[House Report 112-347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 232

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-347



                 SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES

                                 OF THE

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS


                                    


                                    

                                     

 December 23, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                 SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 232

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 
112-347

                 SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES

                                 OF THE

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                    


                                    

                                     

 December 23, 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         BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               PAUL D. TONKO, New York
SANDY ADAMS, Florida                 JERRY McNERNEY, California
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona             JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,    TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    Tennessee                        FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       VACANCY
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.,         PAUL D. TONKO, New York
    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             DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
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                DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
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

*  Ranking Minority Member
** Vice 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
                     MOLLY KEATON, Staff 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 Senior Professional Staff Member
            ANDY ZACH, Republican Professional Staff Member
                    CLINT WOODS, Professional Staff
           KYLE OLIVER, Republican Professional Staff Member
          ALEX MATTHEWS, Republican Professional Staff Member
               TAYLOR JORDON, Republican Staff Assistant

            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 FLANAGAN, 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
               ANNE CONNOR, Republican Professional Staff
                       MIKE BEAVIN, NOAA Detailee
                 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
          MELIA JONES, Republican Legal and Research Assistant

          HILARY CAIN, Democratic Subcommittee Staff Director
           MARCY GALLO, Democratic Professional Staff Member



                            C O N T E N T S

                 Second 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.................................    14
    Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities...............    23

                 Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

    Oversight Investigation, and Other Activities, Including 
      Selective Legislative Activities...........................    30

              Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

    Oversight Activities.........................................    36

             Subcommittee on Research and Science Education

    Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including 
      Selective Legislative Activities...........................    41

                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

    Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including 
      Selective Legislative Activities...........................    44

               Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation

    Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including 
      Selective Legislative Activities...........................    47

                  Oversight Plan Including Appendices

    Transmittal Letter...........................................    53
    Summary of Oversight Plan, Including Accomplishments To Date.    54
    Jurisdiction.................................................    67
    Hearings Held Pursuant to Rule XI Clauses 2(n), (o), and (p).    68
    Committee Oversight Correspondence...........................    73
    Summary of GAO High Risk Topics..............................    79
    GAO Request..................................................    82

                                Appendix

    Transmittal Letter for Views and Estimates...................    86
    Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
      Technology for FY 2012.....................................    87
    Additional Views.............................................   101
    Minority Views and Estimates for FY 2012.....................   107
    Additional Minority Views....................................   113
    History of Appointments, Committee on Science, Space, and 
      Technology.................................................   117
    Rules Governing Procedure, Committee on Science, Space, and 
      Technology for the 112th Congress..........................   119
    List of Publications of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
      Technology, 112th Congress, 1st Session....................   131


                                                 Union Calendar No. 232
111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-347

======================================================================



 
SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, 
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

_______________________________________________________________________


 December 23, 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 -- December 23rd 2011

                       Business Meeting Held - 2

                     Bills and Resolutions Referred


                         to the Committee - 103


                           Hearings Held - 56


             Witnesses Appeared Before the Committee - 258


                    Full Committee Markups Held - 5


                     Subcommittee Markups Held - 3


                           Reports Filed - 4


                    Legislation Passed the House - 8


                             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:

          Stimulation of technological innovation in 
        the small business sector;

          Increased use of the small business sector to 
        meet the government's research and development (R&D) 
        needs;

          Additional involvement of minority and 
        disadvantaged individuals in the process; and

          Expanded 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 2). 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 Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology on May 26, 2011 (H. Rept. 112-90, Part I). On 
July 1, 2011 the Committee on Small Business reported the bill 
to the House (H. Rept. 112-90, Part II) and the Committee on 
Armed Services discharged. H.R. 1425 was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 85. No further action was taken on H.R. 
1425
    On December 1, 2011 the Senate laid before it H.R. 1540, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
struck all after the enacting clause and substituted the 
language of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, as amended. The Senate insisted on its 
amendment and asked for a conference, including in the Senate 
amendment, as passed, as Division E, the text of S 493, the 
SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011.
    On December 7, 2011 the House moved without objection to 
disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to a conference. The 
Speaker appointed conferees, naming Messrs. Hall, Quayle and 
Ms. Johnson, for the consideration of sections 911 and 1098 of 
the House bill, and sections 885, 911, 912, and Division E of 
the Senate amendment (SBIR/STTR) and modifications committed to 
conference.
    On December 12, 2011 the conference report (112-329), 
including conferenced language reauthorizing SBIR/STTR was 
filed. The House considered the conference report, subject to a 
rule (H. Res. 493) on December 14, 2011, and the report passed 
by: Y-283, N-136 (Roll Call No. 932). The Senate considered the 
conference report on December 15, 2011 and the conference 
report passed the Senate on December 15, 2011, by: Y-786, N-13 
(Record Vote No. 230). The bill was signed into law by the 
President on December XX, 2011, and became Public Law 112-XX.

             JUNE 22, 2011--FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING

    The Committee met to adopt the First Semiannual Report of 
Activities of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
for the 112th Congress. The Report was adopted and reported to 
the House by voice vote.

JULY 21, 2011--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 2096, THE CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2011


