Dr. James Collins, Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural
History and the Environment at the Department of Ecology,
Evolution & Environmental Science at Arizona State University;
(3) Dr. Reinhard Laubenbacher, Professor of the Virginia
Bioinformatics Institute and Department of Mathematics at
Virginia Tech; (4) Dr. Joshua N. Leonard, Assistant Professor
at the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at
Northwestern University; and (5) Dr. Karl Sanford, Vice
President of Technology Development at Genencor.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski expressed
excitement about the potential of the ``new biology'' field, as
well as his desire to learn more about the possibility of
finding critical solutions to real-world problems at the
intersection of biology and other fields, including the
physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics. He also asked
the witnesses for recommendations on how the National Science
Foundation can foster interdisciplinary research and improve
STEM education for students interested in these
interdisciplinary fields. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI)
discussed the emerging trend of using interdisciplinary
research to solve problems, and expressed concern that graduate
students receiving interdisciplinary training might end up with
an overly broad scientific background rather than developing
disciplinary expertise.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Yamamoto focused on the
findings and recommendations of a National Research Council
report, A New Biology for the 21st Century, which found that
the field suffers from lack of recognition and inadequate
support. He also noted the report committee's recommendation
that life scientists and physical scientists should be
collaborating on research to address grand challenges in four
areas: food, energy, the environment, and health. Dr. Collins
discussed the need for institutions to be innovative and
adaptable when dealing with interdisciplinary research, stating
the need to lower ``barriers that block the ready flow of
knowledge and ideas between, for example, academic departments,
funding agencies, or the public and private sector.'' Dr.
Laubenbacher spoke about the role of mathematics in new
biology, the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations and
cross-agency coordination and the need for the Federal
Government to support such initiatives. Dr. Laubenbacher also
discussed workforce training including, interdisciplinary Ph.D.
programs, integrated curricula and research experiences at the
undergraduate level, faculty development opportunities, and
inspiring future scientists.
Dr. Leonard discussed the emerging field of synthetic
biology and the importance of funding high-risk, high-reward
projects in the field. Dr. Sanford stated that the future of
biological research is in the ``Golden Triangle'' of
information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology; each
field has enormous potential in its own right, but would be
further empowered if they collaborated to address society's
challenges. He also stressed the importance of continued
investment in research, education, business, and legal
developments, transparency, and data-based decision making.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists focused on the role of the National Science
Foundation in fostering interdisciplinary research, how to
train future interdisciplinary scientists, the position of the
United States relative to other countries in the field of
synthetic biology, how to ensure that the private sector is
engaged in this field and in bringing federally-sponsored
research discoveries to the marketplace, and how the current
regulatory guidelines apply to synthetic versus natural
genomics.
4.4(o)_Behind the Scenes: Science and Education at the
Smithsonian Institution
July 21, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-107
Background
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine the Smithsonian
Institution's research activities, educational programs, and
management of scientific collections, as well as the
intersection between those missions.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. G. Wayne Clough,
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; (2) Ms. Claudine
Brown, Director of Education at the Smithsonian Institution;
(3) Dr. Eldredge ``Biff'' Bermingham, Director of the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; and (4) Ms. Shari
Werb, Assistant Director of Education at the National Museum of
Natural History.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski noted the need
for Congress to take a more active role in oversight of the
Smithsonian Institution (SI) given that the majority of its
budget comes from federal appropriations, and the importance of
the Institution's research and education activities. He also
expressed interest in learning more about the Smithsonian's
coordination with other federal agencies and SI's efforts to
improve management and sharing of scientific collections.
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) discussed his own history with the
Smithsonian as the former Chairman of the House Administration
Committee, and argued that the Institution plays a unique role
in federal science and education activities.
During the witness testimony, Secretary Clough gave an
overview of how the Smithsonian's activities are uniquely
diverse and distinctive relative to other science and education
entities, highlighting the ability of SI to conduct long-term
studies and its possession of some of the largest scientific
collections in the world. He also discussed the two `Grand
Challenges' in the Smithsonian's strategic plan that
specifically relate to science. Ms. Brown explained her role as
the first-ever Director of Education, in which she will
coordinate the 32 museum and research center education offices
and help to disseminate the curricula and digital teaching
tools developed by the Smithsonian. Dr. Bermingham spoke about
the research projects at the Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute in Panama, or STRI, which is unique in its field
because its data dates back for nearly a century's worth of
collections, as STRI is not tied to the traditional grant-
making schedule as universities and other research centers
often are. Ms. Werb focused on museum-level education and
outreach activities, including exposure to research and mentor
programs.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists discussed science diplomacy and the Smithsonian's
international presence, the Smithsonian's infrastructure
backlog and funding shortages, the need for Congress and the
Federal Government to recognize the Smithsonian as a research
institution rather than as a network of museums, and to fund it
accordingly, the value of the Smithsonian as an educational
resource, non-governmental revenue sources, the `service'
component of Smithsonian research versus traditional university
research, fellowship programs at SI, and collaboration with
national labs.
4.4(p)_The Science of Science and Innovation Policy
September 23, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-109
Background
On Thursday, September 23, 2010, the Honorable Daniel
Lipinski (D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education held a hearing to examine the current state
of science and technology policy research, how this research
informs policymaking, and the role of the federal government in
fostering academic research and education in this emerging
interdisciplinary field.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Julia Lane, Program
Director of the Science and Science and Innovation Policy
program at the National Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Dr.
Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director of the Consortium for Science,
Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University; (3) Dr. Fiona
Murray, Associate Professor of Management in the Technological
Innovation & Entrepreneurship Group at MIT Sloan School of
Management; and (4) Dr. Albert H. Teich, Director of Science &
Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski spoke about the
need for Congress to have accurate data in the Science of
Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) field in order to ensure
that Members have the necessary information to allocate federal
dollars and oversee programs efficiently and effectively.
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) noted that Congress needs an
updated guidance document for science and innovation policy,
and also emphasized the importance of ensuring measurable
returns on scientific research investments.
During the witness testimony, Dr. Lane noted that SciSIP
efforts are particularly important because ``you can't manage
what you can't measure, and what you measure is what you get''
with respect to science and research programs. She also
emphasized the importance of collecting better data, as the
STAR METRICS program is doing, and the importance of developing
a bottom-up, no-burden empirical data infrastructure to be made
available to all science agencies and recipients of federal
funding. Dr. Sarewitz agreed that it is hard to envision
effectively steering the research enterprise without SciSIP's
efforts and data, but also noted that SciSIP must be careful to
focus on outcome-based science rather than outputs, and on the
need for better relationships and collaboration between those
doing the research and those who will use it to affect policy
decisions.
Dr. Murray noted that recent SciSIP work has been centered
on two developments: the development of and investment in a
massive scientific data infrastructure, and the social science
methodologies involved in program and policy evaluation. She
also noted the need to focus on lower-level distribution
strategies for SciSIP research, rather than emphasizing
national and agency-level policymaking. Dr. Teich focused on
the need to establish a working SciSIP community, and to bridge
the gaps between different disciplines and between researchers
and government workers to ensure that these dialogues are
effective and ongoing.
During the question and answer period, Members and
panelists discussed the role of the Appropriations Committee in
evaluating federal science programs, scientists' ability to
characterize and measure social outcomes of research and
development spending, how to better collect and use data to
support the SciSIP field, how to effectively and persuasively
educate Members of Congress about the importance of science
policy, and the kind of academic programs and initiatives
needed to produce interdisciplinary, science policy-focused
career paths.
4.5--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
4.5(a)_Cost Management Issues in NASA's Acquisitions and
Programs
March 5, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-7
Background
On Thursday, March 5, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing to examine the status of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) efforts
to improve the cost management of its acquisitions and
programs. The hearing focused on (1) the results of the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recently completed
assessments of selected large-scale NASA projects and its
designation of NASA acquisition management as a ``high-risk''
area, (2) the causes of cost growth and schedule delays in NASA
acquisitions and (3) the agency's progress in addressing them.
There were three witnesses: (1) Christopher Scolese, Acting
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; (2) Ms. Christina T. Chaplain, Director of
Acquisition and Sourcing Management for the Government
Accountability Office; (3) Gary P. Pulliam, Vice President of
the Civil and Commercial Operations at The Aerospace
Corporation.
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords expressed that the hearing was the
first step in the subcommittee's oversight of NASA's
acquisition and program management. She admitted NASA's cost
management and schedule issues would not be a simple fix and it
would take a collaborative effort to improve practices. Ranking
Member Olson (R-TX) echoed Chairwoman Giffords sentiment on the
challenges that lay ahead, but also shared her optimism over
the progress NASA had achieved so far.
Acting Administrator Scolese testified about internal and
external factors that affect NASA's cost and schedule growth,
and stated that some factors were outside of the
administration's control. However, he was pleased to report
that NASA had made improvements in standards for project
lifecycle milestones and accountability for their stakeholders.
Ms. Chaplain testified that NASA had a history of failing
to address and correct its poor cost estimating practices.
However, Ms. Chaplain stated that in the most recent assessment
of NASA's large-scale projects, GAO found that ``improvements
have been made, but problems still exist.'' Mr. Pulliam's
testimony described four main causes of NASA's cost growth and
schedule delays, and offered a rationale for why some of those
problems still existed.
4.5(b)_Aviation and the Emerging Use of Biofuels
March 26, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-15
Background
On Thursday, March 26, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the House Committee on Science and
Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics convened a
hearing to review the status of federal and industry research
and development (R&D) efforts to develop and demonstrate the
safe and cost-effective use of biofuels in civil aviation. The
hearing focused on (1) what research was needed to determine
the optimal characteristics of both aircraft engine
technologies and biofuels to minimize harmful emissions while
maintaining aircraft safety and reliability and maximizing
performance? (2) What were the most realistic aviation biofuel
options over the long term, and what will be required to
achieve widespread use of biofuels in aviation? (3) What steps,
if any, was the federal government taking to assess the
viability of biofuels for aviation or to facilitate their
widespread use in aviation? (4) What were the results of the
recently completed aviation biofuels demonstrations?
There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate
Administrator of Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) Dr.
Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientist of the Federal Aviation
Administration and Environmental Lead for the Commercial
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative; (3) Dr. Alan H. Epstein,
Vice President of Technology and Environment at Pratt &
Whitney, United Technologies Corporation; (4) Mr. Billy M.
Glover, Managing Director of Environmental Strategy at Boeing
Commercial Airplane Company; and (5) Mr. Holden E. Shannon,
Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security at
Continental Airlines.
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords opened the hearing by remarking that
America faced big challenges to achieve energy independence and
protect and preserve its environment; a challenge that aviation
would play a role in resolving. She raised concerns that the
``odds of success will be reduced without an integrated
federal/private sector approach to evaluating the potential
benefits and costs of aviation biofuels, including a systematic
plan to understand their impacts on both existing and future
aircraft technology.'' Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) shared
Chairwoman Giffords concerns and suggested the federal
government should help fund research to end our dependence on
foreign sources of energy.
Dr. Shin testified that ``NASA has initiated a modest
research effort in 2007 that builds upon the existing expertise
in fuel chemistry and processing, combustion, and gas turbine
engines to address some of the challenges associated with the
application of these fuels for aviation.'' Dr. Shin stated that
it would take a concerted effort by multiple government
agencies, aerospace industries, academia, and biofuel producers
to successfully implement widespread use of biofuels in
aviation.
Dr. Maurice testified that the FAA had ``identified a
number of options that can replace petroleum jet fuel without
the need to modify aircraft, often referred to as drop-in
fuels.'' However, she was quick to admit that biofuels in
aviation still faced challenges in certification,
quantification of environmental impacts, and infrastructure and
deployment.
Dr. Epstein testified that testing had shown ``an engine
can be designed to reduce fuel consumption if it can be assured
that all aircraft fuel was largely bio-jet fuel.'' In his
conclusion, Dr. Epstein proclaimed that the remaining
challenges were not in the realm of propulsion engineering but
rather belonged to the business community, biological and
chemical engineers, ecologists, and lawmakers.
Mr. Glover testified that Boeing's main goal was to
facilitate rapid commercialization of the biofuel industry and
capture the opportunities it offered the aviation industry. He
voiced Boeing's shared sentiment with the other witnesses that
government played a role in supporting the commercialization
and development of aviation biofuels in order to make a
successful transition.
Mr. Shannon testified on behalf of Continental that
airlines have a strong economic incentive to reduce their fuel
consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions.
4.5(c)_Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and
Commercial Users
April 28, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-22
Background
On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing to examine the challenges space traffic
management and orbital debris posed to civil and commercial
space users. The Subcommittee explored potential measures to
improve information available to civil and commercial users to
avoid in-space collisions as well as ways to minimize the
growth of future space debris. The hearing focused on the
following questions and issues: (1) What were the current and
projected risks to civil and commercial space users posed by
other spacecraft and space debris? (2) What information and
services were available to civil and commercial space users in
terms of real-time data and predictive analyses? (3) What could
be done to minimize the growth of space debris? (4) What was
the level of coordination among military, civil, and commercial
space users in the sharing of space situational awareness
information? (5) Have shortcomings been identified by civil and
commercial space users with regards to the availability of
situational awareness information they need? (6) How were these
shortcomings being addressed? (7) Have civil and commercial
space users identified their long-term situational awareness
needs? What options were being considered to address them?
There were four witnesses: (1) Lt. Gen. Larry D. James,
Commander, 14th Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and
Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, U.S.
Strategic Command; (2) Mr. Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist
for Orbital Debris, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; (3) Mr. Richard DalBello, Vice President of
Government Relations Intelsat General Corporation; (4) Dr.
Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George
Washington University.
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) started by stating that people
commonly see space as endlessly large and expansive and that
the recent collision of two orbiting satellites is a reminder
just how crowded space has become. The Chairwoman then stated
the Subcommittee hopes to answers question about whether the
incident was a rare fluke or not and about the U.S.'s current
ability to help prevent potential satellites collisions.
Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) began his opening remarks on how
the Iridium-Kosmos collision should serve as a reminder that
space-faring nations can no longer be complacent on this issue.
He also stressed the need for space traffic management with
intensive monitoring programs.
During the opening testimonies, General James explained
what the Joint Functional Component Command (JFCC) for Space
was doing in terms of tracking orbital objects. He also stated
that the Air Force Space Command ``will continue to work
closely with the commercial and foreign space communities to
understand their evolving needs and desires for space
situational awareness . . . ''
Mr. Johnson stated the U.S. needed to limit space debris
because the debris remains in low-Earth orbit for long periods
of time. He also spoke about NASA's role in the matter.
Mr. Dalbello talked about what the commercial satellite
industry was doing in terms of tracking and the process of
inter-company and government cooperation.
Dr. Pace spoke about the need for international and
industry cooperation and concerns about the need for improving
tracking data accuracy.
4.5(d)_External Perspectives on the FY 2010 NASA Budget Request
and Related Issues
June 18, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-37
Background
On Thursday, June 18, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics heard from advisory and other stakeholder bodies on
issues relevant to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. John C. Marshall, member
of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); (2) Dr. Kenneth
M. Ford, Chair of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC); (3) Mr.
Robert M. Hanisee, Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee of
NAC; (4) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Chair of the National
Academies' Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB); (5)
Dr. Berrien Moore III, member of the National Academies' Space
Studies Board (SSB); (6) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice-President for
Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords instructed Members to dispense with
opening statements in order to ensure sufficient time for the
subcommittee to hear all spoken witness testimonies before
10:30 votes.
Mr. Marshall spoke first, and told the subcommittee that
from the perspective of the ASAP, priority in the NASA budget
ought to be given to making sure safety was not sacrificed due
to reduced funding. In his view, allocating sufficient
resources to extend the shuttle program without compromising
safety would leave NASA with insufficient resources to fulfill
its other directives, and endanger the future of the entire
space program. Mr. Marshall also called for a redefinition of
NASA's exploration missions, since recent budget cuts made the
current exploration program unsustainable. He announced that
while ASAP was pleased with NASA's compliance with the
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board,
there were still risks that could not be mitigated without
extensive redesign of the shuttle. Mr. Marshall also discussed
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. He then listed a
few areas ASAP believed NASA could pay more attention to in
fostering a culture of safety.
Dr. Ford focused on three areas critical to the future of
America's space program: developing new space transportation
architecture, reestablishing a technology R&D program, and,
most importantly, securing stable funding linked to a stable
purpose. Dr. Ford saw the accelerated development of a heavy-
lift launch vehicle as a crucial first step in modernizing
space transportation, and ensuring access to the International
Space Station (ISS), since commercial transport and the Ares I
project would not be available for many years to come.
Mr. Hanisee began his remarks with a discussion of NASA's
past managerial and financial tangles. He said that although
problems like the anarchic accounting systems of ten autonomous
centers have been reined in, the intractable issue of property
accounting continued to muddy the fiscal waters. Legacy assets
like the Space Shuttle, and the ISS were particularly
problematic from an accounting point of view. One possible
solution would be to write off the troublesome assets as
Research and Development.
Dr. Colladay focused his testimony on technology
development. He thought that R&D programs at NASA were driven
too much by the needs of the moment. While there have been
significant advances from technology developed to fill known
program needs, especially in environmentally responsible
aviation, a long-term, research-driven technology development
program would reinvigorate the agency's capabilities. Moreover,
such a program should be organized so as to support not just
NASA, but also commercial space programs and other government
agencies. However Dr. Colladay also expressed concern that NASA
lacked sufficient funds to properly pursue new technologies, or
even to accomplish preexisting program goals.
Dr. Moore spoke of the need to balance NASA's disparate
priorities. While he felt that the 2010 budget was a distinct
improvement over 2009, Dr. Moore stated that NASA should still
try to clamp down on costs, to do more with less, or simply try
to do less. He reported that the Earth Science Decadal missions
in particular were in dire financial straits. The agency ought
to cut back on its programs, and be more careful about
selecting programs in the first place, in order to avoid the
excessively expensive and focus on the possible. Cutting back
on the number of NASA Centers and National Labs would be a good
start.
Mr. Stevens expressed concern over the insufficient funding
of the Ares V and the Lunar Lander in the current NASA budget,
and the imminent loss of jobs associated with those projects.
He also urged the Subcommittee to continue funding ISS without
taking funds away from other critical programs. Mr. Stevens
said that another great disappointment in the FY 2010 budget
was the decrease in funding for NASA education initiatives,
which he hoped the Subcommittee would correct in future
budgets. Mr. Stevens also recommended that commercial space
launch indemnification be extended for at least another 5
years, as its elimination would drive even more launch business
overseas.
The hearing was adjourned due to votes.
4.5(e)_Enhancing the Relevance of Space to Address National
Needs
July 16, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-44
Background
On Thursday, July 16, 2009 the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing on enhancing the relevance of space
activities to address national needs. The hearing (1) examined
how recent reports by the National Research Council and The
Space Foundation characterized the relevance of space-related
activities, particularly their role in improving the health,
economic well-being, and the quality of life of all Americans;
(2) reviewed what should be done to maintain and enhance that
relevance; and (3) analyzed whether enhanced awareness of the
contributions from space-related activities would result in
inspiring future generations of Americans.
There were four witnesses: (1) General [U.S. Air Force,
retired] Lester L. Lyles, Chair of the Committee on the
Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program,
Aeronautics & Space Engineering Board of the National Research
Council; (2) Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Board of Directors of the
Space Foundation; (3) Ms. Deborah Adler Myers, General Manager,
Science Channel, Discovery Communications; and (4) Mr. Miles
O'Brien, Journalist.
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) starts off by indicating the
40th anniversary of Apollo and how it is one of the most
significant achievements of the U.S. space program. She
proceeds to indicate that America's space program must be
relevant to the broad national needs to continue support from
Congress and by the American people. She then asks that if we
have an exciting and relevant space program, but the American
people don't hear about it, then is it relevant?
Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) starts his opening statement by
indicating that NASA has high public support but suffers when
put in a list of competing goals. He continues and says that to
improve, we must make sure our human spaceflight goal is
adequately funded, and that the mission has to be effectively
conveyed.
General Lyles testified that the US still has the
preeminent civil space program. He then mentioned that his team
generated six goals, such as to sustain and expand our
leadership in science.
Ms. Smith followed and said that space was relevant in
every American's life and that the U.S. needed to acquire more
civilian and national security space systems. She added that
not taking the initiative will require the U.S. to be more
reliant on foreign space systems.
Ms. Myers indicated that the space community struggled
against the cliche that science was dry and boring. At the
Science Channel, Ms. Myers noted that they developed television
programming and reached out to their audience on Facebook and
Twitter.
Mr. O'Brien testified that the engineers at NASA lack
communication skills. He proposed that NASA missions should all
have a public relations requirement where the message should be
part of the mission, and not an afterthought. Mr. O'Brien also
proposed that there needed to be money set aside for such
operations.
4.5(f)_Strengthening NASA's Technology Development Programs
October 22, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-58
Background
On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing on NASA's efforts to define advanced concepts
and develop innovative technologies. The hearing examined (1)
the opportunities, challenges, and issues identified in
external reviews associated with NASA's analysis of advanced
concepts and long-term development of technology; (2) NASA's
progress in responding to the provisions in NASA Authorization
Acts and recommendations from external reviews associated with
technology development; and (3) NASA's efforts to collaborate
and coordinate with other federal agencies on technology
development issues.
There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert D. Braun, Co-
Chair of the National Research Council's Space Engineering
Board Committee to Review the NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts; (2) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Vice-Chair of the
National Research Council's Aeronautics and Space Engineering
Board Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil
Space Program; (3) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate
Administrator of NASA.
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords opened the hearing by stating that all
three witnesses, as well as the subcommittee, would probably
agree that NASA has been under-investing in technology
development. However, she added that the under-funded
technology development programs cannot and should not be funded
from NASA's other, already under-funded, projects. Ranking
Member Olson suggested that NASA might be better served if it
returned to a more centralized structure, to encourage long-
term rather than momentary goals.
Dr. Braun began his testimony by asserting that the
original organization of the NASA Institute of Advanced
Concepts (NIAC) was effective. However Dr. Braun allowed that
modifications to both NIAC and NASA would improve NIAC's
effectiveness, especially the reestablishment of aeronautics
and space systems technology development enterprise within
NASA. In his view, NASA ought to focus its efforts on short-
term, mid-range missions and long-term, strategic technology
investments. To this end, Dr. Braun recommended that NASA
establish a formal program to direct the development of a
selected set of technologies.
Dr. Colladay started off by observing that long-term
advanced research and development (R&D) did not happen in
industry, because the pay-off was too distant, or in academia
in the absence of sustained government funding. To revitalize
NASA's long-term technology development, Dr. Colladay
recommended technology R&D be independent of NASA's other major
programs, with an organizational structure modeled along the
lines of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
This hypothetical technology mission area ought to reach
outside NASA, to engage with commercial space companies as well
as other government agencies and departments. Moreover, before
embarking on this new program, there should be a comprehensive
assessment of the current state of the art advanced space
technology. Dr. Colladay concluded by asserting the importance
of technology relevance and transition.
Mr. Scolese began by reporting that recent National Academy
reviews of NASA suggested that NASA ought to shift its emphasis
from technologies for flight to the development of game-
changing technology. The timeframe for such technology
investment should be 10-20 years. An independent management
structure would be best suited to the early stages of these
projects. Mr. Scolese added that NASA did invest in
technological development in a limited way through its
partnership program, as well as through its mission and
engineering programs, despite its lack of a long-term
development program. He said that NASA has also increased its
outreach efforts to outside groups, joining with other
government organizations to fund life science research on the
International Space Station.
4.5(g)_The Growth of Global Space Capabilities: What's
Happening and Why It Matters
November 19, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-65
Background
On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the House Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing on the growth of global space
capabilities, and why they matter.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Marty Hauser, Vice
President for Research and Analysis at the Washington
Operations of the Space Foundation; (2) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice
President for Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries
Association; (3) Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy
Institute at George Washington University; (4) Dr. Kai-Uwe
Schrogl, Director of the European Space Policy Institute; (5)
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director of the Secure World
Foundation.
Summary
Mr. Hauser began his testimony by reporting that most
space-faring nations now had the same space capabilities as the
U.S. He said that more than 60 countries had space agencies,
and many of them were increasingly willing to share their
expertise with countries not as far along. He added that
America was losing its competitive position in launch,
manufacturing, and service capabilities. He further noted that
while there were commercial opportunities in the expansion of
launch capabilities, there was also the threat of competition.
Mr. Hauser told the Subcommittee that if America wished to
retain its primacy in space, Congress would have to bite the
financial bullet, and give NASA the funds it needs to succeed.
Mr. Stevens identified three areas in which the U.S. was
losing its leadership in space: satellites, human spaceflight,
and launch systems. He was especially concerned that the U.S.
commercial space launch industry only had 15% of the global
market. Mr. Stevens reminded the Subcommittee that space
capabilities, especially launch systems, could easily be
translated into military capabilities; in other words, the loss
of U.S. superiority in space was a threat to national security
as well as to national pride. He agreed with the Chairwoman's
emphasis on international cooperation, but added that any such
deals should avoid threatening America's industrial base or
national security. For Mr. Stevens, the International Space
Station (ISS) was an example of a successful cooperation, and
therefore should be extended through 2020.
Dr. Pace used his opening statement to remind the
Subcommittee that the geosynchronous arc gets more crowded
every year. He laid out the Chinese government's plans for the
next decade, which culminated with a three-man space station in
2020. Dr. Pace said that if the U.S. did not make plans beyond
the ISS, America would essentially be bowing out of the human
spaceflight business. He explained that space tourism and
commercial spaceflight, though valuable, could hardly sustain a
major international cooperative human spaceflight effort. Dr.
Pace believed that the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008
still offered the clearest and most practical way forward for
the U.S. space program.
Dr. Schrogl provided European perspectives on the expansion
of space-faring capabilities around the world, and the
implications of that expansion on trans-Atlantic relations. In
his view, space-based security concerns were a promising area
of trans-Atlantic cooperation. A similar cooperation was highly
necessary in the regulation of space as a strategic economic
area. Dr. Schrogl also hoped that future years would see more
trans-Atlantic cooperation on the less-urgent but equally vital
area of space exploration.
Dr. Williamson shared the Secure World Foundation's
insights on the growth of world space capabilities, and why
those changes were vital to U.S. interests. Like previous
panelists, he noted the scientific and commercial opportunities
created by the nascent space programs of other nations. Dr.
Williamson added that an increasing amount of space debris made
the lack of any effective governance of the global commons of
outer space a more acute problem every day. In his view, the
U.S. could best ensure its own orbital security by engaging
with emerging space states regarding adherence to international
best practices. Dr. Williamson said that assisting new space
states was also an opportunity for the U.S. to flex its soft
power, to use its technological and economic capabilities to
influence foreign policymakers. He also added that working with
states to build space capacity would create a larger market for
U.S. goods as well as a long-term sustainable security climate
in space based on cooperation rather than competition and that
ITAR reform would go a long way in this regard as well.
4.5(h)_Ensuring the Safety of Human Spaceflight
December 2, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-66
Background
On December 2, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing focused on issues related to ensuring the safety of
future human space flight in government and non-government
space transportation systems. The hearing examined (1) the
steps needed to establish confidence in a space transportation
system's ability to transport U.S. and partner astronauts to
low Earth orbit and return them to Earth in a safe manner, (2)
the issues associated with implementing safety standards and
establishing processes for certifying that a space
transportation vehicle is safe for human transport, and (3) the
roles that training and experience play in enhancing the safety
of human space missions.
There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. Bryan D. O'Connor, Chief
of Safety and Mission Assurance at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA); (2) Mr. Jeff Hanley, Program
Manager of the Constellation Program at NASA; (3) Mr. John C.
Marshall, member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP);
(4) Mr. Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial
Spaceflight Federation; (5) Dr. Joseph R. Fragola, Vice
President of Valador, Inc; and (6) Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford,
USAF (ret.).
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) opened the hearing by saying
that while human spaceflight would never be risk-free, Congress
must understand the fundamental crew safety issues when making
decisions about the program. She said that NASA's Constellation
program took the recommendations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) very seriously, and that any
alternative approach would therefore have to prove itself at
least as safe as Ares and Orion.
Rep. Hall (R-TX) reminded the Subcommittee that the
Astronaut Office had recommended, back in 2004, that a crew
escape system module be included in any new launch vehicle, and
insisted that this would continue to be the case. Rep. Olson
(R-TX) added that the space program ought not to take advantage
of the astronauts' pioneering spirit and fall short on safety
issues. He also said that the increased participation of
commercial providers would entail great changes at NASA, not
necessarily for best.
Mr. O'Connor began by explaining the mission of the Office
of Safety and Mission Assurance. He said that many of the
programs planned by his office were being implemented at the
new NASA Safety Center in Cleveland. In his view, working with
NASA's Russian counter-parts on Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and
the International Space Station (ISS) had been an invaluable
learning experience on different safety procedures. Mr.
