[House Report 112-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 65
112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - -House Report 112-112
FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
June 22, 2011
June 22, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
Union Calendar No. 65
112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report
112-112
FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
0
JUNE 22, 2011
June 22, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas*
Wisconsin** JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California** BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois PAUL D. TONKO, New York
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
+RALPH M. HALL, Texas +EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
SANDY ADAMS, Florida** BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JERRY McNERNEY, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
+RALPH M. HALL, Texas +EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. MO BROOKS, Alabama, Chair
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland** DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi PAUL D. TONKO, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
+RALPH M. HALL, Texas +EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
Wisconsin MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas** JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID WU, Oregon
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
MO BROOKS, Alabama
+RALPH M. HALL, Texas +EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona, Chair
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DAVID WU, Oregon
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois** JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
Tennessee BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
+RALPH M. HALL, Texas +EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
* LRanking Minority Member
** LVice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee.
+ 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.
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
112th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
------
Full Committee Staff
JANET POPPLETON Chief of Staff
LESLEE GILBERT Staff Director
MARGARET CARAVELLI Chief Counsel
KATY CROOKS Deputy Chief Counsel
ZACHARY KURZ Communications Director
KATIE COMER Administrative Director
HARLAN WATSON Distinguished Professional Staff
DEBORAH EMERSON SAMANTAR Legislative Clerk
LINDSAY MEYERS Press Assistant
LANA FROST Legal Assistant
LARRY WHITTAKER Director of Information Technology
SANGINA WRIGHT Committee Printer
LESLIE COPPLER Financial Administrator
ANGELA HOLT Members Services Assistant
Democratic Staff
DICK OBERMANN Chief of Staff
JOHN PIAZZA Chief Counsel
ROBERT ETTER Deputy Counsel
KRISTIN KOPSHEVER Administrative Director/Research Assistant
BRYSTOL ENGLISH Administrative and Legal Assistant
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Staff
DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
KYLE OLIVER Republican Professional Staff Member
ANDY ZACH Republican Professional Staff Member
ALEX MATTHEWS Republican Professional Staff Member
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
TOM HAMMOND Subcommittee Staff Director
RAJESH BHARWANI Republican Professional Staff Member
JOE KEELEY Republican Professional Staff Member
JOHN SERRANO Republican Staff Assistant
DAN PEARSON Democratic Subcommittee Staff Director
DOUGLAS S. PASTERNAK Democratic Professional Staff Member
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
MELE WILLIAMS Subcommittee Staff Director
KIRSTEN DUNCAN Republican Professional Staff Member
AARICKA ALDRIDGE Republican Policy Staff
ASHLEY FORCE Republican Staff Assistant
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Subcommittee Staff Director
BESS CAUGHRAN Democratic Professional Staff Member
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
ED FEDDEMAN Subcommittee Staff Director
KEN MONROE Republican Senior Professional Staff Member
BEN SCHELL Republican Staff Assistant
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
JULIA JESTER Subcommittee Staff Director
NEIL CANFIELD Republican Professional Staff Member
JAMIE BROWN Republican Professional Staff Member
DANIEL RHEA Republican Staff Assistant
HILARY CAIN Democratic Subcommittee Staff Director
MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member
.................................................................
C O N T E N T S
First Semiannual Report of Activities
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
112th Congress, 2011
Page
Letter of Transmittal............................................ VII
Overview......................................................... 1
Full Committee
Legislative and Administrative Activities.................... 4
Other Legislative Activities................................. 6
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities............... 10
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Oversight Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 13
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
Oversight Activities......................................... 14
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 16
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 18
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 20
Oversight Plan Including Appendices
Transmittal Letter........................................... 24
Summary of Oversight Plan, Including Accomplishments To Date. 25
Jurisdiction................................................. 35
Hearings Held Pursuant to Rule XI Clauses 2(n), (o), and (p). 36
Committee Oversight Correspondence........................... 39
Summary of GAO High Risk Topics.............................. 41
Appendix
Transmittal Letter for Views and Estimates................... 45
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology for FY 2012..................................... 46
Additional Views............................................. 60
Minority Views and Estimates for FY 2012..................... 66
Additional Minority Views.................................... 72
History of Appointments, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology................................................. 76
Rules Governing Procedure, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology for the 112th Congress.......................... 77
List of Publications of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, 112th Congress, 1st Session.................... 89
Union Calendar No. 65
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-112
======================================================================
FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY
__________
June 22, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
Overview
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met on
February 10, 2011 for an organizational meeting and adoption of
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Oversight Plan
for the 112th Congress under the direction of Ralph M. Hall,
Chair. The Committee Membership was 40 Members with 23
Republicans (one vacancy) and 17 Democrats.
The Committee established five subcommittees: Energy and
Environment (Andy Harris, Chair); Investigations and Oversight
(Paul Broun, Chair); Research and Science Education (Mo Brooks,
Chair); Space and Aeronautics (Steven Palazzo, Chair); and
Technology and Innovation (Benjamin Quayle, Chair).
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner appointed Full Committee
Vice Chair.
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, as prescribed by Clauses 1(p) and 3(k) of Rule X of
the Rules of the House of Representatives is as follows:
HOUSE RULE X
LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
1. There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and
related functions assigned 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:
* * * * * * *
(p) Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration,
and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated
nonmilitary 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, Space, and Technology
shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs,
and Government activities relating to nonmilitary research and
development.
ACTIVITIES REPORT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY STATISTICS
112th Congress, First Session
January 3rd -- May 31st 2011
Business Meeting Held - 1
Bills/Resolutions Referred to/Discharged by the Committee - 48
Hearings Held - 20
Witnesses Appeared Before the Committee - 74
Full Committee Markups Held - 2
Subcommittee Markups Held - 1
Reports Filed-2
Legislation Passed the House - 2
FULL COMMITTEE
Legislative and Administrative Activities
FEBRUARY 10, 2011--FULL COMMITTEE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
The Full Committee met to organize for the 112th Congress,
established subcommittees, appointed subcommittee chairmen and
ranking members, and adopted the Oversight Plan.
MARCH 17, 2011--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 970, THE FEDERAL AVIATION RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011
Background and Need
The purpose of H.R. 970 is to reauthorize research and
development activities at the Federal Aviation Administration
for fiscal years 2011-2014 and to add specific direction to
existing programs to enhance the research that is currently
being performed. Additionally the bill requires an assessment
of existing research and development activities in a number of
programs to encourage coordination and streamlining of research
to discourage duplication.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was created to
develop the nation's air commerce system and promote aviation
safety. As part of the Airport Development and Airway Trust
Fund established by Congress in 1982, a comprehensive research
and development program was put in place to maintain a safe and
efficient air transportation system. In 2003, Congress passed
Vision 100- Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-
176) that authorized funding for FAA's activities, including
research and development, for fiscal years 2003-2007. P.L. 108-
176 also established the Next Generation Air Transportation
System's Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) in Title
VII, Aviation Research, to manage work related to planning,
research, development and creation of a transition plan for the
implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System.
Since 2007 Congress has attempted without success to
complete legislative work on a comprehensive FAA
reauthorization, including these programs. As civil aviation is
such a critical element of our economy, FAA's research and
development program plays a crucial role ensuring that the
agency's modernization and safety programs are properly focused
and well planned. H.R. 970 reauthorizes appropriations for the
Federal Aviation Administration's research and development
programs for fiscal year 2011-2014.
Legislative History
H.R. 970 was introduced by Representative Ralph Hall on
March 9, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology. On March 17, 2011, the Committee met to
consider the bill. The Committee voted to report the bill, as
amended, to the House by a vote of 17 yeas and 13 nays on March
17, 2011.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology reported
H.R. 970, as amended, to the House on April 4, 2011 (H. Rept.
112-52) and placed on the Union Calendar (Union Calendar No.
26). No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 970.
However, the substance of H.R. 970 passed the House as a
component (Title X) of H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and
Reform Act of 2011.
MAY 4, 2011--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 1425, THE CREATING JOBS THROUGH SMALL
BUSINESS INNOVATION ACT OF 2011
Background and Need
The purpose of H.R. 1425 is to reauthorize the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs through Fiscal Year 2014,
to increase SBIR and STTR award sizes to reflect changes in
inflation, to allow small businesses with majority venture
capital backing to compete for a limited percentage of awards,
and to collect better data on the SBIR and STTR programs to
evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and to prevent
fraud, waste, and abuse.
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was
originally established when the Congress passed the Small
Business Innovation Development Act in 1982 (P.L. 97-219).The
original objectives of the SBIR program included:
LStimulation of technological innovation in
the small business sector;
LIncreased use of the small business sector to
meet the government's research and development (R&D)
needs;
LAdditional involvement of minority and
disadvantaged individuals in the process; and
LExpanded commercialization of the results of
federally funded R&D.
The 1992 SBIR reauthorization (P.L. 102-564) placed greater
emphasis on the objective of commercialization of SBIR
projects.
Current law requires that every federal department with an
extramural R&D budget of $100 million or more establish and
operate an SBIR program. Eleven federal departments have SBIR
programs, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA); and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Under the
program, each qualifying federal department is mandated to set
aside 2.5 percent of its applicable extramural R&D for the SBIR
program. Cumulatively, the SBIR program makes almost $2 billion
in awards to small businesses annually.
The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program was
created in 1992 to provide federal R&D funding for research
proposals that are developed and executed cooperatively between
a small firm and a scientist in a nonprofit research
organization, and fall under the mission requirements of the
federal funding agency. Federal departments with annual
extramural research budgets over $1 billion must set aside 0.3
percent for STTR programs.
Currently, the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Health
and Human Services, as well as NASA and NSF participate in the
STTR program. Across the participating agencies, approximately
$800 million in STTR awards are made annually.
The SBIR and STTR programs have been operating under
temporary extensions since their authorizations expired in 2008
and 2009, respectively. This bill will increase the size
guidelines for award amounts for Phase I and Phase II SBIR and
STTR awards, will enable majority venture capital backed firms
to compete for a limited percentage of SBIR awards, and will
improve evaluation of the programs through greater data
collection, sharing of best practices, and increased efforts to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. H.R. 1425 will reauthorize the
SBIR and the STTR programs through Fiscal Year 2014.
Legislative History
On April 7, 2011, H.R. 1425, the Creating Jobs Through
Small Business Innovation Act of 2011 was introduced by Rep.
Renee Ellmers (R-NC). H.R. 1425 was referred to the Committee
on Small Business and the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology and the Committee on Armed Services. On April 13,
2011 the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to
consider H.R. 1425 and ordered it favorably reported to the
Full Committee, as amended, by voice vote. On May 4, 2011 the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 1425, favorably reported to the House,
as amended, by voice vote. On May 11, 2011 the Committee on
Small Business met to consider the bill. The Committee voted to
report the bill, as amended to the House by voice vote. The
bill was reported to the House by the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology on May 26, 2011 (H. Rept. 112-90, Part
1).
FULL COMMITTEE OTHER
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
H.R. 658, THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION AND
REFORM ACT OF 2011
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 658 is to authorize appropriations for
the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011
through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies,
reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, and to
provide stable funding for the national aviation system.
Provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology include those in Title II, NextGen Air
Transportation System and Air Traffic Control Modernization;
Title III, Subtitle B, Unmanned Aircraft Systems; Title X, the
Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act
of 2011, incorporating the text of H.R. 970, as reported by the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on March 17, 2011
(H. Rept. 112-52); and Title XIII, Commercial Space, postponing
for eight years after the first licensed commercial launch of a
space flight participant the authority to propose, without
regard to specified constraints, regulations governing the
design or operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health
and safety of crew and space flight participants, except in
response to specific incidents of accident, injury, or death.
Legislative History
H.R. 658 was introduced by Representative John Mica (R-FL)
on February 11, 2011 and referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. On March 10, 2011 the bill
was jointly and sequentially referred to the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, and the Committee on the
Judiciary. On March 23, 2011 the House Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology and the Committee on the Judiciary
discharged the bill and it was placed on the Union Calendar,
Calendar No. 19. On April 1, 2011 the House considered the
measure and it was passed, as amended, by: Y-223; N-196 (Roll
Call No. 220). It was received in the Senate on April 4, 2011.
On April 7, 2011 the Senate struck all after the enacting
clause, substituted the language of S. 223, as amended, and
passed by unanimous consent. On April 7, 2011 the Senate
insisted on its amendment, asked for a conference, and
appointed conferees.
P.L. 112-10, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FULL-YEAR CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011
Background and Summary of Legislation
P.L. 112-10 appropriated funds for the remainder of FY 2011
to the Department of Defense and for continuing operations,
projects, or activities which were conducted in 2010 and for
which appropriations, funds or other authority were made
available in the FY 2010 appropriations acts for the other
various departments and agencies of the Federal government. The
law appropriated resources to programs within the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology's jurisdiction, including the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy
(DOE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
Department of Transportation, (DOT), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Key programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology funded by P.L. 112-110 included,
for example, at the DOE: Office of Science, APRA-E, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy,
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Title XVII
Loan Guarantee Program. All of these programs received funding
below FY 2010 levels. At the EPA and NOAA the overall funding
levels for both, including programs in the Committee's
jurisdiction were below FY 2010. At NIST several programs saw
reductions from 2010 funding levels while the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Program Partnership received a slight
increase over FY 2010 funding levels. The DHS Science and
Technology Directorate saw a reduction from FY 2010 levels,
while the Fire Grants programs funding levels remained equal to
the FY 2010 enacted levels.
P.L. 112-10 also legislated on a select number of areas
within the Committee's jurisdiction. In regard to NASA, the
bill required the submission to Congress of an operating plan
within 60 days of enactment (June 15, 2011), eliminated
language preventing NASA from canceling any Constellation
related contracts, specified funding levels for the Multi-
Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch Systems, and banned NASA
from funding collaboration with China. Additionally, language
included in P.L. 112-10 prohibits funding provided to NOAA
under the legislation to be used to implement, establish, or
create a NOAA climate service.
Legislative History
On April 11, 2011, Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), Chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, introduced H.R. 1473, which
was referred to the Committees on Appropriations, Budget, and
Ways and Means. On April 14, 2011, H.R. 1473 was considered by
the House and passed by: Y-260, N-167 (Roll Call No. 268). H.R.
1473 was received in the Senate on April 14, 2011. It was
considered and, without amendment, passed by: 81-Y, N-19
(Record Vote No. 61). It was signed into law by the President
on April 15, 2010 and became Public Law No. 112-10.
H.R. 1540, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1540 is to authorize appropriations for
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012. The Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology has a jurisdictional interest
in certain provisions of the bill dealing with the integration
of unmanned aerial vehicles into the national airspace system
(Section 1098 of H.R. 1540 as reported), high performance
computing, nuclear science, and the development of a national
rocket propulsion strategy for the United States (Section 1096
of H.R. 1540 as reported).
Legislative History
H.R. 1540 was introduced by Representative Buck McKeon (R-
CA) by request on April 14, 2011 and referred to the Committee
on Armed Services. On May 17, 2011 the Committee on Armed
Services reported as amended H.R. 1540, filed H. Rept. 112-78,
and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 39.
On May 23, 2011 the Committee on Armed Services filed a
supplemental report, H. Rept. 112-79, Part II. The Committee on
Rules filed H. Rept. 112-86 on H. Res 269, providing for
consideration of H.R. 1540. On May 26, 2011 the House passed
H.R. 1540, as amended, by: Y-322, N-96 (Roll Call No. 375).
H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Background and Summary of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 672 is to terminate the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) as an agency and transfer certain
key functions to other federal agencies to maintain those
functions going forward. In particular, the adoption of
voluntary voting standards and the certification
responsibilities for voting systems is transferred from the EAC
to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The EAC was created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA). During the 107th Congress, H.R. 3295, which became
HAVA, was referred to the Committee on House Administration and
the Committee on Science and incorporated multiple provisions
of H.R. 2275, the Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001.