Background and Need

    The purpose of H.R. 2096 is to improve cybersecurity in the 
Federal, private, and public sectors through: coordination and 
prioritization of federal cybersecurity research and 
development activities; strengthening of the cybersecurity 
workforce; coordination of Federal agency engagement in 
international cybersecurity technical standards development; 
and the reauthorization of cybersecurity related programs at 
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    According to the Office of Management and Budget, Federal 
agencies spent $8.6 billion in FY 2010 on cybersecurity, and 
the Federal government has spent more than $600 billion on 
information technology in the last decade. In addition, the 
Federal government funds nearly $400 million in cybersecurity 
research and development each year.
    In January 2008, the Bush Administration established, 
through a series of classified executive directives, the 
Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). The 
Obama Administration continued this initiative, with the goal 
of securing Federal systems and fostering public-private 
cooperation. In February 2009, the Obama Administration called 
for a 60-day review of the national cybersecurity strategy. The 
President's review required the development of a framework that 
would ensure that the CNCI was adequately funded, integrated, 
and coordinated among Federal agencies, the private sector, and 
state and local authorities.
    On May 29, 2009, the Obama Administration released its 
Cyberspace Policy Review. The Review recommended an increased 
level of interagency cooperation among all departments and 
agencies, highlighted the need for information sharing 
concerning attacks and vulnerabilities, and highlighted the 
need for an exchange of research and security strategies 
essential to the efficient and effective defense of Federal 
computer systems. Furthermore, it stressed the importance of 
advancing cybersecurity research and development, and the need 
for the Federal Government to partner with the private sector 
to guarantee a secure and reliable infrastructure. The Review 
also called for increased public awareness, improved education 
and expansion of the number of information technology 
professionals.
    In June 2009, GAO found that the Federal agencies 
responsible for protecting the U.S. Information Technology (IT) 
infrastructure were not satisfying their responsibilities, 
leaving the Nation's IT infrastructure vulnerable to attack. In 
an effort to strengthen the work of those Federal agencies, the 
U.S. House of Representatives passed the Cybersecurity 
Enhancement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4061) in the 111th Congress by a 
vote of 422-5.
    H.R. 4061 required increased coordination and 
prioritization of Federal cybersecurity research and 
development activities, and the development and advancement of 
cybersecurity technical standards. It also strengthened 
cybersecurity education and talent development and industry 
partnership initiatives. The Senate did not act on the 
legislation.
    The task of coordinating unclassified cybersecurity 
research and development (R&D) lies with the Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) 
program, which was originally authorized in statute by the 
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194). The 
NITRD program, which consists of 15 Federal agencies, 
coordinates a broad spectrum of R&D activities related to 
information technology. It also includes an interagency working 
group and program component area focused specifically on 
cybersecurity and information R&D. However, many expert panels, 
including the President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology, have argued that the portfolio of Federal 
investments in cybersecurity R&D is not properly balanced and 
is focused on short-term reactive technologies at the expense 
of long-term, fundamental R&D.
    With a budget of $127 million for FY 2010, NSF is the 
principal agency supporting unclassified cybersecurity R&D and 
education. NSF's cybersecurity research activities are 
primarily funded through the Directorate for Computer & 
Information Science & Engineering (CISE). CISE supports 
cybersecurity R&D through a targeted program, Trustworthy 
Computing, as well as through a number of its core activities 
in Computer Systems Research, Computing Research 
Infrastructure, and Network and Science Engineering. In 
addition to its basic research activities, NSF's Directorate 
for Education & Human Resources (EHR) manages the Scholarship 
for Service program which provides funding to colleges and 
universities for the award of 2-year scholarships in 
information assurance and computer security fields.
    NIST is tasked with protecting the federal information 
technology network by developing and promulgating cybersecurity 
standards for federal non-classified network systems (Federal 
Information Processing Standards [FIPS]), identifying methods 
for assessing effectiveness of security requirements, 
conducting tests to validate security in information systems, 
and conducting outreach exercises. Experts have stated that 
NIST's technical standards and best practices are too highly 
technical for general public use, and making this information 
more usable to average computer users with less technical 
expertise will help raise the base level of cybersecurity 
knowledge among individuals, business, education, and 
government.
    Currently, the United States is represented on 
international bodies dealing with cybersecurity by an array of 
organizations, including the Department of State, Department of 
Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and the United 
States Trade Representative without a coordinated and 
comprehensive strategy or plan. The Cyberspace Policy Review 
called for a comprehensive international cybersecurity strategy 
that defines what cybersecurity standards we need, where they 
are being developed, and ensures that the United States Federal 
government has agency representation for each. Recognizing that 
private sector standards development organizations also are 
engaged in international standards work, in some scenarios a 
nonfederal entity may be best equipped to represent United 
States interests, and coordination is necessary.
    In the 107th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee 
developed the Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 
107-305). The bill created new programs and expanded existing 
programs at NSF and NIST for computer and network security. The 
authorizations established under the Cyber Security Research 
and Development Act expired in fiscal year 2007.

Legislative History

    On June 2, 2011 Representative Michael T. McCaul (R-TX) for 
himself and Representative Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) introduced 
H.R. 2096, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2011. H.R. 2096 
was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. On July 21, 2011, the full Committee met in open 
markup session to consider the bill and ordered H.R. 2096 
favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology reported 
H.R. 2096, as amended, to the House on October 31, 2011 (H. 
Rept. 112-264) and it was placed on the Union Calendar (Union 
Calendar No. 177).

                JULY 28, 2011--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 2484,


             THE HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH


                   AND CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011


Background and Need

    The purpose of H.R. 2484 is to reauthorize the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to 
include a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address 
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; to provide for the 
development and implementation of a comprehensive research plan 
and action strategy to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
    A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is a bloom, or rapid 
overproduction of algal cells, that produces toxins, which are 
detrimental to plants and animals. These outbreaks are commonly 
referred to as ``red'' or ``brown'' tides. Blooms can kill fish 
and other aquatic life by decreasing sunlight available to the 
water and by depleting the available oxygen in the water, 
causing hypoxia. The produced toxins accumulate in shellfish, 
fish, or through the accumulation of biomass that affect other 
organisms and alter food webs. In recent years, many of the 
nation's coastlines, near shore marine waters, and freshwaters 
have experienced an increase in the number, frequency, 
duration, and type of HABs.
    Harmful algal blooms are one of the most scientifically 
complex and economically significant coastal management issues 
facing the nation. In the past, only a few regions of the 
United States were affected by HABs, but now almost all states 
have reported blooms. In severe cases, these phenomena can have 
serious environmental, economic, and human health impacts.
    In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA, Public Law 105-83), 
which established an Interagency Task Force to develop a 
national HABs assessment and authorized funding for existing 
and new research programs on HABs. Funding supported the 
development of a national scientific research, development, 
demonstration, and technology transfer program at the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that focused on 
HABs and included the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal 
Blooms (ECOHAB) program and the Monitoring and Event Response 
for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. The program at NOAA 
involves federal, state, and academic partners and supports 
interdisciplinary extramural research studies to address the 
issues of HABs in an ecosystem context.
    In 2004, HABHRCA was reauthorized in Public Law 108-456. 
The reauthorized Act required assessments of HABs in different 
coastal regions and in the Great Lakes and included plans to 
expand research to address the impacts of HABs. The law also 
authorized research, education, and monitoring activities 
related to the prevention, reduction, and control of harmful 
algal blooms and hypoxia and reconstituted the Interagency Task 
Force on HABs and Hypoxia.
    The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce 
several reports and assessments, which have since been 
completed, including:

          The Prediction and Response Report (September 
        2007) addressed both the state of research and methods 
        for HAB prediction and response, especially at the 
        federal level.

          The 2008 National Scientific Research, 
        Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer 
        Plan for Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms 
        (RDDTT Plan) established research priorities to develop 
        and demonstrate prevention, control and mitigation 
        methods to advance current prediction and response 
        capabilities.

          The Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful 
        Algal Blooms (December 2008) described the state of the 
        science with respect to: understanding HABs causes and 
        controls and developing predictive models; developing 
        detection methods for cells and toxins; characterizing 
        toxins and impacts; HAB impacts on food webs and 
        fisheries; and assessing public health, economic and 
        socio-cultural impacts.