O'Connor added that his office was also investing 2009 Recovery
Act funds in supplementing activities related to technologies
that enable commercial human spaceflight capabilities.
Mr. Hanley focused on outlining how the Constellation
Program had sought to improve crew safety above and beyond the
features of previous crewed aircraft. He said that the design
goal of the program was a 10-fold increase in astronaut safety
relative to the shuttle missions. He also reported that NASA
was developing a new integrated test and verification plan as
part of its design review process.
Mr. Marshall criticized the Augustine Report for its
oversimplified approach to safety issues. Mr. Marshall believed
that because commercial providers had no reason to develop
strong safety guidelines on their own, NASA had to lay down and
police a set of guidelines on their behalf. He insisted that
safety was the greatest weakness of the COTS program, and NASA
would have to oversee construction carefully to ensure that
companies did not take on undue risks in an effort to cut costs
or speed up production.
Mr. Alexander spoke for the 20 member organizations of the
Commercial Spaceflight Federation. He regarded commercial crew
transport as complementary, not competitive, with NASA's
mission. Mr. Alexander claimed that since low-Earth orbit was
an easier and more focused destination than those intended for
the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the commercial program
would be more cost-effective. He agreed with previous speakers
that safety was the paramount concern of all those involved in
spaceflight programs, commercial or otherwise. He suggested
that the FAA should retain its licensing authority over
aircraft, while NASA would have oversight in its capacity as
customer.
Dr. Fragola described his four laws for a safe space
launcher design. To begin with, the design must be as
inherently safe as possible. Secondly, the crew should be put
at the top of the rocket, as far away from the source of
failure as possible. There must also be a credible abort
trigger set, and finally, the design should include a tested
abort system that allows for a safe crew escape and recovery.
Dr. Fragola said that under these criteria, the Ares I was the
safest vehicle around, two to three times safer than the
alternatives. This was because of its reliability and its
benign abort conditions.
General Stafford stated that while he strongly agreed with
the majority of the findings of the Augustine Report, there
were a few he objected to. His disagreements with the report
began with its recommendation that the responsibility for
transportation of crew and cargo to the ISS be given to
commercial contractors exclusively. First of all, commercial
cargo transport would require the construction of costly, time-
consuming autonomous transfer vehicles. Secondly, safe delivery
of a crew to the ISS required the successful combination of a
human-rated launch vehicle, the spacecraft itself, and the
launch abort system. The Augustine Report lacked an in-depth
analysis of these vital safety issues. General Stafford did not
see what entity other than NASA could credibly establish and
verify appropriate standards for human spaceflight.
4.5(i)_Independent Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
December 3, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-68
Background
On Thursday, December 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight convened a joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for the purpose of
receiving the annual independent auditor's report on the
financial status of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Ernst & Young, the agency's auditor, had
issued a so-called ``disclaimed opinion,'' indicating that the
agency financial statements did not fairly represent NASA's
accurate financial condition. Since 1990, NASA has invested
significant time and effort in three attempts to develop an
acceptable financial management system. While the audit report
credited NASA with notable progress in correcting its
weaknesses, Ernst & Young considered efforts to properly value
legacy equipment on the balance sheets to fall short of
government accounting standards. The hearing was called to
determine what would be needed for NASA to receive unqualified
opinions in subsequent annual audits.
Testifying at the hearing were: (1) Hon. Paul Martin, the
newly-appointed Inspector General of NASA (accompanied by his
deputy, Mr. Tom Howard); (2) Mr. Paul Murrin, Ernst & Young's
senior auditor for the NASA contract since 2004 and Partner in
the company's Assurance and Advisory Business Services; and (3)
Hon. Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's new Chief Financial Officer.
Summary
One of the responsibilities of an agency Inspector General
is to manage the contract providing for the audit of the
agency's financial statements by an independent private firm
every year. Mr. Martin's testimony summarized the results of
the Fiscal Year 2009 audit, where auditor Ernst & Young was not
willing to state an opinion on whether the statements ``fairly
represented'' the agency's assets and liabilities. For the past
two decades, NASA has struggled with financial management
systems that have been unable to reliably track and report on
fund management and control. This has repeatedly been
highlighted by the Inspector General's office and the
Government Accountability Office as a primary management
challenge for NASA.
According to Mr. Murrin, NASA was in the end unable to
provide adequate and appropriate documentary evidence that the
values assigned by the agency to older property, plant and
equipment used in programs such as the Space Shuttle and Space
Station. This has been a persistent issue highlighted by
previous audit reports and the focus of continuous
collaboration by NASA and Ernst & Young to correct the
problems. While Mr. Murrin's testimony described the procedural
changes NASA has applied in its effort to clear this material
weakness, the audit notes that these are primarily applied to
current and prospective contracts. The major problem remains
that the financial controls in previous years failed to
preserve the required information.
It falls to Dr. Robinson to manage the corrective actions
needed to eliminate the weak spots identified by the audit. In
her testimony, she described the continuing efforts since 2002
aimed at bringing the upgraded financial management systems
into compliance with modern standards and best practices.
Identifying and correcting data discrepancies and improving
staff skills have occupied much time.
In the particular item providing for the disclaimer of
opinion, Dr. Robinson stated that it originated in a 1998
decision to change the accounting process for space equipment
so that it was no longer fully captured in the year such
equipment was obtained. NASA found that its contracting process
and method failed to adapt to the new accounting requirement
and thus failed to obtain and retain the records and
information needed to conform. With the failure to correct this
deficiency, the gaps in records grew and led auditors to
express growing discomfort about the effect on the accuracy
agency financial records.
In addition to NASA's direction to change agency practice
in contracting, a new Federal accounting standard is now in
place that will assist NASA--and other agencies like DOD in
similar straits--to deal with the missing historical records.
While significant resources have been applied to reconstruct
the evidence in an attempt to satisfy the requirement for
actual documentation, the new standard allows for the
development of appropriate estimating methods to generate
reasonable approximations of the property, plant and equipment
at issue.
Much of the discussion with the witnesses concerned the
need for continuing collaboration to assure that the agency and
the auditors shared a common view of the proper implementation
of the new standards for estimation. Members also sought
assurances that the other risks highlighted in the audit
report, relating to the calculation of NASA's environmental
liabilities and the need to finish bringing the financial
management systems up to legal standards, were not waiting to
replace legacy asset valuation as the basis for a disclaimed
opinion in the next audit. The witnesses express confidence
that NASA would finally begin receiving unqualified opinions
beginning with the fiscal year 2010 audit.
4.5(j)_Key Issues and Challenges Facing NASA: Views of the
Agency's Watchdogs
February 3, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-73
Background
On February 3, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a
hearing on the key issues and challenges facing the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as seen by the
agency's ``watchdogs''--the NASA Inspector General, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). Leveraging the unique
perspectives these organizations developed in the course of
their work at NASA in the areas of management, mission
execution, and security and safety oversight, the hearing
examined (1) the critical issues and challenges facing NASA
that warrant congressional attention and (2) the corresponding
commitment, initiatives, and policies needed by NASA to
successfully address these issues and challenges. Separate
hearings would address NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request
as well as the administration's human space flight strategy
after they are announced.
There were three witnesses: (1) Hon. Paul K. Martin,
Inspector General, NASA; (2) Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain,
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO; (3) Vice-
Admiral Joseph W. Dyer [U.S. Navy, Ret.], Chair, ASAP.
Summary
Mr. Martin identified five critical challenges facing NASA:
(1) transitioning from the Space Shuttle to a new generation of
space vehicles; (2) enhancing risk management techniques; (3)
improving the agency's financial management; (4) addressing
systemic weaknesses in acquisition and contracting processes;
and (5) ensuring the security and integrity of NASA's
information technology (IT) systems.
Ms. Chaplain concurred with Mr. Martin on the issues facing
NASA, listing as NASA's main challenges retiring the Space
Shuttle, completing and operating the International Space
Station (ISS), acquiring complex systems for research,
improving financial management and protecting IT systems. She
added that however broad the changes proposed in the
President's new budget, they did not alter these basic
concerns. However, Ms. Chaplain also noted that previous
commercial approaches did not succeed because they lacked sound
government insight and oversight.
Vice-Admiral Dyer quoted the conclusion of his panel's 2009
report, emphasizing that the Ares I was designed with an
emphasis on safety, and any new approach would have to
guarantee an equal or greater safety level. He called on NASA
to create clear Human Rating Requirements (HRR) for potential
commercial contractors. Vice-Admiral Dyer added that managing
the transition of the shuttle workforce would now be doubly
important.
4.5(k)_Proposed Changes to NASA's Exploration Program: What's
Known, What's Not, and What Are the Issues for Congress?
March 24, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-91
Background
On March 24, 2010 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing on the administration's proposed changes to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
exploration program.
There were two witnesses: (1) Mr. Douglas Cooke, Associate
Administrator for the Explorations Systems Mission Directorate
at NASA; and (2) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin (Ret.).
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) opened the hearing by noting
that the President's budget had been found deficient by the
Congress and the American people. She added that in cancelling
the Constellation program, the new budget was ending a
successful program in which the government had already invested
five years and $14 billion. Moreover, she remarked that
cancellation would deprive the U.S. of assured access to LEO.
Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) reminded the Subcommittee that the
President's new budget was far from a fait accompli, and that
the final decision rested with Congress, not the Executive. He
remarked that he disagreed with NASA's cancellation of
procurement activities and the Constellation Program.
Mr. Cooke began by confirming that the ultimate destination
in human spaceflight remained Mars. He said that to further
this goal, the FY 2011 budget would fund three new programs
aimed at expanding the capabilities of America's human
spaceflight program. While commending those who worked so
diligently on the Constellation program, Mr. Cooke affirmed the
need for commercial groups to take over transit to and from
LEO, leaving NASA free to go beyond.
In oral testimony, Mr. Young strongly condemned the
proposed cancellation of the Constellation program. He said
that neither Soyuz nor industry provided a long term solution
to the problem of American access to LEO. While commercial
industry should be encouraged, it was still a long way from
being able to satisfy human space transportation needs.
Therefore, the U.S. ought to commit instead to developing a
heavy-lift capability along the lines of the Ares I. Mr. Young
added that what NASA needed was a Plan A, such as could not be
found in the budget proposal. If enacted, the proposed budget
would lead to an irreversible deterioration of America's
aerospace workforce.
4.5(l)_Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash Clouds on
Aviation_What Do We Need to Know?
May 5, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-93
Background
On May 5, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding,
the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the
research needed to improve our understanding of the impact of
volcanic ash clouds on aircraft and aircraft operations and
what could be done to mitigate that impact. Last year, when the
Mount Redoubt volcano erupted southwest of Anchorage, one of
the operating airlines grounded its fleet, diverted flights and
wrapped the engines of its parked planes in plastic sealant.
More recently, the eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull
volcano paralyzed air travel in Europe for six days,
inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of passengers around the
world and causing airline revenue losses of at least $1.7
billion.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Tony Strazisar, Senior
Technical Advisor for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate [Substituting for Associate Administrator Jaiwon
Shin]; (2) Dr. Jack A. Kaye, Earth Science Division at NASA;
(3) Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior VP for NextGen and Operations
Planning at the FAA's Air Traffic Organization; (4) Captain
Linda M. Orlady, Executive Air Safety Vice Chair of the Air
Line Pilots Association, International; and (5) Mr. Roger
Dinius, Flight Safety Director at GE Aviation.
Summary
Chairwoman Giffords remarked that she concluded from the
recent eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland that
aviation regulators have insufficient scientific data either to
track the density and position of volcanic ash clouds or to
comprehend the full extent of their effect on aircraft. She
urged the FAA to work with NASA, pilots and aircraft
manufacturers in marshalling U.S. resources to deal with the
issue.
Ranking Member Olson wondered how deeply the Federal
Government should invest in researching such rare events.
However he added that the events following the eruption of
Eyjafjallajokull made such research more plausible, and perhaps
there were similarly obscure hazards that may have been
overlooked.
Dr. Strazisar testified regarding NASA's past experience
with the impact of volcanic ash on aircraft. He said that
volcanic ash ingestion is rare because the established practice
is to avoid flight in the vicinity of volcanic debris. Dr.
Strazisar shared with the committee the experience of a NASA
DC-8 research plane that in February of 2000 flew through the
edge of an ash cloud produced by Iceland's Heckla volcano. Even
though that encounter only lasted seven minutes, disassembling
the engines revealed significant damage invisible to the naked
eye. Improving forecasts and operational procedures could go a
long way towards providing a solution for air traffic
management.
Dr. Kaye said that NASA's Earth Science program, through
its 13 earth-observing missions, fed critical information on
volcanic debris to NOAA and other agencies. The new satellites
the Earth Science division would be launching over the next
year would further augment this data stream. Since volcanic
eruptions are the only sources of sulfur dioxide large enough
to be detected by satellite, NASA and NOAA could then provide
accurate, near real-time information on the location of sulfur
dioxide emissions, which can be particularly useful in the
first few days after an eruption.
Ms. Cox reiterated that accidents and incidents caused by
encounters with volcanic ash are quite rare. She said the FAA
treats volcanic ash much like a major weather event. According
to Ms. Cox, the relatively constrained airspace over Europe
limited the options available to the European Union (EU) in its
response to the Eyjafjallajokull eruption. Since NextGen
focuses on quality and delivery of information, it would aid
operators and flight traffic controllers in getting the
necessary data.
Capt. Orlady observed that in addition to engine and
windshield damage, volcanic gases also pose a serious threat to
the health of crew and passengers alike. She said that a lack
of standardization of available forecasts complicated European
handling of the recent air travel disruption. She added that
her organization, ALPA, advocated complete avoidance of
volcanic ash until a deeper understanding of engine tolerance
was achieved. Better detection mechanisms, more vigorous
certification processes, and new procedural training exercises
will also help.
Mr. Dinius said that ash clouds had three significant
effects on airplane engines: (1) corrosion of compressor
blades; (2) plugging of cooling holes; and (3) accumulation on
hot parts. He added that GE recommended avoiding flight into
visible ash, but further research into ash clouds and their
impact on commercial engines could reduce the risk of flying
through one.
4.6--SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
4.6(a)_An Overview of Transportation R&D: Priorities for
Reauthorization
February 12, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-2
Background
On Thursday, February 12, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the research, development, and deployment
activities of the Department of Transportation (DOT). The
hearing also focused on issues related to the funding,
planning, and execution of current research initiatives and how
these efforts fulfill the strategic goals of both Federal and
State Departments of Transportation, metropolitan
transportation organizations, and industry.
There were five witnesses: (1) The Hon. Paul Brubaker,
Former Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) at the U.S. DOT; (2) Dr. Elizabeth
Deakin, Director of the University of California Transportation
Center at the University of California, Berkeley; (3) Mr.
Amadeo Saenz, Jr. PE, Executive Director of the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT); (4) Mr. Robert Skinner,
Executive Director at the Transportation Research Board (TRB);
and (5) Mr. David Wise, Acting Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability Office
(GAO).
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Wu expressed his hope
that transportation planners would use the latest available
technologies and research results in the infrastructure
projects planned under proposed economic stimulus funding. He
also expressed his concern about a lack of prioritization and
coordination in national transportation research and
development efforts and how this lack of prioritization and
coordination resulted in a less efficient and effective
research and development program. Ranking Member Smith noted
the timeliness of the hearing with transportation funding in
the proposed economic stimulus bill. He stressed the importance
of technology transfer to getting the results of research from
the lab to the road.
Former Administrator Brubaker opened by noting that he had
not been as successful as he had hoped in streamlining the
decision-making processes during his tenure at RITA. However,
he was satisfied that transparency with respect to research and
development funding had improved. Even so, he felt that it is
currently ``impossible'' to ensure that research funds are well
used, and he argued that RITA should have more resources and
authority to fulfill its research coordination role per the
Mineta Act (P.L. 108-426). He also recommended monitoring the
progress and performance of research by metrics agreed to in
advance.
Dr. Deakin recommended an outcome-based funding strategy
for research that would focus on meeting societal goals, such
as increased access to transportation options or reduced
congestion. She noted a lack of coordination between government
agencies, the academic researchers, and the private sector. In
addition, she recommended that University Transportation
Centers (UTCs) be awarded via competition, rather than
earmarked in legislation.
Mr. Saenz gave several examples of the benefits of
transportation research in Texas, noting that his agency
estimated a return of five to one for gains in efficiency per
research dollar. He urged the Federal Government to provide
ready-to-use, documented systems to states and other end-users
and repeated the importance of a set of system-wide goals and
metrics for transportation research.
Mr. Skinner advocated for the improvement of technology
transfer programs, and greater inclusion of stakeholders in
major decisions regarding resource allocation for surface
transportation research and development. He echoed Dr. Deakin's
support for competitively-awarded research funding and stressed
the importance of an intermodal approach to transportation.
Mr. Wise assessed RITA's progress in implementing 2006 GAO
recommendations to strengthen coordination and planning for
research and development across DOT. For instance, the agency
has improved the coordination, review, and performance
measurements of DOT's research and development programs. He
noted, though, that RITA had not developed performance goals to
measure its own performance.
Members asked the witnesses to give their thoughts on
developing a more coordinated, comprehensive surface
transportation R&D program. Mr. Brubaker emphasized the need to
lay out clear goals for the research agenda, and require
measurable outcomes for funded projects. Mr. Skinner concurred,
but noted the enormity and challenge of the task. Dr. Deakin
noted that other countries have been more successful in
creating metrics for assessing progress.
The witnesses also stated the need to improve technology
transfer. Mr. Wu expressed concern that institutional, social,
and cultural inertia within the transportation field slowed
progress in implementing new ideas and technologies, an
observation with which several witnesses agreed. Mr. Saenz
noted his positive experience with TxDOT field offices where
many different types of professionals work together, fostering
more idea exchange and collaboration. Dr. Deakin remarked that
much of the know-how for improving organizational structures
and partnerships exists in business schools and within the
social sciences.
Members also questioned the witnesses about the best
mechanism for funding the UTC program. Mr. Brubaker argued that
the current, heavily-earmarked system meets the needs of many
stakeholders and should not necessarily be changed. In
contract, Dr. Deakin, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Saenz argued in
favor of a completely competitive process. However, Dr. Deakin
and Mr. Skinner agreed that many of the earmarked centers are
successful, and that earmarks allow universities to strengthen
their centers to enable them to compete at a later time. They
also noted the important contributions UTCs make to workforce
development. Witness opinions were also mixed on the question
of the UTC matching requirements. Dr. Deakin and Mr. Brubaker
were ambivalent, while Mr. Skinner strongly advocated an
increase in the Federal UTC match from 50 percent to 80 percent
to allow universities more freedom to pursue basic research.
4.6(b)_Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: The
Role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
March 10, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-8
Background
On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the scientific and technical issues raised by
the recently released National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward. The hearing discussed issues related to the accuracy,
standards, reliability, and validity of forensic science, as
well as how the expertise of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in forensics related research,
developing standards and certified test methodologies, and
performing laboratory accreditation may be leveraged to
implement some of the recommendations in the report.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Pete Marone, Director of
Technical Services at the Virginia Department of Forensic
Science; (2) Ms. Carol Henderson, Director of the National
Clearing House for Science, Technology and the Law; Professor
of Law at Stetson University College of Law; Past President of
the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; (3) Mr. John Hicks,
a retired Director of the Office of Forensic Services at New
York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the
former Director at the FBI Laboratory; (4) Dr. J.C. Upshaw
Downs, Coastal Regional Medical Examiner at the Georgia Bureau
of Investigation; and (5) Mr. Peter Neufeld, Co-Founder and Co-
Director of The Innocence Project.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Wu noted that the NAS
report recommended new standards and accreditation to ensure
validity, accuracy, and reliability in forensic science. He
said that the report suggests creating a new agency to oversee
the forensics discipline, but wondered how much of a role NIST
could take in developing new standards as an already-
established agency. Ranking Member Smith talked about the
important contributions that forensic science make in law
enforcement, both in convicting the guilty and protecting the
innocent, but noted that continued improvement is necessary.
Mr. Marone, a member of the committee who wrote the NAS
report, grouped the 13 recommendations of the report into four
categories: funding, research, standardization, and education.
With respect to funding, he emphasized that finances should not
be taken away from DNA projects, but rather more money should
be given to the other disciplines. As to research, Mr. Marone
said that there were two types of research needs: that for
experienced-based disciplines (i.e. fingerprints and tool
marks) and that for disciplines that are well-validated (i.e.
those based on biological or chemical analysis). He said that
all laboratories need to be accredited, but pointed out that
many already were on their own initiative. Mr. Marone admitted
that NIST has expertise in standardization, but he said that
NIST does not have all the necessary knowledge that a forensics
oversight agency should have.
Ms. Henderson advocated for a three-step approach:
immediate action that uses existing federal resources to
address scientific standards, interim action to evaluate
strategic policy directions and strategies and explore
innovative solutions, and a long-term goal of creating a
National Institute of Forensic Sciences (NIFS) as envisioned by
the NAS report. Ms. Henderson mentioned NIST as an agency that
would be well-suited to promote scientific standards and noted
that NIST had already contributed to the core science in
several areas of forensic science. Ms. Henderson mentioned that
Australia has its own NIFS, but it took 20 years to get off the
ground.
Mr. Hicks divided the recommendations in the NAS report
into four categories: methods development and standardization,
laboratory accreditation and quality assurance, research and
training, and resource requirements. He said that Congress has
already helped the laboratories in the last three categories
considerably, but noted that more work needs to be done on
methods development and standardization. Mr. Hicks thought that
an expanded role for NIST would be the most effective and
efficient way to bring about the needed improvements in the
forensics community.
Dr. Downs pointed out that many of the recommendations in
the NAS report support the need for standardization,
specifically with respect to standardization of reports and
terminology. He said that the report correctly indicates that
NIST should be a partner in setting some of these standards,
particularly in areas where its expertise overlaps with what is
needed; however, he believes that the day-to-day application of
forensic testing should be overseen elsewhere. He does not
think that NIST would be the best place for areas such as
accreditation and certification.
Mr. Neufeld addressed the cases in which DNA showed that
other forensic sciences were incorrect. He said that 20 years
before DNA was used in courtrooms, it was the subject of
extensive and relevant basic and applied research. Due to this
research, DNA analysis has a scientifically-proven method. He
argued that other forensic sciences were created largely for
law enforcement use, and so they are not nearly as rigorous as
DNA analysis.
Mr. Wu highlighted that, according to the NAS report, with
the exception of DNA matching, the commonly used forensic tests
such as fingerprint analysis, ballistic testing, hair matching,
pattern recognition, and paint matching are based more on a
worker's experience than on rigorous scientific protocols. He
asked the witnesses how sound the science is behind forensic
testing. Mr. Marone answered the question by saying that
existing methods are valid in some circumstances, but more
research is needed. Dr. Downs added that many of the workers
learn by experience; however, they do need standardized
training. He also made the point that forensic science is often
funded by law enforcement agencies, which do not always provide
a bias-free environment.
Four of the five witnesses said that an independent NIFS
agency should be created, but Ms. Henderson underlined that
this should be a long-term goal and that more should be done
with the existing infrastructure found at NIST, the National
Institute of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Hicks also advised using
NIST for many of the forensic science needs. When Chairman Wu
asked how much this new agency would cost, or how much was
currently spent on forensics in the existing infrastructure,
nobody could specify an amount.
4.6(c)_The Role of Research in Addressing Climate in
Transportation Infrastructure
March 31, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-16
Background
On Thursday, March 31, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to address the research agenda required to mitigate the
environmental impact of transportation infrastructure, with an
emphasis on climate changes. Witnesses addressed the components
of such an agenda and possible implementation strategies.
There were five witnesses: (1) The Hon. David Matsuda,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT); (2) Ms. Catherine Ciarlo, Transportation
Director for Portland, Oregon Mayor Sam Adams; (3) Dr. Laurence
Rilett, Director of the University of Nebraska Transportation
Center; (4) Mr. Steve Winkelman, Director of Transportation
Programs for the Center for Clean Air Policy; and (5) Mr. Mike
Acott, President of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Wu highlighted the
progress of national environmental standards--from the mandate
of catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline in the 1970's to
the now-recognized need to consider the impacts of the
transportation system as a whole on the environment. He hoped
the witnesses would describe the types of knowledge and tools
transportation officials will need to minimize the impacts on
climate. Ranking Member Smith stressed the importance of
ensuring that the $600 million in DOT surface transportation
research funding is aligned with the key objectives and
outcomes desired of the transportation system. He also
expressed concerns about the potential costs and impacts of a
national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions and
the possible negative effects of a vehicle-miles-traveled based
tax system on rural areas like Nebraska.
Mr. Matsuda noted the Administration's commitment to
aggressive action to reduce the impacts of climate change and
expressed DOT's continued work on abating greenhouse gas
emissions in the transportation system. He gave an overview of
research and development activities at DOT related to this
agenda, such as land use planning and automobile fuel economy.
He also highlighted the Center for Climate Change and
Environmental Forecasting and its recent report on The Impacts
of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and
Infrastructure.
Ms. Ciarlo described Portland's efforts to reduce the
impact of the transportation sector on the climate, a result of
long-term planning and investments. She discussed future plans,
emphasizing the need for more data and better models of traffic
patterns. For example, to better manage traffic to reduce
emissions, planners need better data on vehicle miles traveled,
mode choice, and trip patterns. She emphasized the need for
basic research to help gather and use this data.
Dr. Rilett addressed the particular challenges of freight
traffic. He also testified on the need for more detailed travel
data. For instance, many transportation models input average
speeds, but these often do not reflect the acceleration/
deceleration cycles of individual drivers. The distribution of
speeds is often more important than the average speed. This
micro-level data will also be useful in simulating and planning
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
Mr. Winkelman reiterated the need for models and tools to
allow planners to assess the cost, benefits, and ``co-
benefits'' (such as reduced congestion) of various emissions
reduction strategies. He also emphasized that planners need to
be able to measure per-capita emissions, as well as measure how
emissions change in response to the implementation of different
types of infrastructure and transportation policy.
Mr. Acott discussed environmentally sustainable asphalt
pavement technology under development or currently being
deployed. These include warm-mix asphalt, increased use of
recycled asphalt pavement material in fresh asphalt pavements,
and porous pavement. He suggested that further evaluation of
the performance of these pavements and documentation of their
life cycle environmental costs would help accelerate their
deployment.
Mr. Wu asked the witnesses to describe more thoroughly the
data and information needs cited that would support the
reduction of emissions from the surface transportation sector.
He also asked the witnesses to clarify what frequently cited
``performance measures'' related to climate and otherwise
actually measure. Ms. Ciarlo and Mr. Winkelstein reiterated the
need for data and models to aid in planning and discussed how
appropriate metrics are often difficult to define and rely on
many different types of data. Mr. Rilett remarked that data is
not synonymous with information, but that through well-
developed performance measures, data can provide useful
information on the performance of the transportation system and
the need for comprehensive, measurable metrics to produce
useful information.
4.6(d)_The Role of SBIR and STTR Programs in Stimulating
Innovation at Small High-Tech Businesses
April 23, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-20
Background
On Thursday, April 23, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine the role of the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) programs in supporting innovation at small high-tech
firms and how, in turn, this promotes the economic welfare of
the Nation.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert Berdahl,
President of the Association of American Universities; (2) Mr.
Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of Biotechnology Industry
Organization (BIO); (3) Dr. Sally Rockey, Acting Deputy
Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of
Health (NIH); and (4) Mr. Jere Glover, Attorney and Executive
Director of the Small Business Technology Council.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Wu noted that the SBIR
and STTR programs were established 25 years ago and very few
changes had been made to them. However, in those 25 years, the
importance of small high-tech firms to the innovation of
products, services, and technologies has increased
significantly. He stated that these programs need to be
structured so that the Nation gets the greatest return for its
investment. In her opening statement, Ms. Biggert discussed her
hope that future legislation would further define what a small
business is so that the programs are not abused. She expressed
her opposition to increasing the percentage of money set-aside
for these programs from the agencies' research budgets.
Dr. Berdahl spoke from the point of view of the
universities. He stated that, for the most part, the SBIR and
STTR programs are working well as they are currently structured
and funded. He thought that the definition of ``small
business'' needs to be changed to include businesses that have
venture capital backing. He also suggested a new program that
would provide funding to help research discoveries make it to
the marketplace.
Mr. Greenwood agreed with Dr. Berdahl that new legislation
needs to define small businesses to include businesses that are
backed by venture capital. He also noted that legislation needs
to redefine the process under which the number of employees is
determined and pointed out that, in its current state, the
process excludes many companies that should qualify.
Dr. Rockey concurred with the previous witnesses. She
emphasized the importance of flexibility in the program.
Mr. Glover spoke from the point of view of a small business
and fully supported the SBIR program in its current form. He
said that other countries are replicating the SBIR program and
that the program that will keep America competitive. He
suggested more funding for the program.