These provisions included a process to ensure that proper
technical standards would be developed to improve voting
technology and that a reliable system would be set up to test
equipment against those standards. These responsibilities have
been assigned by HAVA to the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology continues as the Committee of jurisdiction over the
scientific and technological aspects of voting reform including
research, development, and testing of voting machine standards.
H.R. 672 would transfer the EAC's Office of Voting System
Testing and Certification to the FEC while maintaining NIST's
current role in the accreditation of laboratories to test
voting equipment. The bill continues the formal mechanisms for
input into the development of Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines (VVSGs) by maintaining the current Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (which NIST chairs) and
replaces several committees with a streamlined 56-member
Guidelines Review Board composed of state and local election
officials and other key constituencies including federal
representatives.
Legislative History
H.R. 672 was introduced by Representative Gregg Harper (R-
MS) on February 11, 2011 and referred to the Committee on House
Administration and in addition the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology. On April 14 the Committee on House
Administration held a legislative hearing, followed by a markup
on May 25. On June 2, 2011 the Committee on House
Administration reported H.R. 672, as amended, to the House (H.
Rept. 112-100) and the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology discharged. H.R. 672 was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 55.
FULL COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
February 17, 2011_An Overview of The Administration's Federal
Research and Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 (Hearing
Volume No. 112-2)
On Thursday, February 17, 2011, the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology held an oversight hearing to examine the
Administration's research and development budget proposal for
fiscal year 2012. The Committee received testimony from Dr.
John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and Director of the Office of Science, and
Technology Policy.
March 2, 2011_The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request (Hearing Volume No. 112-3)
On March 2, 2011 the Committee held an oversight hearing on
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
fiscal year 2012 budget request. The hearing examined the
Administration's proposed NASA budget and its prioritization of
the Agency's investments in human space flight relative to the
priorities outlined by Congress in the NASA Authorization Act
of 2010 (P.L. 111-267). Over the next two years (FY2012-FY2013)
the Administration's budget request underfunds development of
the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System/Heavy
Lift Launch Vehicle by more than $2.4 billion, a 31 percent
decline relative to the authorization levels in P.L. 111-267.
Over the same two year period, the Administration's request
seeks to increase spending by more than $700 million above
authorized levels, a 70 percent increase, to pay for the
creation of multiple Commercial Crew service providers to low
Earth Orbit.
The Committee received testimony from the NASA
Administrator, Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
March 3, 2011_The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2012
Research And Development Budget Request (Hearing Volume No.
112-4)
On March 3, 2011, the Committee held an oversight hearing
on the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2012 research and
development budget request. The hearing focused on the
Department's proposed budget request for fiscal year 2012
including policies and how budgetary priorities impact DOE R&D
programs for fiscal year 2012. The Committee questioned the
Secretary of Energy on a wide variety of topics, such as the
implementation of a federal Clean Energy Standard, ongoing
activities at the Nation's laboratories, and emerging energy
technologies. The Committee received testimony from Secretary
of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu.
March 10, 2011_An Overview of The Fiscal Year 2012 Research and
Development Budget Proposals at The National Oceanic And
Atmospheric Administration and The Environmental Protection
Agency (Hearing Volume No. 112-5)
On March 10, 2011 the Committee held an oversight hearing
on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fiscal year 2012
research and development budget requests. The hearing focused
on NOAA and EPA's proposed budget requests for fiscal year
2012. For NOAA the Committee focused on the proposed
reorganization of NOAA and the satellite programs. The
Committee honed in on the creation of a National Climate
Service at NOAA included in the 2012 budget request, the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the state of the Joint Polar
Satellite System Program (JPSS). For EPA the Committee focused
on the Office of Research and Development's fiscal year 2012
budget priorities. The Committee questioned EPA Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
on the science used in development of the carbon dioxide
endangerment finding, EPA's quality assurance and control
processes for the use of science to inform policy, and nutrient
loading in the Chesapeake Bay.
The Committee received testimony from NOAA Administrator
and Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Dr.
Jane Lubchenco and EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Research and Development, Dr. Paul Anastas.
March 11, 2011_An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget
Proposals at the National Science Foundation and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (Hearing Volume No. 112-
6)
On Friday, March 11, 2011, the Committee held an oversight
hearing to examine the Administration's proposed fiscal year
2012 budget request for the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
One witness panel provided testimony on NSF's budget, including
testimony from the Chairman of the National Science Board, and
one witness panel provided testimony on NIST's budget.
The Committee received testimony from Dr. Subra Suresh the
Director of the NSF and Dr. Ray Bowen, Chairman of the National
Science Board. Dr. Patrick Gallagher testified on behalf of
NIST as the Institute's Director and the Undersecretary of
Commerce for Standards and Technology
March 31, 2011_Climate Change: Examining the Process Used to
Create Science And Policy (Hearing Volume No. 112-9)
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 the Committee held a hearing to
examine processes used to generate key climate change science
and information used to inform policy development and decision
making. The hearing focused on the integrity of the processes
employed by scientists in generating climate-related scientific
and technical information for use in public policy.
The Committee received testimony from Dr. J. Scott
Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Richard Muller
of the University of California, Dr. John Christy of the
University of Alabama, Mr. Peter Glaser of Troutman Sanders,
LLP, Dr. Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and independent economist, Dr. David Montgomery.
May 11, 2011_Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology and
Practices (Hearing Volume No. 112-17)
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 the Committee held a hearing to
review the technology and practices of hydraulic fracturing for
energy production. The hearing focused on the role of domestic
shale gas in meeting growing energy demand and associated
concerns related to managing potential risks to drinking water
resources.
The Committee received testimony from Elizabeth Ames Jones
of the Texas Railroad Commission, Dr. Robert M. Summers of the
Maryland Department of Environment, Mr. Harold Fitch of the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Ground
Water Protection Council, Dr. Cal Cooper of the Apache
Corporation, and Dr. Michael Economides of the University of
Houston. Paul Anastas, the Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency also
testified.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including Selective
Legislative Activities
April 6, 2011_Offshore Drilling Safety and Response
Technologies (Hearing Volume No. 112-12)
On April 6, 2011 the Energy and Environment Subcommittee
held a hearing on offshore drilling safety and response
technologies. The hearing focused on the Federal and industry
efforts to identify and address safety and response technology
challenges since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 and
how Federal programs in these areas can best be structured and
prioritized.
The Committee received testimony from Department of Energy,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Dr. Victor Der;
Mr. David Miller, Director of Standards for the American
Petroleum Institute; Mr. Owen Kratz, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Helix Energy Solutions Group; and Research
Director and Senior Fellow, Dr. Molly Macauley of Resources for
the Future.
May 13, 2011_Nuclear Energy Risk Management (Joint Subcommittee
Hearing) (Hearing Volume No. 112-18)
On Friday, May 13, 2011 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment and the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee
held a joint hearing to examine nuclear safety, risk
assessment, public health protection, and associated scientific
and technical policy issues in the United States. The
subcommittees examined those issues in light of the earthquake
and tsunami in Japan that resulted in the disaster at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The Subcommittees received testimony from Mr. Brian Sheron
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Mr. Lake Barrett of
LBarrett Consulting LLC; Dr. John Boice of Vanderbilt
University and the International Epidemiology Institute; and
Mr. Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
April 6, 2011_Behavioral Science and Security: Evaluating TSA's
Spot Program (Hearing Volume No. 112-11)
On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA) efforts to incorporate
behavioral science into its transportation security
architecture. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was
criticized by GAO for failing to scientifically validate the
Screening of Passengers by Observational Techniques (SPOT)
program before operational deployment. SPOT is a TSA program
that employs Behavioral Detection Officers (BDO) at airport
terminals for the purpose of detecting behavioral based
indicators of threats to aviation security. Testimony focused
on the validity of behavioral science and experience with SPOT
and related programs.
In May 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report titled ``Efforts to Validate TSA's Passenger
Screening Behavior Detection Program Underway, but
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Validation and Address
Operational Challenges'' in response to a Congressional request
to review the SPOT program. The report found a lack of
scientific consensus on behavioral detection principles and a
lack of justification for expanding the SPOT program. GAO also
noted that TSA generally does not use all intelligence
databases to identify or investigate persons referred through
SPOT. In addition, TSA has no database for BDOs to record and
analyze information on passengers identified under SPOT.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the following
witnesses: Mr. Stephen Lord, Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues, Government Accountability Office (GAO); Mr.
Larry Willis, Program Manager, Homeland Security Advanced
Research Projects Agency, Science and Technology Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Dr. Paul Ekman,
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of California, San
Francisco and President/Founder, Paul Ekman Group, LLC; Dr.
Maria Hartwig, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology,
John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Dr. Phillip Rubin, Chief
Executive Officer, Haskins Laboratories; and Lieutenant
Detective Peter J. DiDomenica, Boston University Police.
April 13, 2011 Green Jobs and Red Tape: Assessing Federal
Efforts to Encourage Employment (Hearing Volume No. 112-14)
On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, the Subcommittee met to
examine the issue of green jobs and efforts to create them. The
term ``green jobs'' generally refers to employment in the
alternative energy and energy efficiency industries. One of the
primary goals of the recent growth in federal incentives and
funding for alternative energy sources and energy efficiency
industries has been the creation of green jobs. The hearing
examined international efforts to create green jobs, as well as
historical efforts domestically, including the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In light of the Administration's
recently announced ``Winning the Future'' initiative, the
Subcommittee explored the effectiveness of loan guarantees,
subsidies, tax incentives, regulations, mandates, research, and
other federal efforts to create green jobs.
The witnesses discussed their views on the levels of
effectiveness of government programs to create green jobs and
their experience with such efforts.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. Kenneth P.
Green, Resident Scholar, The American Enterprise Institute; Dr.
David Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy, Economics, and
Climate Change, The Heritage Foundation; Dr. Josh Bivens,
Economist, Economic Policy Institute; Dr. David W. Montgomery,
Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting; and Mr. William
Kovacs, Director of Environment, Technology and Regulatory
Affairs Division, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
May 13, 2011 Nuclear Energy Risk Management (Joint Subcommittee
Hearing) (Volume No. 112-18)
On Friday, May 13, 2011 the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee met in
a joint hearing to examine nuclear energy safety, risk
assessment, public health protection, and associated scientific
and technical nuclear policy issues in the United States. The
Subcommittees examined these issues in light of the earthquake
and tsunami in Japan that resulted in the disaster at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The Subcommittees received testimony from: Dr. Brian
Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Mr. Lake Barrett, Principal,
LBarrett Consulting, LLC; Dr. John Boice, Scientific Director,
International Epidemiology Institute; Mr. Dave Lochbaum,
Director, Nuclear Safety Project, Union of Concerned
Scientists.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including Selective
Legislative Activities
April 14, 2011 Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future
(Hearing Volume No. 112-15)
On Thursday, April 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education held a hearing to review the Nation's
multi-agency nanotechnology portfolio to ensure U.S. leadership
and to discuss research and budget priorities for the future.
The hearing provided an overview of the benefits of
nanotechnology to society, and in commenting on national
priority areas, witnesses were asked to provide feedback on
reauthorization language passed in the House during the 110th
and 111th Congresses in anticipation of reauthorization during
the 112th Congress.
In the 111th Congress, H.R. 554, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009, was
introduced on January 15, 2009, referred to the Committee on
Science and Technology, and passed the House under suspension
of the rules on February 11, 2009. The language of H.R. 554 was
added to H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act,
passed by the House. However, the language of H.R. 554 was not
included in the final version signed into law on January 4,
2011.
The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Clayton Teague,
Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; Dr.
Jeffery Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative,
Semiconductor Research Corporation and Semiconductor Industry
Alliance; Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman, Board of Directors,
Liquidia Technologies; Dr. James Tour, Professor of Chemistry,
Computer Science, and Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Science, Rice University; Mr. William Moffitt, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Nanosphere, Inc.
May 25, 2011 Protecting Information in the Digital Age: Federal
Cybersecurity Research and Development Efforts (Joint
Subcommittee Hearing) (Hearing Volume No. 112-19)
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education and the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation held a joint legislative hearing to examine federal
agency efforts to improve our national cybersecurity and
prepare the future cybersecurity talent needed for national
security, as it pertains to agencies within the Committee's
jurisdiction and in the context of the Administration's overall
priorities in science, space, and technology.
In the 111th Congress, the House passed the Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4061). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Science and Technology and favorably reported
on January 27, 2010. H.R. 4061 required increased coordination
and prioritization of Federal cybersecurity research and
development activities and the development of cybersecurity
technical standards. It sought to strengthen cybersecurity
education and talent development and partnership activities.
Witnesses were asked to provide comments on the legislation in
advance of reintroduction during the 112th Congress.
The Subcommittees received testimony from: Dr. George O.
Strawn, the Director of the National Coordination Office for
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program; Dr. Farnam Jahanian, the Assistant Director of the
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering at the National Science Foundation; Ms. Cita
Furlani, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and Rear
Admiral Michael Brown, the Director of Cybersecurity
Coordination in the National Protection and Programs
Directorate for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including Selected
Legislative Activities
February 16, 2011 A Review of The Federal Aviation
Administration's Research and Development Programs (Hearing
Volume No. 112-1)
On Wednesday, February 16, 2011 the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee held a hearing on the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) portfolio of research and development
programs. Since 2007, Congress attempted to complete
legislative work to reauthorize FAA including these programs.
The Subcommittee examined the current suite of civil aviation
research and development programs, including a focus on FAA's
Next Generation Air Traffic System (NextGen) that is designed
to modernize our nation's air traffic control system and parts
of which are now in the early stages of deployment.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Victoria Cox,
Vice President of FAA's Air Traffic Organization; the Honorable
Calvin Scovel, Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation; Dr. John Hansman, Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Chair of the FAA's advisory committee on research and
development; and Mr. Peter Bunce, Chief Executive Officer of
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association.
March 30, 2011 A Review of NASA's Exploration Program In
Transition: Issues For Congress and Industry (Hearing Volume
No. 112-8)
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 the Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing to review the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA's) Constellation program and examine the
status of the transition to the Space Launch System (SLS) and
Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV).
Issues examined included the Administration's compliance
with the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution and the Authorization
Act's direction to extend and modify the Constellation
contracts, and the status of NASA's transition report to
Congress. The Subcommittee also examined key challenges and
risks to the Nation's aerospace workforce and industrial base
caused by delays or other disruptions in NASA's human
spaceflight program.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Douglas Cooke,
Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate, NASA; Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy
Institute, George Washington University; and Mr. James Maser,
Chairman, Corporation Membership Committee, the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
May 5, 2011 Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Fiscal
Year 2012 Budget Request (Hearing Volume No. 112-16)
On Thursday, May 5, 2011, the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the FY 2012 budget
request submitted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The Subcommittee
also examined the new initiatives in the request to expand the
Office's roles and responsibilities. The FY 2012 budget request
seeks $26.625 million, a 74 percent increase over the FY 2010
enacted level ($15.237 million) and a near 50 percent increase
of the Office's workforce, asserting that NASA sponsored
commercial cargo flights to the International Space Station,
plus the expected start-up of commercial human sub-orbital
flights, places new regulatory demands on their operations.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. George Nield,
FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil
Aviation Issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office;
and Professor Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of Space
Policy and International Affairs at the George Washington
University.