          The 2008 Scientific Assessment of Freshwater 
        Harmful Algal Blooms released in 2008 described the 
        state of the knowledge of HABs in U.S inland and 
        freshwaters and presented a plan to advance research 
        and reduce the impacts on humans and the environment.

          The Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia in U.S. 
        Coastal Waters (September 2010) assessed the prevalence 
        of low-oxygen ``dead-zones'', or hypoxic zones, in U.S. 
        coastal waters and outlined a series of research steps 
        needed to address these occurrences.

    Additionally, the 2004 reauthorization directed NOAA, in 
coordination with the Task Force, to conduct local and regional 
scientific assessments if requested by state, tribal, or local 
governments or for affected areas identified by NOAA. Funding 
was also authorized for ongoing and new programs and activities 
such as: competitive, peer-reviewed research through the ECOHAB 
program; freshwater harmful algal bloom research added to the 
research priorities of ECOHAB; a competitive, peer-reviewed 
research program on management measures to prevent, reduce, 
control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms supported by the 
MERHAB program, and; activities related to research and 
monitoring of hypoxia supported by the Northern Gulf of Mexico 
program and Coastal Hypoxia Research Program.
    The 2004 HABHRCA authorized funds to conduct research and 
reduce HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine waters, estuaries and 
the Great Lakes. In its role as a task force participant, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signed Memorandums of 
Understanding to fund competitive research into the occurrence 
of HABs in these areas. However, since the completion of the 
freshwater report in 2008, EPA has ceased participation in 
HABHRCA for freshwater HAB research and mitigation activities. 
As a result, although EPA oversees a wide array of programs 
specifically designed to protect and preserve freshwater 
sources and the coastal and marine waters of the United States, 
including watershed protection programs and an array of 
regulatory programs, the agency currently has no research and 
development effort that directly addresses freshwater harmful 
algal blooms.
    EPA and NOAA work together to lead a Federal Workgroup of 
thirteen federal agencies committed to supporting the Gulf of 
Mexico Alliance, a partnership formed by the five Gulf State 
Governors. In addition, EPA is also the lead agency of the 
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
    The 2004 HABHRCA reauthorization expired in 2008, however, 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) 
provided an authorization of appropriations through FY 2010. 
H.R. 2484 would reauthorize the Act with the primary goal of 
H.R. 2484 being advancing the body of knowledge of HABs and 
hypoxia to begin to enable development of solutions for 
communities affected by these events. By requiring greater 
Interagency Task Force involvement and a Comprehensive Research 
Plan and Action Strategy, H.R. 2484 seeks to coordinate efforts 
across the Federal government. Although there have been long-
term strategies in place attempting to mitigate the occurrence 
of HABs, such strategies take years, even decades, to bear 
fruit. In the meantime, States and communities are dealing with 
increasing occurrences of HABs and hypoxia, indicating a 
greater need for near-term solutions.
    Accordingly, H.R. 2484 shifts the focus of the current 
program to technological research, development, and 
demonstration, encouraging a move toward finding such near-term 
solutions through technological innovation.

Legislative History

    On July 11, 2011 Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) 
introduced, H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. H.R. 2484 was 
referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and 
in addition the Committee on Natural Resources. On July 14, 
2011 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider 
H.R. 2484 and ordered it favorably forwarded to the Full 
Committee, as amended, by voice vote. On July 28, 2011 the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met in open markup 
session and ordered H.R. 2484, favorably reported to the House, 
as amended, by a record vote of 20 Yeas to 15 Nays. The bill 
was reported to the House by Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology on December 2011 (H. Rept. 112-333, Part I).

   DECEMBER 1, 2011--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 3479, NATURAL HAZARDS RISK 
                         REDUCTION ACT OF 2011


Background and Need

    Congress created the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program (NEHRP) in 1977 with the passage of the Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Act (P.L 95-124). Created largely in response 
to the 1964 Alaska Earthquake and the San Fernando Earthquake 
of 1971, the original program called on 10 federal agencies to 
coordinate research and development activities to implement an 
earthquake prediction system; develop design and construction 
methods for earthquake resilience; identify seismic hazards, 
and make model building code and land-use recommendations; 
increase the understanding of earthquake risks; and educate the 
public about earthquakes. The 1980 reauthorization of the 
program designated the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) as the lead agency.
    The 2004 reauthorization of NEHRP (P.L 108-360) changed the 
lead agency from FEMA to the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST). This change reflected concern that FEMA, 
newly located in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was 
focused on broader threats, rather than national hazard 
mitigation. In addition, the legislation established an 
Interagency Coordinating Committee composed of the directors of 
NIST, FEMA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United 
States Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). To ensure coordination, the Interagency Committee 
was required to meet annually and to develop a strategic plan 
and coordinated inter-agency budget.
    Over the past 30 years, NEHRP activities have been 
instrumental in research and development to advance earthquake 
knowledge, establish seismic model building codes, and raise 
the awareness of officials and the general public about 
earthquake hazards.

            THE NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM

    The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) was 
established in the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 
2004. The legislation directed the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NIST, NSF, and FEMA to 
support activities to improve the understanding of windstorms 
and their impacts, and to develop and encourage the 
implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce 
these impacts. The program was authorized for three years 
through FY 2008.
    OSTP submitted a NWIRP implementation plan in April 2006, 
which assessed programs relevant to the goals of NWIRP across 
eight federal agencies and identified important areas of 
research that were not covered by current activities. The 
knowledge gaps identified in the implementation plan covered 
the three broad categories of research authorized in the 
original NWIRP Act: understanding windstorms; assessing the 
impacts of windstorms; and mitigating against the effects of 
windstorms. The implementation plan also recommended a 
continued role for an Interagency Working Group within the 
National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on 
Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Disaster 
Reduction.
    The legislation defines NEHRP and NWIRP activities, 
including research and development to reduce the risk of 
hazards to the built environment; identifies the agencies that 
make up the programs; assigns responsibilities to the agencies; 
and authorizes funding for the programs from FY 2012 through FY 
2014.

Legislative History

    On November 18, 2011 Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) 
introduced the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. H.R. 
3479 was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology and in addition to the Committees on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and Natural Resources. H.R. 3479 contained 
the text of H.R. 3272, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Act Reauthorization of 2011 as introduced by Representative 
Neugebauer (R-TX).
    On November 15, 2011 the Subcommittee on Technology and 
Innovation met to consider the Committee Print of the Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 and ordered it favorably 
forwarded to the Full Committee, as amended, by a record vote 
of 10 Yeas to 4 Nays. On November 18, 2011 Representative 
Biggert introduced the Committee Print, as amended, (becoming 
H.R. 3479). On December 1, 2011 the Full Committee met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 3479, favorably reported to the 
House, as amended, by a record vote of 21 Yeas to 12 Nays.