4.6(e)_Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program: R&D for Resilient Communities
June 11, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-32
Background
On Thursday, June 11, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) in preparation for reauthorization.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Jack Hayes, Director of
NEHRP, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST);
(2) Dr. Michael Lindell, Director of the Hazards Reduction and
Recovery Center, and Professor of Landscape Architecture &
Urban Planning, Texas A&M University; (3) Professor Thomas
O'Rourke, Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering, School of
Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University; (4) Dr.
Jim Harris, P.E., President, J. R. Harris & Company; and (5)
Mr. Kenneth Murphy, Director, Oregon Office of Emergency
Management and Immediate Past President, National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA).
Summary
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by noting that NEHRP has
made significant progress in improving earthquake safety. He
then remarked that the Federal Government supported research
and development for other types of hazards--such as windstorms,
tsunamis, and wildfires--but that much of that research was
stove-piped. He advocated for a more coordinated approach to
hazard mitigation research and development and supported
education programs that encouraged public adoption as a key
element of any successful hazard mitigation program. Finally,
Chairman Wu stated that in addition to discussing a coordinated
approach to federal hazards research and development funding,
he hoped to discuss how NEHRP could be improved in the coming
reauthorization. Ranking Member Smith reiterated the importance
of earthquake prevention, citing the statistic that there is a
99% probability that the state of California will experience an
earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater within the next 30
years.
Dr. Hayes reported on the implementation of the changes
made to NEHRP in the last reauthorization, including
establishing NIST as the lead agency for the program, creating
an interagency coordinating committee and an external advisory
committee, and requiring a new strategic plan. He noted that
the participating agencies have increased their coordination
efforts, mentioning that in addition to the high-level
interagency coordinating committee, they had also established a
new Program Coordination Working Group to assess how well the
proposed strategic plan will address gaps needed to fulfill the
mission of the program. Dr. Hayes also discussed the content of
the strategic plan and described current work taking place at
NEHRP agencies. Such work included advances in earthquake
mapping and monitoring, and contributions to earthquake
building codes and practices.
Dr. Murphy discussed the active engagement many emergency
managers have with NEHRP and recommended better integration of
NEHRP in key emergency management activities, such as all-
hazard preparedness and encouraging the adoption of mitigation
measures. Dr. Murphy cited many of the challenges facing
emergency managers, which include handling recurring disasters,
such as windstorms, and earthquakes, which are rarer but can be
much more devastating. He testified that increasing funding
levels and maintaining its singular focus on earthquakes were
two of the most important principals for the NEHRP
reauthorization. Dr. Murphy discussed some of the important
collaborations between the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and states in helping citizens prepare for earthquakes,
and advocated for improving tools used by emergency managers,
such as hazards models and public warning systems.
Professor O'Rourke stated that NEHRP is the ``backbone''
for seismic protection in the U.S. He noted that the annualized
cost of a major earthquake in the U.S. could be $6 billion and
tens of thousands of causalities. Professor O'Rourke was
complimentary of NIST's leadership and the contributions of the
interagency coordinating council in helping to oversee the
program. However, he advocated for significantly more funding
because many important earthquake hazard mitigation priorities
were receiving little to no funding. In particular, Professor
O'Rourke focused on a number of important earthquake
engineering research areas that could greatly improve the
resilience of buildings and infrastructure to earthquakes.
Among these, he discussed the need for more focus on
``lifelines,'' or infrastructure critical to helping a
community cope with and recover from an earthquake. Professor
O'Rourke also advocated for increased efforts with respect to
technology transfer and mitigation measurement. He recommended
that more funding from FEMA to state earthquake programs could
help meet this goal. Additionally, Professor O'Rourke noted
that NERHP was a crucial ``incubator'' for the technologies and
ideas needed to mitigate the effects of other disasters.
Finally, he testified that inserting NIST as the lead agency
for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program could help
improve windstorm mitigation efforts, and he suggested that
efforts to coordinate or consolidate other natural hazards
research and development within the Federal Government should
wait until the National Research Council makes recommendations
to preserve the research necessary and unique to each hazard,
while leveraging common work across all hazards.
Dr. Lindell explained that his remarks were substantially
based on the findings of the National Science Foundation's
Second Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards and the
National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Disaster Research in
the Social Sciences. He discussed the role of social science in
protecting communities from natural disasters, noting that
social scientists seek to understand how different demographic
and social factors contribute to vulnerability, test the
effectiveness of hazard mitigation programs, and work with
emergency managers and others to improve the adoption of hazard
mitigation measures. Dr. Lindell noted that, in the past, NEHRP
had supported social science but that the program could make a
greater effort to support social science and collaborations
between social scientists, physical scientists, and engineers.
He also named a number of high priority areas for hazard
mitigation social science, such as assessing the vulnerability
of different populations and detailing the post-impact actions
of communities hit by natural disasters. Finally, Dr. Lindell
strongly supported a coordinated, multi-hazard approach to
hazard mitigation research and development.
Dr. Harris commented on the improvements in interagency
coordination since the last NEHRP reauthorization, noting that
the agencies were working together closely to craft a new
strategic plan and that FEMA was engaged in productive
partnerships with the US Geological Survey (USGS) and NIST on
several important projects. He noted that, in order to achieve
the strategic plan's goal of earthquake resilient communities,
technology transfer needs to be integral to the program and
offered suggestions, such as expanding efforts to identify
research needs from the perspective of design professional to
increase the likelihood of success for technology transfer
efforts. Finally, Dr. Harris addressed the need to increase
research and development across all hazards. He offered his
opinion that, since wind engineering was less complex than
earthquake engineering, researchers focused their efforts on
earthquakes even though windstorm damage is a much more
frequent occurrence. Dr. Harris said that there was a
significant role for the Federal Government in collecting
engineering design-related data about all types of hazards,
from earthquakes to windstorms to snow loads.
During the question and answer period, the witnesses
emphasized the importance of social science in increasing the
rate of adoption of mitigation measures. The witnesses lauded
NIST's efforts at coordinating NEHRP activities across the
different agencies and recommended that NIST lead any related
programs, such as the windstorm program. In addressing other
hazards, the witnesses agreed that a multi-agency, NEHRP-like
structure could be effective. However, they emphasized that
earthquakes are a unique challenge and that NEHRP should not
lose its earthquake focus.
4.6(f)_Agency Response to Cyberspace Policy Review
June 16, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-34
Background
On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation and
the Subcommittee on Research and Education held a joint hearing
to review the response of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to the findings and
recommendations in the Administration's 60-day Cyberspace
Policy Review.
There were four witnesses: (1) Ms. Cita Furlani, Director,
Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (2) Dr. Jeannette
Wing, Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer &
Information Science & Engineering, NSF; (3) Dr. Robert F.
Leheny, Acting Director, DARPA; and (4) Dr. Peter Fonash,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Cyber Security
Communications, DHS.
Summary
In his opening statement, Chairman Wu cited his displeasure
with the effectiveness of previous government-funded
cybersecurity efforts and their levels of success. Chairman Wu
stated that this hearing would highlight the progress of the
four Federal agencies tasked with bolstering and maintaining
federal cybersecurity standards and what steps are being taken
for future improvements. Ranking Member Smith cited both the
previous and current Administration's commitment to the issue
of cybersecurity and said that, while there exists a consensus
for a strong bipartisan commitment to bolstering cybersecurity
both domestically and abroad, the country is still at the
earliest stages of doing so and that Congress must balance the
haste to find solutions with careful deliberation on the
solutions they choose. He wondered if enough effort is being
placed on cybersecurity research and development efforts,
whether $30 billion dollars is an appropriate amount to invest
in cybersecurity, and how we can improve the security of
private sector networks as well as public domains. Chairman
Lipinski stressed the need for more information sharing between
the public and private sectors and the challenges of
incentivizing agencies to better address the problems of
cybersecurity, as well as deficiencies in the information
technology education field. He called for a change in the
culture of how Americans practice their computer hygiene and
for the formation of a secure and resilient cyberspace for not
only the Federal Government, but the private sector as well.
Ms. Furlani said that NIST accelerates the development and
deployment of information and communication systems that are
reliable, usable, interoperable, and secure. She asserted that
NIST is actively engaged with private industry, academia, non-
national security federal departments and agencies, the
intelligence community, and other elements of the law
enforcement and national security communities in coordinating
and prioritizing cyber security research, standards
development, standards conformance demonstration, and cyber
security education and outreach.
Dr. Wing said that many cyber security measures deployed
today capitalize on fundamental research outcomes generated
decades ago. NSF agrees with the recent 60-Day Cyberspace
Policy Review that a national strategy to secure cyberspace in
both the near- and the long-term must include investments in
fundamental, unclassified, open, long-term research. Many of
the cyberspace security methods used today were developed by
the open research community, many with an application in mind
other than security.
Dr. Leheny talked about DARPA's role in cybersecurity
research and advancement, and specifically mentioned one
program, which develops a National Cyber Range. This range will
be a vehicle for significantly advancing progress in cyber
understanding and capabilities, serving as a tool for rapid,
realistic, and quantitative simulation assessment of cyber
technologies. He also talked about coordinating research with
other agencies, noting that--in general--program managers
engage with their counterparts in other agencies to scope out
the best way forward to achieve a specific research goal.
Mr. Fonash said that DHS leads a multi-agency approach to
coordinate the security of federal, civil, and executive branch
networks. He said that the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT) serves as the focal point for the
security of federal civil executive branch networks. Agencies
report instances to US-CERT, which then provides guidance to
agencies on enhancing detection capabilities and works with
them to mitigate information security incidents. DHS has also
led the Comprehensive Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) effort to
establish a front-line defense for the federal executive
branch. DHS also has plans to deploy EINSTEIN, an intrusion
detection system. He said that DHS works with industry and
government partners to secure the Nation's critical
infrastructure networks.
4.6(g)_Assessing Cybersecurity Activities at NIST and DHS
June 25, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-39
Background
On Thursday, June 25, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to assess the cybersecurity efforts of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). The hearing solicited the
input of private sector experts on how federal cybersecurity
activities can enhance privately-owned critical infrastructure,
better monitor federal networks, and more clearly define
cybersecurity performance with metrics and success criteria.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Greg Wilshusen,
Director, Information Security Issues, Government
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Mr. Mark Bregman, Executive
Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Symantec
Corporation; (3) Mr. Scott Charney, Corporate Vice President,
Trustworthy Computing Group, Microsoft Corporation; and (4) Mr.
Jim Harper, Director, Information Policy Studies, Cato
Institute.
Summary
Chairman Wu expressed his continued displeasure with the
overall state of cybersecurity efforts at NIST and DHS, despite
substantial funding and effort. He reviewed the recommendations
made in the Administration's Cyberspace Policy Review and cited
the need for objectives and metrics for cybersecurity
performance based upon real-world outcomes. Ranking Member
Smith addressed the Committee's strong position to shape the
debate over government cybersecurity efforts through its
jurisdiction over NIST and DHS. He further emphasized that,
while broad agreement exists over the need for stronger public-
private partnerships in these efforts, precise details for the
future of these relationships remains largely undefined.
Mr. Wilshusen stated that GAO has, over the past three
years, consistently reported that DHS has yet to fully satisfy
its key responsibilities, including those for coordinating and
protecting cyber-critical infrastructures. He highlighted some
of DHS's shortcomings and explained that GAO has made
approximately 90 recommendations to assist DHS in addressing
these issues, most of which are still not fully satisfied. He
said that NIST has developed a significant number of standards
and guidelines for information security and assists
organizations in implementing security controls.
Mr. Bregman said that Symantec has seen a marked
improvement in DHS in their engagement with the private sector;
however, the company feels that more can be done by the
department and private sector jointly. He said that DHS has
also taken a lead role in educating and raising awareness on
the issue. Mr. Bregman said that the private sector has not
formally been asked to participate in DHS's global supply chain
initiative, despite the fact that much of the supply chain the
government cares about is in the hands of the private sector.
He feels that NIST's funding is not adequate and should be
increased; he also said that NIST should work with the private
sector to ensure agreed-upon standards, protocols, and
requirements are accomplished in reasonable timelines.
Mr. Charney thought that DHS should set security control
policy articulating minimum cybersecurity baselines, goals, and
outcomes, as well as develop processes to exchange and foster
implementation of best practices so that agencies can more
quickly achieve higher levels of security when necessary. Mr.
Charney thought that NIST should create government-wide
standards to help agencies meet the security control policy set
by DHS. DHS and NIST should develop their goals and standards
based on data from outside agencies, which will evolve with the
current threats.
Mr. Harper encouraged Congress to keep true critical
infrastructure off the public internet. He also mentioned that
the Federal Government is a large market actor, and it should
therefore use this influence in shaping the market by setting
high security standards in its purchases. He said that the
liability of products is a more effective way to solve security
problems than regulating the market as liability is an open-
ended process. Regulating products can be tricky and, when done
incorrectly, can distort markets or threaten privacy and civil
liberties.
4.6(h)_Reauthorization of the FIRE Grants Program
July 8, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-40
Background
On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Honorable Benjamin Lujan
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine the Assistance to Firefighter Grant (AFG)
and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Grant programs, in preparation for their reauthorization.
There were two panels with a total of seven witnesses.
Panel one included: (1) The Hon. Bill Pascrell, Representative
of New Jersey's 8th District. Panel two included: (2) The Hon.
Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (3) Chief Jeffrey
Johnson, First Vice President, International Association of
Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
in Aloha, Oregon; (4) Chief Jack Carriger, Stayton, Oregon Fire
District First Vice Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC); (5) Mr. Kevin O'Connor, Assistant to the General
President, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF);
(6) Chief Curt Varone, Division Manager, Public Fire Protection
Division, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); and (7)
Mr. Ed Carlin, Training Officer, Spalding Rural Volunteer Fire
Department, Spalding, Nebraska.
Summary
Mr. Lujan opened the hearing by noting the importance of
AFG and SAFER to local fire departments and public safety. He
expressed hope that the reauthorization legislation could
achieve a balance between rural and urban areas, and meet the
needs of fire departments in many different areas of the
country. Ranking Member Smith emphasized further that these
grants provide critical assistance to rural communities.
The Honorable Bill Pascrell discussed his involvement in
the creation of the Assistance to Firefighter Grant program in
the 106th Congress, and he praised the efficiency and
effectiveness of the programs. Mr. Pascrell stated the pressing
need for up-to-date fire and emergency equipment in communities
and called for Congress to reauthorize the grant programs.
Deputy Administrator Manning discussed the popularity of
the grants among fire departments. He also stated that data
show a possible correlation between the receipt of grant
funding and lower fire-related deaths and injuries in the
community and among firefighters.
Chief Johnson advocated restructuring the SAFER program to:
offer three-year, rather than five-year, grants; require a 20
percent match for each of the three years rather than an
escalating matching requirement; and remove the maximum
allowable amount a department may receive per firefighter. Base
salaries vary widely from city to city and a cap would prevent
a department in a more expensive city from taking advantage of
the grants. He stated that both grants should support improved
regionalism--departments that consolidate and cover larger
populations, while cutting duplication--by raising the cap for
larger departments. Chief Johnson urged the establishment of
centers of excellence in fire safety research to help conduct
research to improve firefighter health and public fire safety.
Finally, Chief Johnson recommended giving the secretary of
Homeland Security the authority to waive the matching
requirements for AFG and SAFER for departments facing extreme
economic hardship.
Chief Carriger stressed the importance of the grants to
rural fire departments. He also stated that more data, and
better means to evaluate the effectiveness of grants, would be
helpful in strategic planning. In support of this, he
recommended FEMA support a third Fire Service Needs Assessment.
Chief Carriger discussed the need to eliminate the matching
requirement for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants.
Mr. O'Connor acknowledged the benefits of the AFG program,
but stated his opinion that current rules and practices skew
the awards to favor smaller, rural departments. To remedy this,
he called for each type of fire department--career, volunteer,
and combination--to receive a minimum of 30 percent of the AFG
funding each year. The remaining 10 percent of the funds would
be open for competition by all fire departments. He also
recommended that Congress raise the maximum allowable grant a
department may be eligible for and lower the AFG matching
requirement to 15 percent for fire departments serving large
populations. He echoed Chief Johnson's requests for the SAFER
program.
Chief Varone spoke about the research conducted by NFPA on
the Nation's need for the fire service and the impact the grant
programs have had on alleviating those needs. He argued for
eliminating the matching requirement for Fire Prevention and
Safety grants, or for a waiver for those facing demonstrated
economic hardship, and called for a minimum of five percent of
funding to be designated for fire service-based emergency
medical services. He then explained that fire prevention is
best achieved through education, utilization of the latest
technologies, and enforcement of the latest codes.
Mr. Carlin's testimony described the limited funding
typically available for volunteer fire departments. He
testified that AFG money is a critical source of funding for
equipment and education for volunteer firefighters and that
reducing AFG funding puts those departments in peril.
During the question and answer period, Mr. Manning said
that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5) and the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-32) provided a waiver, similar to the ones that Chief
Johnson and Mr. O'Connor were calling for AFG, for SAFER funds
for FY2009 and FY2010. The waivers recommended by the panel
would likely work in the same fashion, though he admitted that
determining criteria for waivers would be difficult.
4.6(i)_The Potential Need for Measurement Standards to
Facilitate Research and Development of Biologic Drugs
September 24, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-53
Background
On Thursday, September 24, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to discuss measurement science, standard and technology
that need to be developed in order to (a) facilitate the
discovery and development of biologics, including biosimilars;
(b) reduce manufacturing costs for biologics and improve the
ability to monitor quality during the manufacturing process;
(c) provide tools to shorten the amount of time needed for the
research, development and regulatory approval of biologics; and
(d) ensure that patients receive life saving medicines that are
both safe and effective.
There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Anthony Mire-Sluis,
Executive Director, Global Product Quality and Quality
Compliance, Amgen, Inc.; (2) Dr. Patrick VJJ Vink, Senior Vice
President and Global Head of Biologics, Mylan GmbH; (3) Dr.
Steven Kozlowski, Director, Office of Biotechnology Products,
Office of Pharmaceutical Science, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and (4)
Dr. Willie May, Director, Chemical Science and Technology
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by reflecting on the vital
role of metrology in scientific progress and on the Committee's
history of promoting new technologies by addressing their
metrology needs. He called for a constructive dialogue with
specific regard to how NIST might be able to take a more active
role in the biologic drug development process. Ranking Member
Smith remarked on the promise of personalized medicine,
stressing the importance of strong intellectual property laws
as incentives for innovation.
Dr. Mire-Sluis discussed the benefits of strong testing
standards for both patient safety and cost-efficiency. Citing
the high cost and financial risk of new drug development, he
emphasized the importance of maintaining intellectual property
protections. He also commended the Committee on its passage of
the America COMPETES Act in the 110th Congress.
Dr. Vink addressed the importance of regulatory reform from
the perspective of the generic manufacturing industry. Unlike
Europe, he noted that the U.S. does not currently have a
regulatory pathway for biosimilars, which would allow companies
to bypass the expensive clinical trial stage by demonstrating
comparability to an approved product. He noted that existing
regulations already tolerate a certain amount of ``creep'' in
the makeup of branded drugs, resulting from small manufacturing
changes. He proposed that, with NIST's help, data on the new
version and original version might be paired to form regulatory
goalposts for generic biosimilars. He further proposed that the
FDA might condition a brand's exclusive rights to a new
biologic on its voluntary provision of reference materials to
be published for analytical testing purposes by other
companies.
Dr. Kozlowski offered a general description of the
complexities of biologics, and identified three development
challenges that could be overcome with the help of improved
measurement standards: the assessment of post-translational
modifications; three-dimensional structure; and protein
aggregation.
Dr. May spoke about NIST's expertise in measurement science
and outlined areas where that expertise could be applied to
biologic drug development, including determining the structural
similarity of two drugs and measuring the presence of
manufacturing contaminants.
During the question and answer period, Dr. Mire-Sluis and
Dr. Vink both reported that their institutions had had positive
experiences in working with NIST in the past, and expressed
confidence in their expertise. In response to Mr. Smith's
question about the extent of overlap between the FDA and NIST,
Dr. Kozlowski and Dr. May suggested that effective
collaboration necessitated a certain amount of overlap between
the two, particularly given NIST's lack of regulatory
authority.
Mr. Wu asked Dr. Vink whether the lack of an approval
pathway in the U.S. pushed Mylan and other generic drug
manufacturers to focus their business elsewhere. Dr. Vink
confirmed that his company had been more active in biologic
drug development in Europe and Japan, but stated that they were
optimistic about regulatory changes in the U.S.
4.6(j)_Cybersecurity Activities at NIST's Information
Technology Laboratory
October 22, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-59
Background
On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review recommendations made in the Cybersecurity
Policy Review that may be appropriate for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the proposed
reorganization of the NIST Information Technology Laboratory
(ITL).
There were six witnesses: (1) Ms. Cita Furlani, Director,
Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (2) Dr. Susan Landau,
Distinguished Engineer, Sun Microsystems; (3) Dr. Phyllis
Schneck, Vice President of Threat Intelligence, McAfee; (4)
Professor Fred Schneider, Samuel B. Eckert Professor of
Computer Science, Cornell University; (5) Mr. William Wyatt
Starnes, founder and CEO, SignaCert, Inc.; and (6) Mr. Mark
Bohannon, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Public
Policy, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA).
Summary
Both Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Smith stated the
importance of NIST's capabilities and expertise in being able
to solve the problems of cybersecurity for both the federal
government and the public. The witnesses focused on a range of
issues regarding the Computer Security Division (CSD)
reorganization and the possibility of the division becoming a
stand-alone lab within NIST, the importance of legislation that
is not geared towards ``country-specific government-created
technology standards'', and the Administration's 60-Day
Cyberspace Policy Review.
Ms. Furlani stated that NIST focuses on a range of issues
other than the protection of federal information technology
(IT) systems. These issues include collaboration with other
organizations to coordinate and prioritize cybersecurity
research, standards development, standards conformance
demonstration, and cybersecurity education and outreach
activities. She said that NIST has developed security control
guidelines for both Federal agencies and private sector
systems. NIST has followed the guidelines of the 60-Day Review
and has worked with several government agencies to create a
committee geared towards online identity management. NIST has
also been involved in developing international standards.
Finally, because of the negative feedback on NIST's plans to
reorganize the CSD, NIST has indefinitely postponed its plans.
Dr. Landau commended the importance of the CSD and its
research work on cybersecurity. She stressed the importance of
NIST in regards to international dialogue where its purpose was
to act as an impartial scientific agency. She believes NIST
should play a larger role in creating technological standards
that would be geared towards protecting privacy online. In
addition, Dr. Landau agreed that there had been problems with
the recent reorganization plans of the CSD, and she believes
that the CSD should be elevated to the level of laboratory.
Dr. Schneck testified that the ITL should work with the US
Government in developing international standards on
cybersecurity. She believes that innovation, cybersecurity, and
international standards are tied together in developing a
better strategy to secure systems. NIST, an already world-
respected organization in cybersecurity research, can aid in
implementing a strategy encompassing these three aspects. In
addition, she strongly believes that such legislation does not
contain country-specific government-created technology
standards for cybersecurity.
Professor Schneider did not support the most recent
reorganization plans of the CSD as it would have become
difficult to manage and fund. While reorganization to degree is
sensible, he believed that the previously proposed plan is
inadequate.
Mr. Starnes prefers the term `cyber assurance' over
`cybersecurity' as it encompasses both malicious activity and
non-malicious activity. He highlighted this because 90% of
failures in complex systems result from non-malicious activity.
He would like cyber assurance to function in such a way that
any interference is deterred. He is an avid supporter of the
Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP), which would ensure
such systems are put into place and take a more offensive
position to cybersecurity, which he believes is a shortfall in
the 60-Day Review.
Mr. Bohannon holds a similar stance to Dr. Landau and
advocated for the CSD to become a stand-alone laboratory. He
believes that this would allow for the CSD to attain the funds,
manpower, and support for its needs. It would encourage NIST to
work along with the private sector and political leadership to
work in the international arena and prevent the implementation
of country-specific laws that would undermine the protection of
IT systems from violators.
4.6(k)_Developing Research Priorities at DHS's Science and
Technology Directorate
October 27, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-60
Background
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review activities at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Brad Buswell, Acting
Undersecretary, Science and Technology Directorate, Department
of Homeland Security; (2) Dr. Phil Depoy, Chairman, Homeland
Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee; (3) Mr.
David Berteau, Senior Adviser and Director, Defense Industrial
Initiatives Group, Center for Strategic and International
Studies; and (4) Dr. Cindy Williams, Chair, Committee on the
DHS S&T Directorate, National Academy of Public Administration;
Shapiro Visiting Professor of International Affairs, The Elliot
School of International Affairs, George Washington University.
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by thanking the S&T
Directorate for increasing its funding for basic research--now
20% of its portfolio--and for creating a 13th Integrated
Product Team (IPT), which was a result of a recommendation from
a previous hearing. Chairman Wu followed his praise with
concern that IPT operations were inconsistent. In addition, he
expressed concern over the lack of a comprehensive threat
assessment as a foundation for determining research priorities.
Mr. Buswell stated that the S&T Directorate has
successfully restructured its delivery of advanced technology
so that it is able to respond to its customers' near-term and
long-term technology capability needs. He addressed the
concerns regarding risk assessment and stated that the S&T
Directorate relies on its customers to incorporate the threat
assessment into its research. He highlighted the importance of
basic research, discussing its impact on future technology
development and encouraging the development of a scientific
workforce through the research conducted by their national
laboratories and university-based centers. He said that the S&T
Directorate's strategic plan will be updated in the Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review so that it will align more with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) guidance.
Dr. Depoy testified that the Homeland Security Science and
Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) provided a review in
2008 of the S&T Directorate transition projects and IPT
structure. HSSTAC concluded that, over the two years of review,
the S&T Directorate provided the structure and direction,
developed processes to analyze capability gaps, established a
customer interface in the IPTs, and expanded the University
Centers of Excellence Program for students to perform basic
research in Homeland Security concerns. However, the panel also
found that the S&T Directorate's strategy was too broad and not
adequate for providing guidance on research topics. Dr. Depoy
stated that regardless of some of the program's shortcomings,
IPTs have improved the S&T Directorate.
Mr. Berteau recommended that the strategic plan for DHS
stem from a broad homeland security enterprise-wide plan as
there is so much of homeland security that is outside DHS, and
even outside the federal government. In order to fix the
shortfalls of the program, budgets should be built to address
the capability gaps in question.
Dr. Williams chaired a panel of the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) from June of 2008 to June of 2009
that studied the S&T Directorate. The panel reviewed two
distinct strategic plans--an internal plan to guide its own
work and a federal-wide plan for civilian efforts to counter
chemical, biological and other emerging terrorist threats--and
found that they failed to meet federal government standards and
did not address long-term goals. In addition, stakeholders were
not specific involved in the development of the strategic
plans. The panel found that there was much discrepancy in
different IPTs with respect to results achieved, customer
satisfaction, and process. In addition, the panel found several
holes in the basic research portfolio and highlighted that
basic research projects were awarded without competition and
without scientific peer review.
The questions portion of the hearing was dominated by
concerns over the program structure and research capabilities
of DHS. Risk assessment was a major topic. Dr. Williams pointed
out that risk and threat assessment are crucial to creating and
maintaining a functional strategic plan. Mr. Buswell replied
that DHS is currently attempting to meet outlined needs with
the help of the Quadrennial Review on the S&T Directorate's
strategic plan. Mr. Berteau and Dr. Depoy both emphasized that
the strategic plan should be an enterprise-wide effort, not
just for the S&T Directorate. Dr. Williams made a few
recommendations regarding milestones as a means of review for
projects within the S&T Directorate to which Mr. Buswell
partially agreed, debating how these milestones should be
defined.
4.6(l)_The Research and Development Portfolio Required to
Support the Priorities of the Department of Transportation
November 19, 2009
Hearing Volume No. 111-64
Background
On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing on the components of a surface transportation research
and development portfolio to support the U.S. Department of
Transportation's goals of safety, economic competitiveness,
environmental sustainability, and community livability. The
hearing also addressed the necessary steps for the Department
of Transportation to implement its research and development
agenda and the most effective practices for ensuring the latest
research and development is utilized.
There were six witnesses: (1) the Honorable Polly
Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy,
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); (2) the Honorable
Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA); (3) Mr. Neil Pedersen, Administrator,
Maryland State Highway Administration; Vice Chair, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Standing Committee on Highways; (4) Ms. Ann Flemer,
Deputy Executive Director, Policy, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Oakland, California; Vice Chair, Intelligent
Transportation Society of America; (5) Mr. Alan Pisarski,
Independent Consultant; and (6) Mr. Robert Skinner, Executive
Director, Transportation Research Board (TRB), The National
Academies.
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by noting that the Secretary
of Transportation's four stated goals of safety, economic
competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and community
livability were laudable, but expressed concern that the goals
lacked specificity and would be difficult to measure. He said
that the purpose of the hearing was to better understand the
Secretary's definitions for these priorities and discuss the
research and development agenda needed to help achieve these
goals.