May 26, 2011 NASA's Commercial Cargo Providers: Are They Ready
To Supply The Space Station In The Post-Shuttle Era? (Hearing
Volume No. 112-20)
On Thursday, May 26, 2011, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held an oversight hearing to examine NASA's
commercial cargo programs. The Subcommittee reviewed the
progress made by the commercial providers, as well as the
budgetary and programmatic impacts of schedule delays. Through
the COTS and cargo re-supply services programs, NASA has
provided its contractors nearly $1.25 billion thus far and has
yet to accomplish the goals established for the initial $500
million program, intended to demonstrate commercial cargo
delivery capabilities to the International Space Station from
two commercial partners, Space Exploration Technologies
(SpaceX) and Orbital Science Corporation (Orbital).
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. William
Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Mission
Directorate, NASA; Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition
and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office; Ms.
Gwynne Shotwell, President, Space Exploration Technologies; and
Mr. Frank L. Culbertson, Jr., Senior Vice President and Deputy
General Manager, Advanced Programs Group, Orbital Sciences
Corporation.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including Selected
Legislative Activities
March 15, 2011 An Overview of Science and Technology Research
and Development Programs and Priorities at The Department of
Homeland Security (Hearing Volume No. 112-7)
On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, the Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to review activities at
the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS S&T) and the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office at the Department of Homeland Security (DNDO). The
hearing focused on various elements of DHS S&T including the
recent reorganization of the Directorate, the strategic
planning process, stakeholder involvement in setting research
priorities, and the role of research and development in the DHS
S&T portfolio.
The Subcommittee received testimony from two witness
panels; the first panel included the Under Secretary of the DHS
S&T and the Director of DNDO; the second panel represented
stakeholders of the DHS enterprise including the Director of
the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
at the Heritage Foundation; the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council;
and the Director of the Homeland Security and Justice Team at
the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
March 31, 2011 The Role of Small Business in Innovation and Job
Creation: The SBIR And STTR Programs (Hearing Volume No. 112-
10)
On Thursday, March 31, 2011, the Subcommittee held a
legislative hearing to examine the role of the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) Programs in promoting small business innovation
and commercialization of federally funded research and
development.
These programs are due for reauthorization and the
discussion draft of H.R. 1425, the ``Creating Jobs Through
Small Business Innovation Act of 2011'', referred to the
Committee, would reauthorize the programs through fiscal year
2014. The legislation, as introduced, would increase the size
guidelines for award amounts for Phase I and Phase II SBIR and
STTR awards, enable majority venture capital backed firms to
participate in the program, and expands evaluation of the
programs through increased data collection and sharing of best
practices. Witnesses before the Subcommittee discussed their
experience with the SBIR and STTR Programs and provided input
on areas of potential improvement as the Committee considers
H.R. 1425 and the reauthorization of these programs.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the following
witnesses: Dr. Salley Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural
Research at the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Donald
Siegel, Dean and Professor at the School of Business,
University at Albany, State University of New York and a Member
of the research team for the Committee for Capitalizing on
Science, Technology, and Innovation, National Research Council
of the National Academies; Mr. Mark Crowell, Executive Director
and Associate Vice President for Innovation Partnerships and
Commercialization at the University of Virginia; Mr. Doug
Limbaugh, Chief Executive Officer of Kutta Technologies; and
Ms. Laura McKinney, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Galois, Inc.
April 7, 2011 Are We Prepared? Assessing Earthquake Risk
Reduction In The United States (Hearing Volume No. 112-13)
On Thursday, April 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Technology
and Innovation held a hearing, in preparation for
reauthorization during the 112th Congress, to examine
earthquake risk in the United States and to review efforts
supporting the development of earthquake hazard reduction
measures, and the creation of disaster-resilient communities.
The hearing examined various elements of the Nation's level
of earthquake preparedness and resiliency including the U.S.
capability to detect earthquakes and issue notifications and
warnings, coordination between federal, state, and local
stakeholders for earthquake emergency preparation, and research
and development measures supported by the federal government
designed to improve the scientific understanding of
earthquakes.
The Committee received testimony from the Director of the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology; the Director of
the Washington State Emergency Management Association; the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Degenkolb Engineers and
the Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee; and an Oregon
State Geologist and the Director of the Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries.
April 13, 2011 Subcommittee Markup, H.R. 1425, The Creating
Jobs Through Small Business Innovation Act Of 2011 (House
Report 112-90, Part I)
On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 the Subcommittee met to
consider H.R. 1425, the Creating Jobs Through Small Business
Innovation Act of 2011. The Subcommittee ordered H.R. 1425
favorably reported to the Full Committee, as amended, by voice
vote.
May 25, 2011 Protecting Information in the Digital Age: Federal
Cybesecurity Research and Development (Joint Subcommittee
Hearing)(Hearing Volume No. 112-19)
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 the Subcommittee on Technology
and Innovation and the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a joint legislative hearing to examine federal
agency efforts to improve our national cybersecurity and
prepare the future cybersecurity talent needed for national
security, as it pertains to agencies within the Committee's
jurisdiction and in the context of the Administration's overall
priorities in science, space, and technology.
In the 111th Congress, the House passed the Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4061). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Science and Technology and favorably reported
to the House on January 27, 2010. On February 4, 2010 H.R.4061
was passed by the House by a recorded vote of 422-5 (Roll Call
No. 43)
H.R. 4061 required increased coordination and
prioritization of Federal cybersecurity research and
development activities and the development of cybersecurity
technical standards. It sought to strengthen cybersecurity
education and talent development and partnership activities.
Witnesses were asked to provide comments on the legislation in
advance of reintroduction during the 112th Congress.
The Subcommittees received testimony from: Dr. George O.
Strawn, the Director of the National Coordination Office for
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Program; Dr. Farnam Jahanian, the Assistant Director of the
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering at the National Science Foundation; Ms. Cita
Furlani, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and Rear
Admiral Michael Brown, the Director of Cybersecurity
Coordination in the National Protection and Programs
Directorate for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Oversight Plan
----------
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
(INCLUDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS OF MAY 31, 2011)
House Rule X sets the Committee's legislative jurisdiction while
also assigning broad general oversight responsibilities (Appendix A).
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, abuse, and mismanagement, in non-military
research and development programs regardless of where they may be
found.
Much of the oversight work of the Committee is carried out by and
through the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. However,
oversight is required for and necessarily built into every Subcommittee
and the Full Committee. All elements of the Committee take their
oversight charge seriously, and those elements have worked
cooperatively in the past, as they will in the future, to meet our
oversight responsibilities.
The Committee also routinely works with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and the Inspectors General of our agencies
to maintain detailed awareness of the work of those offices. The
Committee currently has numerous outstanding requests with the GAO and
more will be developed in the coming weeks and months. Many of these
requests are bipartisan, having been signed by both the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of our Committee and Subcommittees, or include multiple
Committee Chairmen where there are shared interests. The Committee also
works collaboratively with the National Academies of Science, the
Congressional Research Service, the Office of Government Ethics, and
the Office of Special Counsel, as well as various other independent
investigative and oversight entities.
Oversight is commonly driven by emerging events. The Committee will
address burgeoning issues and topics as they transpire. Nevertheless,
the Committee feels that the work contained in this plan reflects an
accurate portrayal of its oversight intentions as of January, 2011.
Space and Aeronautics
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) human space flight
program
The Committee will continue to provide oversight of NASA's human
spaceflight program as it undergoes a period of uncertainty and
transition following various Administration proposals. Specific
attention will be paid to the feasibility of NASA's plans and
priorities relative to their resources and requirements.
Full Committee Hearing
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year
2012 Budget Request
March 2, 2011
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Commercial Space Transportation
FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) regulates,
including the licensing of commercial launch vehicles. An area of
increasing interest is the emergence of a number of fledgling
commercial human suborbital space flight ventures. In addition to its
oversight of the FAA's OCST, the Committee will examine the progress of
the emerging personal space flight industry, as well as the challenges
it faces.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request
May 5, 2011
NASA Earth and Space Science
The Committee will monitor NASA's efforts to prioritize, plan,
launch, and operate space and earth science missions with cost and
schedule. Particular attention will be paid to programs that exceed
cost estimates to ensure they do not adversely impact the development
and launch of other missions. The Committee will also examine the
impact of large increases in funding for the Earth Science Directorate
relative to funding requested for other science disciplines.
FAA Research and Development (R&D) activities
The Committee will oversee the R&D activities at the FAA to ensure
that they lead to improvements in FAA mission performance. The
Committee has a particular interest in the performance of the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO), and FAA's management of its
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) program.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Research
and Development Programs
February 16, 2011
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)
The Committee will evaluate the ability, cost, safety, and
reliability of commercial providers to meet NASA requirements to
deliver cargo to the ISS. A similar hearing will be held later this
Congress on the Agency's commercial crew program.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
NASA's Commercial Cargo Providers: Are They Ready to Supply
the Space Station in the Post-Shuttle Era?
May 26, 2011
Space Shuttle transition
As the Space Shuttle retires, the Committee will monitor the
transition of its highly skilled workforce to other programs and
projects, as there is potential for major workforce transition issues.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
A Review of NASA's Exploration Program in Transition: Issues
for Congress and Industry
March 30, 2011
International Space Station (ISS) utilization and operation
Plans for operation and utilization of the ISS continue to draw the
Committee's attention as NASA attempts to fully utilize the unique
research opportunities that the facility offers, while exclusively
relying on logistical services from commercial and foreign providers.
Given the significant national investment to date in the facility,
Congress has directed that NASA maintain a strong research and
technology program to take advantage of ISS's unique capabilities.
Aeronautics Research
An important area for oversight will be NASA's aeronautics research
and development program. The Committee plans to examine NASA's ability
to support the interagency effort to modernize the nation's air traffic
management system, as well as its ability to undertake important long-
term R&D on aircraft safety, emissions, noise, and energy consumption--
R&D that will have a significant impact on the quality of life and U.S.
competitiveness in aviation.
NASA contract and financial management
A perennial topic on GAO's high risk series, NASA financial
management will continue to receive attention from the Committee. The
Committee will also monitor NASA's contract management to ensure
acquisitions are handled appropriately.
Near Earth Objects
Congress provided guidance to NASA relating to Near Earth Objects
in its last two authorization bills. The Committee will continue to
monitor NASA's compliance with that direction, as well as determine
whether additional oversight is necessary.
Within the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee's jurisdiction,
activities warranting further review include costs associated with
cancellation of the Constellation program, NASA's approach to develop
and fund a successor to the Space Shuttle, and investment in NASA
launch infrastructure. NASA has not clearly articulated what types of
future human space flight missions it wishes to pursue, or their
rationale.
Energy and Environment
Full Committee Hearing
The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2012 Research and
Development Budget Request
March 3, 2011
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Research and Development
Budget Proposals at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency
March 10, 2011
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science
DOE plays a leading role in supporting basic research in the
physical sciences and driving long-term innovation and economic growth.
The Committee will conduct oversight of Office of Science programs to
review prioritization across, and management within, its major program
areas. Special attention will also be given to the cost, operation, and
maintenance of DOE's existing and planned major facilities.
National Laboratories
The Committee will continue to oversee the Department's laboratory
complex, which provides a wide range of important R&D capabilities. The
management and upkeep of the national laboratories' aging facilities,
particularly the clean-up of radioactive and hazardous material sites,
remains a continuing concern for the Committee. Efforts will continue
to assure that the government meets its responsibilities to control
risks in and around these facilities.
DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
After recently receiving significant increases in funding, the
Committee will provide close oversight to ensure that programs are
managed efficiently, duplication is limited, and funding was allocated
appropriately and effectively.
Fossil Energy R&D
Fossil energy will remain a crucial aspect of our energy portfolio
for the foreseeable future. In the 112th Congress, the Committee will
continue to ensure that fossil fuel R&D programs are appropriately
focused and managed efficiently. Expected areas of oversight include
carbon capture and sequestration activities (including FutureGen) and
oil and gas R&D efforts.
Full Committee Hearing
Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology and Practices
May 11, 2011
DOE loan guarantees
Large increases in funding for DOE loan guarantees necessarily call
for greater attention by the Committee. Ensuring the funding is
appropriately prioritized and spent effectively will be a priority in
the 112th Congress.
Fusion
Technical challenges have hampered our ability to harness nuclear
fusion as an energy source. The Committee will continue to monitor
progress toward nuclear fusion, specifically international cooperation
and progress in the International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor (ITER).
DOE Contract Management
DOE programs have come under frequent scrutiny for contract
management practices. GAO designated DOE's contract management as high-
risk in 1990 and continues to identify areas of potential waste, fraud,
and abuse.
Nuclear R&D
The Committee will provide oversight of the nation's nuclear R&D
activities with the goal of unleashing the unlimited potential of
emissions-free energy. DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the
power industry hope to accelerate reactor construction as soon as
possible. The Committee will examine how DOE R&D can best contribute to
this goal through the advancement of various nuclear energy
technologies.
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
Nuclear Energy Risk Management
May 4, 2011
Science and R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Committee will continue to provide oversight of EPA's
management of science, and its use of science in the decision making
process, including the evaluation of quality assurance measures. In
particular, the Committee will examine how to better integrate science
into the Administration's regulatory decision-making process. EPA's
decisions affect every state in the Union and we must demand that EPA's
actions are supported by valid and complete science.
EPA Laboratories and Libraries
The Committee will evaluate the effectiveness and utility of EPA
resources and infrastructure to ensure the Agency can fully meet its
statutory requirements.
Oil Spill Response and Recovery
The Committee will continue its oversight of the cause and impact
of the oil spill, as well as the response and recovery efforts
associated with the accident. Oversight efforts will build upon the
various independent investigations including the President's National
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
Report, as well as reports from other entities such as the National
Academies.
Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
Offshore Drilling Safety and Response Technologies
April 6, 2011
Federal Climate Research Activities
The Committee will continue to monitor programs to address climate
change issues across the Federal government to ensure that existing
programs are necessary, appropriately focused, effectively coordinated,
and properly organized to prevent duplication of efforts and waste
taxpayer resources. We must also insist that decisions on climate
activities are based on solid and thorough science.
Full Committee Hearing
Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create
Science and Policy
March 31, 2011
Federal ocean research activities
The Committee will evaluate the President's National Policy for the
Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes, which adopted the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force recommendations aimed at addressing
the future of our oceans. The Committee will monitor the implementation
of this plan, as well as Federal oceans R&D policy generally.
Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
Harmful Algal Blooms: Action Plans for Scientific Solutions
June 1, 2011
Specific areas of interest within the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee's portfolio warranting further review include major
projects and facilities construction at the Department of Energy and
accounts receiving significant recent increases, such as interagency
climate science activities, EPA research programs, and DOE energy
efficiency and renewable energy technology development programs.
Technology and Innovation
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology
The Committee will continue to monitor the maturation of DHS,
particularly the reorganization of the Science and Technology
Directorate, and the research and technology programs associated with
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of Science and Technology Research and
Development Programs
and Priorities at the Department of Homeland Security
March 15, 2011
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reorganization
The Committee will conduct program oversight for NIST, and other
programs in the Department of Commerce, paying special attention to the
evaluation of their impact on the private sector. The Committee is
aware that the nation's competitive position can be dramatically
improved, or weakened, depending on how standards for different
products and processes are developed. NIST is the only federal agency
with long-term expertise working in this arena, and the Committee is
concerned that the cooperation on standards development across agencies
is less than optimal. It is the Committee's intention to review the
government's role in standard setting with a focus on collaboration
across Federal agencies.
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Proposals at the
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology
March 11, 2011
Department of Transportation (DOT) R&D programs
The Committee will conduct oversight with regard to surface
transportation R&D programs within the federal government, particularly
focused on effectiveness and redundancy.
American economic competitiveness
The nation faces a challenge for economic and technological
preeminence. The Committee will evaluate steps to reduce federal
barriers to domestic and international competitiveness for U.S.
companies.
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
The Role of Small Business in Innovation and Job Creation:
The SBIR and STTR Programs
March 31, 2011
Technology transfer
The Committee will seek recommendations for continued improvements
in the technology transfer incentives built into law by the Bayh-Dole
and Stevenson-Wydler acts and the Small Business Innovation Research
program.