                             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

    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 harmful 
interference of communication systems with Global Positioning 
Systems devices needed by the Department of Defense (Section 
911 of H.R. 1540 as reported), 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). The Senate amendment to H.R. 1540 proposed a number 
of provisions that the Committee had jurisdiction over 
including: Extension and Expansion of Small Business Programs 
of the Department of Defense (Section 885 of the Senate 
amendment), Commercial Space Launch Cooperation (Section 911 of 
the Senate amendment), Authority to Designate Increments or 
Blocks of Space Vehicles As Major Subprograms Subject to 
Acquisition Reporting Requirements (Section 912 of the Senate 
amendment), and Reauthorization of SBIR and STTR programs 
(Division E of the Senate amendment).
    Section 911 of the House bill restricts the ability of the 
Federal Communications Commission to permit operations of a 
space-based or terrestrial based communications system that may 
interfere with the Global Positioning Systems devices needed by 
the Department of Defense. NASA works in conjunction with the 
Department of Defense to operate satellite systems and maintain 
its GPS capabilities. Section 1096 requires the President to 
prepare and transmit a national rocket propulsion strategy for 
the United States to address the effects of the end of the 
space shuttle program and the termination of the Constellation 
program on multiple departments and agencies that rely on the 
solid rocket motor and liquid rocket engine industrial base. 
Section 1098 provides for the development and testing of 
unmanned aircraft systems through an FAA program utilizing six 
test ranges to test the safe operations and develop detection 
techniques for unmanned flight operations in the national 
airspace system and develop certification standards and air 
traffic requirements for unmanned flight operations at those 
ranges. Section 885 and Division E of the Senate amendment 
would alter current law with regard to the Small Business 
Innovation Research program (SBIR) and the Small Business 
Technology Transfer (STTR) program. Section 911 of the Senate 
amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to assist the 
Secretary of Transportation in carrying out the 
responsibilities set forth in Titles 49 (Transportation) and 51 
(National and Commercial Space Programs) with respect to 
private sector involvement in commercial space activities and 
public-private partnerships pertaining to space transportation 
infrastructure. Section 912 amends the acquisition reporting 
under Title 10 with regard to the purchase of space vehicles.

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. 1540 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2011 and 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On December 1, 
2011 the Committee on Armed Services was discharged and a 
substitute amendment to H.R. 1540 was considered and passed in 
the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its 
amendment, asked for a conference, and appointed conferees.
    A message on Senate action was sent to the House on 
December 5, 2011. On December 7, 2011 Chairman McKeon moved 
that the House disagree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1540 
and agree to a conference. The motion was agreed to without 
objection. From the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, the Speaker appointed conferees, Chairman Ralph 
Hall, Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Ben 
Quayle, and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, for 
consideration of sections 911 and 1098 of the House bill, and 
sections 885, 911, 912 and Division E of the Senate amendment, 
and modifications committed to conference.
    On December 12, 2011 the conference report (112-239) was 
filed. The House considered the conference report, subject to a 
rule (H. Res. 493) on December 14, 2011, and the report passed 
by: Y-283, N-136 (Roll Call No. 932). The Senate considered the 
conference report on December 15, 2011 and the conference 
report passed the Senate on December 15, 2011, by: Y-86, N-13 
(Record Vote No. 230) The bill was signed into law by the 
President on December XX, 2011, and became Public Law 112-XX.

                  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 Technology 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. On June 21, 2011, Chairman Lungren 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 672, and the 
motion failed by a vote of Y-235, N-187.

           H.R. 1309, THE FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2011


Background and Summary

    H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act, reauthorizes the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through September 30, 
2016, and amends the National Flood Insurance Act to address 
fiscal and administrative issues of the NFIP. The bill includes 
provisions to ensure the continued viability of the NFIP 
through encouraging broader participation in the program, 
increasing financial accountability, eliminating unnecessary 
rate subsidies, and updating the program to meet current needs. 
The key provisions of the bill include: 1) a five year 
reauthorization of the NFIP; 2) a three-year delay in the 
mandatory purchase requirement for certain properties in newly 
designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHS); 3) a phase-in of 
full-risk, actuarial rates for areas newly designated as 
Special Flood Hazard; 4) a reinstatement of the Technical 
Mapping Advisory Council; and 5) an emphasis on greater private 
sector participation in providing flood insurance coverage.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1309 was introduced by Representative Judy Biggert (R-
IL) on April 1, 2011 and referred to the House Committee on 
Financial Services. The Committee on Financial Services met to 
consider the bill, H.R. 1309, on May 13, 2011 and ordered the 
bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a vote of 
Y-54, N-0.
    On June 2, 2011, Chairman Hall of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology and Chairman Bachus of the Committee on 
Financial Services exchanged correspondence. Chairman Bachus 
acknowledged the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology in the bill, H.R. 1309, as 
amended and Chairman Hall agreed to waive a referral of the 
bill.
    On June 9, 2011, the bill was reported to the House, as 
amended, by the Committee on Financial Services (H. Rept. 112-
102). The House considered and passed H.R. 1309 on July 12, 
2011 by a vote of Y-406, N-22 (Roll Call No. 562). H.R. 1309 
was received in the Senate on July 27, 2011 and refereed to 
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

  P.L. 112-55, THE CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2012


Background and Summary

    P.L. 112-55 makes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012. The law 
appropriated funds for certain Federal government agencies for 
fiscal year 2012, including agencies within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The law 
includes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and 
made continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    NASA activities are funded in the law at $17.8 billion, a 
slight decrease from FY 2011. Laboratory research activities at 
NIST receive a $60 million increase above the FY 2011 levels, 
but overall funding at NIST is only slightly increased. The 
overall budget for NOAA increased by $306 million, or seven 
percent above FY 2011 levels; most of this increase is 
allocated for the National Weather Service and the Joint Polar 
Satellite System weather satellite program. The NSF is funded 
at $7 billion, which represents a modest increase of $173 
million over FY 2011, with an emphasis on funding for basic 
research activities. The OSTP is funded at $4.5 million under 
the law. The law represents a prioritization of spending for 
programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee. While the 
law cut overall discretionary spending, it prioritizes basic 
research activities at NIST and NSF and minimized cuts to NASA. 
Additionally, the law specifically does not allocate spending 
for the establishment of a National Climate Service at NOAA as 
proposed by the Senate.