Ms. Trottenberg identified the DOT Office of Policy's role
of providing research to support transportation policymakers,
and discussed the development of the USDOT's 2010-2015
Strategic Plan, as well as the Secretary's goals for the
Department. She noted that research was an important component
of each of these goals and briefly discussed one high-level
interagency partnership between the USDOT, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection
Agency to support the goal of Creating Livable Communities. Ms.
Trottenberg also acknowledged that in the past the DOT had not
always ensured research was effectively translated into safer
and more efficient transportation by policymakers, suggesting
that implementation of new technologies was an area that
demanded more focus.
Mr. Appel outlined the institutional layout of RITA, which
was charged by Congress to coordinate collaborative multi-modal
research and development. He then highlighted existing programs
and new initiatives that will support the Secretary's four
overarching goals, including driver behavior studies, freight
coordination surveys, and the development of new types of
strong structural materials.
Mr. Pederson identified a number of research needs to
support the Secretary of Transportation's four major goals. His
proposed research agenda focused on the lack of data and
information faced by transportation officials, hindering their
ability to meet larger policy goals. For example, Mr. Pederson
discussed the need for cost-benefit information to help
transportation planners mitigate the impact of transportation
projects on the environment and the need to deploy automated
data-collection technologies to help assess the impact of
traffic safety measures. He also discussed the need for the DOT
to support the ``full innovation'' cycle of research projects
from basic research to implementation. As part of this, Mr.
Pederson emphasized the importance of engaging in technology
transfer activities such as web-based tools to educate
transportation professionals. Finally, he recommended against
earmarking research funds at the expense of existing projects.
Ms. Flemer discussed the experience of the San Francisco
Bay Area, which has set performance targets in fatality rates,
commute time, affordability, and emissions goals. Drawing from
the Bay Area's experience in attempting to measure the
performance of its transportation facilities, she recommended
that data collection technologies, such as sensors and GPS-
based technologies, be uniformly deployed nationwide. She also
criticized the DOT for not providing more leadership and
assistance to state and local agencies on transportation data
collection efforts. Additionally, Ms. Flemer advocated for the
Smart Cities and Communities Initiative, a pilot program that
would implement ``smart'' infrastructure, provide real-time
information to travelers, and collect transportation data in
select test cities.
Mr. Pisarski expressed skepticism about some of the DOT's
major goals and criticized the Department for failing to take a
leadership role in data collection needs. He was particularly
critical of the Livable Communities goal, arguing that, among
other issues, an aging and increasingly specialized workforce
was unlikely to transition from driving to alternative modes of
transportation. Mr. Pisarski also criticized the DOT for
failing to perform assessments of data needs for transportation
planners and pointed to a general lack of leadership in
coordinating and setting data collection priorities across the
modal agencies within DOT.
Mr. Skinner reported on the status of transportation
research projects and listed a number of areas that would
benefit from increased research, according to findings from
expert panels within the Transportation Research Board. He
named a number of research areas related to the Secretary's
goals, including comparative lifecycle emissions research on
different modes of transportation and alternative taxation
programs such as vehicle miles traveled fees.
4.6(m)_Commerce Department Programs to Support Job Creation and
Innovation at Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers
January 21, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-71
Background
On Thursday, January 21, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to learn about the challenges faced by small and
medium-sized manufactures, as well as entrepreneurs marketing
new technology. The hearing also addressed Department of
Commerce initiatives to address these challenges and examined
how those programs can be made most effective for these
enterprises.
There were four witnesses: (1) The Honorable Dennis F.
Hightower, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of
Commerce; (2) Ms. Jennifer Owens, Vice President, Ann Arbor
Spark: (3) Ms. RoseAnn B. Rosenthal, President and CEO, Ben
Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania; (4)
Mr. Michael Coast, President, Michigan Manufacturing Technology
Center.
Summary
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by explaining that the
health of the manufacturing sector is crucial to the health of
the economy as a whole, but that U.S. manufacturers, even
before the recent economic downturn, faced significant
challenges. Chairman Wu stated that, in the face of increasing
competition, capitalizing on our research and development
efforts would be critical to growing the U.S. manufacturing
sector.
Deputy Secretary Hightower identified several high-level
priorities for the Commerce Department to improve U.S. economic
competitiveness, including tapping the potential of new green
and blue industries, expanding exports through trade promotion
efforts, and transforming the Department of Commerce into a
more integrated, efficient, and effective service provider. In
support of these goals, Deputy Secretary Hightower described
several new initiatives, as well as the existing Manufacturing
Extension Program. These initiatives included the Office of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which will help set federal
policies and programs to encourage high-growth
entrepreneurship, and the CommerceConnect program, launched to
provide manufacturers with a one-stop-shop for the suite of
services the Department of Commerce provides, such as export
promotion and research and development partnerships. Finally,
Deputy Secretary Hightower praised the success of the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, noting that,
for over 20 years, it has delivered $1.4 billion in cost
savings annually and $9.1 billion in retained or increased
sales. He cited the President's 2010 budget, which proposed to
double MEP funding over seven years.
Ms. Owens noted that her region, Ann Arbor, has been able
to weather the financial storm better than others through the
strength of the university and the entrepreneurs it fosters.
However, she noted that the manufacturing sector, critical to
Michigan, was facing extremely uncertain times. She therefore
thought that CommerceConnect was a critical program to help
guide small manufacturers during the economic crisis. However,
she urged the Department of Commerce to utilize existing
networks of state and local economic developers. She testified
that it would be more efficient for the Department to educate
these workers on Commerce services. She noted that existing
programs, like MEP, were very successful, and that
manufacturers who were able to quickly retool their processes
for new products had been better able to handle the economic
downturn. Finally, Ms. Owens testified that federal programs
were helpful, but that the biggest crisis facing manufacturers
in the short-term was a lack of access to capital.
Ms. Rosenthal described the role of Ben Franklin Technology
Partners in helping to commercialize new technology and in
contributing to the economic health of the region. As an
example of this role, she described the Nanotechnology
Institute, a partnership between several Philadelphia-area
universities and Ben Franklin Technology Partners, that has
helped license new technologies and spur start-ups. Ms.
Rosenthal also testified about the lack of venture capital
funding available to support the early stages of
commercialization for new technologies. For that reason, Ben
Franklin Technology Partners has helped raise pre-seed capital
to fund promising new technologies before they are proven
enough to attract venture capital funding. In addition, Ms.
Rosenthal offered five guiding principles for redirecting
existing federal dollars and updating programs in order to
maximize its impact on innovation and job creation. These
recommendations were: ensure that goals are clear and non-
conflicting and that they keep the ultimate objective--economic
growth through entrepreneurial innovation--at the forefront;
take an approach that is less prescriptive and more receptive
to new models and allows program design to be driven by the
specific challenges and opportunities at regional, state, and
local levels; be flexible in implementation, enabling timely
response as conditions change; chose programs that focus on
reducing the barriers to collaboration and innovation; and
chose designs that catalyze institutional and private
involvement and investment over time. She went on to describe
how these principles could re-shape existing programs, such as
the Economic Development Administration's University Centers
for Economic Development program.
Mr. Coast described the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program and the vital assistance it has provided to Michigan
manufacturers. He also provided recommendations to help ensure
the success of the CommerceConnect pilot program: the program
should have a permanent staff that know the Commerce programs
thoroughly, as well as other business assistance programs; each
service-providing program at the Department of Commerce needs a
designated point of contact that is tasked with addressing
CommerceConnect clients' needs; and CommerceConnect should
establish pilot programs in other cities before a full scale
program is launched.
4.6(n)_Passenger Screening R&D: Responding to President Obama's
Call to Develop and Deploy the Next Generation of Screening
Technologies
February 3, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-74
Background
On Wednesday, February 3, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the airline passenger screening-related
research, development, testing, and deployment activities of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate, the DHS University Centers of
Excellence, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and the Department of Energy National Laboratories.
There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Brad Buswell, Deputy
Undersecretary of the Science and Technology Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security; (2) Dr. Penrose Albright,
Principal Associate Director for Global Security, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Bert Coursey, Program
Manager, Coordinated National Security Standards Program,
National Institute of Standards and Technology; and (4) Dr.
Sandra Hyland, Senior Principal Engineer, BAE Systems
Summary
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by expressing his
disappointment in the lack of attention DHS has paid in the
past to public acceptance issues. He cited two reports by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one published in 1997 and
one published in 2007, both of which identified the need to pay
more attention to public acceptance issues in the deployment of
passenger screening technologies. He explained that public
acceptance of body-scanning technologies must be assessed and
was disappointed that the witnesses' written testimony did not
indicate that their respective agencies had a comprehensive
plan for conducting and using effective public acceptance
research.
Mr. Buswell explained that DHS S&T's research and
development priorities are primarily driven through their
Capstone Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), in which customers
and stakeholders have a lead role. Mr. Buswell said that DHS
S&T works closely with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) and other DHS offices to ensure the
research the S&T Directorate is conducting has a clear path to
deployment. Mr. Buswell also stated that the S&T Directorate
uses Community Perceptions of Technology panels that include
informed experts from industry, public interest, and community-
oriented organizations to identify potential acceptance issues,
although he gave no indication as to whether they discussed
issues with passenger screening.
Dr. Albright said that the National Laboratories combine
computer simulation codes, diagnostics, and an environment
where both theoretical and experimental chemists, physicists,
engineers, and materials scientists can work together to
provide a detailed understanding of the science of energic
materials, their effect on aircraft structures, their impact on
existing detection systems at the passenger checkpoint, and how
systems might be improved to enhance aviation security. The
labs apply this expertise to the needs of the Department of
Energy, DHS, Department of Justice, and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). As part of that effort, DHS brought three
labs together--Sandia, Los Alamos, and Livermore--to create a
program called the National Explosives Engineering Sciences and
Security Program. This program has included the evaluation and
characterization of explosive formulations, the assessment of
catastrophic damage, rapid assessment of technical and
performance of emerging detection systems and their
applications.
Dr. Coursey stated that NIST is involved in measurement
standards for a wide variety of detection methods. In each of
these areas, NIST is working in collaboration with DHS,
industry, academic partners, and end users. Dr. Coursey said
that NIST has been involved in a multi-year effort with the
Transportation Security Laboratory since 2003 to engage in
research that supports standards and measurement needs for
trace explosives screening. He explained that, when screening
travelers, it is important to deploy technology and processes
that provide the highest level of security while keeping the
traveling public moving efficiently through checkpoints. To
facilitate that, NIST conducts biometric usability studies that
help ensure that screening systems are easy, efficient, and
intuitive for travelers and inspection agents alike.
Dr. Hyland talked about the reports the NAS published on
implementation issues associated with new technologies. She
mentioned the 1996 NAS report, which described the technical
advances in security screening, the associated legal issues,
and the issue of public acceptance. She said that the study
identified four issues most relevant to the public acceptance
of technologies: health, privacy, convenience, and comfort. The
report noted that this technology would most likely only be
accepted if the perceived threat level were high. In light of
the recent attempted bombing on Christmas, Dr. Hyland thought
it was time to revisit the question of acceptance. The study
found that, at the time, there had been very little research of
the public acceptance of screening technologies, and when this
topic was revisited relative to the committee's work on the
whole-body imagers in 2007, that had not changed. Dr. Hyland
said that the best way to gauge public acceptance is through
field tests.
4.6(o)_How Can NIST Better Serve the Needs of the Biomedical
Research Community in the 21st Century?
February 24, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-79
Background
On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine ways in which the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) could better serve the needs of
the biomedical community.
There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Thomas M. Baer,
Executive Director, Stanford Photonics Research Center, Ginzton
Lab; (2) Sharon F. Terry, MA, President and CEO, Genetic
Alliance; and (3) Dr. Daniel Sullivan, Professor and Vice
Chair, Research in Radiology, Duke University Medical Center
and Science Advisor, Radiologic Society of North America.
Summary
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by explaining the importance
of metrology in the biologics industry--better metrology
science may lead to better care for patients, better treatment
options for doctors, and earlier, more accurate diagnoses of
disease. These efforts may also contribute to saving billions
of dollars each year in medical costs. He pointed to NIST as an
agency that could help develop new, innovative processes to
provide service and support to the biomedical industry.
Dr. Baer stated that there has been a technological
revolution leading to tremendous progress in the life sciences
over the past several decades, and particularly over the last
30 years. He noted that one area in which remarkable advances
have been made is in technology that allows for very precise
analysis of DNA, RNA, and proteins and that many of these
advances were developed here in the U.S. Dr. Baer stated that
there are several biotechnology-based industries that depend on
these technological advancements, one of which is health care.
He explained that NIST is responsible for making sure data
obtained in biomedical research is of high quality, and for
developing the technology and software to extract from this
data the critical elements that can be used in diagnosing
diseases. Currently, NIST does not have a life science
laboratory focused on the biomedical and healthcare industries
or on enhancing the technology that has evolved over the last
several decades through measurement science. He suggested that
NIST may want to form a separate operating unit and laboratory
focusing on the bioscience and healthcare areas.
Ms. Terry said that she entered the biomedical health care
industry because her children developed a genetic-based
disease, pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PSA), for which no cure
existed. She presented an example of patient-driven
translational research based on her experience with PSA. She
stated that her research into finding appropriate treatment
intervention for PSA has been hampered by current limitations
in measurement science. She also noted that diagnosis and
screening for this disease are difficult because each provider
of biomedical tests and therapies is creating its own system,
leading to widespread inconsistencies in biomedical testing for
PSA and several other genetic diseases. Even simple tests from
one lab cannot always be compared to similar tests from another
lab because of a lack of appropriate reference standards.
Instead, every manufacturer of diagnostic test kits applies its
own standard references and controls. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is challenged with ascertaining the
accuracy and precision of these technologies based on the
manufacturer-supplied standards. Ultimately, the FDA must trust
the manufacturers in the absence of any other alternative. Ms.
Terry testified that NIST must take a leadership role in
creating the standards necessary to integrate new technologies
into medicine. She testified that NIST should: create a life
sciences infrastructure catalog and distribution system for
reference materials and standards for quality assurance for all
clinical diagnostic tests; integrate measurement standards and
technologies into the FDA regulatory regime; partner with the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) on resolving the
measurement challenges at the intersection of patient care; and
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the life sciences to
determine the highest needs for measurement science.
Dr. Sullivan said that it is increasingly clear that the
value of medical scans would be significantly greater if
radiologists could extract more objective, quantitative
information from scans, rather than relying on their
subjective, qualitative interpretations. He noted that NIST can
be a critical participant to help manufacturers meet this need.
Dr. Sullivan testified that NIST needed to develop reference
materials, standards, and validation procedures in the
biomedical imaging area, especially for computerized axial
tomography (CAT/CT) scans, positron emission tomography (PET)
scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, and medical
optical imaging scans. To determine the metrology needs for the
biomedical imaging community, Dr. Sullivan suggested that NIST
appoint an advisory board made up of both industry experts and
representatives of the imaging device users. A NIST-managed
user facility that could be used by industry and academic
developers to test their devices under standardized, controlled
conditions would be an important asset. Finally, he stressed
that there is a critical need for a neutral broker, trusted by
the public, to develop an accreditation and performance levels
program with associated policies and procedures and that NIST
is ideally suited to perform this role.
4.6(p)_NIST Structure and Authorities, Its Role in Standards,
and Federal Agency Coordination on Technical Standards
March 23, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-89
Background
On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to review the proposed re-alignment of operational
units at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), examine the current role that NIST plays in technical
standards, and examine the need for Federal agencies and
departments' coordination on technical standards.
There were five witnesses: (1) The Honorable Patrick
Gallagher, Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST); (2) Dr. James Serum, President, Scitek
Ventures, LLC and Past Chair, NIST Visiting Committee on
Advanced Technology (VCAT); (3) Mr. Craig Shank, General
Manager, Interoperability at Microsoft; (4) Mr. Philip
Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation; and (5) Mr.
Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove, LLP.
Summary
Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by pointing out that the
current NIST lab structure dates from 1988 and the technologies
of today are much more multi-disciplinary and integrated in
scope and function than they were when the current structure
was devised. He looked forward to discussing the role that NIST
should play in coordinating federal government standards policy
development.
Dr. Gallagher talked about his proposal for reorganizing
the NIST labs. Currently, NIST has seventeen line organizations
that all report directly to the Director or Deputy Director of
NIST. Because of significant turnover in those positions, this
is an unstable structure. Dr. Gallagher has proposed to
organize NIST senior management by eliminating the current
Deputy Director position and replacing it with three Associate
Directors- one in charge of the laboratory programs, one in
charge of NIST's external programs, and one in charge of
management resources. This proposal has already been approved
by the Department of Commerce (DOC) and by the Administration
and is currently being evaluated by the appropriate
Appropriations Subcommittees. Dr. Gallagher has also proposed a
reorganization of NIST's laboratories. He believes the labs
should be organized by mission, creating a vertically-
integrated structure where a single laboratory would be
responsible not only for the basic research and development
activities, but also for all the components related to
delivering products and services of that laboratory to NIST
customers. This would make organizations more customer-focused
and responsive. Dr. Gallagher's proposal is based on input from
the NIST Leadership Team, the NIST VCAT, the DOC, and other
NIST and external stakeholders.
Dr. Serum strongly supports Dr. Gallagher's proposal of the
reorganization of NIST. He said that an effective, efficient
organization must have clearly defined responsibilities, single
ownership of goals, and accountability for achieving results.
The reorganization of the labs, as Dr. Gallagher has proposed,
would accomplish this goal. Dr. Serum stated that he thought
the Director of NIST should hold the rank of Under Secretary as
this would bring parity to his peers within the DOC and would
allow the Director to participate in all the activities
afforded to an Under Secretary. Dr. Serum complemented NIST for
its coordination role in the area of Smart Grid, and indicated
that this should be used as a model and applied to other areas
of national priority where standards development is required.
Mr. Shank stated that effective technical standards can
help promote innovation, fuel market growth, and drive
corresponding job development. Technology changes rapidly; new
standards will enable deployment of new solutions and encourage
development of innovative products and services. Cloud
computing is becoming more popular. With this new technology
come new responsibilities, including the need to protect
privacy of users, the security of their data, and to enable
interoperability between systems--all areas where standards can
play an important role. Mr. Shank believes that Dr. Gallagher's
proposed realignment for NIST will enhance its overall
effectiveness in the standards system. He also said that NIST
could serve as a convener to facilitate the exchange of
information and collaboration among federal agencies on
domestic and international standards policy issues.
Mr. Wennblom supports Dr. Gallagher's proposed
reorganization of NSIT, and believes these changes should
improve management stability and customer orientation.
Mr. Updegrove said that while the cross-sectoral solutions
can, and usually do, evolve over time, the urgent challenges
such as cybersecurity and the rising cost of healthcare do not
permit us the luxury to allow normal market forces to provide
timely solutions for such complex multi-disciplinary problems.
NIST can play an important role in providing the standards
tools needed in such instances. The development and deployment
of standards is essential to creating new technologies and new
product markets and therefore to jobs creation and maintaining
a healthy balance of trade. He argued that we must charge a
single agency, NIST, with the role of tracking emerging needs
for public-private coordination with marshalling facts and data
for lawmakers and the Administration.
4.6(q)_Supporting Innovation in the 21st Century Economy
March 24, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-90
Background
On Wednesday, March 24, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine factors that drive innovation, as well as
those that impede it. This hearing also discussed the role of
the Federal Government in promoting innovation.
There were five witnesses: (1) The Honorable Aneesh Chopra,
Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of the United States, White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2) Dr.
Mark Kamlet, Provost, Carnegie Mellon University; (3) Dr. Rob
Atkinson, President, the Information Technology & Innovation
Foundation (ITIF); (4) Dr. Dan Breznitz, Associate Professor,
the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Georgia Institute
of Technology; and (5) Mr. Paul Holland, General Partner,
Foundation Capital.
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by stating that expert
economists have found that 50 to 90 percent of U.S. economic
growth in the 20th Century, especially after World War II, was
attributable to innovation, rather than a growth in immediate
economic inputs such as labor and resources. He explained that
it was therefore crucial to support the Administration's recent
efforts at spurring innovation. He then said he hoped that this
hearing on supporting innovation in the American economy would
be the first of several on the topic.
Mr. Chopra noted that innovation is the foundation for
durable, sustainable expansion in employment and economic
growth. He stated that, while past debates had centered heavily
on the appropriate level of involvement by the Federal
Government in driving innovation in the private sector, the
Obama Administration sought to strike a balance and focus on
areas ``that only government can provide.'' He further
explained that this included supporting basic research and
associated infrastructure; providing a jump start to innovation
in areas of national importance; and setting an open
environment for competition and innovation. Mr. Chopra provided
a number of programmatic and policy examples in support of
these broad ideas. For example, he talked about the
Administration's $130 million plan for Energy Regional
Innovation Clusters, greater efforts to promote U.S. exports,
and technology research, development, and deployment efforts in
areas of national importance, including Smart Grid and
Healthcare Information Technology. Mr. Chopra also announced
the creation of a new subcommittee of the National Science and
Technology Council devoted to providing high-level leadership
on technical standards for areas of high national importance.
Dr. Kamlet discussed Carnegie Mellon University's
experiences in promoting technology transfer and
entrepreneurship, and offered thoughts on how his university's
experiences might be helpful in the national policy debate
about spurring innovation. He explained the importance of the
Bayh-Dole Act in promoting the commercialization of university
research. Dr. Kamlet then explained his university's solution
to protracted conflicts that arise during negotiations between
faculty and universities regarding the intellectual property
rights to their inventions, which the university has dubbed:
``5% go in peace.'' Dr. Kamlet credited this, and several
related policies, for having doubled the rate of new start-ups
by Carnegie Mellon faculty. He also noted that in addition to
attracting existing businesses such as Google and Caterpillar
to collaborate with university researchers, Carnegie Mellon
collaborates with regional economic development organizations
to create a fertile ground for growth for Carnegie Mellon
start-ups. Finally, Dr. Kamlet offered three suggestions from
Carnegie Mellon's experience that could be applicable to
national innovation policy: (1) encourage the federal
government to provide small, targeted investments to help
bridge the gap between the end of basic research and the point
where private investment funding can support startup
development; (2) identify niche areas for federal science
funding where synergy can be created between basic research and
technology development that will accelerate commercialization;
and (3) establish policies to rejuvenate industry-university
collaborations, such as enacting a Bayh-Dole Act equivalent for
university-industry collaboration.
Dr. Atkinson testified that, in 2000, the US was the leader
among the countries of the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) in a collection of indicators
of competitiveness, such as the funding of basic research, the
level of education of the population, and the availability of
capital to invest in innovation. However, by 2009, the US had
fallen to number six in these indicators, mainly because the US
had invested in these areas at a slower rate than its
competitors. He also stated his belief that the country's lack
of innovation over the past decade contributed to the recent
financial crisis because there were not enough good innovation
opportunities in which to invest. Dr. Atkinson argued that in
order to stem this decline, the U.S. needs a national
innovation strategy that will support, among other things,
systematic partnerships between industry, academia, and
government, as well as funding for commercialization, to
encourage innovation. He also emphasized the importance of STEM
education in an overall innovation strategy.
Dr. Breznitz offered his views that stimulating and
promoting innovation is a critical role of government, and that
it is a very different from favoring or promoting specific
industries. He noted the importance of experimentation and
flexibility in supporting innovation because the markets and
products in many cases are not yet defined. Dr. Breznitz stated
that a further challenge facing governments in supporting
innovation is the globally fragmented nature of production,
which makes it difficult to predict how innovation policies
will support job growth. Dr. Breznitz suggested that
governments must meet three challenges in order to successfully
spur innovation: establishing trust between themselves and
private actors, coordinating R&D across different institutional
actors, and motivating private actors to innovate in a way that
contributes to the domestic economy. He then discussed some of
the practices of other countries in supporting innovation, from
providing funds to private actors in order to research new
technologies and create innovation to providing funds to public
actors to do the same. He also gave examples of a third
governmental role, that of the government acting as a
facilitator in creating relationships between public and
private sector actors. Dr. Breznitz noted how other nations,
such as Israel and Taiwan, had utilized these different
approaches, and summarized the impacts of their endeavors.
Mr. Holland explained the mechanisms venture capitalists
use to support new companies and new products and services and
noted the significant role venture capital has played in
creating high-tech industries and major companies such as
Intel, Genentech, and Google. He also talked about the
significant concentration of venture capital funds in the
Silicon Valley area, crediting the region with a strong ``risk-
taking'' culture. Mr. Holland noted that while the availability
of venture capital in other areas of the country, like Boston
and North Carolina's Research Triangle, had grown over the last
40 years, the availability of such capital in Asia, Eastern
Europe, and South America, has grown significantly in recent
years. With the rise of ``viable competitors,'' Mr. Holland
said that his industry saw a need to increase the support for
basic research, and for new, innovative programs, such as the
Department of Energy's ARPA-E program. He also urged for
greater support of STEM education. Mr. Holland cited the
statistic that 25% of venture-backed public companies were
founded by immigrant entrepreneurs. He explained that
immigration reform that welcomes talented foreigners is
critical to US innovation policy. Finally, Mr. Holland
discussed the negative impact on the venture capital industry
of tax policy that would charge ordinary income tax rates on
capital gains and the vital necessity of strong intellectual
property protection to the venture capital industry.
4.6(r)_Interoperability in Public Safety Communications
Equipment
May 27, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-97
Background
On Thursday, May 27, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to discuss the status of a suite of technical
standards, known as Project 25, or P25, that are designed to
allow digital land mobile radio systems from different vendors
to be interoperable.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. David Boyd, Director,
Command, Control & Interoperability, Science and Technology
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (2) Mr.
Dereck Orr, Program Manager, Public Safety Communications
Systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST);
(3) Dr. Ernest L Hofmeister, Senior Scientist, Harris
Corporation; (4) Mr. John Muench, Director of Business
Development, Motorola Inc.; and (5) Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson,
President, International Association of Fire Chiefs, and Chief,
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Aloha, Oregon.
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by noting that ensuring
interoperable communication equipment for first responders is
critical to protecting the safety of first responders and the
public they serve. He explained that the purpose of the hearing
was to examine the status of the P25 standard needed to ensure
that emergency responder radios from different manufacturers
will interoperate. Chairman Wu stated his concern that, after
two decades, the entire standard was not yet complete, and that
public safety agencies did not realize that equipment labeled
as ``P25'' was not based on a complete set of standards. In
addition to addressing the question of the status of the
standards, he noted that the hearing would also address
conformance testing for these products, for which he stated his
strong support.
Dr. Boyd explained that, given the thousands of public
safety agencies nationwide and the billions of dollars worth of
legacy equipment that these agencies now use, the most
practical approach to achieving interoperability for voice and
data is to use a ``systems-of-systems'' approach. However,
standards are the key to linking together many disparate
systems, and he noted that in the case of voice services for
land mobile radios, comprehensive standards are lacking. Dr.
Boyd described how, for many of the interfaces that comprise
the P25 standard, documents essential for testing the standard
had not yet been completed by the standards developers. He
stressed the importance of both the testing documents and
performing the tests themselves in discovering problems that
might interfere with interoperability. It was noted throughout
the hearing that the radio manufacturers involved in the P25
standards process opposed more rigorous conformity assessment
testing, designed to test the manufacturer's equipment against
the standards. Dr. Boyd testified that DHS and NIST had
discovered interoperability problems four years ago while
testing radio equipment labeled as P25, and he strongly urged
for the inclusion of conformity assessment testing in the DHS
Compliance Assessment Program. These conformity tests would
ensure that the radios function as intended and that they will
interoperate with equipment manufactured in the future.
Mr. Orr gave an overview of the P25 standards development
process and NIST's role in supporting P25 development and
testing. He then detailed four issues with P25 that he believed
were hampering progress towards interoperability, as well as
open competition in the marketplace for public safety
equipment. First, only one and a half of the eight interfaces
in the suite of the standards needed for interoperability and
competition as defined by P25 are complete. Second, as a result
of the lack of complete standards, only a fraction of any P25
system purchased today is truly standards based. Third, many
public safety agencies believe that when they purchase a system
labeled P25 that it is based on a complete set of standards.
Fourth, there is no industry-led compliance assessment and
certification program. He further explained that the DHS/NIST
P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) was developed with the
expectation of incorporating the more rigorous conformity
assessment testing, in addition to other tests. Mr. Orr
testified that industry has opposed the inclusion of such
tests, arguing that they are overly burdensome and redundant to
other testing required by the CAP. Mr. Orr testified that he
believed conformity assessment testing was crucial to ensure
that the radios will perform as intended. Therefore, he was
pleased to report that over the past two months, industry
participants in P25 have expressed more willingness to actively
participate in the identification of relevant conformance tests
for the P25 CAP. Mr. Orr hoped to have a fully functional CAP
program within two years.
Dr. Hofmeister described the extensive number of P25
standards that had been developed by industry engineers. He
argued that while some have accused the P25 process of being
slow, it has moved at a similarly deliberate speed as other
consensus-driven standards development processes. He also
expressed Harris' belief that since 2005, the P25 standards
process was moving at full industry and user support capacity.