US Fire Administration
The U.S. Fire Administration is responsible for the Assistance to
Firefighters grant program, and the Committee has closely monitored the
direction of this program as the organizational structure of the
Department has coalesced. Continuing attention is important to assure
first responders have the necessary support and training.
Natural hazards monitoring and impact reduction
The Committee has supported interagency research programs to
identify improvements in building and infrastructure designs to protect
and provide early warning for natural disasters. Evaluating further
needs for these and other hazard types is ongoing.
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
Are We Prepared? Assessing Earthquake Risk Reduction in the
United States
April 7, 2011
Cybersecurity
The Committee has continuously stressed the protection of the
nation's cyber-infrastructure, underpinning economic and public
services. The Committee will continue to provide oversight of how NIST
and DHS address this important topic.
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Research & Science Education and Technology & Innovation
Protecting Information in the Digital Age: Federal
Cybersecurity Research and Development Efforts
May 25, 2011
Health information technology
Real improvements in the cost and accuracy of health care can be
achieved through enhanced integration of health data with IT systems.
NIST has a critical role to play through setting standards that will
protect patient privacy and minimize private sector waste. The
Committee has been active in this area and will continue to work to
ensure that the Nation realizes the gains in efficiency and safety
implicit in an effective roll out of Health IT.
Within the Technology and Innovation's Subcommittee's jurisdiction,
there are several activities supported by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) which would be better supported by the
private sector. Among them is a grant program for building construction
at universities and nonprofit organizations. There are also other
programs administered by the Department of Commerce and Department of
Transportation which could be streamlined and refined. The Committee
will ensure that all funding for these programs is awarded
competitively and only renewed after performance is assessed. In the
area of economic competitiveness, the Committee must ensure that the
Small Business Innovation Research Program is focused on innovations
that industry finds too risky to invest in and to increase oversight of
outcomes of program and consider reductions. Finally, there are
substantial federal funds being provided for staffing local fire
personnel that need to be examined as to whether this is a more
appropriate role for local communities to support.
Research and Science Education
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research and
Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
February 17, 2011
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The Committee will continue to oversee the NSF. With the recent
reauthorization of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES)
Act, special attention will be paid to the implementation, execution,
and effectiveness of these new programs. While supportive of the
overall goals of the legislation, there are concerns with several add-
ons, especially those that were added to the bill without the proper
legislative process. Further, the Committee will look for ways to trim
duplicative and unused programs in an effort to maximize available
resources.
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Proposals at the
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology
March 11, 2011
Science, Technology, Education and Mathematics (STEM) K-12 oversight
STEM education is a vital component in the evolving economy.
Members of the Committee have expressed interests in improving STEM
education activities from pre-K through graduate education and beyond,
in order to cultivate a top-notch future scientific and technical
workforce, including well-qualified teachers in STEM fields.
Determining the appropriate forms of federal support to achieve these
outcomes will be of great importance to the Committee.
Academic/Industry Partnerships
The Committee will review the effectiveness and consequences of
academic/industry partnerships. Agencies and universities are again
debating the level of scrutiny and control that should be applied to
research in light of the possible use of new findings by adversaries.
At the same time, industry questions the value of controls on
technology sales and argues that such controls disproportionately limit
American firms in competition for global sales. How to fairly balance
these competing interests remains a perennial subject for Committee
oversight.
U.S. Antarctic and Arctic Programs
The U.S. has conducted operations on the Antarctic continent under
the terms of the Antarctic Treaty System since 1959, and U.S. research
activities in the Arctic predate that. The NSF serves as the steward
for U.S. interests in Antarctica. Research in these extreme regions is
a fundamental component to understanding the Earth and its systems. The
future of the icebreaker fleet that provides vital logistical support
for NSF activities in the harsh polar environments continues to be of
concern.
NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
program
The Committee will continue to monitor and oversee NSF's MREFC
program, including how priorities for projects are developed, long-term
budgeting for such priorities, and decision-making with regards to
ever-changing scientific community needs.
Government-wide R&D initiatives in emerging fields
The Committee will continue to oversee the collaboration and
interagency process associated with emerging fields such as networking
and information technology, biotechnology, cybersecurity, and
nanotechnology,
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative and Priorities for the Future
April 14, 2011
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Research & Science Education and Technology & Innovation
Protecting Information in the Digital Age: Federal
Cybersecurity Research and Development Efforts
May 25, 2011
The innovative work of the National Science Foundation is important
to the economic prosperity and competitiveness of the United States.
However, there are various activities within the Foundation that may go
beyond the mission of the agency and require more scrutiny and
potential cuts in order to ensure that federal investments in basic
science remain primarily focused on actual research of benefit to the
Nation. Likewise, while STEM education is critical to maintaining the
scientific and technical workforce essential to our competitiveness,
many duplicative, wasteful, or simply unused programs exist across a
number of federal agencies and must be more closely examined and, where
warranted, adjusted.
Investigations and Oversight
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository closure decision
The Committee will evaluate DOE's decision to close the Yucca
Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
NOAA satellite modernization
The Committee will continue its close monitoring of satellite
modernization at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The restructuring of the National Polar-orbiting Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS), and the creation of the Joint Polar
Satellite System (JPSS) will continue to draw the Committee's
attention, as well as the Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites, and the broader issues of research-to-operations planning
and data continuity.
Critical minerals, materials, and isotopes
The Committee will provide oversight of materials, minerals, and
isotopes that are critical to U.S. national interests. Recent shortages
and supply concerns associated with helium-3, rare earth elements,
californium-251, and plutonium-238 highlight the need to be ever
vigilant in our monitoring of critical materials, mineral, and
isotopes.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) oversight
The Committee will provide oversight of funding associated with
ARRA to ensure that waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement is minimized,
and to evaluate whether funding was aligned to achieve agency mission
objectives through measurable outcomes.
Risk assessment
As the number and complexity of regulations increases throughout
federal and state governments, the risk assessments that inform those
decisions are garnering more attention. The Committee will continue to
oversee how risk assessments are developed and how they are used in the
regulatory process to ensure that policies are based on the best
science available.
Scientific integrity
The Committee will continue to collect and examine allegations of
intimidation of science specialists in federal agencies, suppression or
revisions of scientific finding, and mischaracterization of scientific
findings because of political or other pressures. The Committee's
oversight will also involve the development and implementation of
scientific integrity principles within the executive branch.
Additional Science Activities
Pursuant to House Rule X, the Committee will review and study on a
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to
non-military research and development. This will include agencies both
in, and out, of the Committee's legislative jurisdiction.
Agency compliance with Congressional directives and requests
The Committee will be ever vigilant in its oversight to ensure that
recent authorization acts, appropriation acts, and other congressional
directions are complied with appropriately.
Emerging Issues
Additional matters as the need arises and as provided for under
House Rule X, clause 3(k).
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
Behavioral Science and Security: Evaluating TSA's SPOT
Program
April 6, 2011
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
Green Jobs and Red Tape: Assessing Federal Efforts to
Encourage Employment
April 13, 2011
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
Subcommittee Hearing
Nuclear Energy Risk Management
May 4, 2011
Collaboration
The Committee maintains a rich relationship with its Inspectors
General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the National
Academies of Science, the Congressional Research Service, the Office of
Government Ethics, and the Office of Special Counsel, as well as
various other independent investigative and oversight entities. The
Committee will continue to work with those offices, relying on them to
identify major mismanagement issues, using their reports in hearings,
and working with the High Risk Series published by GAO to guide
hearings and inquiries. The Committee already has several outstanding
requests, many of which are bipartisan or cross-Committee, which
reflects the collaborative nature of much of the Committee's oversight
work.
The Committee also welcomes input from the public and
whistleblowers. The Committee has developed many relationships with
whistleblowers in agencies. The Committee has taken positive steps to
try to protect them from retaliation and has been reasonably successful
in that role. Most of the whistleblowers who come to the Committee
remain anonymous--sometimes even from the Committee.
The Committee will retain its open-door policy regarding
whistleblowers, whether they are contractors or government employees,
and they should rest assured that we will never betray a confidence.
Even if the information offered turns out not to be useful, as
sometimes happens, the Committee will remain a haven for such figures
and we understand the absolute necessity for citizens to feel safe in
their communications with Congress.
Appendix A
HOUSE RULE X
GOVERNING PROCEDURE OF
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
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 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:
(p) Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration, and
projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated nonmilitary
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, Space, and Technology shall review
and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government
activities relating to nonmilitary research and development.
Appendix B
HEARINGS HELD PURSUANT TO CLAUSES 2(n), (o), OR (p) OF RULE XI
2(n) Each standing committee, or a subcommittee thereof, shall hold
at least one hearing during each 120 day period following the
establishment of the committee on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or
mismanagement in Government programs which that Committee may
authorize. The hearing shall focus on the most egregious instances of
waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement as documented by any report the
Committee has received from a Federal Office of the Inspector General
or the Comptroller General of the United States.
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
Behavioral Science and Security: Evaluating TSA's SPOT
Program
April 6, 2011
On Wednesday, April 6, the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met to
examine the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) efforts to
incorporate behavioral science into its transportation security
architecture. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was criticized
by GAO for failing to scientifically validate the Screening of
Passengers by Observational Techniques (SPOT) program before
operationally deploying it. SPOT is a TSA program that employs
Behavioral Detection Officers (BDO) at airport terminals for the
purpose of detecting behavioral based indicators of threats to aviation
security.
In May 2010, GAO issued a report titled ``Efforts to Validate TSA's
Passenger Screening Behavior Detection Program Underway, but
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Validation and Address Operational
Challenges'' in response to a Congressional request to review the SPOT
program. The report found a lack of scientific consensus on behavioral
detection principles and a lack of justification for expanding the SPOT
program. GAO also noted that TSA generally does not use all
intelligence databases to identify or investigate persons referred
through SPOT. In addition, TSA has no database for BDOs to record and
analyze information on passengers identified under SPOT.
Witnesses discussed their views on the validity of behavioral
science and their experience with SPOT and related programs.
The Committee received testimony from: Mr. Stephen Lord, Director,
Homeland Security and Justice Issues, Government Accountability Office;
Mr. Larry Willis, Program Manager, Homeland Security Advanced Research
Projects Agency, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security; Dr. Paul Ekman, Professor Emeritus of Psychology,
University of California, San Francisco, and President and Founder,
Paul Ekman Group, LLC; Dr. Maria Hartwig, Associate Professor,
Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Dr.
Philip Rubin, Chief Executive Officer, Haskins Laboratories; Lieutenant
Detective Peter J. DiDomenica, Boston University Police.
2(o) Each committee or a Subcommittee thereof shall hold at least
one hearing in any session in which the committee has received
disclaimers of agency financial statements from auditors of any Federal
agency that the committee may authorize to hear testimony on such
disclaimers from representatives of such agency.
2(p) Each standing committee or subcommittee thereof shall hold at
least one hearing on issues raised by reports issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States indicating that federal programs or
operations that the Committee may authorize are at high risk for waste,
fraud, and mismanagement, known as the ``high risk list'' or the ``high
risk series.''
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
NASA's Commercial Cargo Providers: Are They Ready to
Supply the Space Station in the Post-Shuttle Era?
May 26, 2011
On Thursday, May 26, 2011, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held an
oversight hearing to examine NASA's commercial cargo programs. The
subcommittee reviewed the progress made by the commercial providers, as
well as the budgetary and programmatic impacts of schedule delays. NASA
has spent nearly $1.25 billion thus far and has yet to accomplish the
goals established for the initial $500 million program, intended to
demonstrate commercial cargo delivery capabilities to the International
Space Station from two commercial partners, Space Exploration
Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Science Corporation (Orbital).
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. William H.
Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Mission
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Ms.
Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Gwynne Shotwell, President, Space
Exploration Technologies; and Mr. Frank L. Culbertson, Jr., Senior Vice
President and Deputy General Manager, Advanced Programs Group, Orbital
Sciences Corporation.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request
May 5, 2011
On Thursday, May 5, 2011, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held an oversight
hearing to examine the FY 2012 budget request submitted by the FAA
Office of Commercial Space Transportation and new initiatives in the
request to expand the office's roles and responsibilities. The FY 2012
budget request seeks $26.625 million, a 74% increase over the FY 2010
enacted level ($15.237 million) and a near 50% increase of the Office's
workforce, asserting that NASA-sponsored commercial cargo flights to
the International Space Station, plus the expected start-up of
commercial human sub-orbital flights, places new regulatory demands on
their operations.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. George Nield, FAA
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Dr. Gerald
Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, and Prof. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of
Space Policy and International Affairs at the George Washington
University.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
A Review of NASA's Exploration Program In Transition:
Issues For Congress and Industry
March 30, 2011
On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing to review the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA's) Constellation program and examine the status of the transition
to the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV).
Issues examined included the Administration's compliance with the
FY 2011 Continuing Resolution and the Authorization Act's direction to
extend and modify the Constellation contracts, and the status of NASA's
transition report to Congress. The Subcommittee also examined key
challenges and risks to the Nation's aerospace workforce and industrial
base caused by delays or other disruptions in NASA's human spaceflight
program.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Douglas Cooke,
Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, NASA;
Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington
University; and Mr. James Maser, Chairman, Corporation Membership
Committee, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Research & Science Education and Technology & Innovation
Protecting Information in the Digital Age: Federal
Cybersecurity
Research and Development Efforts
May 25, 2011
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a
joint legislative hearing to examine federal agency efforts to improve
our national cybersecurity and prepare the future cybersecurity talent
needed for national security, as it pertains to agencies within the
Committee's jurisdiction and in the context of the Administration's
overall priorities in science, space, and technology.
In the 111th Congress, the House passed the Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4061). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Science and Technology and favorably reported on January
27, 2010. H.R. 4061 required increased coordination and prioritization
of Federal cybersecurity research and development activities and the
development of cybersecurity technical standards. It sought to
strengthen cybersecurity education and talent development and
partnership activities. Witnesses were asked to provide comments on the
legislation in advance of reintroduction during the 112th Congress.
The Subcommittees received testimony from: Dr. George O. Strawn,
the Director of the National Coordination Office for Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program; Dr. Farnam
Jahanian, the Assistant Director of the Directorate for Computer and
Information Science and Engineering at the National Science Foundation;
Ms. Cita Furlani, Director of the Information Technology Laboratory at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and Rear Admiral
Michael Brown, the Director of Cybersecurity Coordination in the
National Protection and Programs Directorate for the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of Science and Technology Research and
Development Programs
and Priorities at the Department of Homeland Security
March 15, 2011
On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held an
oversight hearing to review activities at the Science and Technology
Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS S&T) and the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office at the Department of Homeland
Security (DNDO). The hearing focused on various elements of DHS S&T
including the recent reorganization of the Directorate, the strategic
planning process, stakeholder involvement in setting research
priorities, and the role of research and development in the DHS S&T
portfolio.
The Committee received testimony from two panels; the first panel
included the Under Secretary of DHS S&T and the Director of DNDO; the
second panel represented stakeholders of the DHS enterprise including
the Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies at the Heritage Foundation; the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council; and the
Director of the Homeland Security and Justice Team at the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix
----------
VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
FISCAL YEAR 2012
President Obama transmitted his budget request for Fiscal Year 2012
(FY12) to Congress on February 14, 2011. The President proposes $38.9
billion in FY 12 for all non-defense and non-health specific research
and development, a 10.8 percent increase over the FY I 0 enacted level.