Legislative History

    On June 3, 2011, Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) 
introduced H.R. 2112, which was reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations and included appropriations for Commerce, 
Justice, Science and Related Agencies.
    On June 14th, 15th, and 16th, the House of Representatives 
considered the bill, H.R. 2112. The bill passed the House of 
Representatives on June 16, 2011 by a vote of Y-217, N-203 
(Roll Call No. 459). H.R. 2112 was received in the Senate on 
June 16, 2011, and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations. The bill was considered and passed by the 
Senate with an amendment on November 1, 2011 by a vote of Y-69, 
N-30.
    On November 2, 2011 a message on Senate action was sent to 
the House of Representatives. On November 3, 2011 Chairman 
Rogers (R-KY) moved that the House disagree to the Senate 
amendments and request a conference, which was agreed to by 
unanimous consent. On November 14, 2011, the conferees agreed 
to file a conference report. The House of Representatives 
agreed to the conference report on November 17, 2011 by a vote 
of Y-298, N-121. The Senate agreed to the conference report on 
November 17, 2011 by a vote of Y-70, N-30. On November 18, 
2011, the President signed the bill, which became P.L. 112-55.

             H.R. 3463, TO REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE


               DEFICIT BY TERMINATING TAXPAYER FINANCING


              OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PARTY


              CONVENTIONS AND BY TERMINATING THE ELECTION


                         ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Background and Summary of Legislation

    The bill would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign 
Fund (PECF), terminate public financing of presidential 
campaigns, and return PECF funds to the general treasury for 
deficit reduction. In addition, the bill would terminate the 
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and transfer its remaining 
operations to the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Federal Election Commission. Eliminating the PECF would 
immediately return $199 million to the public treasury for 
deficit reduction and would save taxpayers $447 million over 
five years.

Legislative History

    On November 17, 2011, Representative Gregg Harper (R-MS) 
introduced H.R. 3463, which was referred to the Committee on 
House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 
and Means. H.R. 3463 was similar to H.R. 672, which was 
introduced earlier in the 112th Congress and failed to pass the 
House under a motion to suspend the rules. H.R. 672 was 
referred to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology 
Committee. In correspondence between Chairman Lungren of the 
Committee on House Administration and Chairman Hall of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Chairman Lungren 
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Committee over H.R. 3463 
and Chairman Hall agreed to waive referral of the bill.
    On December 1, 2011, H.R. 3463 was considered under a rule 
(H. Res. 477) allowing for one hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled. Mr. Bishop (GA) moved to recommit with 
instructions to House Administration, which failed by a vote of 
Y-190, N-236 (Roll Call No. 872). H.R. 3463 passed by a record 
vote: Y-235, N-190 (Roll Call No. 873). On December 5, 2011, 
the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.

              H.R. 2105, THE IRAN, NORTH KOREA, AND SYRIA


               NONPROLIFERATION REFORM AND MODERNIZATION


                              ACT OF 2011


Background and Summary of Legislation

    H.R. 2105 provides for the application of measures to 
foreign persons who transfer to Iran, North Korea, and Syria 
certain goods, services, or technology. The legislation is 
intended to address the growing threats and compel the Iranian, 
North Korean, and Syrian regimes into abandoning destructive 
policies.
    The legislation is aimed at expanding and strengthening 
existing sanctions on Iran and Syria and ensuring their full 
implementation and enforcement by the Executive Branch. H.R. 
2105 attempts to compel Iran, North Korea, and Syria to stop 
activities that threaten our security, our interests, and our 
allies.
    The legislation provides an integrated, cohesive strategy 
with the goal of preventing Iran, North Korea and Syria's 
development of nuclear and other non-conventional weapons and 
the missiles to deliver them and their sponsorship of terrorism 
and other activities that threaten Americans.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2105 was introduced on June 3, 2011, and referred to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 
Committees on Oversight and Government Reform; Judiciary; Ways 
and Means; Science, Space, and Technology; Financial Services; 
and Transportation and Infrastructure.
    The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs discharged the bill on 
November 2, 2011. The full Committee on Foreign Affairs met to 
consider the bill on November 2, 2011 and ordered the bill 
favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On November 10, 2011, Chairman Hall of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology and Chairman Ros-Lehtinen of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs exchanged correspondence.
    Chairman Ros-Lehtinen acknowledged the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology over provisions of 
H.R. 2105 and Chairman Hall waived further consideration of the 
bill. On December 14, 2011, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 2105 by a vote of Y-418, N-2 (Roll Call No. 928). 
On December 14, 2011 received in the Senate and refereed to 
Committee on Foreign Affairs.

H.R. 2845, THE PIPELINE SAFETY, REGULATORY CERTAINTY, AND JOB CREATION 
                              ACT OF 2011


Background and Summary of Legislation

    H.R. 2845 reauthorizes the federal pipeline safety programs 
administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration (PHMSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(USDOT) for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. H.R. 2845 provides 
for enhanced safety in pipeline transportation and provides for 
enhanced reliability in the transportation of the Nation's 
energy products by pipeline. The bill ensures regulatory 
certainty which will help create a positive environment for job 
development.
    The federal pipeline safety programs were last authorized 
under the Pipeline, Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and 
Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-468), a four year authorization 
for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. The federal pipeline safety 
programs expired on September 30, 2010. The bill increases the 
maximum amount of civil penalties the U.S. can seek from 
pipeline owners or operators who violate pipeline safety rules 
and regulations. H.R. 2845 requires states to eliminate most 
exemptions to their ``Call Before You Dig'' programs in order 
to receive federal grant funding. The bill allows the Secretary 
to issue a rulemaking requiring the installation of automatic 
and remote-controlled shutoff valves on newly constructed 
transmission pipelines but does not require operators to 
retrofit existing pipelines.
    H.R. 2845 requires the Secretary to study expanding 
pipeline integrity management requirements and leak detection 
systems, providing Congress the final say in whether or not the 
requirements should be expanded or the leak detection systems 
should be installed. Further, the bill requires USDOT and 
pipeline operators to provide information to first responders 
on the location of pipelines in their jurisdiction. USDOT is to 
review regulations regarding accident reporting requirements 
for pipeline operators.
    H.R. 2845 authorizes funding for several pipeline safety 
programs including pipeline safety research and development.
    The bill provides a continued roll for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology in the development of 
ongoing research and development program plans as well as 
providing for a program-wide thirty percent non-Federal cost 
sharing requirement in the area of pipeline transportation 
research and development.

Legislative History

    On September 7, 2011 Representatives Bill Shuster (R-PA) 
and John Mica (R-FL) introduced H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, 
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. H.R. 2845 
was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. On September 8, 2011 the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure met and favorably reported H.R. 2845, as 
amended, by voice vote to the House. In an exchange, 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Mica 
acknowledged the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology in H.R. 2845. Chairman Hall 
agreed to waive a referral.
    On February 3, 2011 Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S. 
275, the Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 
2011. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On July 7, 2011, the 
Committee met and reported the bill with an amendment and it 
was placed on the Senate Calendar.
    On October 17, 2011 the Senate agreed to the Committee 
substitute by unanimous consent and sent a message to the 
House. On October 21, 2011 S. 275 was received in the House and 
held at the desk. On December 1, 2011 the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 2845 (H. Rept. 
112-297, Part I) and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
discharged. H.R. 2845 was placed on the Union Calendar 
(Calendar No. 197). On December 12, 2011 the House suspended 
the rules and passed H.R. 2845, as amended, by a voice. On 
December 13, 2011 the bill was received in the Senate and 
passed by unanimous consent.