Dr. Hofmeister further testified that in Harris' view, the P25
process had made strong progress toward the original goals,
citing the completion of the common-air-interface, which allows
portable radios from different manufacturers to interoperate,
and the fact that there were now over 15 vendors supplying P25
products. Dr. Hofmeister also described the testing
manufacturers perform to ensure their products meet the P25
standard and noted that he did not feel that conformance
assessment testing would provide any additional assurance to
justify the cost to the manufacturers.
Mr. Muench opposed the characterization of P25 as slow or
incomplete. He pointed to a plethora of technical documents
produced by industry engineers to support and define the P25
standard. He also stated that 70 percent of the U.S. population
is covered by a P25 land mobile radio system. Mr. Muench also
testified that P25 manufacturers actively interacted with one
another to test equipment and ensure interoperability. He noted
that Motorola had posted compliance testing results for all of
its products to the DHS website, as required by the CAP.
According to Mr. Muench, the original goals of P25 had been met
(i.e., voice interoperability), but that work continues on
standards for new technologies and features. However, he stated
that he believed the standards were ``functionally complete.''
He also described the standards setting process, noting that it
was critical to include law enforcement, fire, police, and EMS,
as well as industry. Finally, Mr. Muench advocated for Congress
to dedicate the D block of spectrum exclusively to public
safety.
Chief Johnson explained the importance of P25 to first
responders across the country. He noted the progress that
participants have made on P25, but called on them to complete
the standards and ensure that the radios public safety buy
``will indeed work interoperably.'' He also offered his vision
of the future of public safety communications, which included
building a dedicated broadband network that would ensure
interoperable mission-critical voice and data communications.
To achieve this, Chief Johnson echoed Mr. Muench in calling for
the dedication of the D block spectrum for public safety use.
4.6(s)_Smart Grid Architecture and Standards: Assessing
Coordination and Progress
July 1, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-104
Background
On Thursday, July 1, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine the progress of the development of a common
framework and interoperability standards for the smart grid and
to discuss how standards affect the development of the smart
grid and the deployment of smart grid technologies.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. George Arnold, National
Coordinator for Smart Grid, National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST); (2) Mr. Mason Emnett, Associate Director of
the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC); (3) Mr. John McDonald, Director
of Technical Strategy and Policy Development, GE Energy; (4)
Mr. Conrad Eustis, Director of Retail Technology Development,
Portland General Electric; and (5) Ms. Lillie Coney, Associate
Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by discussing the need to
upgrade the Nation's 100 year old electricity grid to enable
more efficient transmission and distribution of electricity,
increase the use of renewable energy, and make the electric
grid a more reliable network. He noted that these are the
promised benefits of a new ``smart grid'' technology, and that
open technical standards were critical to realizing these
benefits. In addition to assessing the progress of the
standards process, Mr. Wu also stated that he was interested in
progress being made by the smart grid community in addressing
privacy and security challenges, as well as international
outreach efforts to ensure U.S. leadership in smart grid
technologies.
Dr. Arnold described NIST's engagement with industry,
government, and consumer stakeholders to help it fulfill its
congressionally-mandated responsibility to coordinate the
development of standards for the smart gird. He also discussed
progress on the three-phase plan NIST launched in April of 2009
to expedite the development and adoption of smart grid
interoperability standards. Phase 1, completed in January of
2010 after receiving input from over 1,500 stakeholders,
included a high-level reference model, the identification of
immediately applicable standards as well as high priority
standards gaps, and a description of the strategy to establish
requirements and standards for smart grid cybersecurity. Phase
2, formally launched in November of 2009, established the Smart
Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP), based on a public-private
partnership model, to guide the development of new standards.
Dr. Arnold noted that the SGIP will also help guide Phase 3 of
the plan, which will focus on testing and evaluation of the
standards. Finally, Dr. Arnold mentioned that the NIST-led
cybersecurity working group will publish cybersecurity
guidelines for the smart grid in July to 2010 and that his
office was actively engaging internationally to highlight the
U.S. smart grid framework and encourage the harmonization of
standards used in different countries.
Mr. Emnett discussed FERC's role in developing a nationwide
smart grid and its interaction with NIST in adopting standards
to achieve that goal. To carry out this role, Mr. Emnett noted
that, once FERC is satisfied that sufficient consensus exists
on a particular standard, it will initiate necessary rulemaking
to adopt the standards into regulation. However, he also noted
that while FERC may adopt smart grid standards that go beyond
its traditional jurisdiction to regulate the sale and
reliability of power over crossing lines, its ability to
enforce these standards would remain limited. Mr. Emnett also
noted the good working relationship between FERC and NIST,
saying that where FERC had identified priorities for smart grid
standards, NIST had incorporated these into the Phase 1
framework. Finally, Mr. Emnett testified that FERC was hesitant
to let the lack of standards hinder deployment of smart grid
technologies, and was therefore establishing interim rate
policies to encourage adoption and increase the body of
knowledge available about smart grid technologies.
In addition to noting that smart grid technologies are
essential to addressing our nation's energy demand, security,
and environmental challenges, Mr. McDonald discussed the
importance of standards and the role of NIST and the SGIP in
meeting the need for smart grid standards. Given the need to
balance public sector and private sector business, Mr. McDonald
stated several principles that should guide the government's
engagement in private sector standards activities, including
encouraging consensus-based adoption of technical standards,
promoting international standards development, utilizing
federal R&D to support standards development, and educating
stakeholders to accelerate deployment of standards. Mr.
McDonald also commented that NIST and the SGIP have gained
interest and traction worldwide on the smart grid framework
developed in Phase 1 of the NIST smart grid plan.
Mr. Eustis testified that Portland General Electric has
been involved in smart grid-related projects since 2001,
including by installing new metering technology for renewable
energy sources and new equipment to help the utility maintain
reliability. Mr. Eustis was supportive of NIST's efforts and
testified that the testing phase of the NIST roadmap was the
most critical in ensuring the success and adoption of smart
grid technologies. He also stated his view that successes for
the smart grid in its early phases will be more probable if the
focus remains on simple transactions between utilities and
their customers, and more feature-rich modifications wait for
later. Finally, he identified several high priority standards,
including a standardized USB-like socket that would enable
demand response programs for home appliances, a standardized
method for allowing electric vehicles to charge at the most
opportune time, and a standardized method to send and receive
electricity usage data across a multitude of applications.
Ms. Coney advocated for the inclusion of privacy
considerations in the development of smart grid technologies
and standards. She discussed many ways in which consumer
privacy could be compromised by the flow of data through the
power grid, the most serious of which could threaten the
personal safety of individuals and families by disclosing
information about the occupancy of their homes or their
personal habits. She noted that EPIC, along with other privacy
advocacy organizations, had been welcomed by NIST to
participate in generating recommendations for smart grid
standards and cyber security measures. Ms. Coney further noted
that EPIC was pleased by initial efforts on drafting privacy
guidelines and recommendations for the NIST Smart Grid Cyber
Security Guidelines, but that the organization would withhold
judgment until it saw the finalized recommendations.
4.6(t)_Planning for the Future of Cyber Attack Attribution
July 15, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-105
Background
On Thursday, July 15, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to discuss attribution in cyber attacks, and how
attribution technologies have the potential to affect the
anonymity and privacy of internet users.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. David Wheeler, Research
Staff Member, Information Technology and Systems Division at
the Institute for Defense Analyses; (2) Mr. Robert Knake,
International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; (3)
Mr. Ed Giorgio, President and Co-Founder, Ponte Technologies;
and (4) Mr. Marc Rotenberg, President, Electronic Privacy
Information Center.
Summary
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by explaining the importance
of attributing cyber attacks. However, he also expressed his
concern about the potential implications of attribution
technologies to personal privacy and anonymity on the internet.
Dr. Wheeler defined the term `attribution' to mean
`determining the identity or location of an attacker or an
attacker's intermediary'. He said that there is a concern that
if attribution technologies are developed, governments with
abusive human rights records could acquire these technologies
and redeploy them in order to suppress freedom of speech and
democracy movements. Finally, Dr. Wheeler said that most
commercial companies view identifying attackers as a law
enforcement or military task, not a commercial one. Therefore,
if a government wants the ability to attribute attacks, it may
need to pay for that ability directly, including the research
and development process.
Mr. Knake said that, for high-end threats, attribution will
almost certainly be possible due to the limited number of
actors that possess the capability to present a national
security challenge in cyberspace. Such an attack would take
significant investment of time, money, and highly-skilled
specialists. While technical attribution may only provide
limited evidence of who is behind an attack, traditional
intelligence and law enforcement investigation can make up the
difference. For lower-level threats, Mr. Knake does not support
ironclad attribution. He said that cyber criminals would likely
be able to maneuver around attribution technologies while
average users would experience a near-total loss of privacy.
Additionally, attribution technologies would not force foreign
regimes to cooperate in investigations. Instead, Mr. Knake
advocated for increased accountability in cyberspace. He said
that non-cooperation in investigating international cyber
attacks should be taken as a sign of culpability. States should
be held responsible for securing their national cyberspace and
should have an obligation to assist when their citizens or
systems within their country are involved in cyber attacks.
Mr. Giorgio said that post-attack attribution is not
effective. He recommended the creation of a multi-protocol
Internet, where sensitive commercial and financial networks
would require transmission using new protocols that have
accountability and attribution built into their design. He also
said that transparency is important; without it, bad actors
emerge. Finally, he said that giving control to a trusted third
party is the only way to ensure that private information
remains private and that users can remain anonymous. In his
opinion, government has not yet earned the trust to perform
this role; a lot more transparency and oversight is needed
before government can be given that trust.
Mr. Rotenberg expressed his fear that governments could use
attribution technologies for purposes unrelated to cyber
security. He noted that they could have a real impact on human
rights and freedom of expression because attribution can
influence individuals considering the expression of unpopular
or controversial views. He said that the U.S. has a very strong
constitutional right to speak anonymously, and that there has
been only one case where an internet identification case has
been upheld (for convicted sex offenders in Utah).
4.6(u)_Progress on P25: Furthering Interoperability and
Competition for Public Safety Radio Equipment
September 23, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-110
Background
On Thursday, September 23, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to discuss the status of the Project 25 (P25) standard,
remaining challenges, and explore how the status of P25 affects
an array of stakeholders.
There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Tom Sorley, Deputy
Director Radio Communication Services, City of Houston
Information Technology Department; (2) Ms. Ellen O'Hara,
President, Zetron; (3) Mr. Marvin Ingram, Senior Director,
ARINC, Public Safety Communications; and (5) Mr. Russ Sveda,
Manager of the Radio Technical Service Center, Department of
the Interior.
Summary
Chairman Wu began the hearing by noting that it was the
Subcommittee's second hearing on the interoperability of public
safety radios. He summarized the main findings from the
previous hearing--mainly, there was disagreement among all of
the P25 participants on the progress of the P25 process toward
completion and the level of testing necessary to ensure that
the equipment is P25 compliant. He then stated that he was
pleased to have an opportunity to hear from individuals
involved in the building, operating, and testing of public
safety radio systems.
Mr. Sorley testified that designing and purchasing a P25
system can be a challenge for a public safety agency,
especially small rural agencies with few resources. He said
that most public safety officials who write the specifications
for a radio system do not know enough about the suite of P25
standards to properly specify their requirements. This lack of
understanding can lead to the unintentional purchase of
proprietary components for the system. Since radios are hardly
ever replaced all at once, proprietary features placed on top
of standardized components can significantly limit later
attempts to purchase radios or other equipment from different
vendors, hindering competition and lower prices in the market
for public safety radios. Mr. Sorley recommended the inclusion
of more public safety representation in the P25 standards
development process to help alleviate this problem. Mr. Sorley
also reported on the status of the P25 Compliance Assessment
Program (CAP). He stated that while the major manufacturers had
shown more willingness earlier in the year to comply with a
more rigorous testing program, more recently they had returned
to their previous stance against more rigorous conformity
assessment tests.
Ms. O'Hara described the P25 Console Subsystem Interface
standard (CSSI), which is designed to allow consoles from any
manufacturer to interoperate with other hardware in a P25 radio
system. However, Ms. O'Hara testified that, currently, only
three of the seven P25 radio network vendors are compliant with
the CSSI standard. Customers who purchase radios from the other
four network vendors are limited to those vendors' particular
proprietary consoles. Ms. O'Hara expressed her concern that
competition and customer choice are limited by the slow
adoption of the open standards for CSSI. She recommended that
the Federal Government set a date within the next twelve months
after which it will no longer award grants to purchase P25
networks that are not compliant with the CSSI standard. Ms.
O'Hara also expressed Zetron's support for more rigorous
testing.
Mr. Ingram offered three main points in his testimony:
standards drive innovation and competition in any marketplace--
technology is not a barrier to finalizing P25 standards--and
finalizing communications standards and adoption of compliance
and conformance testing are imperative to fully solving the
interoperability problem. Mr. Ingram said that more
manufacturers are making P25-compliant equipment. However,
manufacturers that offer complete P25 networks are not offering
completely standards-based systems. Mr. Ingram also noted that
vendors of proprietary systems have taken advantage of the
delay in the development of standards, and thus competition has
been stifled. Mr. Ingram was also a proponent of more rigorous
testing to ensure that all products are manufactured to the
standard.
Mr. Sveda said that the Department of the Interior adopted
the P25 standards in 1996 and has designed and installed its
own systems with P25 compliant components since then. Even
though the Department has invested 14 years in this technology,
they are still unable to install a P25 compliant system without
significant engineering and customization.
4.6(v)_Standards for Health IT: Meaningful Use and Beyond
September 30, 2010
Hearing Volume No. 111-112
Background
On Thursday, September 30, 2010, the Honorable David Wu
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
hearing to examine the progress by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), and non-governmental health information
technology (IT) stakeholders in establishing standards for
health IT, providing guidance for their implementation, and
creating a mechanism to certify that health IT products comply
with the established standards.
There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. David Blumenthal,
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Office
of the National Coordinator (ONC), HHS; (2) Ms. Kathleen M.
Roberts, Associate Director for Federal and Industrial
Relations, Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (3) Ms.
Joyce Sensmeier, Vice President, Informatics, Healthcare
Information and Management Systems Society; (4) Dr. Dick
Gibson, President, Oregon Health Network; (5) Ms. Deven McGraw,
Director of the Health Privacy Project, Center for Democracy
and Technology; and (6) Ms. Deb Bass, President and CEO, Bass &
Associates, Inc.
Summary
Chairman Wu opened the hearing by saying that, although
many people take for granted the ability to share information
quickly and seamlessly, the health care industry is still
surprisingly paper-based and largely unaided by IT. He noted
that IT has implications for both lowering the cost and raising
the quality of health care. Chairman Wu hoped the witness could
provide an update on the implementation of the health IT
standards development requirements of the HITECH Act and also
offer insight into areas in need of improvement. Ranking Member
Smith added that many citizens seek health care across state
lines, and so access to these patients' Electronic Health
Records (EHRs) is necessary both close to home and out of
state.
Dr. Blumenthal said that since the HITECH--Health
Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health--Act
passed in February 2009, HHS has established two new federal
advisory committees, completed three rulemakings with the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and strengthened
coordination throughout the Executive Branch of health IT. The
HITECH Act established the Health IT Policy and Standards
Committees, which issued recommendations on the development and
maintenance of specific vocabularies to improve
interoperability and formed an interdisciplinary privacy and
security Tiger Team of experts. This Tiger Team has provided
valuable guidance to ONC and HHS on privacy issues. With the
advice of these committees and external consultation, ONC
completed three independent rulemakings to implement meaningful
use stage 1: the first rule established the EHR incentive
program and defined meaningful use stage 1; the second defined
EHR standards, implementation specifications, and certification
criteria to support meaningful use; and the third established a
temporary certification process. HHS has already authorized
three certification bodies.
Ms. Roberts said that NIST has been collaborating with
industry and others to improve the health care information
infrastructure since the 1990s. While health IT standards
development is strengthened by an open process for both the
public and private sector, it is hampered by the fact that many
standards development organizations are working in parallel to
provide standards. This can sometimes lead to conflicting,
overlapping, or redundant standards. NIST testing activities
reduces the cost of developing IT systems by accelerating the
standards development efforts and ensuring that standards are
implemented correctly. Under the temporary health IT
certification program, testing organizations authorized by ONC
will use the NIST tests to evaluate EHR software and systems so
health care providers have confidence in the systems they
purchase. In addition, NIST is advising ONC on the process by
which testing organizations will be authorized to test and
certify the EHR systems. Current priority areas include
security standards, usability standards, and medical device
interoperability standards.
Ms. Sensmeier voiced three areas of concern with the
process under the HITECH Act. First, data transport and basic
security are areas where selective standards are necessary for
achieving interoperability. Under the current process, EHR
vendors will be forced to support all available transport
methods or risk developing software that may not meet future
interoperability needs. Second, selecting multiple standards
for the same criterion is problematic. Currently, vendors and
providers are forced to choose to either support one standard
or support them all, which can be costly. Third, the timing of
identifying and selecting the standards in subsequent rules is
important. To ensure optimal software development and testing,
the final rules for meaningful use and standards should be
available 18 months before the next stage. Ms. Sensmeier
recommended that HHS publish implementation guidance for all
selected standards; publish standards for data transport,
financial transactions, security, and health information
exchange; publish the process and schedule for harmonizing
standards; and set up one repository for access to all
standards and implementation guides.
Dr. Gibson said that the meaningful use final rule has been
well-received by health care providers. However, more standards
are needed, including one that transmits provider text notes
and one that exports and imports patient information directly
between EHRs. He also called for a complete directory for
health Internet addresses so that providers could send
encrypted information directly to future providers and
emergency departments could locate data from patient's previous
providers. He said that EHRs need to be able to accommodate
providers still on paper records. Finally, Dr. Gibson said that
providers need an EHR functionality requirement for quality
measure reporting and a national model for patients' privacy
consent.
Ms. McGraw voiced her concern with the problems associated
with securing patient's privacy while using EHRs. She said that
HIPAA--the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act--contains privacy and security regulations, but because
EHRs change the way health information is exchanged, additional
regulations are needed. She admitted that the HITECH Act did
advance the security of information, but said that there are
still gaps to address. A recent survey of large health care
organizations indicated that fewer than half of these
organizations conduct the annual risk assessment required by
HIPAA's security rule. She also stated that the HIPAA security
rule is extremely flexible in that it does not require
particular functionalities. Finally, she said that while
meaningful use requires a risk assessment where the
functionalities are defined, regulatory bodies are not clear
with providers about using them.
Ms. Bass said that three areas contributed to Nebraska's
success in achieving meaningful use: extensive and persistent
stakeholder engagement, physician engagement, and sharing
knowledge among states. She urged the ONC to use this success
as guidance for other states.
Appendix
----------
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2010
The President released a summary of the FY10 budget request on
February 26, 2009. The Committee is very pleased that the budget
summary recognizes the benefits that science and technology and
research and development investments have for our country's economic
competitiveness, energy security, job growth, and environmental health.
The Committee notes that many of the priorities proposed in the budget
summary are consistent with those outlined in two of the Committee's
major authorizing bills signed into law during the 110th Congress--the
America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140). In addition, many of the
priorities in the budget summary build upon the science and technology
funding that was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(P.L. 111-5). The Committee looks forward to reviewing the detailed
budget request later this spring. The following are the Committee's
views on key priorities in the budget summary related to programs
within the Science and Technology Committee jurisdiction.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The budget provides $18.7 billion for NASA in FY10. The FY09
omnibus appropriations bill provided $17.8 billion and the Recovery Act
provided $1 billion. The budget summary is generally consistent with
the priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422),
including support for Earth science and climate change monitoring;
human and robotic space exploration; completion of the International
Space Station; aeronautics research to transform the air traffic
control system and support more efficient aircraft; and retirement of
the Space Shuttle in 2010, with the possibility of one additional
flight. However, further details will be needed to better assess the
Administration's specific budget priorities for NASA.
The Committee believes that NASA should continue to engage in the
most cutting-edge research and serve as inspiration for the next
generation of scientists and engineers. To do this, NASA will need the
resources to fulfill each of its diverse missions--space exploration,
science, aeronautics research and development, and education. The
Committee plans to move a multi-year NASA reauthorization this year to
further direct and balance the agency's programs.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The budget provides $7 billion for NSF in FY10. The omnibus
provided $6.5 billion and the Recovery Act provided $3 billion for the
agency. The budget increases support for high-risk, high-reward
research; early-career researchers through the Graduate Research
Fellowship and Faculty Early Career Development programs; partnerships
between two-year colleges and the private sector to train science and
engineering technicians; and climate change research and education.
The Committee notes that since its creation in 1950, NSF has been
tasked with strengthening science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education at all levels. NSF's education programs
are unique in their peer review processes, their linkage to higher
education, and their resulting capacity to develop new and improved
educational materials and assessments, create better teacher training
techniques, and move promising ideas from research to educational
practice. In particular, the Committee supports robust funding for the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, which is helping to recruit
and train the next generation of K-12 STEM teachers by providing
scholarships for students to earn a degree in a STEM field while
learning content-oriented pedagogy and following a streamlined path
toward teacher certification. NSF is also uniquely positioned to help
broaden participation in STEM fields at all levels, in particular
through institutional capacity building grants and grants that
integrate research and education.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The budget provides $26.3 billion overall for the Department of
Energy in FY10, and notes that the budget request will support:
Significant increases in funding for basic research
and world-leading scientific user facilities to support
transformational discoveries and accelerate solutions to our
Nation's most pressing problems--including the development of
clean energy;
The transition to a low-carbon economy through
increased support of the development and deployment of clean
energy technologies such as solar, biomass, geothermal, wind,
and low-carbon emission coal power;
Smart grid technologies and other investments to
modernize and enhance the electric transmission infrastructure
to improve energy efficiency and reliability; and
Early commercial deployment of innovative, clean
energy technologies through loan guarantees.
The Committee is pleased that the budget supports these areas,
including increased funding for the DOE Office of Science (in addition
to the $4.8 billion provided in the omnibus and $1.6 billion provided
in the Recovery Act) to: improve our understanding of climate science;
continue the U.S. commitment to international science and energy
experiments; and support graduate fellowships that will train students
in critical energy fields. In addition, the Committee supports the
Administration's goal of accelerating research, development,
demonstration, and commercialization of clean energy technologies and
the Administration's call for increased investment in carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technologies (in addition to the $3.4 billion
provided in the Recovery Act and additional funds provided in the
omnibus for coal and CCS).
The Committee also agrees with the budget increase for ``promising
but exploratory and high-risk research proposals that could
fundamentally improve our understanding of climate, revolutionize
fields of science, and lead to radically new technologies.'' Along
these lines, the Committee strongly supports aggressive implementation
of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) at DOE. As
recommended by the National Academies and authorized in COMPETES, ARPA-
E will be tasked with high-risk, high-reward energy technology
development, especially research that is too cross-cutting or multi-
disciplinary to fit into the current DOE stovepipes. ARPA-E will bring
together the best and the brightest from all sectors--national labs,
academia, and the private sector--give them resources and autonomy, and
get bureaucracy out of their way. The omnibus and the Recovery Act
provided a total of $415 million for ARPA-E. The National Academies
recommended that the program grow to $1+ billion annually.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The budget supports investment in our country's economic
competitiveness by promoting innovation in U.S. manufacturing and
advancing science, standards, and technology at the Department of
Commerce. Given that, as the budget summary notes, manufacturing
employment has hit a 60-year low, the Committee is pleased that the
budget supports small- and medium-sized businesses through $125 million
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and $70 million for
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) in FY10. Both of these programs
were consistently reduced or zeroed-out by the previous Administration
despite both programs' strong record of creating jobs and providing a
large return on investment.
The Committee also supports FY10 funding for NIST research and
facilities at the levels authorized in COMPETES.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The budget prioritizes prediction and monitoring of weather and
climate at NOAA, providing $1.3 billion to fund the development and
acquisition of weather satellites and climate sensors. The omnibus
provided $966 million and the Recovery Act provided $600 million for
these activities. The Committee is encouraged that funds are provided
to restore several climate sensors; expand the computing capacity NOAA
needs to maintain the continuity of climate data records; and develop
more refined models to project climate change impacts at a more refined
scale.
In addition, the Committee is pleased that the budget summary notes
the importance of funding to ``advance climate and ocean research,
including efforts to understand and monitor ocean acidification.''
Department of Transportation
The budget notes that the Administration plans to work with
Congress to reform surface transportation programs to make investments
in a more sustainable future. The Committee supports this goal and
plans to move legislation this year to restructure and refocus surface
transportation research and development programs to better address
congestion, maximize energy efficiency, and reduce environmental
impacts.
The budget provides $800 million for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to support the Next Generation Air Traffic Control
System (Next Gen), a long-term effort to improve the efficiency,
safety, and capacity of the air traffic control system. The Committee
strongly supports Next Gen, including both the FAA and NASA research
and development components of the program. The Committee's position on
the FAA component of Next Gen is included in HR 915, the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The budget provides $355 million to enhance cybersecurity
technology research and development and make private and public sector
cyber-infrastructure more resilient and secure. The Committee has long
been at the forefront of addressing cybersecurity issues, which only
grow in importance as more and more of our infrastructure and economy
are dependent on computers and the Internet. The Committee looks
forward to reviewing further details of the Administration's plans in
this area.
The Committee also plans to move legislation this year to ensure
that DHS aligns its research priorities with the most critical threats
and homeland security needs and ensures that the technology developed
meets reliable testing and evaluation standards as well as the needs of
end-users. The Committee expects to include in these efforts research
on technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles and tunnel detection
to improve border security.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The budget provides $3.9 billion for research, regulation, and
enforcement at EPA, a significant increase compared to previous years.
In recent years, the Committee has noted the need for increased funding
for research and development at EPA to ensure that regulations are
scientifically sound and cost effective. The EPA Science Advisory Board
has also recommended increased budgets for the Office of Research and
Development since 2005. The Committee is encouraged by the proposed
increase and would expect that this budget level will allow for funding
of initiatives such as the assessment of the health and safety of
nanotechnology products, developing clean-up standards for
methamphetamine contamination, and assessment of the impacts of climate
change on society and ecosystems.
Small Business Innovation Research
The budget summary does not specifically reference the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs. However, the Committee believes these
programs are another important tool to promote economic growth, job
creation, innovation, and the commercialization of new technologies
into the marketplace. The Committee plans to move legislation similar
to HR 5819 from the 110th Congress to increase investment in these
programs and refocus that investment to better meet the needs of small
businesses in emerging industries.
Department of State and International Programs
The budget provides additional funding for key programs that
advance U.S. foreign policy goals, including funding for energy
initiatives and programs addressing global climate change. The
Committee recognizes the need for better coordination of international
science and technology efforts to better leverage both the expertise
and resources throughout the world to address global challenges (such
as energy and climate change, among others) and the diplomatic benefit
of international science and technology activities. The Committee plans
to move legislation on this issue and looks forward to seeing a more
detailed budget request to support these activities.
SEC. 321 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Under Sec. 321 of S. Con. Res. 70 (the FY2009 Budget Resolution),
committees were directed to review programs within their jurisdictions
to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in program spending.
In the 110th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee
reestablished the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight to help
identify instances of waste, fraud, and abuse that could create savings
for the Federal taxpayer.
During the past two years, the Committee has run a very aggressive,
wide-ranging oversight operation. House Rule X sets the Committee's
jurisdiction, but the legislative jurisdiction assigned to the
Committee is narrower than the oversight jurisdiction. Rule X also
assigns the Committee special oversight responsibility for ``reviewing
and studying, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs, and Government
activities dealing with or involving non-military research and
development.'' The Committee appreciates the special function entrusted
to it and will continue to tackle troubled programs and search for
waste, fraud, and abuse in non-military research and development
programs regardless of where it may be found.
In the last Congress, the Committee collectively authored almost
250 oversight letters and held 80 oversight hearings. The Committee is
committed to building on this record in the 111th Congress. The
Committee also routinely works with GAO and the Inspectors General of
our agencies to maintain detailed awareness of the work of those
offices. Currently, the Committee has 30 accepted requests for work
pending with GAO and more will be developed over the coming months.
Government waste and contractor abuses were an important focus of
the work of the Committee during the 110th, and this area will gain
renewed attention in the 111th. In the 110th, work by the Committee led
to Appropriations reductions of $17.8 million with another $1.5 million
in Federal property identified for reclaiming from a contractor. The
Committee also identified a program that had misspent hundreds of
millions of dollars during a computer acquisition; that program has
since been significantly restructured. Finally, the Committee has been
working with GAO and other Committees to instill rigor and transparency
into the proposed acquisition of new radiation portal detection
monitors; that work has kept between $2 billion and $3 billion from
being committed to acquiring immature and unproven technologies.