This amount includes basic and applied research, development, and
facilities and equipment.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology supports funding
research and development activities and believes that wise investments,
coupled with favorable tax cuts and reduced regulations, can lead to
economic growth and innovation. However, we are mindful that in order
to realize gains on investment, the nation needs to be on a sound
economic footing. Our nation is currently in a challenging economic
environment. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Federal
spending will rise to $3.7 trillion or 25 percent of GDP this year. We
are running a deficit of$1.5 trillion and our gross Federal debt now
exceeds $14 trillion. These levels are truly unsustainable. We need to
begin to address this challenge by reducing spending and finding ways
to cut unnecessary, duplicative, and wasteful programs so that we
deliver the most efficient and effective programs for the country.
The following are the views of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology on the budget for programs within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The National Aeronautics and Space administration (NASA) is the
Nation's primary civilian space and aeronautics research and
development agency, carrying out a diverse set of missions and projects
designed to expand our understanding of Earth, the Solar System, and
the universe. NASA operates the Space Shuttle fleet, the International
Space Station, and a number of satellites in orbit around Earth and
throughout the solar system. It also undertakes activities in
technology development and transfer, education, outreach, and
participates in a number of interagency initiatives such as
nanotechnology, information technology, climate change research, and
the Next Generation Air Transportation (NextGen) program.
The Committee supports NASA's FY 12 budget request of $18.7
billion, the same amount appropriated by Congress for FY IO and
continued thus far in FY II.
NASA's budget requests also display budget assumptions for the
succeeding four out-years, giving Congress an indication of near-term
spending plans for programs, projects and activities. The FY 12 budget
request assumes a flat spending profile through FY 16, while last
year's budget (and associated out-years) assumed annual increases such
that by FY 16, NASA would be receiving over $20 billion annually. The
potential savings indicated in the FY 12 budget request would, in the
aggregate, save $3.8 billion for FY 12 FY 14, compared to last year's
budget request.
NASA's FY 12 request qualified their out-year assumptions as
``notional.'' However, NASA's ``notional'' assumptions are
significantly higher than the corresponding numbers used in OMB's FY 12
U.S. Budget request (OMB's Blue Books) by an aggregate of$2.3 billion.
NASA officials advised the Committee that they are using their higher
out-year assumptions for planning purposes. Requested funding levels
for NASA's space science program are relatively flat, going up an.
additional $11 million between the FY II and FY 12 requests, amounting
to a 0.2% increase. Within the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), the
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has run into serious cost and
schedule challenges. NASA is intent on finding resources within the SMD
account to remedy the problem, a solution we endorse.
With respect to Earth Science, which is a program within SMD, in
the FY 11 budget request (including the out years ) Committee
Republicans took exception to significant increases in its funding
profile. We were concerned that the balance of funding within the SMD
was getting out of balance to the detriment of the other SMD programs.
This year's request (including the out years ) for Earth Science is
substantially reduced. To stay within this profile, NASA is delaying
start of two Earth Science missions (CLARREO and DESDynI). We support
this change.
The most troubling aspect of this year's request lies within the
agency's human space flight program (Exploration Systems Directorate
and the Space Operations Mission Directorate). Last year Congress
passed, and the President signed, the NASA Authorization Act of20 10
(P.L. 111-267). The bill directed NASA to give priority to development
of a Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) to
replace the retiring Shuttle. The bill also authorized NASA to continue
activities related to development of a commercial crew launch system.
NASA's FY 12 request flips the relative priority, seeking an amount
higher than authorized for commercial crew ($850 million versus $500
million authorization); and underfunding development of the SLS and
MPCV ($2.8 billion versus $4 billion authorization). By doing so, NASA
will be delaying development of a government-owned assured access
system to the IS'S, perhaps until the end of this decade. Coupled with
this is the likelihood that the yet-to-be-developed commercial crew
system may fail to materialize, leaving our government with only one
option: to continue buying seats from the Russians. We find this
unacceptable and firmly believe NASA should give highest priority to
the SLS and MPCV programs.
Finally, we note that the FY I2 budget includes a new program first
proposed last year: Space Technology. The FY 12 request seeks $1.02
billion to manage and develop a portfolio of technologies needed to
ensure the success of future missions, as well as enabling the spinoff
of NASA technologies to the private sector. We support this endeavor
generally, but believe these tough budgetary times argue for a smaller
initial start.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides approximately 20
percent of Federal support for all basic research at U.S. colleges and
universities and is second only to National Institutes of Health (NIH)
in support for all academic research. It is the primary source of
federal funding for non-medical basic research, providing approximately
40 percent of all federal support, and serves as a catalyst for
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
improvement at all levels of education. It supports the fundamental
investigations that ultimately serve as the foundation for progress in
nationally significant areas such as national security, technology-
driven economic growth, energy independence, health care,
nanotechnology, and networking and information technology.
The FY 12 budget request for NSF is $7.7 billion, an increase of 13
percent, or $894.5 million over the FY I 0 enacted level (not including
any carryover from the $3 billion NSF received from ARRA funding). The
Committee recognizes the importance of making appropriate investments
in science, space, and technology research, development, and STEM
education in order for the United States to remain a world leader in
competitiveness and innovation. While supporting a robust budget
request for NSF, the Committee is concerned that the levels requested
exceed what is fiscally responsible in the current economic climate.
Further, new and expanded Administration priorities continue to
excessively divert precious research and development (R&D) funds from
other worthy endeavors.
The Committee applauds the Administration's decision to eliminate
or reduce funding for six specific programs, but regrets that it did
not go further in identifying areas for significant savings to the
American taxpayer. This additional savings could go a long way in
helping to protect the integrity of the Nation's essential basic R&D
portfolio.
Research and Related Activities (RRA)
The FY 12 budget request includes $6.3 billion for Research and
Related Activities (RRA), an increase. of $690 million or 12.4 percent
over FY I 0 enacted. New programs established as part of the increased
research funding request for FY 12 include $35 million for a
nanotechnology manufacturing initiative, $40 million in next-generation
robotics technologies, and $96 million for an interdisciplinary program
to eventually replace computer chip technologies. In addition, $87
million is requested for advanced manufacturing activities including
expanded university- industry research partnerships and regional
innovation ecosystems and clean energy manufacturing research. Another
$117 million is requested for ``cyber-infrastructure'' activities to
accelerate the pace of discovery and $12 million for a ``new program
that will fund a suite of activities that promote greater
interdisciplinary research.'' Much of the funding increases are focused
on manufacturing technologies and regional innovation centers. The
Committee is concerned that the increased emphasis in these areas moves
the Foundation from its core mission of supporting basic R&D to
significantly more support for applied areas of R&D, which are best
left to market forces or agencies with specific applied R&D goals to
advance their mission.
As part of the Science, Engineering and Education for
Sustainability (SEES) program that crosses all NSF directorates and has
a goal of advancing ``climate and energy science, engineering, and
education to inform the societal actions needed for environment and
economic sustainability and sustainable human well-being,'' the FY 12
budget request is $998.1 million, an increase of$337.5 million or 51
percent. The Committee recognizes the broad interdisciplinary
activities within the SEES program, but is greatly concerned that 13
percent of the entire Foundation's budget request is being devoted to
this issue, particularly given the strong emphasis on these programs
across all relevant federal agencies. Further, the Committee is
strongly opposed to the 144.5 percent budget request increase for the
NSF contribution to the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) and
recommends elimination of the $10 million Climate Change Education
program, as worthy climate change education proposals are certainly
eligible for other education funding at the Foundation.
In addition, the FY I2 budget request also includes a plan to
invest broadband spectrum receipts in a variety of areas, including
$150 million to NSF in FY I2 and $1 billion total over a five-year
period for targeted research on experimental wireless technology test
beds, more flexible and efficient use of the radio spectrum, and cyber-
physical systems such as wireless sensor networks for smart buildings,
roads, and bridges. NSF's participation is a piece of the $3 billion
WIN fund.
Education and Human Resources (EHR)
The FY 12 budget request for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is
$911 million, a $38.4 million or 4.4 percent increase over FY l0. The
Admil1istration continues to offer a mixed message regarding the
treatment of EHR relative to the healthy increase for RRA. While
calling for an investment of $3.4 billion in STEM education activities
across the federal government, a ' number of proven NSF initiatives are
being eliminated, reduced, or reprogrammed to make way for new or
expanded programs. Like last year's request, the FY 12 budget request
continues to shift a greater responsibility for STEM education to the
Department of Education while maintaining NSF primarily as a research
agency. The Committee agrees that NSF is primarily a research agency,
but also strongly believes that an essential element of NSF's mission
is support for STEM education; from pre-K through graduate school and
beyond. Therefore, the Committee is concerned with this shift. We
recognize that. the Department of Education is better equipped to
disseminate and replicate STEM programming, but the STEM-related
research and expertise that NSF can and does provide is world-class and
needs to be included in any appropriate larger, overarching STEM
education activities carried out by the Federal government.
New funding in the FY 12 budget request includes an additional $20
million for a Transforming Broadening Participation through STEM (TBPS)
pilot program to seek innovative solutions for broadening participation
in STEM at the undergraduate level This is part of an overarching
realigned program called Broadening Participation at the Core (BP AC),
which also houses several underrepresented population programs. The
BPAC program total request is $156 million, a $21 million or 23.3
percent increase over FY I O. Research programs focused on gender and
persons with disabilities have been moved from this Division to the
Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings and
funding under the request is cut by 8.7 percent to $17 million. The
Committee does not believe that a new $20 million pilot program is
warranted at this time, given the budgetary constraints our country is
facing. Further, the Committee is concerned that funding for the Human
Resources Division has increased by more than 15 percent while the
focus of the Division does not include all underrepresented
populations.
Additionally, the FY l2 budget request includes $40 million in
funding for a new teacher-training research and development program,
split evenly between K-12 teachers and undergraduate teachers. At the
same time, the budget request for Noyce Scholarships is $45 million, a
decrease of $1 0 million or 18.2 percent and the Math and Science
Partnership is $48.2 million, also a decrease of $1 0 million or 17.2
percent. Likewise, the Administration's budget request places a high
priority on Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) by increasing the
funding to $134.6 million, a 31.2 percent increase over FY I0, while
essentially flat lining the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship Program (IGERT)at $30.17 million and greatly diminishing
the Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-I2) to $27 million, a
45 percent cut. The Committee understands the need to make cuts, but
believes that Noyce Scholarships and MSP are proven and worthy programs
and are not appropriate areas to be cut in order to fund a new and
.unproven program. Increasing the number of GRFs is a laudable goal in
a better economic environment, but increasing the funding level by over
31 percent, particularly while essentially ignoring other graduate
programs, is not fiscally responsible.
Department of Energy (DOE)
The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a 'Wide range of research,
development, demonstration and commercial application activities. The
overall FI2 budget request for DOE is $29.5 billion, which represents a
$3.1 billion or 11.8 percent increase of FY 10 levels. Approximately
one third of this amount is directed to research and development
programs.
President Obama made clean energy technology development a
centerpiece proposal of his State of the Union. The proposal includes
an 80 percent clean energy standard (CES), a $2 billion increase in
``clean energy'' research, and a Better Buildings Initiative. The
Committee recognizes the importance of energy technology development to
America's economic future, but has serious concerns with the overall
spending and relative prioritization 'Within the President's budget
request.
Office of Science (SC)
The DOE Office of Science (SC) is the Federal government's primary
supporter of long-term basic research in the physical sciences, as well
as design, construction, and operation of major scientific user
facilities. Office of Science activities are organized into the
following six major programs: Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), Biological and Environmental
Research (BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics
(HEP), and Nuclear Physics (NP). The FY 12 budget request for SC is
$5.4 billion, a 9.1 percent increase over FY IO levels.
The Committee recognizes the unique role of the Office of Science
in supporting world-class scientific research and facilities and notes
its continued strong support for SC activities as a key driver of
innovation and long-term economic growth. We also recognize SC's strong
record in managing construction and operation of major scientific
facilities that are delivering cutting-edge research breakthroughs in
areas such as materials science and chemistry. Accordingly, we believe
the Office of Science should be the top funding priority among DOE R&D
programs. However, in light of budget circumstances, we intend to
continue to work to identify areas within the SC budget warranting
consideration for cuts. Of particular interest in this regard are SC
Biological and Environmental Research activities, which fund
significant research in areas ancillary to DOE's primary mission and/or
potentially duplicative of research funded elsewhere in the government
(such as climate change). Specifically, the Committee is concerned that
the Atmospheric System Research and the Climate and Earth Systems
Modeling programs are duplicative of research programs at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science
Foundation. Additionally, the Fusion Energy Sciences program is an area
of concern due to high-risk program management and international
funding and cooperation challenges associated with the ITER project,
and the value of SC spending on science education and workforce
development also warrants further review.
Advanced Research Projects Agency -Energy (ARPA-E)
Advanced Research Projects Agency -Energy (ARPA-E) was created in
2007 with a charge to fund high-risk, high-reward research that
industry itself is not likely to undertake.'' The Administration
requests $650 million for ARP A-E in FY 12. Of this amount, $550
million would be provided through discretionary funding. ARPA-E would
also administer an additional $100 million ``Wireless Innovation Fund''
aimed at developing wireless communications technologies and paid for
through a proposed transfer of wireless spectrum auction revenues.
Initially provided with $400 million in the 2009 Recovery Act, ARPA-E
did not receive a direct appropriation in FY 10, though it was the
beneficiary of a $15 million transfer from the Office of Science.
The Committee remains concerned with ARPA-E. In 2007, many members
opposed the creation of ARPA-E because they feared the program would
emphasize late-stage technology development more appropriately
performed by the private sector, and that it would funded at the
expense of priority basic research programs within the Office of
Science.
These concerns appear to be validated by ARPA-E's initial
activities, which suggest several instances of awards being made for
activities already being pursued by the private sector. While the
Committee remains open to identifying an acceptable manner in which to
support truly high-risk and unsupported transformational research
activities such as those described in the original ARPA-E vision, we do
not believe the program should receive funding above existing levels
necessary to oversee ongoing projects until an evaluation of the
projects being funded takes place.
Nuclear Energy (NE)
The Administration request for Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) R&D
programs is $447.4 million, a 8.1 percent decrease ($39.6 million) from
the FY 10 enacted level and ten percent decrease from the FY II
President's budget request. Approximately 74 percent of that request is
dedicated to the Fuel Cycle R&D and Reactor Concepts RD&D programs.
The Committee strongly supports advancement of nuclear energy and
associated research in NE. This support does not preclude Committee
concern for misdirected and lower priority R&D within NE. For example,
NE should focus on technology development for reactors with realistic
potential for deployment, rather than continuing university research on
well-studied technologies unlikely to move beyond the academic realm.
The Committee is encouraged by the proposal for two new programs,
the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program and the Light
Water Reactor (LWR) Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Licensing Technical
Support program. The NEET program may provide an avenue for reactor
development with crosscutting technologies which are not easily
categorized specifically as fuel cycle or reactor concepts technology.
SMRs are well-researched and near demonstration. SMRs hold promise;
however, still lack approval and licensing from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). The proposed LWR SMR program intends to overcome the
existing regulatory challenges. DOE must work closely with NRC to
complete the SMR licensing process, at which point the LWR SMR
Licensing. Technical Support program should be terminated.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) funds a
wide array of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The
Administration's budget request of $3.2 billion for EERE represents a
44.4 percent ($958 million) increase from the FY I0 enacted level and a
36 percent increase ($845 million) over the President's FY 11 budget
request. This reflects President Obama's call in his State of the Union
speech for increased spending on clean energy technologies. Most EERE
programs receive significant funding increases relative to the FY I0
enacted level. Of note, Industrial Technologies receives a $225 million
increase (239 percent), which includes the creation of an Energy
Innovation Hub on critical materials. Geothermal Technology would see
an increase of$58 million (125 percent) to expand the enhanced
geothermal subprogram and Solar Energy would receive an additional $213
million (87.8 percent) to fund the ``Sunshot'' and ``dollar-a-watt''
initiatives.