     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.

     June 16, 2011_STEM Education in Action: Learning Today . . . 
              Leading Tomorrow (Hearing Volume No. 112-26)

    On Thursday, June 16, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to 
highlight Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) 
education activities across the Nation, their role in inspiring 
and educating future generations, and their contribution to our 
future's economic prosperity.
    The first hearing, STEM Education in Action: Learning Today 
. . . Leading Tomorrow, showcased the finalists, parents, 
teachers, and mentors of the ExploraVision Awards National 
Competition, sponsored by Toshiba and the National Science 
Teachers Association.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Karen Lorenzo, 
parent to Pablo Lorenzo; Ms. Brenda Conwell-Dudley, parent and 
teacher mentor to Jack Dudley; Ms. Amy Attard, teacher and team 
mentor to Claudia Cooper; and Ms. Anne Manwell, teacher and 
mentor to Alison Reed.

      June 22, 2011_First Semiannual Report of Activities of the 
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (Business Meeting, 
                         House Report 112-112)

    On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 the Committee held a business 
meeting to approve the adoption of the first semiannual report 
of activities of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. The Committee adopted the first semiannual report 
by voice vote and favorably reported it to the House for filing 
by the Chairman. The report filed on June 22, 2011 became House 
Report 112-112.

        June 22, 2011_Examining NOAA's Climate Service Proposal 
                      (Hearing Volume No. 112-27)

    On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 the Committee held a hearing to 
review the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request 
proposal to reorganize NOAA to create a climate service. The 
Administration's objective for this new line office is to bring 
together NOAA's existing climate capabilities under a single 
entity to more efficiently and effectively respond to demands 
for climate services.
    The Committee received testimony from Dr. Jane Lubchenco, 
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
and Dr. Robert Winokur, Deputy Oceanographer, Department of the 
Navy.

     July 12, 2011_A Review of NASA's Space Launch System (Hearing 
                           Volume No. 112-29)

    On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 the Committee held an oversight 
hearing to examine NASA's Space Launch System--the follow-on to 
the Space Shuttle--that was congressionally directed by the 
NASA Authorization Act of 2010 [P.L. 111-267]. NASA's Space 
Launch System decisions, due to Congress by January 9, 2011, 
have been repeatedly delayed but were expected by July 8, 2011. 
The hearing, originally intended to provide Members the 
opportunity to ask the Administration about the cost, schedule, 
capabilities, and justification for the final design, became, 
due to the Administration's continued delays, a forum for NASA 
to explain why it failed to reach a decision, what analyses 
still needed to be completed to reach a decision, and when the 
Administration would be forthcoming with the required 
decisions.
    The Committee received testimony from NASA Administrator, 
Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

     September 8, 2011_Impacts of LightSquared Network on Federal 
             Science Activities (Hearing Volume No. 112-33)

    On Thursday, September 8, 2011 the Committee held an 
oversight hearing to examine the concerns and issues associated 
with interference with the Global Positioning System (GPS) 
signal from the proposed LightSquared LLC terrestrial broadband 
network. The hearing was held in light of recent studies that 
indicated that the LightSquared network interference with GPS 
signals, and could potentially disrupt an array of Federal 
programs and scientific activities. Witnesses discussed 
LightSquared's business proposal, FCC's authorization of 
spectrum use, potential disruptions to industry and government, 
and costs of mitigating frequency interference.
    The committee received testimony from: Mr. Anthony Russo, 
Director, National Coordination Office for Positioning, 
Navigation and Timing; Ms. Mary Glackin, Deputy Under 
Secretary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. 
Victor Sparrow, Director, spectrum Policy, Space Communications 
and Navigation, Space Operations Mission Directorate, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration; The Honorable Peter 
Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovation Technology 
Administration, Department of Transportation; Dr. David 
Applegate, Associate Director, Natural Hazards, U.S. Geological 
Survey; Mr. Jeffrey Carlisle, Executive Vice President, 
Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy, LightSquared; Dr. Scott 
Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington 
University.

     September 13, 2011_STEM in Action: Inspiring the Science and 
     Engineering Workforce of Tomorrow (Hearing Volume No. 112-34)

    On Tuesday September 13, 2011, the Committee held a hearing 
to highlight Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 
education activities across the Nation, their role in inspiring 
and educating future generations, and their contribution to our 
future's economic prosperity.
    The second hearing, STEM Education in Action: Inspiring the 
Science and Engineering Workforce of Tomorrow, showcased a 
variety of public/private partnerships and initiatives that are 
successfully inspiring the future STEM workforce.
    The Committee received testimony from: Mr. Tony Norman, VEX 
Robotics, Inc., Innovation First International, Inc.; Mrs. 
Nancy Conrad, Chairman, the Conrad Foundation; Mr. Michael 
Gallager, Entertainment Software Association.

       September 15, 2011_Out of Thin Air: EPA's Cross-State Air 
               Pollution Rule (Hearing Volume No. 112-35)

    On Thursday, September 15, 2011 the Committee held a 
hearing to review the scientific, procedural, and technical 
basis of the Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule, including a discussion of the economic, 
employment, and electric reliability impacts. The Committee 
received testimony from Dr. Bryan Shaw, Chairman, Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); Mr. Gregory Stella, 
Senior Scientist, Alpine Geophysics, LLC; Mr. Barry Smitherman, 
Commissioner, Texas Railroad Commission; Mr. Wayne E. Penrod, 
Executive Manager, Environmental Policy, Sunflower Electric 
Corporation; Mr. Chip Merriam, Chief Legislative & Regulatory 
Compliance Officer, Orlando Utilities Commission; and The 
Honorable Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

     September 22, 2011_NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and 
     Future: Where Do We Go From Here? (Hearing Volume No. 112-38)

    On Thursday, September 22, 2011 the Committee held a 
hearing to examine the strategic goals and priorities of 
America's human space exploration program, the importance of 
space access and demonstrated leadership among space-faring 
nations, the inspirational role of human and robotic space 
exploration, and the role of the Space Launch System and 
Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and a healthy industrial base in 
achieving those goals.
    The hearing drew upon our Nation's long history of space 
exploration to help frame the challenges confronting our 
present human spaceflight position and explore a path forward.
    The Committee received testimony from Mr. Neil Armstrong, 
Commander, Apollo 11; Captain Eugene A. Cernan USN (ret.), 
Commander Apollo 17; Dr. Maria Zuber, E.A. Griswold Professor 
of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric 
and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
and Dr. Michael Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor, 
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Alabama, 
Huntsville.