The Committee has also kept pressure on NOAA to rein in contractor
costs and improve performance in the acquisition of next generation
weather and climate satellites, which have experienced a multi-billion
dollar cost overrun. It is hard to calculate the savings that come from
the Committee's work in this area, but it is likely that without this
oversight, the cost overruns would be even higher.
In the 111th Congress, the Committee will expand its work on
identifying contractor abuses and cost savings by undertaking a wide-
ranging review of contracts let by our agencies in the past few years.
The Committee will be looking for specific instances of abuse and
lessons on how to better manage contract competitions and awards so
that taxpayers know their money is being well spent.
A more detailed description of the Committee's planned oversight
activities can be found in the Committee Oversight Plan: http://
democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/111th%20Oversight%20Plan.pdf.
List of Signatures
1. Rep. Bart Gordon
2. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan
3. Rep. Lincoln Davis
4. Rep. Charlie Wilson
5. Rep. Brian Baird
6. Rep. Lynn Woolsey
7. Rep. Steve Rothman
8. Rep. Gary Peters
9. Rep. Daniel Lipinski
10. Rep. Paul Tonko
11. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper
12. Rep. Brad Miller
13. Rep. Jerry Costello
14. Rep. David Wu
15. Rep. Marcia Fudge
16. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
17. Rep. Parker Griffith
18. Rep. Harry Mitchell
19. Rep. Russ Carnahan
20. Rep. Ben Chandler
21. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
22. Rep. Alan Grayson
MINORITY VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2010
It is important that we continue to make appropriate investments in
science and technology research, development, and math and science
education in order for the United States to remain a world leader in
competitiveness and innovation. While Committee Republicans agree with
the Majority that the Administration's budget summary ``recognizes the
benefits that science and technology and research and development
investments have for our country's economic competitiveness, energy
security, job growth and environmental health,'' we are also mindful
that in the current economic environment, the nation faces numerous and
difficult budgetary decisions that will require our careful
consideration, diligent oversight, and appropriate action.
We are pleased that the budget summary continues to build on the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act
(COMPETES) (P.L. 110-69) by keeping America on track to double the
funding for physical sciences and engineering at the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE),
but have some concerns that the Administration may be accelerating this
funding beyond authorized levels. While we were disappointed that the
House Leadership and Appropriators did not adequately fund these
agencies in the FY08 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161), we are skeptical about the
unprecedented amounts currently being appropriated and the rate at
which this is occurring, with no oversight. The Administration
considers the $5 billion ``investment in key science programs''
included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus) (P.L.
111-5) to be a ``significant down payment'' toward doubling the funding
for NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science, in addition to the full-
year amounts requested in the FY09 Omnibus. There are only 6 months
left in FY09.
The Administration's budget summary offers only the overall budget
request amounts for each agency and provides a brief narrative on
Administration policies, which gives some limited guidance for NSF and
NASA. Unfortunately, we do not have top line budget numbers for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NIST, DOE
Office of Science and a number of other Science and Technology
Committee jurisdictional areas such as the Department of Transportation
research and development, the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the U.S. Fire Administration, and interagency programs such as the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the Networking Information
Research and Development program (NITRD), or the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction program.
Along with the Majority, we look forward to receiving a more
detailed budget request.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The Committee has sought to enable NASA to succeed as a multi-
mission agency in carrying out the goals expressed in the NASA
Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422). In general, Committee
Republicans concur with the Majority that the budget seems consistent
with the priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, including
retirement of the Space Shuttle following completion of the
International Space Station and one additional flight to deliver the
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. We applaud the Administration's
reaffirmation of NASA's initiatives to return humans to the Moon by
2020 as part of a robust space exploration program, while also
stimulating the private-sector to develop and demonstrate commercial
crew and cargo delivery services to the International Space Station.
We are encouraged that the Administration's budget provides $18.7
billion for NASA in FY10. However, additional details are needed to
adequately evaluate the Administration's goals and intent. For example,
it is unclear whether the ``new space flight systems for carrying
American crews and supplies to space'' is the Constellation System
already under development. With Constellation, NASA is in the midst of
a once-in-a-generation development of a new human launch system. This
is the largest launch vehicle development since the beginning of the
Space Shuttle program, with the added requirement of being capable of
safely returning humans to the Moon. We are concerned that the flat
funding profile in the Administration's out year projections may be
unrealistic for such a large scale development effort without
jeopardizing NASA's ability to successfully accomplish its portfolio of
missions.
We also endorse the Administration's commitment to modernize our
nation's air traffic control network by allocating $800 million to the
Next Generation Air Transportation System. This multi-agency program,
led by the FAA and NASA, requires a high level of research,
development, and validation to ensure mission success. A robust, safe
and efficient air transportation system, capable of handling three-
times current traffic levels, is fundamental to promoting economic
growth as well as maintaining our quality of life.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY10 budget request for NSF is $7 billion. This is $1.1 billion
less than what was authorized in COMPETES; however, NSF also received
$3 billion in the Stimulus and is slated to receive another $6.5
billion in the FY09 Omnibus for roughly a six-month period. Committee
Republicans support a robust budget request for NSF, but remain
concerned that we not exceed current authorization amounts. We hope to
see FY10 increases spread across all of the research fields NSF
supports in the more detailed budget.
With regard to education, we agree with the Majority that NSF has
an important and unique role to play in strengthening science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all
levels. We further agree with the Majority that the FY10 budget should
provide, to the extent practical, sufficient funding for the Robert
Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program in order to achieve the goals set out
in COMPETES. We note that the budget summary highlights the Advanced
Technological Education program (ATE) and the Graduate Research
Fellowship and Faculty Early Career Development programs, all programs
that were also emphasized in COMPETES, but fails to mention the
COMPETES-authorized Math and Science Partnerships program (MSP).
The budget summary makes climate change research and education a
priority. We note that NSF currently funds numerous research and
education programs that address climate change.
Department of Energy (DOE)
In general Committee Republicans agree with the Majority's views on
the budget summary for the DOE. However a majority of us in the
Minority continue to be opposed to the establishment of an Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). Those of us in opposition
maintain the view that creating a new agency to do work that is
currently being done at the DOE is not a justified use of the limited
funds available to the Department, and we support the Department's
previous decision to not establish ARPA-E, but to engage in ARPA-E-type
projects within the current DOE structure.
We also express our deep disappointment that the President's budget
summary proposes to repeal the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional
Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Program that was established
in Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Section
999H(a) sets the funding for this program at a level of $50-million-
per-year provided from Federal lease royalties, rents, and bonuses paid
by oil and gas companies--not taxpayers. It should be clear that the
overall program was initiated and carried out to reach energy known to
exist in the areas targeted--energy that was impossible to produce
without new technology--and that the required technology would be
eventually paid for from the energy captured. The funds are to be
directed towards research specifically targeting four areas: ultra-
deepwater resources, unconventional natural gas and other petroleum
resources, technology challenges of small producers, and research
complementary to these areas. While we are wholly supportive of
research into renewable and alternative forms of energy, we feel that
domestically produced oil and natural gas will continue to play an
important role in powering our country and must therefore receive
support to increase our domestic supply and reduce our foreign
dependence. The budget summary appears to focus solely on coal within
the area of fossil energy research and development. We are pleased that
research into carbon capture and storage is playing a prominent role in
the budget summary, but we encourage the Budget Committee to continue
to recognize the importance of oil and natural gas research and
development to our country's future.
We note the President's proposal to scale back the Yucca Mountain
program to ``those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' and hope that this announcement and decision
does not have a detrimental effect on building new nuclear plants in
the United States, but would rather expedite research and development
into reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the next generation of
nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is just the type of clean energy
technology that will reduce dependence on foreign oil that President
Obama talks about in his budget blueprint.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The Department of Commerce's NIST supports U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
and technology to enhance economic competitiveness and address
important societal challenges. The Administration's FY10 budget summary
does not include an overall agency total for NIST, but specifies a
request of $70 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and
$125 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).
NIST's core research and facilities programs are widely recognized
as well-managed, high-leverage activities supported by world-class
researchers. Accordingly, Committee Republicans continue to believe
these activities should receive priority in the budget, and, along with
MEP and TIP, be funded in accordance with the levels authorized in
COMPETES. Additionally, we intend to continue close oversight of NIST's
budget and activities, and hope to work with the majority and the
Administration to ensure appropriate and effective use of taxpayer
dollars. Of particular interest will be NIST's recently created
external construction grant program, which received a dramatic increase
in the stimulus bill even though the program has not been authorized or
formally reviewed and considered by the Committee.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Committee Republicans agree with the Majority regarding support for
the FY10 funding request of $1.3 billion for satellite and instrument
acquisitions at NOAA. However, we believe this request is a substantial
increase compared to previous years, requiring much greater oversight
by the Committee of NOAA's plan to use them.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
The budget summary does not include information on research and
development activities at DOT (most DOT R&D is funded through mandatory
spending), but does note that the Administration intends to work with
Congress to reform transportation programs as we near expiration of the
2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Committee Republicans welcome this
commitment to reform, and look forward to working with the Majority,
the Administration, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
to produce a responsible bill that strengthens Federally-funded
transportation R&D programs.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Administration's budget summary does not include information on
science and technology activities at DHS, except to note that $355
million is requested for cybersecurity activities that include research
and development. Committee Republicans are pleased to see cybersecurity
highlighted as a key priority in the budget and look forward to
reviewing further details on DHS programs in this area. We also look
forward to reviewing budget details for major programs within our
jurisdiction--the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and firefighter grants programs--which
together total over $2 billion. We also welcome the Majority's
commitment to pursue legislation to better align DHS research
priorities to address the most critical threats and departmental needs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Committee Republicans share the Majority's view that investments in
research and development will be beneficial in the form of greater
cost-efficiency of environmental protection programs. However, we
believe that any increase in funding levels should be done with
thoughtful consideration. The $3.9 billion FY10 budget request for
research, regulation and enforcement is almost an 18 percent increase
over the FY09 request. Although we are aware that funding level
requirements for research and development go through cycles, this
budget request increase, by nearly one-fifth, may be out of proportion
to what is needed; therefore, the minority would encourage increased
oversight of EPA's research and development agenda.
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2011
President Obama transmitted his budget request for Fiscal Year 2011
to Congress on February 1, 2010. The Committee on Science and
Technology is pleased that the budget request includes significant
investments in civilian research and development and is generally
consistent with the funding priorities laid out in the America COMPETES
Act. The Committee strongly shares the President's interest in putting
the country on a fiscally sustainable path and recognizes the need to
make tough choices to restore fiscal discipline. At the same time, the
Committee agrees with the Administration .that investments in science
and innovation play a crucial role in ensuring our nation's long-term
economic security and meeting the challenges of the future.
The following are the views of the Committee on Science and
Technology on the budget for programs within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of
Federal funding for non-biomedical basic research conducted at colleges
and universities. The budget request includes $7.424 billion for NSF in
Fiscal Year 2011, an 8.0 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2010 enacted
funding. This level of funding keeps the budget of NSF on a doubling
path, consistent with the funding goals laid out in the America
COMPETES Act. The Committee is pleased with the proposed increases to
the Research and Related Activities budget at NSF, and supports efforts
to increase funding for programs focused specifically on innovation.
The Committee notes that, since its creation in 1950, NSF has been
tasked with strengthening science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education at all levels. NSF's education programs
are unique in their peer review processes and their resulting capacity
to develop new and improved educational materials and assessments,
create better teacher training techniques, and move promising ideas to
practice. The Committee supports funding NSF at a level that will
ensure adequate and sustained support for its STEM education programs,
particularly for the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and the Math and
Science Partnerships Program, and is concerned that the budget request
may not be sufficient to meet this goal.
The Committee will be moving legislation this year to reauthorize
the National Science Foundation as part of the reauthorization of the
America COMPETES Act.
Department of Energy
The Committee supports the budget request for the wide range of
basic and applied research activities at the Department of Energy,
including for the activities of the Office of Science, the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, and the Office of Nuclear Energy.
The Office of Science funds basic research and world-class
facilities that play an integral role in maintaining technological
competitiveness. Recognizing the important link between the Office of
Science and long-term economic prosperity in the United States, the
America COMPETES Act authorized significant funding increases for the
Office. As such, the Committee welcomes the Fiscal Year 2011 budget
request of $5.1 billion for the Office of Science. This funding level
represents a 4.4 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels.
As envisioned by the National Academies' 2005 report, Rising Above
the Gathering Storm, and authorized by the America COMPETES Act, the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is responsible for
funding high-risk, high-payoff, game-changing research and development
projects to meet the nation's long-term energy challenges. The mission
of ARPA-E is to overcome technological barriers in the development of
energy technologies by sponsoring 'research and technology development
that industry is unlikely to undertake alone. The Committee strongly
supports robust funding levels for ARPA-E. The America COMPETES Act
authorized funding of $300 million for ARPA-E in its first year of
operation with a significant ramp up in funding over the next few
years. The Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bill and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided ARPA-E with $415 million in
funding for its first two years. The budget request for ARPA-E in
Fiscal Year 2011 is $300 million. While the Committee appreciates the
budget request, it urges a funding level more consistent with the
funding trajectory envisioned in the America COMPETES Act.
The President's budget request includes $2.35 billion for the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), representing a
5.0% percent increase from the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. The
Committee is pleased that the budget request includes significant
increases in funding for select large-scale demonstrations, vehicle
technology research, and the development of innovative new building
technologies for increased energy efficiency, but is disappointed to
see level and decreased budget requests for specific renewable
programs.
The President is requesting $503 million for research and
development at the Office of Nuclear Energy, an 8.0% percent increase
over the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. Close to 80 percent of this
request is dedicated to the Fuel Cycle R & D and Reactor Concepts RD &
D programs. The Committee believes that the United States must have an
inclusive portfolio to meet its growing need for energy and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and recognizes nuclear power as a legitimate
component of that portfolio. For this reason, the Committee supports
research and development efforts to meet the technological challenges
posed by expanded nuclear power production.
The Committee intends to move legislation this year to reauthorize
the activities of the Office of Science and ARPA-E. The Committee also
intends to draft and move legislation to authorize a comprehensive
nuclear research and development program at the Department of Energy.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
The Committee is pleased that the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request
provides funding increases for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) to advance technological innovation and economic
competitiveness. The budget request for NIST for Fiscal Year 2011 is
$918.9 million, a 7.3 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2010
enacted level. This funding level is consistent with the doubling path
set out in the America COMPETES Act.
The Committee strongly supports the $10 million increase proposed
for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). TIP awards cost-shared
grants to small companies and joint ventures for the development of
high-risk, high-reward technologies that meet critical national needs.
The Committee recognizes TIP as an important tool in increasing
technological innovation in this country, and supports efforts to
provide the program with the funding it needs to complete its mission.
The Committee also strongly supports the $5 million increase
proposed for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The MEP program
is a public-private partnership in all 50 states and Puerto Rico that
provides technical assistance for small manufacturers to modernize
their operations and adapt to foreign competition. The increase in the
Fiscal Year 2011 budget request would be used for innovation services
for small and medium-sized manufacturers to accelerate technology
adoption, promote environmentally sustainable practices, support market
diversification, and improve workforce capabilities.
Finally, the Committee is supportive of the request for $69.4
million for Scientific and Technical Research and Services for focused
investments in areas of national priority. In the face of increased
global competitiveness, the Committee supports NIST's efforts to work
with industry to address green manufacturing and construction,
cybersecurity, the metrology to support the growth and potential of
biopharmaceuticals, advanced solar technologies, and disaster resilient
buildings and infrastructure.
The Committee will move legislation this year to reauthorize the
National Institute of Standards and Technology as part of the America
COMPETES Act reauthorization.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 includes $19 billion for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an increase
of 1.5 percent over the enacted Fiscal Year 2010 level. The Committee
is pleased that the budget request provides increased support for
NASA's Earth Science Decadal Survey missions, aeronautics R & D on
``green aviation'', extending the operation and utilization of the
International Space Station to at least 2020, and exploration-related
technology development activities. At the same time, the decision to
cancel funding for the Constellation Program and to increase investment
in the development of commercial crew human spaceflight vehicles
represents a significant shift in policy that requires careful and
deliberate consideration by the Committee on Science and Technology.
The congressional budget justification from NASA, providing detailed
information about the proposed changes, was only made available to the
Committee on February 22, 2010 and is currently under review.
The Committee intends to move a multi-year reauthorization of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration this year.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Committee is pleased that the budget request for Fiscal Year
2011 includes a 17 percent increase in funding for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The bulk of the proposed
increase in funding at NOAA is for the National Environmental Satellite
Data Information Systems Office and, more specifically, for the Joint
Polar Satellite Systems (formerly the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System). The Committee recognizes
that the data provided by the Joint Polar Satellite Systems is critical
for several key U.S.: economic sectors, as well as national defense
needs, and requires appropriate investment. At the same time, the
Committee strongly supports adequate funding for the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research and the National Weather Service, and is
concerned that chronic underfunding may erode some of NOAA's mission-
critical services.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Committee has long advocated increased funding for research and
development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that
regulations are scientifically sound and cost effective. The Committee
appreciates that the budget request includes a slight increase in
funding for research and development at EPA, despite a proposed
reduction in overall EPA funding. The budget request for Fiscal Year
2011 includes $847 million for Science and Technology programs and a
$24.5 million transfer from the Superfund account to support Superfund-
related research.
Department of Transportation
The Committee supports robust funding for research and development
at the Department of Transportation, consistent with the commitment
outlined in SAFETEA-LU. The Committee is pleased that the Research and
Innovative Technology Administration at the Department of
Transportation has received a funding increase in the Fiscal Year 2011
budget request (from $13 million to $17 million) and welcomes proposed
increases for Research, Development, and Technology programs at the
Federal Highway Administration (from $643.6 million to $652.8 million)
and Research and Development at the Federal Transit Administration
(from $14.8 million to $33.1 million). The Committee hopes to move
legislation this year to reauthorize surface transportation research
and development programs at the Department of Transportation.
The President's budget request provides $190 million for research,
engineering, and development at the Federal Aviation Administration, a
decrease of $500 million below Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels. The
Committee supports the efforts of the FAA to conduct research,
engineering, and development to. improve the national airspace system's
capacity and safety, and urges a budget for these programs sufficient
to carry out these responsibilities. In particular, the Committee
supports the significant increase in funding, including a sizable
increase in the research, engineering, and development budget, for the
Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (Next Gen). The budget
request includes $1.143 billion in funding (up from $868 million in
Fiscal Year 2010 enacted) for all Next Gen programs at FAA, including
$77.5 million in research, engineering, and development-related funding
(up from $72 million in FY 2010).
Department of Homeland Security
The budget request includes $1.018 billion for the Department of
Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, representing a
1.2% increase from the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. This increase is
the result of the movement of the Department's Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office research program to the Science and Technology
Directorate. Without the DNDO research programs, the budget request
represents a 9.7% reduction in funding from Fiscal Year 2010 levels for
the Science and Technology Directorate. The Committee strongly supports
the work of the Science and Technology Directorate, and wants to ensure
that it has the resources it needs to carry out the research and
development required to keep our nation safe.
The Committee intends to move legislation this year to reauthorize
the activities of the Department's Science and Technology Directorate.
Sec. 425 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Section 425 of S. Con. Res. 13, the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
Resolution requires committees to review programs within their
jurisdiction and make recommendations to reduce wasteful Federal
spending to promote deficit reduction and long-term fiscal
responsibility.
House Rule X assigns the Science and Technology Committee special
oversight responsibility for ``reviewing and studying, on a continuing
basis, all laws, programs, and Government activities dealing with or
involving non-military research and development.'' The Committees
appreciates this special oversight jurisdiction and makes the
identification of waste, fraud, and abuse in all non-military research
and development programs a top priority.
To support its important oversight work, in the 110th Congress, the
Science and Technology Committee reestablished the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight to help identify instances of waste,
fraud, and abuse that could create savings for the Federal taxpayer.
The Subcommittee continues to oversee a wide-ranging and detailed
oversight operation, conducting investigations into instances of
wasteful spending and holding oversight hearings to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are spent as effectively and efficiently as possible.
The Committee's legislative subcommittees are also regularly involved.
in overseeing spending at their agencies, aggressively pursuing any
allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse.
In 2009, the Committee collectively authored many oversight letters
and held at least l6 oversight hearings. The Committee also worked
closely with the Government Accountability Office (GAO)and the
Inspectors General of its agencies on allegations of wasteful spending.
Currently, the Committee has dozens of accepted requests for work
pending with GAO and more are currently under development.
The Committee's oversight into government waste and contractor
abuse has resulted in real savings to taxpayers. Most recently,
following extensive oversight by the Committee, the Department of
Homeland Security announced on February 25, 2010 a decision to cancel
the plan to deploy advanced radiation monitors at ports and border
crossings around the country. This program had been the subject of 3
hearings and multiple letters from the Committee focusing on the
excessive costs and inefficiencies of the proposed technology.
Cancellation of the program will save taxpayers at least $1.5 billion
in acquisition costs.
The Committee is committed to building on this record in Fiscal
Year 2011. The Committee will continue work already underway in the
areas of: computer system acquisitions, contractor costs and
performance in the acquisition of next generation weather and climate
satellites, procurement, conflict of interest and program management at
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, conflict of interest
issues at the Department of Energy, and efforts to consolidate aviation
weather services. In addition, the Committee will continue its
aggressive oversight of funding appropriated in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, to ensure that funding is spent as intended.
A more detailed description of the Committee's planned oversight
activities can be found in the Committee Oversight Plan for the 111th
Congress: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/
111th%20Oversight%20Plan.pdf.
List of Signatures
1. Rep. Bart Gordon
2. Rep. David Wu
3. Rep. Brian Baird
4. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper
5. Rep. Daniel Lipinski
6. Rep. John Garamendi
7. Rep. Steven Rothman
8. Rep. Jerry Costello
9. Rep. Jim Matheson
10. Rep. Lincoln Davis
11. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan
12. Rep. Charlie Wilson
13. Rep. Paul Tonko
14. Rep. Russ Carnahan
15. Rep. Alan Grayson
16. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
17. Rep. Marcia Fudge
18. Rep. Ben Chandler
19. Rep. Gary Peters
20. Rep. Brad Miller
21. Rep. Donna Edwards
22. Rep. Lynn Woolsey
MINORITY VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2011
It is important that we continue to make appropriate investments in
science and technology research, development, and math and science
education in order for the United States to remain a world leader in
competitiveness and innovation. While Committee Republicans agree, with
the Majority that the Administration's budget summary ``recognizes the
benefits that science and technology and research and development
investments have for our country's economic competitiveness, energy
security, job growth and environmental health,'' we are also mindful
that in the current economic environment, the nation faces numerous and
difficult budgetary decisions that will require our careful
consideration, diligent oversight, and appropriate action.
We are pleased that the budget summary continues to build on the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act
(COMPETES) (P.L. 110-69) by providing funding for physical sciences and
engineering at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST), and the Office of Science
at the Department of Energy (DOE), but have some concerns that in the
quest to get stimulus money out the door, the Administration may be
accelerating this funding beyond authorized levels with little to no
direction on spending. We are skeptical about the claims of the
Administration regarding the number of jobs created by the funding that
was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and remain
concerned about the lack of oversight of the funding for these
programs.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The FY11 budget request for NSF is $7.4 billion. This $551.9
million increase is 8 percent increase over the FY10 estimate. While
Committee Republicans recognize that the budget request falls below the
amounts authorized in the America COMPETES Act (COMPETES), we also note
that in addition to the $596 million in stimulus funds obligated for
FY10, an additional $450 million remains unobligated. We support a
robust budget request for NSF, but remain concerned that we not exceed
current authorization amounts.
With regard to education, we agree with the Majority that NSF has
an important and unique role to play in strengthening science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all
levels. We further agree with the Majority that the FY11 budget should
provide sustained support for K-12 programs, including the Noyce
Teacher scholarship program and the Math and Science Partnership
Program.
The FY 11 budget request continues to make climate change research
and education a priority throughout the Foundation. NSF currently funds
numerous research and education programs that address climate change
across all directorates; however, the FY11 budget request continues to
direct funding specifically to climate change. By continuing to single
out a specific area of research over myriad others for targeted
funding, this budget request hinders NSF's ability to support all
science and engineering disciplines, potentially depriving funding for
other much needed basic research.
Department of Energy (DOE)
In general Committee Republicans agree with and support the
Administration's focus on basic research in this budget, particularly
the efforts to place the Office of Science on a doubling path as called
for by the America COMPETES Act. However, we note that the $300 million
request for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), if directed
to the Office of Science, would be sufficient to provide for full
funding along the doubling path endorsed by the America COMPETES Act
and the Obama Administration. A majority of Republicans opposed the
creation of ARPA-E in part due to concerns that it would divert funding
from the Office of Science and impede the doubling effort. This budget
appears to validate these concerns.
Further, those of us in opposition to ARPA-E continue to have
concerns regarding the suitability of the DARPA model applied to the
energy sector as well as the continued lack of clarity regarding the
scope and mission of the agency. Accordingly, we believe that high-
risk, high-reward R&D projects be funded through the traditional DOE
structure and prioritized against existing applied energy technology
programs. More broadly, we also remain concerned by the overall lack of
clarity in the budget with respect to the numerous programs with
overlapping goals and similar activities. In particular, the budget
does not effectively articulate the details of and distinctions between
energy technology development programs, such as the ARPA-E, Energy
Innovation Hubs, Energy Frontier Research Centers, and traditional
applied technology programs. Accordingly there appears to be a high
potential for overlap and duplication of effort that must be addressed
before funding increases for these programs move forward.
Committee Republicans are also disappointed and concerned with the
impact of the proposed budget on American energy independence. While
the budget's emphasis on renewable energy and energy efficiency
programs will certainly contribute to energy independence, its hostile
approach to supply side factors associated with energy independence--
primarily, expanding traditional sources of domestic energy--is
disturbing. For example, we are deeply disappointed that the
President's budget summary proposes to eliminate the Ultra-Deepwater
and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Program
established in Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
58). Section 999H(a) sets the funding for this program at a level of
$50-million-per-year provided from Federal lease royalties, rents, and
bonuses paid by oil and gas companies--not taxpayers. It should be
clear that the overall program was initiated and carried out to reach
energy known to exist in the areas targeted--energy that was impossible
to produce without new technology--and that the required technology
would be eventually be paid for from the energy captured. The funds are
to be directed towards research specifically targeting four areas:
ultra-deepwater resources, unconventional natural gas and other
petroleum resources, technology challenges of small producers, and
research complementary to these areas.
Additionally, while we are wholly supportive of research into
renewable and alternative forms of energy, we feel that domestically
produced oil and natural gas will continue to play an important role in
powering our country and must therefore receive support to increase our
domestic supply and reduce our foreign dependence. The budget
eliminates funding for research and development in fossil energy and
appears to focus funding solely on carbon capture and sequestration
research and development associated with coal fired electricity
generation and industrial sources. We are pleased that research into
carbon capture and storage is playing a prominent role in the budget
summary, but we encourage the Budget Committee to continue to recognize
the importance of oil and natural gas research and development to our
country's future. The domestic oil and natural gas industry experienced
nine (9) percent job growth from 2002-2008. With the Administration's
recent focus on jobs proposals in the budget that stymie job growth
should be fully examined.
While we commend the administration's efforts to provide additional
loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and support efforts to focus
research and development into reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and
the next generation of nuclear plants, we note the President's
determination that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option and the
subsequent decision to withdraw, with prejudice, the license
application for the Yucca Mountain repository program raises
significant regulatory and legal issues that may not only adversely
affect the licensing and construction of a new fleet of nuclear power
plants, but also may impact existing operating nuclear plants and
license renewals. We believe that it is premature to withdraw this
application, which has already cost the American taxpayers upwards of
$10 billion, prior to consideration of all the options for disposal of
nuclear waste by the Blue Ribbon Commission. Nuclear energy should be
fully supported as the type of clean energy technology that will reduce
dependence on foreign oil and all options should be allowed to be
considered with regard to addressing spent fuel.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The Department of Commerce's NIST supports U.S. innovation and
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
and technology to enhance economic competitiveness and address
important societal challenges. The Administration's FY11 budget request
for NIST is $918.9 million, a 7.3 percent increase over the FY10 level.
This amount does not reflect the recently announced $123 million in
FY10 stimulus funds for the NIST Construction Grant program (NCGP) to
build new university research facilities or the $180 million in
stimulus funds to maintain and renovate current NIST facilities.
NIST's core research and facilities programs are widely recognized
as well-managed, high-leverage activities supported by world-class
researchers. Accordingly, Committee Republicans agree with the Majority
that these activities should receive priority in the budget; and, along
with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the Technology
Innovation Program (TIP), be funded in accordance with the levels
authorized in COMPETES.
At the same time, Committee Republicans intend to continue close
oversight of NIST's budget and activities and hope to work with the
Majority and the Administration to ensure appropriate and effective use
of taxpayer dollars. Of particular concern is oversight for the new
NCGP program, which received Stimulus funds but was not authorized by
Congress or formally reviewed and considered by this Committee. Also,
Committee Republicans are concerned that even though the Construction
of Research Facilities (CRF) request is $22.2 million below the FY10
levels (not including Stimulus funding), it is still $124.8 million.