The Committee objects to the requested $958 million (44 percent)
increase in EERE's budget. This concern is based on (1) EERE's focus on
incremental, low-impact technological advances through technology
development, demonstration, commercialization, and deployment
activities; and (2) its significant budget increases, which include 32
percent growth since FY 2008 and 93 percent growth since FY 2006.
Additionally, EERE has spent only 31 percent of its appropriated $16.5
billion in Stimulus funding. Outside of specific programmatic concerns,
the ability of the office to responsibly manage and effectively oversee
such massive budgetary increases is questionable.
Additionally, we believe many activities conducted by EERE are
unnecessary and represent an inappropriate government involvement in
the marketplace, resulting in the government ``picking winners and
losers'' among competing companies and technologies. EERE's budget
increase includes a number of programs explicitly designed to assist
with technology-specific demonstration, deployment and
commercialization activities. Fundamentally, the act of providing
individual firms with government money for the purpose of
commercializing profitable technology is an inappropriate intervention
in the market that may crowd out or discourage a greater amount of
private investment.
We also generally question the appropriateness and value of several
other newly proposed and expanded activities within EERE. The Vehicle
Technologies Program (VTP) requests a $204 million increase in vehicle
technology deployment to disburse grants to cities for upgrade
infrastructure to accommodate electric vehicles. Also, VTP plans to
raise public awareness of vehicle technologies with ``high visibility
demonstration projects at national parks.'' The Building Technologies
Program (BTP) requests a $186 million increase from FY 10 levels to
support a ``Race to the Green'' competitive grant program. The grant
program would implement policies such as adopting more stringent
building codes, benchmarking and disclosing building energy use, and
establishing public energy-savings targets. The Race to the Green
program is a component of the Administration's Better Buildings
Initiative. The Committee questions the relative value of a significant
increase in Federal government spending for the purpose of providing
grants to select localities.
EERE conducts a multitude of outreach and education'' programs
encompassing projects from developing K-12 curriculums to providing
energy resource assessments for governments' scattered throughout Latin
American and the Caribbean. These projects call into question the merit
of existing spending and demand a methodical reevaluation of budget
priorities before an increase of any size should even be considered.
These areas of concern are not exhaustive but rather represent
examples of areas the Committee intends to further scrutinize. Rigorous
examination and Committee oversight of EERE is' necessary and the
Committee believes EERE warrants significant and well-justified cuts to
meet necessary spending reductions.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE)
The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (DE)
oversees the modernization of the electric grid, the reliability of
energy infrastructure, and conducts research and development for energy
delivery-related technologies. Research and Development within OE would
be funded at $193 million in the President's FY 12 budget request. This
would reflect an increase of $71.4 million (58.8 percent) from enacted
FY I0 levels and a $48.5 million increase (33.6 percent) from the
President's FY 11 budget request. Additionally, the President requests
$20 million for the creation of a Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub
to be administered by OE.
This Committee asserts OE's FY 12 budget request is misguided given
current budgetary restraints. OE seeks an increase of $43.4 million for
the Energy Storage program; however, we are concerned about potential
overlap with similar programs in the Office of Science, EERE's Vehicle
Technologies Program, and ARPA-E's ``GRIDS'' program.
The Committee supports targeted OE R&D in Cyber Security for Energy
Delivery Systems, which provide basic value and is a wise and necessary
investment for the Federal government. In spite of the value provided
by a rigorous cyber security program, the budget request reduces cyber
security funding by $9 million.
Fossil Energy (FE)
The DOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE) supports research and
development focused on coal (including ``clean coal'' technologies),
gas, petroleum, and also supports the Federal Government's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. The President's total budget request for the Office
of Fossil Energy (FE) is $520 million. FE's research and development
budget is reduced to $453 million, a decrease of $207 million, or 31
percent, from FY I0 enacted levels. This correlates to a 23 percent
decrease ($134 million) from the President's FY 11 budget request.
The FY 12 budget request proposes to terminate the Natural Gas
Technologies and Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies programs.
Coal R&D is funded at $291 million, the bulk of which is focused on
advancing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) efforts. The Hydrogen
from Coal, Coal to Coal Biomass to Liquids, and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
subprograms would all be eliminated.
The Committee continues to be supportive of an ``all-of-the-above''
approach to addressing energy supply and demand issues, and recognizes
the potential of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to
contribute to this effort We are concerned about the budget's 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 of2005 (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. Further, the
Section 999 program is the only R&D program in the Federal government
capable of addressing drilling safety and accident prevention-related
technology needs in a timely and effective manner.
The Committee believes the United States must develop domestic
energy resources to improve America's energy security. This entails
fossil fuel development, which are the backbone of energy usage today
and, according to the Energy Information Administration, for the
foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Administration's proposal to
eliminate a number of traditional Fossil Energy R&D programs, while
placing nearly exclusive emphasis on carbon capture and sequestration
(CCS) technology, is misguided. The Committee recommends restoring
DOE's Fossil Energy program to its prior focus on fundamental R&D to
advance oil and gas exploration and production technologies and enable
near-term environmental improvements, such as increasing power plant
efficiency and research on non-greenhouse gas related pollution
abatement technology.
Loan Guarantee Program Office (LPO)
The President's FY 12 budget request for DOE's Loan Guarantee
Program Office (LPO) is $200 million. This funding would be used as a
credit subsidy for loans authorized under Section 1703 of the Energy
Policy Act of2005. The LPO did not receive an appropriation for credit
subsidies in FY 10. The credit subsidy funding would support an
estimated $1 to $2 billion in loan guarantees to support energy
efficiency and renewable energy activities.
The Committee does not support the budget request for $200 million
to cover credit subsidies for renewable energy loan guarantees. The
loan guarantee program offers businesses the ability to secure below
market financing rates. Private financial institutions have a record of
supporting economically feasible and valuable projects. Highly-
developed financial markets have the necessary tools to evaluate the
relative worth of an energy project and provide the appropriate level
of financing. We should avoid picking ``winning and losing'' projects
through this program and return to a privately funded model of energy
innovation.
In addition to the Title 17 loan guarantees, the President is
requesting $105 million to for the creation of a ``Better Building
Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools, and
Hospitals.'' This program would fund loan guarantees help retrofit
commercial buildings and would be available to subsidize up to $2
billion in total loan principal.
The Committee believes the creation of the Better Buildings
Initiative is not warranted. The Administration provides nominal
details for the initiative, such as what entities would qualify the
criteria by which terms and conditions would be decided, and why such a
program is needed.
The associated costs, outside of the $100 million for credit
subsidies, reveal the potentially wasteful nature of the program. For
example, the detailed justification requests $1.65 million for salaries
and benefits often full-time equivalent employees, or an average
package of $165,000 per employee.
Energy Innovation Hubs
The FY 12 budget request proposes funding of $146 million to
support six Energy Innovation Hubs, which are supported through the SC,
EERE, and NE accounts. This would support the three existing Hubs as
well as the creation of three new Hubs, which the President highlighted
in his recent State of the Union address. According to the
Administration, Hubs are intended to ``advance highly promising areas
of energy science and engineering from the early stage of research to
the point where the technology can be handed off to the private
sector.''
The Administration's proposal to double the number of Hubs is not
warranted under current fiscal strains. The newly proposed hubs all
replicate ongoing research in multiple DOE programs. For example, the
request includes $34 million for a Batteries and Energy Storage Hub, in
addition to $136 million ($60 million increase) for battery and energy
storage R&D in EERE's Vehicle Technologies Program, thermal energy
storage research conducted by the Solar Technologies Program, and two
BES subprograms.
Rather than merge and consolidate programs to improve program
direction and research efficiency, the request advances the complete
opposite approach with new research programs in associated across-the-
board increases for all programs.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Within the jurisdiction of the Committee, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is one of the smaller operational and
research agencies. NOAA's mission of science, service, and stewardship
is manifested through improvement of the understanding of oceans and
atmosphere and how their interactions affect human life, property and
ecosystem health. NOAA provides critical weather and climate data
necessary to protect lives and to enhance commerce through the National
Weather Service (NWS) and the National Environmental Satellite Service
(NESS)\1\. NOAA is responsible for mapping and charting coastal areas
and other navigation support services through the National Ocean
Service (NOS). NOAA also manages fisheries and conducts research on
marine ecosystems and marine mammals through the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Finally, NOAA conducts world-leading
atmospheric and oceanic research through its Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This line office was previously termed the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS).
However, with the movement of the data centers into the new Climate
Service, the name was changed to reflect the office's narrower focus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA's FY 12 budget request is 5.5 billion, an increase of $749
million or 15.8 percent above the FY 10 enacted level. As part of the
request, the Administration has proposed the largest reorganization of
NOAA since its inception in 1970.
Climate Service (CS)
The budget request includes $346.2 million for a new line office,
the Climate Service (CS), which would include assets consolidated from
OAR, NWS, and NESS. The Committee does not approve this reorganization
or the creation of this Climate Service. The Committee has serious
concerns regarding the implications of transitioning climate-related
research into an operational office. Such a movement makes research
funding vulnerable to cuts during tight budgetary times in order to
ensure the continued operational functionality of the service. The
Committee is concerned that existing science-driven research activities
would be supplanted by service-driven and mission-directed research,
compromising the integrity and objectivity of NOAA research. The
Committee remains open to identifying organizational changes to improve
information flow between NOAA's research, service, and operational
activities, but such an effort would require close review and
consideration through hearings and possibly legislative action. The
Committee expects that NOAA will continue operating in its current
organizational structure unless explicitly authorized otherwise by
Congress.
National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS)
The FY 12 budget request for the NESS is $2 billion, a $698.2
million increase over FY 201 0 enacted levels. This 58.2 percent
increase is by far the largest increase in NOAA's total budget request.
The bulk of the increase is for the Joint Polar Satellite System
(JPSS)\2\. JPSS will provide polar-orbiting satellites scheduled to
launch starting in 2016, which will replace currently operational
satellites and provide key data used in weather forecasting and
environmental observations. The Committee strongly supports this
request and believes it should receive funding priority, even if it
must come at the expense of other programs at NOAA. Due to the previous
delays of its predecessor program, JPSS is well behind schedule.
Further significant budgetary shortfalls are very likely to result in a
satellite data continuity gap, degrading the efficacy of timely weather
forecasts (particularly with respect to development storms and severe
weather), and potentially harming NOAA's ability to fulfill its mission
to protect life arid property. However, the Committee is concerned
that, since the recent reorganization of this program, JPSS has not
undergone a budget re-baseline process as required under P.L. 110-161
and P.L. 109-155. The Committee believes that a base lining process
should be completed before funding for FY 12 is appropriated, and will
continue to work to identify cost-savings within the JPSS program that
do not jeopardize operational needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This program was previously the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), a tri-agency
program with the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA)
and the Department of Defense (DoD). As part of the FY 2011 budget
request, the Administration split NPOESS into two programs. NOAA and
NASA have responsibility for the JPSS program to cover the afternoon
satellite orbit. DoD will have a separate polar weather satellite
program for the early morning orbit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has reservations about NOAA's request of $47 million
for the refurbishment of the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR)
satellite. Although supportive of funding a replacement satellite for
the existing Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite that
provides space weather information, NOAA's choice of replacement
warrants further scrutiny. The DSCOVR satellite has been in storage for
a decade. The Committee realizes that NASA has already spent money
refurbishing DSCOVR for a research mission, we are concerned about
using such an old satellite for a replacement of ACE, a vital resource
for forecasting space weather events that have direct impacts on global
positioning satellites, communication networks and the electric grid.
Furthermore, we are concerned about combining an operational mission
from NOAA with a research mission from NASA. Typically, specifications
for research satellites differ from specifications and standards for
operational satellites. The Committee will closely monitor the
development of the ACE replacement and will also ensure that the Office
of Science and Technology Policy follows through on the requirement
laid out in P.L. 111-267 to submit a report to Congress detailing
options for an ACE replacement.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
The Committee has grave concerns regarding the impact of the
proposed Climate Service on OAR. More than half the resources of OAR
will move into the new line office, decimating the resources of this
research agency and harming the synergistic and strategic approach of
the entire NOAA science enterprise. This transfer of assets is
inconsistent with what was suggested and proposed by NOAA's Science
Advisory Board only six years ago. The Committee will be reviewing the
effects of such a transfer, and in the meantime, has insisted to the
Administrator that the existing structure is maintained.
The Committee does not agree with the proposed budget reduction of
the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) program. After several successful
test runs this program is prime for additional research to truly make
it operational. The UAS technology appears likely to be capable of
delivering improved weather and environmental data for reduced cost,
alleviating operational budgets for the National Weather Service and
other NOAA activities. The Committee recommends that this budget stay
at the FY 201 0 enacted levels of $6 million. We believe that such an
investment will result in future cost savings:
The Committee supports the $10 million OAR request for R&D on
Multi-function Phased Array Radar (MPAR). This next generation radar
has the potential to reduce the U.S. system by 180 radars, resulting in
$1.9 billion in acquisition savings and $3 billion in operational cost
reductions over 30 years. MP AR would be four to five times faster than
today's system, greatly enhancing public safety by allowing warnings of
over one-hour versus the current 15 minute lead time.
National Weather Service (NWS)
The Committee is generally supportive of the overall National
Weather Service (NWS) FY I2, budget request of$988.0 million which is a
1.2 percent decrease from the FY 10 enacted level. However, there are
some concerns with the prioritization of the request. During some of
the major storms in 2010, the NWS website went down. This is a vital
resource used by emergency responders, State and local decision makers
and the general public in order to deal with extreme weather events.
The Committee is concerned about the requested decrease of $3.2 million
for the telecommunications program at NWS; specifically, how it will
affect the ability of NWS to ensure that critical information flow to
the public is not hampered. With increasing concerns about the quality
of the surface temperature data used for climate monitoring and
prediction, the Committee is hesitant about the zeroing out of funding
for the National Mesonet Network. The Mesonet Network was established
in response to the National Academies of Science expressing concern
about the lack of integration of distributed monitoring and
observational networks. While we have confidence that NWS will be able
to achieve quality forecasts using existing networks, we are concerned
with the quality of the data generated by outside entities and the
ability of NWS to properly integrate it into its own databases.
Therefore, the Committee would support a reduction but not elimination
of funding for the Mesonet Network, provided this would not increase
the total proposed budgetary request. Finally, the Committee supports
the NWS request of an increase of $11 million for weather and climate
supercomputing. However, given the amount of funding NOAA has received
for climate computing capability in the last few years, including
stimulus funding, the Committee would recommend that this increase be
granted only in accordance with an equal or larger decrease in the
climate-related computing budget.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a non-
regulatory laboratory of the federal government tasked with innovation
and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science,
standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and
improve our quality of life.
In FY I2, the Administration has requested a funding level of$1
billion or a 16.9 percent increase from FY I 0 enacted funding for
NIST. The budget request would provide $678.9 million for NIST's
Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS); $84.6 million
for Construction of Research Facilities (CRF); $142.6 million for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program; and $75.0 million
for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP).
Laboratories and Construction
The Committee recognizes that NIST's laboratories and internal
maintenance and construction of those laboratories closely support our
nation's innovation by working closely with industry to develop
consensus-based voluntary standards. As a trusted arbiter regarded for
its high-quality work, maintaining strong support for the laboratories
is vital to our economic security. Nevertheless, the $164 million or 32
percent increase over FY I 0 requested for the laboratories needs to be
scrutinized to ensure that these additional funds are necessary.
While state-of-the-art facilities are essential to the capabilities
of NIST's intramural laboratories, the Committee supports the
Administration for requesting no funds for the extramural construction
grant program. The grants awarded to external 'entities -do not
directly support NIST's mission and were not an authorized activity.