       September 26, 2011_STEM Education in Action: Communities 
      Preparing for Jobs of the Future (Hearing Volume No. 112-40)

    On Monday, September 26, 2011 the Committee held a field 
hearing in Texarkana, Texas the third in a series of hearings 
to highlight Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 
education activities across the Nation, their role in inspiring 
and educating future generations, and their contribution to our 
future economic prosperity. The purpose of the hearing was to 
highlight the role of community colleges, specifically the 
importance of their partnerships and contributions to the local 
economy, workforce, and other aspects of the community.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Cora Marrett, 
Deputy Director, National Science Foundation, Mr. James Henry 
Russell, President, Texarkana College, Dr. Brad Johnson, 
President, Northeast Texas Community College, Dr. C.B. 
Rathburn, President, Texas A&M University--Texarkana, Ms. Pam 
Kennedy, Vice President of Human Resources, CHRISTUS St. 
Michael Health System, Mr. Myron Barnett, Human Resource 
Manager, International Paper, and Mr. Denis Washington, 
Chairman, TexAmericas.

     October 26, 2011_NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program: 
       Accomplishments and Challenges (Hearing Volume No. 112-46)

    On Wednesday, October 26, 2011, the Committee held an 
oversight hearing to examine NASA's Commercial Crew Program 
(CCP) office, focusing on accomplishments achieved by the 
agency and industry following two rounds of grant awards 
totaling $320 million (aggregate of FY10 & FY11), and the 
biggest programmatic and technical challenges remaining. 
Speaking about challenges ahead, industry witnesses and NASA 
officials highlighted the uncertainty of Congress' willingness 
to provide full funding for CCP over the next five years. Many 
Committee Members asked questions of the witnesses about the 
size of the commercial markets (i.e., spaceflight participants 
exclusive of NASA-sponsored astronauts, such as space tourists 
and/or astronauts from countries having no indigenous space 
industry).
    The Committee received testimony from Mr. John Elbon, Vice 
President and General Manager for Space Exploration, the Boeing 
Company; Mr. Steve Lindsey, Director of Space Exploration for 
the Sierra Nevada Corporation; Mr. Elon Musk, CEO and Chief 
Technology Officer, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. 
(SpaceX); Mr. Charlie Precourt, Vice President, ATK Launch 
Systems Group; Dr. George Sowers, Vice President, United Launch 
Alliance; the Honorable Paul Martin, Inspector General of NASA; 
and Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human 
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA.

      December 6, 2011_The Next Great Observatory: Assessing the 
         James Webb Space Telescope (Hearing Volume No. 112-55)

    On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, the Committee held an 
oversight hearing to examine NASA's management and re-plan of 
the James Webb Space Telescope.
    In 2001, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was ranked 
as the highest priority large space mission in astronomy by the 
National Academies of Science in their decadal survey Astronomy 
and Astrophysics in the New Millennium. Originally estimated by 
the decadal committee to cost $1 billion and to be launched in 
2007, JWST was dubbed as the next Great Observatory that will 
be three times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope in 
the infrared and eight times more powerful than the Spitzer 
Space Telescope. However, after high-level scrutiny arising 
from years of program cost and schedule overruns, NASA recently 
developed a revised plan for JWST that -- if fully funded -- 
would enable completion and launch by October, 2018. The 
revised budget life cycle costs now total just over $8.8 
billion.
    The Committee received testimony from Mr. Rick Howard, NASA 
Program Manager of the James Webb Space Telescope; Dr. Roger 
Blandford, Professor of Physics, Stanford University and Former 
Chair, Committee for the Decadal Survey of Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, National Research Council; Dr. Garth Illingworth, 
Professor & Astronomer, UCO/Lick Observatory, University of 
California, Santa Cruz; and Mr. Jeffrey D. Grant, Sector Vice 
President & General Manager, Space Systems Division, Northrop 
Grumman Aerospace Systems.

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ACTIVITIES


  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.

    June 1, 2011_Harmful Algal Blooms: Action Plans for Scientific 
                 Solutions (Hearing Volume No. 112-21)

    On Wednesday, June 1, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a legislative hearing to examine harmful algal 
blooms (HABs) and hypoxia research and response needs to 
develop and implement action plans to monitor, prevent, 
mitigate, and control both marine and fresh water bloom and 
hypoxia events. The Subcommittee also asked witnesses to 
comment on draft legislation entitled ``the Harmful Algal 
Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 
2011.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Robert 
Magnien, Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean 
Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA); Dr. Richard Greene, Chief, Ecosystems Dynamics and 
Effects Branch, Gulf Ecology Division, Office of Research and 
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr. 
Donald Anderson, Senior Scientist and Director of the Coastal 
Ocean Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Dr. 
Kevin Sellner, Executive Director, Chesapeake Research 
Consortium; Dr. Stephanie Smith, Chief Scientist, Algaeventure 
Systems; and Dr. Beth McGee, Senior Water Quality Scientist, 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

    June 15, 2011_An Examination of DOE's Clean Technology Programs 
                      (Hearing Volume No. 112-25)

    On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2012 budget request for clean energy technologies and 
the relative prioritization therein. DOE manage a wide 
portfolio of activities related to the development of clean 
energy technologies. DOE's programs span the lifecycle of 
energy technology development, ranging from long-term basic 
research supported by the Basic Energy Sciences program at the 
Office of Science, through later-stage applied research, 
development, demonstration, and commercialization activities 
supported primarily by EERE, ARPA-E, and LPO.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Arun Majumdar, 
Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E), 
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Dr. Henry Kelly, Acting 
Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); and Mr. David Frantz, 
Director, Loan Guarantee Program Office, U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE).

              July 7, 2011_Hitting the Ethanol Blend Wall:

                 Examining the Science on E15 (Hearing

                           Volume No. 112-28)

    On Thursday July 7, 2011 the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the science and consequences of the use of E15. The hearing 
focused on examining the scientific and technical issues 
related to EPA's recent waiver decisions permitting mid-level 
ethanol blends of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline and 
receiving feedback on draft legislative language providing for 
a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical 
research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol 
blends.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Margo Oge, 
Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. 
EPA, Mr Bob Greco, group director for Downstream and Industry 
Operations, American Petroleum Institute, Ms. Heather White, 
Chief of Staff and General Counsel for the Environmental 
Working Group, Mr. Jeff Wasil, Emissions Certification Engineer 
for Evinrude Outboard Motors, Mr. Mike Brown, President of the 
National Chicken Council, Mr. W. Steven Burke, President and 
CEO of Biofuels Center of North Carolina, and Dr. Ron Sahu, 
Technical Consultant for Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

             July 14, 2011_Subcommittee Markup, H.R. 2484,

             The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research

                   and Control Amendments Act of 2011

    On Thursday, July 14, 2011 the Subcommittee met to consider 
H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Amendments Act of 2011. The Subcommittee favorably 
forwarded H.R. 2484 to the Full Committee as amended by voice 
vote.