Given that NIST received $180 million in Stimulus funds to address
maintenance and renovation at its facilities, we would like a more
thorough accounting of how these funds are being used in FY10 and the
need for additional funding in FY11.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
NASA is at a critical juncture. The agency is preparing to retire
the Space Shuttle at the end of this year without a successor vehicle
in place. Our nation faces the prospect of sending hundreds of millions
of dollars to Russia over several years to buy seats on their launcher
until a replacement vehicle is in place. Given this national challenge,
the President's FY2011 budget request of $19.0 billion for NASA, which
represents an increase of $276 million (1.5%) over FY2010 enacted, is
justified. While we are supportive of this increase, we differ
significantly on the direction of the agency.
The FY2011 budget request reflects a radical departure for the
agency. It cancels NASA's successor to the Space Shuttle, the
Constellation program, which would be capable of launching astronauts
to the International Space Station as well as to destinations beyond
low Earth orbit. Two successive Congresses (109th and 110th) under
different party leadership have overwhelmingly supported Constellation
in NASA authorization bills. Over the last five years taxpayers have
invested $9.1 billion on Constellation, and NASA engineers are
confident that most of its technical challenges have been addressed. To
cancel this program now without reaping the benefits of this investment
would be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. It also jeopardizes our
nation's ability to return humans to space as quickly and safely as
possible, and could have detrimental effects on our national security
and global preeminence.
In place of Constellation, the FY2011 budget increases spending for
technology research and development activities that someday may provide
new propulsion, sensor, and materials capabilities for yet-to-be-
determined missions. It also shifts money toward a commercial crew
program ($500 million in FY2011; $5.8 billion over five years) to seed
the development of commercial entities proposing to launch humans into
low Earth orbit. Without offering any proof or programmatic details,
the budget proposal assumes that commercial launch providers will be
able to offer human spaceflight services that are safer, faster, and
cheaper. Committee Republicans have long supported the development of
commercial cargo services and have ensured that authorization bills
include funding for commercial cargo ventures. But, we also believe
that until these entities can demonstrate an ability to safely put
cargo into space it is not prudent to gamble American lives.
Committee Republicans are also concerned that the FY2011 budget
significantly increases NASA's spending for Earth Sciences, adding $381
million (27%) over the FY2010 enacted, and $1.8 billion over four years
(FY2011-FY2014) compared to FY2010. The other science divisions receive
modest increases or are flat-funded. Earth Science will eventually
consume 40% of the agency's overall science program, crowding out
funding for exciting science missions flown by the astrophysics,
planetary sciences, and heliophysics communities.
The Committee believes it is imperative for NASA to maintain world
leadership in human spaceflight capabilities. We are at the tipping
point with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, and many industry
experts firmly believe the Constellation program is the safest and most
prudent investment. Given that the Science and Technology Committee has
deliberated on this issue for several years and advanced bipartisan,
broadly-supported legislation, it is disconcerting that this budget
proposal suggests such a radical and unsupported direction for the
agency.
Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
Committee Republicans have reservations about the FY11 budget
request for NOAA of $5.6 billion, an $806 million (17 percent) increase
over the FY10 enacted level. This substantial increase reflects several
momentous policy decisions that have not been vetted by the Committee
on Science and Technology.
The minority notes a significant change in this budget request from
previous budget requests with the dissolution of the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) tri-agency
program with NASA and DOD, and the creation of the Joint Polar
Satellite System (JPSS), in which NOAA will be solely responsible for
the cost of development and procurement of instruments for polar-
orbiting weather satellites. The DOD is currently reviewing its options
in moving forward with its own separate weather satellite system.
Severing the tri-agency venture is a drastic attempt to ensure the
prevention of potential data gaps in weather and climate information in
the next few years. Over the last several Congresses, the Committee has
held numerous hearings regarding the problems and delays in NOAA's next
generation of satellites. However, we have not yet had a chance to
evaluate the implications of this decision since it was announced just
prior to the release of the President's budget.
Although this separation is still in transition with no clear path
forward and no plan how to get there, NOAA has submitted a budget
request that would cover the increased expense of building this
satellite system independently. Accordingly, the minority believes that
the FY11 request for $2.2 billion for the National Environmental
Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) is premature at this
time. This request is $810.5 million (58 percent) above the FY10
enacted levels as a result of the JPSS program. We believe that this
radical shift in policy requires much more oversight and scrutiny by
Congress and we strongly urge a more comprehensive policy be developed
before moving forward with this plan.
Committee Republicans are extremely hesitant about the request of
$464.9 million for the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR),
which is a $15.7 million (3.5 percent) increase over FY10 enacted
levels. Coupled with the $170 million OAR received in stimulus funding,
this increase represents a continued commitment to enhance climate
change research. While another increase at this time also begs the
question of fiscal responsibility, our chief concern is that NOAA has
recently announced its intent to establish a NOAA Climate Service as a
new line office. This announcement came after the release of the
President's budget, so it was not included in the FY11 request. It is
our understanding that NOAA intends to request a reprogramming from the
Appropriations Committees which will simultaneously move several key
programs into the new line office, including the physical science parts
of climate research and modeling from OAR, 3 data centers from NESDIS,
and the climate observing network from the National Weather Service
(NWS). As a result, OAR will be left with approximately $200 million
and will become nothing more than a collection of random research
programs.
The minority does not support NOAA's plan for creating a Climate
Service for both policy and process reasons. We are extremely concerned
that moving research into an operational program office will leave the
research needs vulnerable since operational priorities will take
precedence. NOAA has had experience with research suffering in an
operational office in the past and the result was the NWS research
components were moved to OAR in order to keep the focus of NWS on
operations. With this proposal, NOAA is choosing to ignore the lessons
of the past.
Furthermore, by moving the essential climate research programs into
a new line office, NOAA abandons the interdisciplinary benefits gained
by housing physical climate research with research from other
scientific branches. The proposed Climate Service will attempt to
provide adaptation products, which require the successful integration
of biological, physical, environmental and social sciences into
products and tools. However, the focus on solely the physical science
research as part of the Climate Service indicates a shortsighted
approach to meeting future climate product demands. One only needs to
look at the National Integrated Drought Information System program
(MIDIS) and its success to see the need to integrate many different
types of science pulled from many different sources to provide a
complete picture of impacts and tools for planning. Finally, OAR would
effectively be crippled by the removal of half its research program and
funding, thus weakening overall science at NOAA.
Therefore, we do not support the increase request for climate
research in OAR until we can be satisfied that any new Climate Service
would not irreparably harm research, as this current plan most
certainly does, and until NOAA reorganization proceeds through proper
legislative channels, including consideration by the Committee on
Science and Technology, which is the appropriate course of action for a
reorganization of this magnitude.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Committee Republicans share the Majority's view that investments in
research and development will be beneficial in the form of greater
cost-efficiency of environmental protection programs. However, we are
concerned that EPA's request includes funding for the promulgation of
regulations that Congress does not yet support. The $847 million FY11
budget request for science and technology is a 0.1 percent increase
over the 2010 enacted levels. Despite the heavy focus of the EPA budget
on the anticipated implementation of a host of new regulations
triggered by the EPA's endangerment finding finalized in December 2009,
we are extremely concerned that only $16.9 million of the Climate
Protection Program budget request is for science and technology, a
$2.9. million decrease from FY10 enacted levels. As this is the program
under which the Agency intends to promulgate these new regulations,
such a request is indicative of EPA's ``putting the cart before the
horse'' mentality in planning to create and implement new regulations
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions with very little consideration of
the need to develop the technology that would be required to do so.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration--Research, Development and Technology
The FY2011 budget request provides $400.57 million for FAA research
and development activities, a $11.53 million (3%) reduction below
FY2010 enacted. Agency R&D is spread across four accounts:
1. Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST). The
FY2011 budget request provides $15.75 million for OCST, a $510
thousand (3%) increase over FY2010 enacted. OCST is responsible
for licensing and regulating commercial space launches and
reentries to ensure compliance with standards designed to
protect public safety. In addition, OCST encourages the
commercial space launch industry to maintain pace with latest
technological improvements in launch hardware and practices,
and it serves to promote the growth of the US industry.
2. The Research Engineering and Development account (Aviation
Trust Fund), with an FY2011 request of $190.00 million,
compared to $190.50 million enacted in FY2010. RE&D conducts
research to support a safe, efficient and environmentally
acceptable aviation system in five key areas: air traffic
services, airport technology, aircraft safety, human factors,
and the environment.
3. A portion of the Facilities & Equipment account (Aviation
Trust Fund) dedicated to engineering, development, test and
evaluation, with an FY2011 request of $155.16 million, a 10%
reduction compared to FY2010 enacted.
4. A portion of the Airports Improvement Program account
(Aviation Trust Fund) with an FY2011 request of $42.22 million,
a 13% increase compared to FY2010 enacted.
At a programmatic level we support the FAA's budget request for
development and implementation of NextGen, our nation's future air
traffic management (ATM) System.
NextGen technologies will ensure that our national airspace system
can readily accommodate future growth while maintaining the highest
levels of safety. Whether speaking about NextGeri R&D, or NextGen
generally, it is essential these efforts be supported.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
The FY2011 budget request provides $17.2 million for RITA, a $4.2
million (32%) increase over FY2010 enacted. RITA is responsible for
coordinating DOT's research and development programs, as well as
coordinating and developing Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT)
technology, PNT policy coordination, and spectrum management. RITA is
the program manger for the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning
System. Most of the requested increase will support maintenance and
equipment capitalization for the PNT services, especially through its
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System.
We also support the proposed funding levels for research and
development for the Federal Highway Administration ($652.8 million in
FY2011, a 1% increase over FY2010 enacted) and the Federal Transit
Administration ($33.1 million in FY2011, a 124% increase over FY2010).
Both of these essential activities will help America develop
transportation solutions needed to sustain economic growth.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The FY11 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security's
Science and Technology Directorate is $1.02 billion, a 1.2 percent
increase from the FY10 level. This increase reflects the movement of
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office's transformative research program
to S&T. Without the program transfer, S&T funding would be 9.7 percent
below FY10 funding levels. Committee Republicans are in strong
agreement with the Majority that the work of the Science and Technology
Directorate is important, and we will work to ensure that it has the
resources it needs to carry out the research and development required
to keep our nation safe.
Recognizing the importance of both Assistance to Firefighter Grants
(AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
grants to our Nation's fire departments, Committee Republicans remain
concerned that with the consolidation of the Firefighter Assistance
Grants Program into the State and Local budget line, the AFG program
will continue its declining trend of funding. We strongly encourage the
Administration to make sure that both grant programs, AFG and SAFER,
remain balanced.
Members who signed:
Ralph Hall
James Sensenbrenner
Lamar Smith
Judy Biggert
Todd Akin
Randy Neugebauer
Bob Inglis
Michael McCaul
Mario Diaz-Balart
Brain Bilbray
Adrian Smith
Paul Broun
Pete Olson
HISTORY OF APPOINTMENTS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
January 6, 2009--H. Res. 8
Bart Gordon, Tennessee, was named Chairman of the Committee on Science
and Technology.
January 6, 2009--H. Res. 12
Ralph Hall, Texas, was named as Ranking Member of the Committee on
Science and Technology.
January 9, 2009--H. Res. 38
Republican Members assigned to the Committee on Science and Technology:
Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Lucas, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Akin, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. McCaul of
Texas, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Smith of
Nebraska, Mr. Broun of Georgia, and Mr. Olson.
January 21, 2009--H. Res. 74
Democratic Members assigned to the Committee on Science and Technology:
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Costello, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu,
Mr. Baird, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Giffords,
Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Griffith,
Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wilson of Ohio,
Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr. Grayson, Ms. Kosmas, and Mr. Peters.
January 22, 2009--H. Res. 78
Mr. Smith of Nebraska (to rank immediately after Mr. Bilbray) was
appointed to the Committee on Science and Technology.
November 19, 2009--H. Res. 921
Mr. Garamendi (to rank immediately after Mr. Griffith) was appointed to
the Committee on Science and Technology.
December 20, 2009
Mr. Griffith resigned from the Committee on Science and Technology.
May 6, 2010--H. Res. 1334
Mr. Garamendi to rank immediately after Mr. Peters.
RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE OF
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
CONTENTS
Rule 1. General Provisions
In General (a)
Subcommittees (b)
Vice Chair (c)
Order of Business (d)
Use of Hearing Rooms (e)
National Security Information (f)
Availability of Publications (g)
Committee Website (h)
Motion To Go To Conference (i)
Conference Committees (j)
Other Procedures (k)
Rule 2. Regular, Additional, and Special Meetings
Regular Meetings (a)
Additional Meetings (b)
Special Meetings (c)
Rule 3. Meetings and Hearings Generally
Opening Statements (a)
Addressing the Committee (b)
Requests for Written Motions (c)
Open Meetings and Hearings (d)
Audio and Visual Coverage (e)
Rule 4. Consideration of Measure or Matter
In General (a)
Notice (b)
Submission of Amendments (c)
Suspended Proceedings (d)
Investigative or Oversight Reports (e)
Germaneness (f)
Rule 5. Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power
In General (a)
Sensitive or Confidential Information (b)
Rule 6. Quorums and Voting
Quorums (a)
Voting by Proxy (b)
Requests for Record Vote (c)
Postponement of Proceedings (d)
Rule 7. Hearing Procedures
Announcement of Hearing (a)
Witness Statement; Testimony (b)
Minority Witnesses (c)
Extended Questioning of Witnesses by Members (d)
Additional Questions for the Record (e)
Additional Hearing Procedures (f)
Rule 8. Procedures for Reporting Measures or Matters
Filing of Reports (a)
Supplemental, Minority, or Additional Views (b)
Contents of Report (c)
Immediate Printing; Supplemental Reports (d)
Private Bills (e)
Report Language on Use of Federal Resources (f)
Rule 9. Other Committee Publications
House Reports (a)
Other Documents (b)
Joint Investigation or Study (c)
Post Adjournment Filing of Committee Reports (d)
Rule 10. General Oversight and Investigative Responsibilities
In General (a)
Oversight (b)
Investigations (c)
Rule 11. Subcommittees
Establishment and Jurisdiction of Subcommittees (a)
Ratios (b)
Ex-Officio Members (c)
Referral of Legislation (d)
Procedures (e)
Consideration of Subcommittee Reports (f)
Rule 12. Committee Records
Transcripts (a)
Keeping of Records (b)
Availability of Archived Records (c)
Property of House (d)
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Rules of the House of Representatives, as
applicable, shall govern the Committee and its Subcommittees, except
that a motion to recess from day to day and a motion to dispense with
the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies
are available, are privileged motions in the Committee and its
Subcommittees and shall be decided without debate. [House Rule XI 1(a)]
(b) SUBCOMMITTEES.--The rules of the Committee, as applicable,
shall be the rules of its Subcommittees. [House Rule XI 1(a)]
(c) VICE CHAIR.--A Member of the majority party on the Committee or
Subcommittee shall be designated by the Chair of the Committee as the
Vice Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case maybe, and
shall preside during the absence of the Chair from any meeting. If the
Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee are not present
at any meeting of the Committee or Subcommittee, the Ranking Majority
Member who is present shall preside at that meeting. [House Rule XI
2(d)]
(d) ORDER OF BUSINESS.--The order of business and procedure of the
Committee and the subjects of inquiries or investigations will be
decided by the Chair, subject always to an appeal to the Committee.
(e) USE OF HEARING ROOMS.--In consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member, the Chair of the Committee shall establish guidelines
for the use of Committee hearing rooms.
(f) NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION.--All national security
information bearing a classification of secret or higher which has been
received by the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be deemed to have
been received in Executive Session and shall be given appropriate
safekeeping. The Chair of the Committee may establish such regulations
and procedures as in the Chair's judgment are necessary to safeguard
classified information under the control of the Committee. Such
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by any
Member of the Committee or any other Member of the House of
Representatives who has requested the opportunity to review such
material.
(g) AVAILABILITY OF PUBLICATIONS.--To the maximum extent feasible,
the Committee shall make its publications available in electronic form,
including on the Committee website. [House Rule XI 2(e)(4)]
(h) COMMITTEE WEBSITE.--The Chair of the Committee shall maintain
an official Committee website for the purpose of furthering the
Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, including
communicating information about the Committee's activities to Committee
Members and other Members of the House. The Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee may maintain a similar website for the same purpose,
including communicating information about the activities of the
minority to Committee Members and other Members of the House.
(i) MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE.--The Chair is directed to offer a
motion under clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever
the Chair considers it appropriate. [House Rule XI 2(a)(3)]
(j) CONFERENCE COMMITTEES.--Recommendations of conferees to the
Speaker shall provide a ratio of majority party Members to minority
party Members which shall be no less favorable to the majority party
than the ratio of the Committee.
(k) OTHER PROCEDURES.--The Chair of the Committee, after
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, may
establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be
necessary to carry out these rules or to facilitate the effective
operation of the Committee.
Rule 2. REGULAR, ADDITIONAL, AND SPECIAL MEETINGS
(a) REGULAR MEETINGS.--Unless dispensed with by the Chair of the
Committee, the meetings of the Committee shall be held on the second
(2nd) and fourth (4th) Wednesdays of each month the House is in session
at 10:00 a.m. [House Rule XI 2(b)]
(b) ADDITIONAL MEETINGS.--The Chair of the Committee may call and
convene, as the Chair considers necessary, additional meetings of the
Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending
before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business.
The Committee shall meet for such purpose under that call of the Chair.
[House Rule XI 2(c)(1)]
(c) SPECIAL MEETINGS.--Rule XI 2(c) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is hereby incorporated by reference. [House Rule XI
2(c)(2)]
Rule 3. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS GENERALLY
(a) OPENING STATEMENTS.--Insofar as is practicable, the Chair,
after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, shall limit the
total time of opening statements by Members to no more than 10 minutes,
the time to be divided equally between the Chair and Ranking Minority
Member.
(b) ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE.--The time any one (1) Member may
address the Committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under
consideration by the Committee or the time allowed for the questioning
of a witness at hearings before the Committee will be limited to five
(5) minutes, and then only when the Member has been recognized by the
Chair, except that this time limit may be waived by the Chair. [House
Rule XI 2(j)(2)]
(c) REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN MOTIONS.--Any motion made at a meeting of
the Committee and which is entertained by the Chair of the Committee or
the Subcommittee shall be presented in writing upon the demand of any
Member present and a copy made available to each Member present.
(d) OPEN MEETINGS AND HEARINGS.--Each meeting for the transaction
of business, including the markup of legislation, and each hearing of
the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be open to the public, including
to radio, television, and still photography, unless closed in
accordance with clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. [House Rule XI 2(g)]
(e) AUDIO AND VISUAL COVERAGE.
(1) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is
open to the public, these proceedings shall be open to coverage
by audio and visual means, except as provided in Rule XI
4(f)(2) of the House of Representatives. The Chair of the
Committee or Subcommittee may not limit the number of
television, or still cameras to fewer than two (2)
representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space
or safety considerations, in which case pool coverage shall be
authorized).
(2) Radio and television tapes, television films, and Internet
recordings of any Committee hearings or meetings that are open
to the public may not be used, or made available for use, as
partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the
candidacy of any person for elective public office.
(3) It is, further, the intent of this rule that the general
conduct of each meeting or hearing covered under authority of
this rule by audio or visual means, and the personal behavior
of the Committee Members and staff, other government officials
and personnel, witnesses, television, radio, and press media
personnel, and the general public at the meeting or hearing,
shall be in strict conformity with and observance of the
acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and
decorum traditionally observed by the House in its operations,
and may not be such as to:
(A) distort the objects and purposes of the meeting or
hearing or the activities of Committee Members in
connection with that meeting or hearing or in
connection with the general work of the Committee or of
the House; or
(B) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the
Committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner or bring the House, the Committee, or a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into
disrepute.
(4) The coverage of Committee meetings and hearings by audio
and visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in
strict conformity with the purposes, provisions, and
requirements of this rule.
(5) The following shall apply to coverage of Committee meetings
or hearings by audio or visual means:
(A) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or
meeting is to be presented to the public as live
coverage, that coverage shall be conducted and
presented without commercial sponsorship.
(B) The allocation among the television media of the
positions or the number of television cameras permitted
by a Committee or Subcommittee Chair in a hearing or
meeting room shall be in accordance with fair and
equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee
of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(C) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to
obstruct in any way the space between a witness giving
evidence or testimony and any Member of the Committee
or the visibility of that witness and that Member to
each other.
(D) Television cameras shall operate from fixed
positions but may not be placed in positions that
obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing or
meeting by the other media.
(E) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television
and radio media may not be installed in, or removed
from, the hearing or meeting room while the Committee
is in session.
(F)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii),
floodlights, spotlights, strobe lights, and flashguns
may not be used in providing any method of coverage of
the hearing or meeting.
(ii) The television media may install additional
lighting in a hearing or meeting room, without cost to
the Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting
level in a hearing or meeting room to the lowest level
necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a
hearing or meeting at the current state-of-the-art of
television coverage.
(G) In the allocation of the number of still
photographers permitted by a Committee or Subcommittee
Chair in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall be
given to photographers from Associated Press Photos and
United Press International Newspictures. If requests
are made by more of the media than will be permitted by
a Committee or Subcommittee Chair for coverage of a
hearing or meeting by still photography, that coverage
shall be permitted on the basis of a fair and equitable
pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of
Press Photographers.
(H) Photographers may not position themselves between
the witness table and the Members of the Committee at
any time during the course of a hearing or meeting.
(I) Photographers may not place themselves in positions
that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing
by the other media.
(J) Personnel providing coverage by the television and
radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio
and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(K) Personnel providing coverage by still photography
shall be currently accredited to the Press
Photographers' Gallery.
(L) Personnel providing coverage by the television and
radio media and by still photography shall conduct
themselves and their coverage activities in an orderly
and unobtrusive manner. [House Rule XI (4)]
Rule 4. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURE OR MATTER
(a) IN GENERAL.--Bills and other substantive matters may be taken
up for consideration only when called by the Chair of the Committee or
by a majority vote of a quorum of the Committee, except those matters
which are the subject of special call meetings outlined in Rule 2(c).
(b) NOTICE.--
(1) It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any
new or original measure or matter unless written notice of the
date, place and subject matter of consideration and, to the
maximum extent practicable, a written copy of the measure or
matter to be considered and, to the maximum extent practicable,
the original text of the measure to be considered for purposes
of markup have been available to each Member of the Committee
for at least 48 hours in advance of consideration, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), consideration of any
legislative measure or matter by the Committee shall be in
order by vote of two-thirds of the Members present, provided
that a majority of the Committee is present.
(c) SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS.--To the maximum extent practicable,
amendments to a measure or matter shall be submitted in writing to the
Clerk of the Committee at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of
the measure or matter.
(d) SUSPENDED PROCEEDINGS.--During the consideration of any measure
or matter, the Chair of the Committee, or of any Subcommittee, may
recess the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be, at any point.
Additionally, during the consideration of any measure or matter, the
Chair of the Committee, or of any Subcommittee, shall suspend further
proceedings after a question has been put to the Committee or
Subcommittee at anytime when there is a vote by electronic device
occurring in the House of Representatives. Suspension of proceedings
after a record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure
or matter or on adopting an amendment shall be conducted in compliance
with the provisions of Rule 6(d).
(e) INVESTIGATIVE OR OVERSIGHT REPORTS.--A proposed investigative
or oversight report shall be considered as read in Committee if it has
been available to the Members for at least 24 hours (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in
session on such a day). [House Rule XI 1(b)(2)]
(f) GERMANENESS.--The rules of germaneness shall be enforced by the
Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be.
Rule 5. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER
(a) IN GENERAL.--
(1) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a subpoena may be authorized
and issued in the conduct of any investigation or series of
investigations or activities to require the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents as
deemed necessary, only when authorized by majority vote of the
Committee or Subcommittee (as the case may be), a majority of
the Committee or Subcommittee being present. Authorized
subpoenas shall be signed only by the Chair of the Committee,
or by any Member designated by the Chair. [House Rule XI
2(m)(3)(A)]
(2) The Chair of the Committee, after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, or, if the Ranking
Member cannot be reached, the Ranking Minority Member of the
relevant Subcommittee, may authorize and issue such subpoenas
as described in paragraph (1) during any period in which the
House has adjourned for a period longer than seven (7) days.
[House Rule XI 2(m)(3)(A)]
(3) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other
than at a meeting or a hearing of the Committee. [House Rule XI
2(m)(3)(B)]
(b) SENSITIVE OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.--Unless otherwise
determined by the Committee or Subcommittee, certain information
received by the Committee or Subcommittee pursuant to a subpoena not
made part of the record at an open hearing shall be deemed to have been
received in Executive Session when the Chair of the Committee, in the
Chair's judgment and after consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee, deems that in view of all of the
circumstances, such as the sensitivity of the information or the
confidential nature of the information, such action is appropriate.
Rule 6. QUORUMS AND VOTING
(a) QUORUMS.--
(1) One-third (1/3) of the Members of the Committee shall
constitute a quorum for all purposes except as provided in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Rule. [House Rule XI 2(h)(3)]
(2) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall constitute
a quorum in order to: (A) report any legislation, measure, or
matter; (B) close Committee meetings or hearings pursuant to
Rule 3(d); and (C) authorize the issuance of subpoenas pursuant
to Rule 5(a). [House Rule XI 2(h)(1); House Rule XI 2(g); House
Rule XI 2(m)(3)(A)]
(3) Two (2) Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum
for taking testimony and receiving evidence, which, unless
waived by the Chair of the Committee after consultation with
the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, shall include at
least one (1) Member from each of the majority and minority
parties. [House Rule XI 2(h)(2)]
(b) VOTING BY PROXY.--No Member may authorize a vote by proxy with
respect to any measure or matter before the Committee. [House Rule XI
2(f)]
(c) REQUESTS FOR RECORD VOTE AT COMMITTEE.--A record vote of the
Members may be had at the request of three (3) or more Members or, in
the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one (1) Member.
(d) POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.--The Chair of the Committee, or of
any Subcommittee, is authorized to postpone further proceedings when a
record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter
or on adopting an amendment, and to resume proceedings on a postponed
question at any time after reasonable notice. Upon resuming proceedings
on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the
previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was
postponed. [House Rule XI 2(h)(4)]
Rule 7. HEARING PROCEDURES
(a) ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARING.--The Chair shall make a public
announcement of the date, time, place, and subject matter of a hearing,
and to the extent practicable, a list of witnesses at least one (1)
week before the commencement of the hearing. If the Chair, with the
concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good
cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by
majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business,
the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date.
Any announcement made under this Rule shall be promptly published in
the Daily Digest, and promptly made available in electronic form,
including on the Committee website. [House Rule XI 2(g)(3)]
(b) WITNESS STATEMENT; TESTIMONY.--
(1) Insofar as is practicable, no later than 48 hours in
advance of his or her appearance, each witness who is to appear
before the Committee shall file in printed copy and in
electronic form a written statement of his or her proposed
testimony and a curriculum vitae. [House Rule XI 2(g)(4)]
(2) To the greatest extent practicable, each witness appearing
before the Committee shall include with the written statement
of proposed testimony a disclosure of any financial interests
which are relevant to the subject of his or her testimony.
These include, but are not limited to, public and private
research grants, stock or stock options held in publicly traded
and privately owned companies, government contracts with the
witness or the witness' employer, and any form of payment of
compensation from any relevant entity. The source and amount of
the financial interest should be included in this disclosure.
[House Rule XI 2(g)(4)]
(3) Each witness shall limit his or her presentation to a five
(5) minute summary, provided that additional time may be
granted by the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee when
appropriate.
(c) MINORITY WITNESSES.--Whenever any hearing is conducted by the
Committee on any measure or matter, the minority Members of the
Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chair by a majority of
them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected
by the minority to testify with respect to the measure or matter during
at least one (1) day of hearing thereon. [House Rule XI 2(j)(1)]
(d) EXTENDED QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS.--Notwithstanding
Rule 3(b), upon a motion, the Chair, in consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member, may designate an equal number of Members from each
party to question a witness for a period of time equally divided
between the majority party and the minority party, not to exceed one
(1) hour in the aggregate or, upon a motion, may designate staff from
each party to question a witness for equal specific periods that do not
exceed one (1) hour in the aggregate. [House Rule XI 2(j)(2)]
(e) ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD.--Members of the Committee
have two (2) weeks from the date of a hearing to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by witnesses who have appeared
in person. The letters of transmittal and any responses thereto shall
be printed in the hearing record.
(f) ADDITIONAL HEARING PROCEDURES.--Rule XI 2(k) of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is hereby incorporated by reference.