Members believe NIST should remain focused on its primary mission and
concur with the Administration that this program should not be funded
in FY 12.
Industrial Technology Services
The Committee is concerned about the proposed expansion of the
industrial technology services programs requested by the
Administration. In particular, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
is requested to receive a $5 million increase. Though the three-year
old program has had limited time to prove itself, the Committee wants
to ensure that this program is successfully supporting the development
of technologies to meet critical national needs. The Committee also
notes that this program was not reauthorized in the 201 0 America
COMPETES Act.
The Committee is pleased with the Administration's reduced request
for the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP). While the
program plays an important role in .recognizing and perpetuating high
quality practices across industry, it is an appropriate time in the
program's maturity to explore other sustainable mechanisms of running
the program.
The Committee questions the creation of the new Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) Program, with a $12.3
million request in FY I2. The program would fund facilities, equipment,
and research at universities and government laboratories to address
long-term research needs of the manufacturing industry. A thorough
review of the plans for this program is necessary.
Public Safety Innovation Fund (WIN)
The FY 12 budget request includes a plan to invest broadband
spectrum receipts in a variety of areas, including $100 million
annually provided to NIST for 2012-2016 for research supporting the
development and promotion of wireless technologies to advance public
safety, Smart Grid'' and other broadband capabilities. The Committee
commends the Administration for recognizing NIST's history of working
closely with industry on interoperability standards.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Directorate (DHS S&T) funds research, development, testing and
evaluation to improve homeland security. The Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office (DNDO), whose transformative research program is transferred to
DHS S&T in 'the FY 12 request, is dedicated to both the development and
enhancement of the global nuclear detection architecture, the
coordination of nuclear detection research and development, and the
establishment of procedures and training for end users of nuclear
detection equipment.
The FY 12 budget request for DHS S&T is $1.2 billion, an increase
of 16.9 percent, or $170 million over the FY I 0 enacted level. Most of
this increase reflects the transfer of R&D' , programs from the DNDO to
DHS S&T; Within DNDO, the FY 12 budget drops by $51.3 million or 13.4
percent.
The Committee is concerned that if the DNDO transfer and proposed
funding for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility is removed, the DHS S&T budget request represents a net 11
percent decrease from FY I 0 funding levels. The Committee recognizes
that robust research and development is necessary to support DHS's
mission, and wants to ensure that the S&T Directorate has the resources
it needs to keep our nation safe and, borders secure.
Finally, the Committee recognizes the value of both Assistance to
Firefighter Grants (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) grants to our Nation's fire departments. However, the
Committee remains concerned that SAFER grant program continues to
expand while the FY 12 request for AFG reflects a 36 percent decrease
below FY l0 funding.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Science and Technology (S&T) account in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) covers research and development activities in
several line offices. The activities at the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) represent about 70 percent of the S&T budget. The FY
12 budget request for S&T is $825.6 million, a 2.6 percent reduction
from FY l0 enacted levels. The budget request for ORD is $584.1
million, a 2.1 percent decrease from FY I0 levels.
Due to EPA's disturbing pattern of regulating based on insufficient
or faulty scientific evidence, the Committee feels that it is
unnecessary to continue to fund EPA's research at existing levels until
reforms are undertaken. For example, the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE)
research programs at ORD include activities to develop tools to assess
behavioral responses to mitigation or adaption policies. This type of
research does not further EPA's mission of protecting human health and
the environment. Instead, these activities seem to be more driven by
policy advocacy, which is not an appropriate use of research dollars.
The Committee does not support the 56 percent increase in STAR
fellowships. Although fellowships are important for the training and
education of the next generation of scientists, the Committee feels
that the budgetary constraints we are currently operating under do not
afford this type of expenditure.
The Committee has reservations about $0.5 million requested
decrease in the Human Health Risk Assessment research program. This
program supports the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a risk-
based database used by industry and government regulators alike. IRIS
has been notoriously late on assessments; and with the decreased
transparency that is now embedded into the new assessment process, the
Committee has grave concerns about the quality of the assessments
produced. Furthermore, the Committee has serious reservations about how
this system is being used for ulterior purposes. EPA decision makers
for IRIS are focusing on chemicals that a very small percentage of the
overall population is exposed to. Given the backlog of chemicals IRIS
is assessing, the Committee feels it would make more sense to assess
chemicals that potentially affect a much greater percentage of the
population. Finally, the COmn1ittee does not support the use of poor
quality data, reports or information in these IRIS assessments. It has
come to our attention that such data is used to make determinations
that will ' have substantial economic and policy implications.
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -Research, Development and
Technology
The FY 12 budget request provides $394.4 million for FAA research
and development activities, plus an additional $28.4 million for
related facilities, adding to a total request of $422.8 million, a
$22.2 million increase (5.5%) above the FY I1 request. Agency R&D is
spread among four accounts:
1. Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) -Safety.
The FY I2 budget request is $566,000 for OCST Safety, a
$401,000 or 243 percent increase over FY 11. Among other
activities, the additional funds would be used for research and
development of the , technical expertise needed to certify
human space flight launch systems and capsules now , under
development that would be used to carry non-government
passengers (astronauts) to orbit.
2. The Research, Engineering and Development account (Aviation
Trust Fund), with a FY I2 request of$I90 million, is $500,000
less than the amount requested in FY 11. 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 and Equipment account (Aviation
Trust Fund) dedicated to engineering, development, test and
evaluation, with an FY 12 request of $177.5 million, a $22.3
million or 14 percent increase over the FY 11 request.
4. A portion of the Airport Improvement Program account
(Aviation Trust Fund) with an FY 12 request of $44.3 million,
an increase of $2.1 million over five percent over FY 11.
At a programmatic level we support the FAA's budget request for
development and implementation of NextGen, to modernize our nation's
air traffic control 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
NextGen R&D, or NextGen generally, it is essential these efforts be
supported.
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST)
The FY 12 budget request for OCST (operations) is $26.6 million, an
increase of $10.9 million or 70 percent over the FY l1 request. OCST is
responsible for licensing and regulating commercial space launches and
reentries to ensure compliance with standards designed to protect
public safety. For FY I2, OCST proposes to hire 32 additional FTE staff
to develop and implement additional safety processes and requirements
specifically for commercial human spaceflight and space traffic
management. Our committee intends to hold hearings prior to
reauthorizing OCST later this year.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
The FY 12 Administration research request for RITA is $17.6
million, or $4.6 million above the FYI0 enacted. RITA is tasked with
coordinating and reviewing all of DOT's research and development
programs, representing more than $1 billion across the Department.
The proposed funding levels for research and development for the
Federal Highway Administration is $661 million and for the Federal
Transit Administration is $30 million. Both of these accounts support
portions of the research and development conducted by University
Transportation Centers across the country.
The Committee is concerned about long-term, rigorous transportation
research and development remaining a high priority, and believes that
we must provide realistic and sustainable funding for these programs
'in the future. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the
Administration's goals for some transportation research programs, such
as Livable Communities or green construction, may stray from the
fundamental transportation needs of most taxpayers including road
safety and congestion mitigation.
List of Signatures
1. Representative Ralph M. Hall
2. Representative Charles lFleischmann
3. Representative Steven M. Palazzo
4. Representative Judy Biggert
5. Representative Scott E. Rigell
6. Representative Benjamin Quayle
7. Representative Randy Neugebauer
8. Representative Randy Hultgren
9. Representative Paul C. Broun
10. Representative Larry Buschon
11. Representative Frank D. Lucas
12. Representative James F. Sensenbrenner
13. Representative Mo Brooks
14. Representative Lamar Smith
15. Representative Michael T. McCaul
16. Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
17. Representative Andy Harris
18. Representative W. Todd Akin
19. Representative Dan Benishek
20. Representative Chip Cravaack
21. Representative Sandy Adams
MINORITY VIEWS OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
ON THE FY2012 BUDGET REQUEST
The nation's research and development agencies have a long history
of investing in research and education programs that return very
significant economic payoffs to the American people. The President's FY
2012 budget request continues the commitment to investing in our future
while at the same time acknowledging the difficult fiscal environment
in which we find ourselves. While we can disagree with some of the
specific choices and priorities contained in the Administration's FY
2012 budget request, we share the President's goals of maintaining a
strong science and technology enterprise and ensuring that our young
people are prepared for the technical careers of the future. The choice
before us as a nation-is stark: we can focus on the need to create jobs
now and in the coming years by making sure that we are taking the
necessary .steps to ensure that we remain economically strong and
competitive in a challenging international marketplace, or we can
engage in short-sighted cutting of our capabilities for innovation and
education to meet arbitrary budgetary targets. If the past is any
guide, it is clear that investments in science, technology and STEM
education must be a cornerstone of any serious long-term strategy to
keep America competitive.
The budget resolution that these Views and Estimates are intended
to inform is being developed even while the FY 2011 budget remains in
play. The House consideration of the FY 2011 budget has been marked by
severe cuts to important research and development (R&D) initiatives in
order to meet arbitrary fiscal goals. The end result of those cuts, if
enacted into law, would be thousands of layoffs and furloughs among the
best and brightest of our scientists and engineers; curtailment of
critical research activities to protect the public from environmental
hazards; fewer innovative technologies to enable the industries of the
future; and serious damage to our core scientific and technologica1
capabilities.
The President's FY 2012 budget request, on the other hand,
recognizes that even in these challenging economic times, we need not-
and should not-sacrifice our future for the sake of crippling cuts to a
small fraction of the total federal budget. With vision and
perseverance, we can be both fiscally responsible and make the
necessary investments to keep the American economy competitive in the
coming decades while keeping our people and our environment healthy.
Thus, while there are findings in the Majority's Views and
Estimates with which we can agree, it is clear that the overall thrust
of those Views and Estimates is in the direction of advocating
substantial cuts to important research and development programs and .
initiatives. While there are undoubtedly areas of savings that could be
found by careful examination of programs and projects, the broad-brush
notion that whole areas of science and technology are not needed to
prepare for an uncertain future does not have a credible basis in
either fact or analysis. Thus, vague and unsupported claims that
agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency are regulating
``based on insufficient or faulty science''--and thus should have their
funding cut--do little to advance the debate over appropriate R&D
funding priorities nor do they provide thoughtful guidance to the
Budget Committee as it attempts to construct an overall federal budget
blueprint.
That is not to say that there is nothing of value that can be said
about the choices before us as a nation. For example, one need only
look at the cuts that were adopted in H.R. 1. to realize that the path
advocated in that legislation and in the Majority's Views and Estimates
would lead thousands of the most promising scientists and engineers in
the nation to lose their jobs and abandon their research. After years
of bipartisan calls for young people to come into science and math and
engineering, the outcome of enacting H.R. 1 or the policies in the
Majority's Views and Estimates would be the same as posting a big
``Help Not Needed'' sign on every National Laboratory and university
throughout the country. That would be a tragedy-and one that the
President's FY 2012 budget request seeks to avoid.
Every family understands that there are consumption expenditures
and investment expenditures. We sacrifice to make sure our children
have shoes, medical care, and a good education. When money is tight, we
cut back on restaurant dinners, new clothes for ourselves, and vacation
trips--those things that might be nice to have, but are not necessary
to keep a roof over our heads today or build a better life for our
family tomorrow. Even when times are tough, however, we are willing to
take (jut loans or take on a second job to help cover the costs of
college. People understand that shortchanging our children's education
will leave them less prepared for what will come. In our private lives
we understand that the investments we make today, even when times are
hard, will pay dividends in the future. This same logic applies to
meeting our public responsibilities.
In short, Democratic members of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology believe that if we do not invest in education, in new
ideas, and in new processes, we will deny our children the capacity to
deal effectively with the crises that their generation will have to
tackle. It is irresponsible not to invest in the future, whether you
are talking about your own children or speaking of the legacy we as a
society leave the generations that will succeed us.
The Democratic Members of the Committee thus endorse the
President's budget request for FY 2012 in the area of research and
development. While we might make slightly different recommendations
across specific program areas, taken as a whole, the Administration has
worked hard to find savings to balance their continuing commitment to
investing in our nation's future. We endorse the Administration's
approach of guarding from cuts those investments in innovation,
education and infrastructure that contribute to the conditions that
allow Americans to continue to do what we have done time and again
since the founding of the Republic:
invest to keep America economically competitive and
strong and to create good jobs now and in the future;
build opportunities for every citizen to unleash
their potential to be creative, productive and actively
contribute to this great democracy; and
leave for our children a world that is better than
the one we inherited.
We should add that these investments will build not just a better
society, but also make this country a better place to do business and
develop a workforce with the skills to excel, the ambition to create,
and the means to succeed.
Programmatic Guidance
While programmatic guidance is of limited utility to the Budget
Committee, what follows are specific observations, agency-by-agency,
where the agreement or disagreement with the Majority Views and
Estimates is significant enough to justify comment.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
While supportive of the President, Democratic members are
disappointed with the NASA request, especially in light of the work
that Congress undertook last year to forge a constructive path forward
for the nation's space program. The compromise that was enacted into
law is not reflected in the proposed NASA budget request. The request
cuts NASA's overall budget plan and its human exploration budget even
further than before, delays the development of the next generation
vehicle, and eliminates any concrete destinations or milestones beyond
the International Space Station that can inform decisions on needed
investments in space technology. We agree with the Majority's view that
NASA's FY 2012 request is not reflective of the priorities established
in the NASA Authorization Act of 20 1 0 as the Administration has
placed a relative higher priority on commercial crew and underfunded
development of the Space Launch Vehicle (SLS) and Multiple Purpose Crew
Vehicle (MPCV).
Contrary to the Majority's position on Earth Science, Democratic
members have been supportive of the higher funding accorded this area
in last year's request. NASA has indicated that reduced out-year
funding for Earth Sciences will necessitate delaying the start of two
missions, CLARREO and DESDynI. While this is unfortunate, Democratic
members acknowledge the budgetary challenges facing NASA's Science
program. However, we are concerned that delays in initiating these
missions could lead to higher development costs and also delay the
collection of data. This data would provide significant utility in
observing, understanding, and addressing key environmental challenges
including complete EI Nino/ La Nina cycles, reflected solar radiation
and Earth thermal radiation, earthquakes, volcanic' eruptions,
landslides as well as new observational information for monitoring
forests, agricultural resources, and mountain glaciers.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Democratic Members strongly support fully funding NSF at the levels
requested by the President. There is no record to support the
Republican views that `` . . . new and expanded Administration
priorities continue to excessively divert precious research and
development funds from other worthy endeavors.'' Innovation in science
and the creation of cross-disciplinary science initiatives that tie
basic research to technology innovation, at agencies that fund research
and development both reflect and help drive creativity across the
nation's colleges and universities.
Department of Energy (DOE)
Democratic Members strongly reject the Republican preferences for
cuts to programs at the DOE. The cuts outlined in the FY 2011
Continuing Resolution would lead to job losses in the thousands spread
across the National Labs in California, New Mexico, Washington,
Colorado, Illinois, Tennessee, New York, and Virginia, and many
thousands more at universities and companies all across the country.
Not only would some of the country's best and brightest find their
careers interrupted or ended, but the Nation would also lose the fruits
of their hard work and creativity. DOE programs and the National Labs
fill a void in the U.S. innovation pipeline that industry and
universities cannot or will not do alone, tackling some of our most
important national challenges at the cutting edge .of questions about
material sciences, energy sciences, emerging sources of energy, and
conservation.