[House Rule XI 2(k)]
Rule 8. PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING MEASURES OR MATTERS
(a) FILING OF REPORTS.--
(1) It shall be the duty of the Chair of the Committee to
report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any
measure approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be
taken the necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. To the
maximum extent practicable, the written report of the Committee
on such measures shall be made available to the Committee
membership for review at least 24 hours in advance of filing.
[House Rule XIII 2(b)(1)]
(2) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been
approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven (7)
calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in
session) after the day on which there has been filed with the
Clerk of the Committee a written request, signed by the
majority of the Members of the Committee, for the reporting of
that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the Clerk of
the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chair of the
Committee notice of the filing of that request. [House Rule
XIII 2(b)(2)]
(b) SUPPLEMENTAL, MINORITY, OR ADDITIONAL VIEWS.--If, at the time
of approval of any measure or matter by the Committee, any Member of
the Committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority,
or additional views, that Member shall have two (2) subsequent calendar
days after the day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays) in which to file such views, in writing and signed by
that Member, with the Clerk of the Committee. No supplemental,
minority, or additional views shall be accepted for inclusion in the
report if submitted after two (2) subsequent calendar days have elapsed
unless the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee, as appropriate,
decides to extend the time for submission of views, in which case the
Chair shall communicate such fact, including the revised day and hour
for submissions to be received, to the Members of the Committee without
delay. All such views so filed by one (1) or more Members of the
Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report
filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. [House
Rule XI 2(I)]
(c) CONTENTS OF REPORT.--
(1) The report of the Committee on a measure or matter shall be
printed in a single volume that shall--
(A) include all supplemental, minority, or additional
views that have been submitted by the time of the
filing of the report on that measure or matter; and
(B) bear on its cover a recital that any such
supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any
material submitted under Rule 8(c)(3)(A)) are included
as part of the report.
(2) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been
approved by the Committee shall include the following, to be
provided by the Committee:
(A) the oversight findings and recommendations required
pursuant to Rule X 2(b)(1) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, separately set out and identified;
[House Rule XIII 3(c)(1)]
(B) the statement required by section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out
and identified, if the measure provides new budget
authority or new or increased tax expenditures as
specified in Rule XIII 3(c)(2); [House Rule XIII
3(c)(2)]
(C) with respect to reports on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, a ``Constitutional
Authority Statement'' citing the specific powers
granted to Congress by the Constitution pursuant to
which the bill or joint resolution is proposed to be
enacted; [House Rule XIII 3(d)(1)]
(D) with respect to each recorded vote on a motion to
report any measure or matter of a public character, and
on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the
total number of votes cast for and against, and the
names of those Members voting for and against, shall be
included in the Committee report on the measure or
matter;
(E) the estimate and comparison prepared by the
Committee under Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, unless the estimate
and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office prepared under subparagraph
3 of this Rule has been timely submitted prior to the
filing of the report and included in the report; [House
Rule XIII 3(d)(2)]
(F) in the case of a bill or joint resolution which
repeals or amends any statute or part thereof, the text
of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be
repealed, and a comparative print of that part of the
bill or joint resolution making the amendment and of
the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended;
[House Rule XIII 3(e)]
(G) a transcript of the markup of the measure or matter
unless waived under Rule 12(a); and
(H) a statement of general performance goals and
objectives, including outcome-related goals and
objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding.
[House Rule XIII 3(e)(4)]
(3) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been
approved by the Committee shall further include the following,
to be provided by sources other than the Committee:
(A) the estimate and comparison prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office required
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, separately set out and identified, whenever the
Director (if timely, and submitted prior to the filing
of the report) has submitted such estimate and
comparison of the Committee; [House Rule XIII 3(c)(3)]
(B) if the Committee has not received prior to the
filing of the report the material required under
subparagraph (A) of this Rule, then it shall include a
statement to that effect in the report on the measure.
(d) IMMEDIATE PRINTING; SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS.--This Rule does not
preclude--
(1) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report
unless a timely request for the opportunity to file
supplemental, minority, or additional views has been made as
provided by this Rule; or
(2) the filing by the Committee of any supplemental report upon
any measure or matter which may be required for the correction
of any technical error in a previous report made by that
Committee upon that measure or matter.
(e) PRIVATE BILLS.--No private bill will be reported by the
Committee if there are two (2) or more dissenting votes. Private bills
so rejected by the Committee will not be reconsidered during the same
Congress unless new evidence sufficient to justify a new hearing has
been presented to the Committee.
(f) REPORT LANGUAGE ON USE OF FEDERAL RESOURCES.--No legislative
report filed by the Committee on any measure or matter reported by the
Committee shall contain language which has the effect of specifying the
use of federal resources more explicitly (inclusively or exclusively)
than that specified in the measure or matter as ordered reported,
unless such language has been approved by the Committee during a
meeting or otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members.
Rule 9. OTHER COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS
(a) HOUSE REPORTS.--Any document published by the Committee as a
House Report, other than a report of the Committee on a measure which
has been approved by the Committee, shall be approved by the Committee
at a meeting, and Members shall have the same opportunity to submit
views as provided for in Rule 8(b).
(b) OTHER DOCUMENTS.--
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and (3), the Chair of the
Committee may approve the publication of any document as a
Committee print which in the Chair's discretion the Chair
determines to be useful for the information of the Committee.
(2) Any document to be published as a Committee print which
purports to express the views, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations of the Committee or any of its Subcommittees,
other than a report of the Committee on a measure which has
been approved by the Committee, must be approved by the
Committee or its Subcommittees, as applicable, in a meeting or
otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members, and such
Members shall have the right to submit supplemental, minority,
or additional views for inclusion in the print within at least
48 hours after such approval.
(3) Any document to be published as a Committee print, other
than a document described in subsection (2) of this Rule,
shall--
(A) include on its cover the following statement:
``This document has been printed for informational
purposes only and does not represent either findings or
recommendations adopted by this Committee''; and
(B) not be published following the sine die adjournment
of a Congress, unless approved by the Chair of the
Committee after consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee.
(c) JOINT INVESTIGATION OR STUDY.--A report of an investigation or
study conducted jointly by the Committee and one (1) or more other
Committee(s) may be filed jointly, provided that each of the Committees
complies independently with all requirements for approval and filing of
the report. [House Rule XI 1(b)(2)]
(d) POST ADJOURNMENT FILING OF COMMITTEE REPORTS.--
(1) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a
Congress sine die, an investigative or oversight report
approved by the Committee may be filed with the Clerk at any
time, provided that if a Member gives notice at the time of
approval of intention to file supplemental, minority, or
additional views, that Member shall be entitled to not less
than seven (7) calendar days in which to submit such views for
inclusion with the report. [House Rule XI 1(b)(4)]
(2) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session
of a Congress, the Chair of the Committee may file the
Committee's Activity Report for that Congress under clause
1(d)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House with the Clerk of
the House at anytime and without the approval of the Committee,
provided that a copy of the report has been available to each
Member of the Committee for at least seven (7) calendar days
and that the report includes any supplemental, minority, or
additional views submitted by a Member of the Committee. [House
Rule XI 1(d)(1)]
Rule 10. GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
(a) OVERSIGHT.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Committee shall review and study on a
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities
relating to nonmilitary research and development. [House Rule X
3(k)]
(2) OVERSIGHT PLAN.--Not later than February 15 of the first
session of a Congress, the Committee shall meet in open
session, with a quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans
for that Congress for submission to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform and the Committee on House
Administration, in accordance with the provisions of clause
2(d) of Rule X of the House of Representatives. [House Rule X
2(d)].
(b) INVESTIGATIONS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Chair of the Committee may undertake any
formal investigation in the name of the Committee after
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.
(2) SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS.--The Chair of any Subcommittee
shall not undertake any formal investigation in the name of the
Committee or Subcommittee without formal approval by the Chair
of the Committee, in consultation with other appropriate
Subcommittee Chairs, and after consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee. The Chair of any Subcommittee
shall also consult with the Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee before undertaking any investigation in the name
of the Committee.
Rule 11. SUBCOMMITTEES
(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND JURISDICTION OF SUBCOMMITTEES.--The Committee
shall have the following standing Subcommittees with the jurisdiction
indicated.
(1) SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT.--Legislative
jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority
on all matters relating to energy research, development, and
demonstration and projects therefor, commercial application of
energy technology, and environmental research, including:
(A) Department of Energy research, development, and
demonstration programs;
(B) Department of Energy laboratories;
(C) Department of Energy science activities;
(D) energy supply activities;
(E) nuclear, solar and renewable energy, and other
advanced energy technologies;
(F) uranium supply and enrichment, and Department of
Energy waste management and environment, safety, and
health activities, as appropriate;
(G) fossil energy research and development;
(H) clean coal technology;
(I) energy conservation research and development;
(J) energy aspects of climate change;
(K) pipeline research, development, and demonstration
projects;
(L) energy and environmental standards;
(M) energy conservation, including building
performance, alternate fuels for and improved
efficiency of vehicles, distributed power systems, and
industrial process improvements;
(N) Environmental Protection Agency research and
development programs;
(O) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, including all activities related to
weather, weather services, climate, the atmosphere,
marine fisheries, and oceanic research;
(P) risk assessment activities; and
(Q) scientific issues related to environmental policy,
including climate change.
(2) SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION.--Legislative
jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority
on all matters relating to competitiveness, technology,
standards, and innovation, including:
(A) standardization of weights and measures, including
technical standards, standardization, and conformity
assessment;
(B) measurement, including the metric system of
measurement;
(C) the Technology Administration of the Department of
Commerce;
(D) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
(E) the National Technical Information Service;
(F) competitiveness, including small business
competitiveness;
(G) tax; antitrust, regulatory and other legal and
governmental policies as they relate to technological
development and commercialization;
(H) technology transfer, including civilian use of
defense technologies;
(I) patent and intellectual property policy;
(J) international technology trade;
(K) research, development, and demonstration activities
of the Department of Transportation;
(L) surface and water transportation research,
development, and demonstration programs;
(M) earthquake programs (except for NSF) and fire
research programs, including those related to wildfire
proliferation research and prevention;
(N) biotechnology policy;
(O) research, development, demonstration, and
standards-related activities of the Department of
Homeland Security;
(P) Small Business Innovation Research and Technology
Transfer; and
(Q) voting technologies and standards.
(3) SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION.--
Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and
investigative authority on all matters relating to science
policy and science education, including:
(A) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(B) all scientific research, and scientific and
engineering resources (including human resources),
math, science and engineering education;
(C) intergovernmental mechanisms for research,
development, and demonstration and cross-cutting
programs;
(D) international scientific cooperation;
(E) National Science Foundation, including earthquake
programs;
(F) university research policy, including
infrastructure and overhead;
(G) university research partnerships, including those
with industry;
(H) science scholarships;
(I) computing, communications, and information
technology;
(J) research and development relating to health,
biomedical, and nutritional programs;
(K) to the extent appropriate, agricultural,
geological, biological and life sciences research; and
(L) materials research, development, and demonstration
and policy.
(4) SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS.--Legislative
jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority
on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical
research and development, including:
(A) national space policy, including access to space;
(B) sub-orbital access and applications;
(C) National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
its contractor and government-operated labs;
(D) space commercialization, including commercial space
activities relating to the Department of Transportation
and the Department of Commerce;
(E) exploration and use of outer space;
(F) international space cooperation;
(G) the National Space Council;
(H) space applications, space communications and
related matters;
(I) Earth remote sensing policy;
(J) civil aviation research, development, and
demonstration;
(K) research, development; and demonstration programs
of the Federal Aviation Administration; and
(L) space law.
(5) SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT.--General and
special investigative authority on all matters within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology.
(b) RATIOS.--A majority of the Majority Members of the Committee
shall determine an appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members of
each Subcommittee and shall authorize the Chair of the Committee to
negotiate that ratio with the minority party; Provided, however, that
the ratio of majority Members to minority Members on each Subcommittee
(including any ex-officio Members) shall be no less favorable to the
majority party than the ratio for the Committee.
(c) EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS.--The Chair of the Committee and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee shall serve as ex-officio Members of
all Subcommittees and shall have the right to vote and be counted as
part of the quorum and ratios on all matters before the Subcommittee.
(d) REFERRAL OF LEGISLATION.--The Chair of the Committee shall
refer all legislation and other matters referred to the Committee to
the Subcommittee or Subcommittees of appropriate primary and secondary
jurisdiction within two (2) weeks of the matters being referred to the
Committee, unless the Chair of the Committee deems consideration is to
be by the Committee. Subcommittee Chairs may make requests for referral
of specific matters to their Subcommittee within the two (2) week
period if they believe Subcommittee jurisdictions so warrant.
(e) PROCEDURES.--
(1) No Subcommittee shall meet to consider for markup or
approval any measure or matter when the Committee or any other
Subcommittee of the Committee is meeting to consider any
measure or matter for markup or approval.
(2) Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive testimony or evidence, mark up legislation, and report
to the Committee on all matters referred to it. For matters
within its jurisdiction, each Subcommittee is authorized to
conduct legislative, investigative, forecasting, and general
oversight hearings; to conduct inquiries into the future; and
to undertake budget impact studies.
(3) Subcommittee Chairs shall set meeting dates after
consultation with the Chair of the Committee and other
Subcommittee Chairs with a view toward avoiding simultaneous
scheduling of Committee and Subcommittee meetings or hearings
wherever possible.
(4) Any Member of the Committee may have the privilege of
sitting with any Subcommittee during its hearings or
deliberations and may participate in such hearings or
deliberations, but no Member who is not a Member of the
Subcommittee shall vote on any matter before such Subcommittee,
except as provided in subsection (c) of this Rule.
(5) During consideration of any measure or matter for markup or
approval in a Subcommittee proceeding, a record vote may be had
at the request of one (1) or more Members of that Subcommittee.
(f) CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS.--After ordering a
measure or matter reported, a Subcommittee shall issue a Subcommittee
report in such form as the Chair of the Committee shall specify.
Reports and recommendations of a Subcommittee shall not be considered
by the Committee until after the intervention of 48 hours, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, from the time the report is
submitted and made available to the Members of the Committee and
printed hearings thereon shall be made available, if feasible, to the
Members of the Committee, except that this Rule may be waived at the
discretion of the Chair of the Committee after consultation with the
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.
Rule 12. COMMITTEE RECORDS
(a) TRANSCRIPTS.--The transcripts of those hearings conducted by
the Committee and Subcommittees shall be published as a substantially
verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings,
subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections
authorized by the person making the remarks involved. Transcripts of
markups shall be recorded and published in the same manner as hearings
before the Committee and shall be included as part of the legislative
report unless waived by the Chair of the Committee. [House Rule XI
2(e)(1)(A)]
(b) KEEPING OF RECORDS.--The Committee shall keep a complete record
of all Committee action, which shall include a record of the votes on
any question on which a record vote is demanded. The result of each
record vote shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by
the public at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee.
Information so available for public inspection shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and
the name of each Member voting for and each Member voting against such
amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those
Members present but not voting. [House Rule XI 2(e)(1)]
(c) AVAILABILITY OF ARCHIVED RECORDS.--The records of the Committee
at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made
available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives. The Chair of the Committee shall notify
the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee of any decision, pursuant
to Rule VII 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the
matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the
written request of any Member of the Committee. [House Rule XI 2(e)(3)]
(d) PROPERTY OF HOUSE.--
(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (2), all Committee
hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept
separate and distinct from the congressional office records of
the Member serving as its Chair. Such records shall be the
property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the
Resident Commissioner, shall have access thereto.
(2) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than
Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, may
not have access to the records of the Committee respecting the
conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer,
or employee of the House without the specific prior permission
of the Committee. [House Rule XI 2(e)(2)]
LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
``Rule X. Organization of Committees.
``Committees and their legislative jurisdictions.
``1. There shall be in the House the following standing Committees,
each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related functions
assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills,
resolutions, and other matters relating to subjects within the
jurisdiction of the standing Committees listed in this clause shall be
referred to those Committees, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XII,
as follows:
* * * * * * *
``o) Committee on Science and Technology.
``(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration, and
projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military
energy laboratories.
``(2) Astronautical research and development, including
resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
``(3) Civil aviation research and development.
``(4) Environmental research and development.
``(5) Marine research.
``(6) Commercial application of energy technology.
``(7) National Institute of Standards and Technology,
standardization of weights and measures and the metric system.
``(8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
``(9) National Space Council.
``(10) National Science Foundation.
``(11) National Weather Service.
``(12) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
``(13) Science Scholarships.
``(14) Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and
projects therefor.
* * * * * * *
``SPECIAL OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS
``3.(k) The Committee on Science and Technology shall review and
study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities
relating to non-military research and development.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 11, 2009 Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and 111-1
Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 12, 2009 An Overview of Transportation R&D: Priorities for 111-2
Reauthorization
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 24, 2009 How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring, 111-3
Reporting, and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 25, 2009 Impacts of U.S. Export Control Policies on Science and 111-4
Technology Activities and
Competitiveness
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 26, 2009 Beyond the Classroom: Informal STEM Education 111-5
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 4, 2009 21st Century Water Planning: The Importance of a 111-6
Coordinated Federal Approach
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 5, 2009 Cost Management Issues in NASA's Acquisitions and 111-7
Programs
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 10, 2009 Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: 111-8
The Role of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 11, 2009 FutureGen and the Department of Energy's Advanced Coal 111-9
Programs
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 12, 2009 ATSDR: Problems in the Past, Potential for the Future? 111-10
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2009 New Directions for Energy Research and Development at 111-11
the U.S. Department of Energy
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 19, 2009 Follow the Money, Part I: Accountability and 111-12
Transparency in Recovery Act Science Funding
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2009 Examining Federal Vehicle Technology Research and 111-13
Development Programs
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2009 Coordination of International Science Partnerships 111-14
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 25, 2009 H.R. 1580, Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and H. Rept. 111-75
Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 26, 2009 Aviation and the Emerging Use of Biofuels 111-15
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 31, 2009 The Role of Research in Addressing Climate in 111-16
Transportation Infrastructure
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 1, 2009 Networking and Information Technology Research and 111-17
Development Act of 2009
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 22, 2009 Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification of 111-18
Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and
Academic Research and Monitoring Programs
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 23, 2009 Continued Oversight of NOAA's Geostationary Weather 111-19
Satellite System
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 23, 2009 The Role of the SBIR and STTR Programs in Stimulating 111-20
Innovation at Small High-Tech Businesses
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2009 Pushing the Efficiency Envelope: R&D for High- 111-21
Performance Buildings, Industries, and Consumers
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2009 Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and 111-22
Commercial Users
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 29, 2009 H.R. 2020, the Networking and Information Technology H. Rept. 111-102
Research and Development Act of 2009
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 29, 2009 H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology H. Rept. 111-128
Cooperation Act of 2009
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 29, 2009 H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Cooperation Act of 2009 H. Rept. 111-130
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 30, 2009 The Role of Science in Regulatory Reform 111-23
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2009 Expanding Climate Services at the National Oceanic and 111-24
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Developing the
National Climate Service
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2009 Follow the Money, Part II: Government and Public 111-25
Resources for Recovery Act Oversight
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 2009 An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for FY 2010 111-26
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2009 The Science of Insolvency 111-27
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2009 NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request 111-28
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 4, 2009 A New Direction for Federal Oil Spill Research and 111-29
Development
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 9, 2009 Environmental Research at the Department of Energy 111-30
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 10, 2009 Cyber Security R&D 111-31
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 11, 2009 Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards 111-32
Reduction Program: R&D for Disaster Resilient
Communities
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 11, 2009 Fixing EPA's Broken Integrated Risk Information System 111-33
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigation and .........................
Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 16, 2009 Agency Response to Cyberspace Policy Review 111-34
(Joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology .........................
and Innovation with the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 17, 2009 Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What 111-35
Should Our Research, Development, and Demonstration
Strategy Be?
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 17, 2009 Continuing Independent Assessment of the National 111-36
Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 18, 2009 External Perspectives on the FY 2010 NASA Budget 111-37
Request and Related Issues
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2009 H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business H. Rept. 111-190,
Research and Innovation Act of 2009 Part II
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2009 H.R. 1622, To Provide for a Program of Research, H. Rept. 111-206
Development and Demonstration on Natural Gas Vehicles
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2009 H.R. 2729, To Authorize the Designation of National H. Rept. 111-207
Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of
Energy and for Other Purposes
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 25, 2009 The Science of Security: Lessons Learned in 111-38
Developing, Testing and Operating Advanced Radiation
Monitors
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 25, 2009 Assessing Cybersecurity Activities at NIST and DHS 111-39
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 8, 2009 Reauthorization of the FIRE Grant Programs 111-40
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 9, 2009 Technology Research and Development Efforts Related to 111-41
the Energy and Water Linkage
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 14, 2009 New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar Research and 111-42
Development
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 16, 2009 Providing Aviation Weather Services to the Federal 111-43
Aviation Administration
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 16, 2009 Enhancing the Relevance of Space to Address National 111-44
Needs
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 21, 2009 Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in 110-45
STEM Fields
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Research and Science .........................
Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 23, 2009 Effectively Transforming Our Electric Delivery System 111-46
to a Smart Grid
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 29, 2009 H.R. 3165, the Wind Energy Research and Development H. Rept. 111-248
Act of 2009
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 29, 2009 H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009 H. Rept. 111-254
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 29, 2009 H.R. 3029, To Establish a Research, Development and H. Rept. 111-343
Technology Demonstration Program To Improve the
Efficiency of Gas Turbines Used in Combined Cycle
Power Generation Systems
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 30, 2009 A Systems Approach to Improving K-12 STEM Education 111-47
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 10, 2009 The Risks of Financial Modeling: VaR and the Economic 111-48
Meltdown
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 10, 2009 Biological Research for Energy and Medical 111-49
Applications at the Department of Energy Office of
Science
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 14, 2009 Strengthening Regional Innovation: A Perspective From 111-50
Northeast Texas
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 15, 2009 Options and Issues for NASA's Human Space Flight 111-51
Program: Report of the ``Review of U.S. Human Space
Flight Plans'' Committee
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 17, 2009 Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Formulating an 111-52
Action Plan
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 24, 2009 The Potential Need for Measurement Standards to 111-53
Facilitate Research and Development of Biologic Drugs
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 1, 2009 Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and 111-54
Time
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2009 H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act H. Rept. 111-302
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2009 H.R. 3598, Energy and Water Research Integration Act H. Rept. 111-344
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2009 H.R. 3650, Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia H. Rept. 111-396,
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009 Part I
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 8, 2009 Investing in High-Risk, High-Reward Research 111-55
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 21, 2009 Biomass for Thermal Energy and Electricity: A Research 111-56
and Development Portfolio for the
Future
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 21, 2009 H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization H. Rept. 111-333,
Act of 2009 Part I
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 21, 2009 H.R. 3820, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction H. Rept. 111-424,
Act of 2009 Part I
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 22, 2009 Engineering in K-12 Education 111-57
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 22, 2009 Strengthening NASA's Technology Development Programs 111-58
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 22, 2009 Cybersecurity Activities at NIST's Information 111-59
Technology Laboratory
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 27, 2009 Developing Research Priorities at DHS's Science and 111-60
Technology Directorate
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 29, 2009 The Next Generation of Fusion Energy Research 111-61
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 5, 2009 Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large- 111-62
Scale Climate Intervention
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 17, 2009 The Science of Security, Part II: Technical 111-63
Problems Continue to Hinder Advanced Radiation
Monitors
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 18, 2009 H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009 H. Rept. 111-405
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 19, 2009 The Research and Development Portfolio 111-64
Required to Support the Priorities of the
Department of Transportation
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 19, 2009 The Growth of Global Space Capabilities: What's 111-65
Happening and Why It Matters
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 2, 2009 Ensuring the Safety of Human Spaceflight 111-66
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 3, 2009 Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Finding the 111-67
Path to Commercialization
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 3, 2009 Independent Audit of the National Aeronautics and 111-68
Space Administration
(Joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on .........................
Investigations and Oversight with the Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 10, 2009 Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for 111-69
NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S.
Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 20, 2010 America COMPETES: Big Picture Perspectives on the Need 111-70
for Innovation, Investments in R&D, and a Commitment
to STEM Education
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 21, 2010 Commerce Department Programs to Support Job Creation 111-71
and Innovation at Small and Medium-Sized
Manufacturers
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 27, 2010 The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E): 111-72
Assessing the Agency's Progress and Promise in
Transforming the U.S. Energy
Innovation System
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 3, 2010 Key Issues and Challenges Facing NASA: Views of the 111-73
Agency's Watchdogs
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 3, 2010 Passenger Screening R&D: Responding to President 111-74
Obama's Call to Develop and Deploy the Next
Generation of Screening Technologies
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 4, 2010 Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and 111-75
Engineering Challenges
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 4, 2010 Strengthening Undergraduate and Graduate STEM 111-76
Education
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 23, 2010 The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S. 111-77
Universities
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 24, 2010 The Administration's FY 2011 Research and 111-78
Development Budget Proposal
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 24, 2010 How Can NIST Better Serve the Needs of the 111-79
Biomedical Research Community in the
21st Century?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 25, 2010 NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request and Issues 111-80
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 3, 2010 The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2011 111-81
Research and Development Budget Proposal
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 4, 2010 Reform in K-12 STEM Education 111-82
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 10, 2010 The National Science Foundation's FY 2011 Budget 111-83
Request
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 10, 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Research and Development Budget 111-84
Proposals at EPA and NOAA
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 16, 2010 Broadening Participation in STEM 111-85
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 16, 2010 Rare Earth Minerals and 21st Century Industry 111-86
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2010 The Future of Manufacturing: What Is the Role of the 111-87
Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S.
Manufacturers?
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 18, 2010 Geoengineering III: Domestic and International 111-88
Research Governance
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 23, 2010 NIST Structure and Authorities, Its Role in Standards, 111-89
and Federal Agency Coordination on Technical
Standards
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2010 Supporting Innovation in the 21st Century 111-90
Economy
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2010 Proposed Changes to NASA's Exploration Program: What's 111-91
Known, What's Not, and What Are the Issues for
Congress?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 22, 2010 Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the 111-92
Helium-3 Supply Crisis
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2010 H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES H. Rept. 111-478,
Reauthorization Act of 2010 Part I
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2010 Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash Clouds on 111-93
Aviation--What Do We Need to Know?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2010 Charting the Course for American Nuclear 111-94
Technology: Evaluating the Department of
Energy's Nuclear Energy Research and
Development Roadmap
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20, 2010 Preventing Harm--Protecting Health: Reforming CDC's 111-95
Environmental Public Health Practices
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 26, 2010 Review of the Proposed National Aeronautics and Space 111-96
Administration Human Spaceflight Plan
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 27, 2010 Interoperability in Public Safety Communications 111-97
Equipment
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 9, 2010 Deluge of Oil Highlights Research and Technology Needs 111-98
for Effective Cleanup of Oil Spills
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 10, 2010 From the Lab Bench to the Marketplace: 111-99
Improving Technology Transfer
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 16, 2010 Real-Time Forecasting for Renewable Energy 111-100
Development
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 23, 2010 Deepwater Drilling Technology, Research, and 111-101
Development
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 29, 2010 Setting New Courses for Polar Weather Satellites and 111-102
Earth Observations
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 29, 2010 21st Century Biology 111-103
(Hearing Held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 1, 2010 Smart Grid Architecture and Standards: 111-104
Assessing Coordination and Progress
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 14, 2010 H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development H. Rept. 111-553
Program Reauthorization Act of 2010
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 14, 2010 H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling H. Rept. 111-554,
Technology Research and Development Act Part I
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 15, 2010 Planning for the Future of Cyber Attack 111-105
Attribution
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 20, 2010 Building a Science of Economics for the Real World 111-106
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 21, 2010 Behind the Scenes: Science and Education at the 111-107
Smithsonian Institution
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 22, 2010 H.R. 5781, the National Aeronautics and Space H. Rept. 111-576
Administration Authorization Act of 2010
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 16, 2010 Camp Lejeune: Contamination and Compensation, Looking 111-108
Back, Moving Forward
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 23, 2010 The Science of Science and Innovation Policy 111-109
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 23, 2010 Progress on P25: Furthering Interoperability and 111-110
Competition for Public Safety Radio Equipment
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 23, 2010 H.R. 6160, the Rare Earths and Critical H. Rept. 111-644
Materials Revitalization Act of 2010
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 23, 2010 H.R. 5866, the Nuclear Energy Research and H. Rept. 111-658
Development Act of 2010
(Markup held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 29, 2010 Averting the Storm: How Investments in Science Will 111-111
Secure the Competitiveness and Economic Future of the
U.S.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
Date with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative Publication Number
Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 30, 2010 Standards for Health IT: Meaningful Use and 111-112
Beyond
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 2010 Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies 111-A
for International Coordination
(Committee print by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 15, 2010 Options and Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy 111-113
Integration
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 17, 2010 A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: The Science, 111-114
the Evidence, the Response
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------