Democratic Members believe that we must take a comprehensive
approach to assure a safer, more sustainable energy future for our
children, and this includes supporting activities from basic to applied
research, and beyond. Assuming that the current level of private
investment in energy technologies is sufficient, that companies will do
all of the necessary cutting-edge research on their own, or that the
marketplace will naturally pick cleaner technologies, grossly
oversimplifies the complexity and scale of the energy and environmental
challenges that we face today, and threatens our future international
competitiveness. With the U.S. accounting for roughly eight percent of
global oil reserves and a quarter of global oil demand, we cannot drill
our way to energy independence. If the country is to have any hope of
developing a long-term solution to the depletion of fossil fuels, or of
reducing pollution from our need to continue to use fossil fuels in
many applications for generations to come, those answers will likely be
found through research by the National Labs, universities, and
companies supported by DOE. However, those answers will be much harder
to find if we undercut DOE's vital research efforts.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Democratic Members endorse the President's request for NOAA. We are
particularly concerned that funds sufficient to launch the full array
of weather and climate sensors and satellites be made available in the
FY 2012 budget. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Democratic Members are pleased that the President's request
provides support for the NIST lab complex as well as the Industrial
Technology Services. The budget request is consistent with COMPETES Act
goals and continues the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) on its
doubling path. The MEP remains a very effective tool for supporting
small businesses. This program's focus on improving manufacturing
capabilities is almost unique across the Federal government.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
The Democratic Members are supportive of the President's request
for DHS Science and Technology. We are particularly pleased with the
strong support shown in that budget for the Staffing for Adequate Fire
and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants which support our Nation's
emergency response community. However, the cuts to the Assistance to
Firefighter Grants (AFG) program are troubling, and we would prefer
that this program be fully funded at the FY 2010 level.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Majority's Views and Estimates state that: ``Due to EPA's
disturbing pattern of regulating based on insufficient or faulty
scientific evidence, the Committee feels that it is unnecessary to
continue EPA's research at existing levels until reforms are
undertaken.'' Democratic Members strongly reject this view and support
the President's request for EPA science.
The Majority make specific reference to the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). The Majority's characterization of the
program is unrecognizable to anyone who has studied the record. EPA is
currently trying to gain greater control over the IRIS process, an
effort that the Majority describes as resulting in ``decreased
transparency'' so that they can begin adding entries at a pace greater
than two or three a year. The assertion that the IRIS ``system is being
used for ulterior purposes'' is not buttressed by analysis. The problem
with science at EPA is not that they do not do it well or that they
abuse it, but that it is used by those who fear regulation to postpone
risk assessments. IRIS entries go through multi-year reviews and some
have even been forced to National Academy Assessments, and these
endless efforts go on more than a decade without ever leading to an
entry. That is not EPA's doing, but rather reflects the efforts of
those who use the argument of scientific uncertainty to demand just one
more study, one more literature review, one more outside panel before
any regulation can ever be approved for action. IRIS has been the
subject of multiple hearings by the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee in the 110th and 111th Congresses as well as multiple
reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)--the facts are
available for anyone to review.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Democratic Members of the Committee support DOT's continuing
research into ways to build and maintain infrastructure in a manner
that is energy efficient and reduces impacts on the environment; to
identify and address deterioration and other potential safety problems
with new and existing infrastructure; and to find efficient, sensible
ways to reduce traffic congestion. We particularly support programs
that would successfully transition research findings to state and local
transportation planners. Regarding the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Democratic Members are supportive of FAA's Research, Development
and Technology initiatives, including NextGen, and urge funding of such
initiatives in FY 2012 at the level requested by the Administration. In
addition, Democratic Members look forward to receiving additional
information at an upcoming hearing before finalizing our views on the
proposed increase for the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.
HISTORY OF APPOINTMENTS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
January 6, 2011--H. Res. 6
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, named Chair of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee.
January 5, 2011--H. Res. 7
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas, named Ranking Member of the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee.
January 18, 2011--H. Res. 37
Republican Members assigned to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology:
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Lamar S. Smith of Texas, Dana Rohrabacher,
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Frank D. Lucas, Judy Biggert, W. Todd Akin, Randy
Neugebauer, Michael T. McCaul, Paul C. Broun of Georgia, Sandy Adams,
Benjamin Quayle, Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, E. Scott Rigell,
Steven M. Palazzo, Mo Brooks, Andy Harris.
January 19, 2011--H. Res. 39
Democratic Members assigned to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology:
Jerry F. Costello, Lynn C. Woolsey, Zoe Lofgren of California, David
Wu, Brad Miller of North Carolina, Daniel Lipinski, Gabrielle Giffords,
Donna F. Edwards, Marcia L. Fudge, Ben R. Lujan, Paul D. Tonko, Jerry
McNerney, John P. Sarbanes, Terri A. Sewell, Frederica S. Wilson,
Hansen Clarke.
February 9, 2011--H. Res. 78
Randy Hultgren, Chip Cravaack, Larry Bucshon, and Dan Benishek
appointed to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE, COMMITTEE
ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Rules of the House of Representatives, so
far as applicable, shall govern the Committee and its
Subcommittees, except that a motion to recess from day to day,
or a motion to recess subject to the call of the chair (within
24 hours), or a motion to dispense with the first reading (in
full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available,
is a non-debatable motion of privilege in the Committee. [House
Rule XI 1(a)]
(b) SUBCOMMITEES.--Each Subcommittee is a part of the
Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the
Committee and its rules so far as applicable. Written rules
adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the Rules of
the House, shall be binding on each Subcommittee of the
Committee. [House Rule XI 1(a)]
(c) COMMITTEE RULES.--The Committee's rules shall be publicly
available in electronic form and published in the Congressional
Record not later than 30 days after the Chair of the Committee
is elected in each odd-numbered year. [House Rule XI 2(a)(2)]
(d) 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)]
(e) 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.
(f) VICE CHAIR; PRESIDING MEMBER.--The Chair shall designate a
member of the majority party to serve as Vice Chair of the
Committee, and shall designate a majority member of each
Subcommittee to serve as Vice Chair of each subcommittee. The
vice chair of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may
be, shall preside at any meeting or hearing during the
temporary absence of the Chair. If the Chair or Vice Chair of
the Committee or Subcommittee are not present at any meeting or
hearing, the ranking member of the majority party who is
present shall preside at the meeting or hearing. [House Rule XI
2(d)]
(g) MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE.--The Chair is directed to
offer a motion under clause l of Rule XXII of the Rules of the
House whenever the Chair considers it appropriate. [House Rule
XI 2(a)(3)]
(h) CONFERENCE COMMITEES.--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.
(i) 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.
(j) 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.
(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 Committee shall meet on the second (2nd)
Wednesday of each month at 10:00 a.m. if the House is in
session. If the House is not in session on that day and the
Committee has not met during such month, the Committee shall
meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House is
again in session. [House Rule XI 2(b)]
(b) ADDITIONAL MEETINGS.--The Chair of the Committee may call
and convene, as the Chair considers necessary and in accordance
with Rule 4(b), 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) IN GENERAL.--Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall
be called to order and presided over by the Chair, or in the
Chair's absence, by the Vice Chair of the Committee or by the
ranking majority member of the Committee present as Acting
Chair. [House Rule XI 2(d)]
(b) 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.
(c) 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. This time limit may be
waived by the Chair pursuant to unanimous consent. [House Rule
XI 2(j)(2)]
(d) 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.
(e) 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 coverage, unless closed in accordance with clause
2(g) or 2(k)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(f) 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.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable the audio and
video coverage shall be in a manner that allows the
public to easily listen to and view the proceedings.
(3) Operation and use of any Committee internet
broadcast system shall be fair and nonpartisan and in
accordance with all other applicable rules of the
Committee and the House.
(4) To the maximum extent practicable, the Committee
shall maintain the recordings of the coverage of such
hearings or meetings in a manner easily accessible to
the public.
(5) 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).
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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) 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, except those matters which are the subject of
special call meetings outlined in Rule 2(c).
(b) NOTICE.--
(1) (A) The Chair of the Committee shall announce the
date, place, and subject matter of a committee meeting,
which may not commence earlier than the third day on
which members have notice thereof. [House Rule XI
2(g)(3)]
(B) A committee meeting may begin sooner than
specified in subdivision (A) (in which case the
Chair shall make the announcement specified in
subdivision (A) at the earliest possible time)
if--
(i) the Chair of the Committee, with
the concurrence of the ranking minority
member, determines there is good cause
to do so; or
(ii) the Committee so determines by
majority vote, a quorum being present.
[House Rule XI 2(g)(3)]
(2) (A) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of
a meeting for the consideration of a measure or matter,
or at the time of the announcement under (b)(1)(B) made
within 24 hours before such meeting, the Chair shall
cause the text of such measure or matter to be made
publicly available in electronic form. [House Rule XI
2(g)(4)]
(B) To the maximum extent practicable, a
written copy of the measure or matter to be
considered and the original text of the measure
to be considered for purposes of markup shall
be made publicly available in electronic form
for at least 48 hours in advance of
consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and
legal holidays.
(3) A notice provided shall be published promptly in
the Daily Digest and made publicly available in
electronic form. [House Rule XI 2(g)(3)]
(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) 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)]
(e) PRIVATE BILLS.--No private bill will be scheduled by the
Chair of the Committee if there are two (2) or more Members who
object to its consideration.
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 three (3) 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)]
(4) The Chair, or any Member of the Committee
designated by the Chair, may administer oaths to
witnesses before the Committee. [House Rule XI 2(m)(2)]
(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 for the purposes of reporting any
measure or matter, authorizing a subpoena, closing a
meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of Rule XI
of the House, releasing executive session material
pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of Rule XI of the Rules of
the House, or where required by any other Rule of the
House.
(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.--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 anyone (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, 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 made available in electronic form.
[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)(5)]
(2) 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.
(3) In the case of a witness appearing in a
nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of
proposed testimony shall include a disclosure of the
amount and source (by agency and program) of each
Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or
subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal
year or either of the two previous fiscal years by the
witness or by an entity represented by the witness.
Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect
the privacy of the witness, shall be made publicly
available in electronic form not later than one day
after the witness appears. [House Rule XI 2(g)(5)]
(c) QUESTIONING WITNESSES.--The right to interrogate a witness
before the Committee shall alternate between Majority and
Minority Members. Each Member shall be limited to five (5)
minutes in the interrogation of witnesses until such time as
each Member present who wishes to be recognized has been
recognized once for that purpose. No member may be recognized
for a second period of interrogation until each Member present
has been recognized at least once. [House Rule XI 2(j)(2)]
(d) EXTENDED QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS.--
Notwithstanding Rule 3(c), 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) 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)]
(f) 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.
(g) ADDITIONAL HEARING PROCEDURES.--Rule XI 2(k) of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is hereby incorporated by
reference.
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 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) CONTENTS OF REPORT.--The report of the Committee on a
measure or matter that has been approved by the Committee shall
include the matters required by clauses 2(c) and 3 of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House.
(c) SUPPLEMENTAL; MINORITY, OR ADDITIONAL VIEWS.--Clause 2(I)
of House Rule XI is hereby incorporated by reference.
(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) 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.--
(1) Any document published by the Committee as a House
Report, other than a report of the Committee on a
measure which has been approved by the Committee, shall
be approved by the Committee at a meeting, and Members
shall have the same opportunity to submit views as
provided for in Rule 8(c).
(2) Not later than the 30th day after June 1 and
December 1, the Committee shall submit to the House a
semiannual report on the activities of the Committee.
(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 a regular session
of a Congress or after December 15, whichever occurs
first, the Chair of the Committee may file the second
and fourth semiannual Activity Report for that Congress
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)]
Rule 10. GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
(a) OVERSIGHT.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Committee shall conduct oversight
of matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee in
accordance with House Rule X, clause 2 and 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 plan 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) SUBCOMMITEE 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 SUBCOMMITEES.--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) SUBCOMMITEE 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) SUBCOMMITEE 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), science, technology, engineering
and mathematics 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, networking, and
information technology;
(J) research and development relating to
health, biomedical, and nutritional programs;
(K) research, development, and demonstration
relating to nanoscience, nanoengineering, and
nanotechnology;
(L) to the extent appropriate, agricultural,
geological, biological and life sciences
research;
(M) and materials research, development, and
demonstration and policy.
(4) SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS.--
Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and
investigative authority on all matters relating to
astronautical and aeronautical research and
development, including:
(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, Space, 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.
(6) Each Subcommittee of the Committee shall provide
the Full Committee with copies of such records of votes
taken in the subcommittee and such other records with
respect to the subcommittee as the Chair deems
necessary for the Committee to comply with the rules
and regulations of the House.
(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. To the maximum extent practicable, 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.--
(1) The Committee shall keep a complete record of all
Committee action, which shall include a record of the
votes on any question on which a record vote is
demanded. The result of each record vote shall be
included in the report of the Committee, made available
by the Committee for inspection by the public at
reasonable times in the offices of the Committee and
shall be made publicly available in electronic form
within 48 hours of such record vote. [House Rule XI
2(e)(1)(B)]
(2) Information made 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)(B)]
(3) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the
Committee, the Chair shall cause the text of each such
amendment to be made publicly available in electronic
form. [House Rule XI 2(e)(6)]
(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 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)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology List of
Hearings with Publication Numbers plus List of
Date Legislative Reports Filed as of May 31st 2011 112th Publication Number
Congress -- First Session
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 10, 2011 Organizational Meeting of the Committee on Science, Business Meeting-1
Space, and Technology
(Meeting held by the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 16, 2011 A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's 112-1*
Research and Development Programs.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 17, 2011 An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research 112-2*
and Development Programs.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 2, 2011 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 112-3
Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 3, 2011 The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2012 Research and 112-4
Development Budget Request.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 10, 2011 An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Research and 112-5
Development Budget Proposals at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology List of
Hearings with Publication Numbers plus List of
Date Legislative Reports Filed as of May 31st 2011 112th Publication Number
Congress -- First Session
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 11, 2011 An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Proposals 112-6
at the National Science Foundation and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 15, 2011 An Overview of Science and Technology Research and 112-7
Development Programs and Priorities at the Department
of Homeland Security.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2011 H. R. 970, the Federal Aviation Research and H. Rept. 112-52**
Development Reauthorization Act of 2011
(Markup held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 30, 2011 A Review of NASA's Exploration Program in Transition: 112-8
Issues for Congress and Industry.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 31, 2011 Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Used 112-9
to Create Science and Policy.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 31, 2011 The Role of Small Business in Innovation and Job 112-10
Creation: The SBIR and STTR Program.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology List of
Hearings with Publication Numbers plus List of
Date Legislative Reports Filed as of May 31st 2011 112th Publication Number
Congress -- First Session
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 6, 2011 Behavioral Science and Security: Evaluating TSA's SPOT 112-11
Program.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 6, 2011 Offshore Drilling Safety and Response Technologies. 112-12
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 7, 2011 Are we Prepared? Assessing Earthquake Risk Reduction H. Rept. 112-13
in the United States.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 13, 2011 Green Jobs and Red Tape: Assessing Federal Efforts to 112-14
Encourage Employment.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 14, 2011 Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National 112-15
Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the
Future.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2011 H. R. 1425, Creating Jobs Through Small Business H. REPT. 112-90 PT. 1**
Innovation Act of 2011
(Markup held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology List of
Hearings with Publication Numbers plus List of
Date Legislative Reports Filed as of May 31st 2011 112th Publication Number
Congress -- First Session
------------------------------------------------------------------------------May 5, 2011 Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Fiscal 112-16
Year 2012 Budget Request.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2011 Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology and 112-17
Practices
( Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 13, 2011 Nuclear Energy Risk Management 112-18
(Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittees on .........................
Investigations and Oversight and Energy and
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2011 Protecting Information in the Digital Age: 112-19
Federal Cybersecurity Research and development Efforts
(Joint Hearing held by Subcommittees on Research and .........................
Science Education and Technology and Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 26, 2011 NASA's Commercial Cargo Providers: 112-20
Are They Ready to Supply the Space Station in the Post
Shuttle Era?
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*LHearings that have been printed.
**LReports that have been printed.