                September 23, 2011_From NPOESS to JPSS:

                 An Update on the Nation's Restructured

                    Polar Weather Satellite Program.

        (JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING) (Hearing Volume No. 112-39)

    On Friday, September 23, 2011 the Subcommittees on 
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment met to 
examine the impact of the Administration's decision to 
restructure the National Polar-orbiting Operation Environmental 
Satellite System (NPOESS) and progress at NOAA and NASA in 
developing the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program as 
the replacement system for polar-orbiting civilian weather 
satellites and climate services.
    Witnesses discussed the cost, schedule, and performance 
capabilities associated with the new polar-orbiting weather 
satellite program.
    The Committee received testimony from: The Honorable 
Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D., Assisstant Secretary of Commerce for 
Environmental Observation and Prediction and Deputy 
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate Administrator, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration; Mr. David Powner, 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues, Government 
Accountability Office.

    October 4, 2011_Quality Science for Quality Air (Hearing Volume 
                              No. 112-41)

    On Tuesday, October 4, 2011 the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to examine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) process 
for setting standards under the Clean Air Act including: the 
role of scientific advice from the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC) and similar bodies; the economic 
underpinnings of EPA's Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs); and 
the assumptions, models, and data used in projecting 
compliance, technological standards necessary to achieve 
compliance and environmental benefits associated with proposed 
and finalized rules. With this examination the Subcommittee 
intended to gather preliminary information in preparation for 
reauthorizing the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Roger O. 
McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis; 
Dr. George Thurston, Professor, New York University School of 
Medicine; Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); Dr. Robert F. 
Phalen, Professor of Medicine and Co-Director, Air Pollution 
Effect Laboratory, University of California, Irvine; Dr. Anne 
E. Smith, Senior Vice President, NERA Economic Consulting; and 
Mr. J. Edward Cichanowicz, Consultant.

    October 13, 2011_Advancing Coal Research and Development for a 
            Secure Energy Future (Hearing Volume No. 112-45)

    On Thursday, October 13, 2011, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on to examine current Department of Energy (DOE) coal 
research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities and 
identify future coal RD&D opportunities and priorities.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Scott Klara, 
Deputy Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory; Ms. 
Janet Gellici, Chief Executive Officer, American Coal Council; 
Mr. Nick Atkins, President, American Electric Power; Mr. David 
Foerter, Executive Director, Institute of Clean Air Companies; 
and Mr. Stu Dalton, Senior Government Representative, Electric 
Power Research Institute (EPRI).

       October 27, 2011_Review of the Blue Ribbon Commission on 
         America's Nuclear Future Draft Recommendations (JOINT 
           SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING) (Hearing Volume No. 112-47)

    On Thursday, October 27, 2011, the Energy & Environment and 
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittees held a hearing to 
examine the recommendations contained in the Blue Ribbon 
Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) Draft Report to 
the Secretary of Energy. Additionally, the Subcommittees 
considered science and technology issues associated with spent 
nuclear fuel management.
    The Subcommittees received testimony from Mr. Jack Spencer, 
Research Fellow, Nuclear Energy Policy, Heritage Foundation; 
Dr. Peter Swift, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, 
Sandia National Laboratory; Dr. Roger Kasperson, Professor and 
Distinguished Scientist, Clark University; Mr. Gary Hollis, 
Chairman, Nye County Board of County Commissioners; Mr. Rick 
McLeod, Executive Director, Savannah River Site Community Reuse 
Organization; and Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy Laboratory Director 
for Programs, Argonne National Laboratory.

    November 2, 2011_Conflicts and Unintended Consequences of Motor 
               Fuel Standards (Hearing Volume No. 112-49)

    On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment held a hearing to examine motor fuel standards 
currently in place at the federal level and under consideration 
at the federal or state level; assess the scientific foundation 
for such standards; explore the inherent conflicts and 
unintended consequences of such standards; and question whether 
or not conflicts exist within the standards and the 
consequences of such effect the fungibility of, safe use of and 
affordability of the United States motor fuel supply.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Brendan 
Williams, Senior Director of Advocacy, National Petrochemical & 
Refiners Association; Dr. Ingrid Burke, Director, Haub School 
and Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, 
University of Wyoming, and Co-Chair, National Research Council 
Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increasing 
Biofuels Production; Ms. Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; Dr. Jay Kesan, Professor and H. Ross & Helen Workman 
Research Scholar and Program leader of the Biofuel Law & 
Regulation Program, Energy Biosciences Institute, University of 
Illinois College of Law; Mr. Bob Greco, Group Director, 
Downstream and Industry Operations, American Petroleum 
Institute; Mr. David Hilbert, Thermodynamic Development 
Engineer, Mercury Marine; and Mr. Jack Huttner, Executive Vice 
President of Commercial and Public Affairs, Gevo, Inc.

     November 17, 2011_Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Need 
          for Common Sense Reform (Hearing Volume No. 112-52)

    On Thursday, November 17, 2011, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing to review research and development activities at the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how such activities 
support EPA program needs; explore the transition of science 
from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to other 
program offices for use in developing and implementing 
regulations; examine the Science Advisory Board (SAB) process 
and how it contributes to the quality of science developed at 
ORD; and in preparation for the reauthorization of the 
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act 
(ERDDA) discuss any needed changes to the ERDDA which 
authorizes science activities at EPA.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Paul Anastas, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Arthur Elkins, Jr., 
Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and 
Mr. David Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office.

          November 30, 2011_Fostering Quality Science at EPA: 
    Perspectives on Common Sense Reform (Hearing Volume No. 112-54)

    On Wednesday, November 30, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment held the first day of a hearing to provide 
external perspectives on the need to reauthorize and reform 
science, research and development activities at the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); explore the intersection 
of Agency-supported science and its regulatory mission; and 
receive focused recommendations to raise the level, quality, 
usefulness, and objectivity of EPA science, including any 
necessary changes to the Environmental Research, Development 
and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA).
    The subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Susan Dudley, 
Director, Regulatory Studies Center, and Research Professor of 
Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington 
University; Dr. Alan Moghissi, President, Institute for 
Regulatory Science; Dr. Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, 
American Enterprise Institute; and Dr. Gary Marchant, Professor 
of Law and Executive Director, Center for Law, Science & 
Innovation, Arizona State University.

    December 7, 2011_Energy Critical Elements: Identifying Research 
       Needs and Strategic Priorities (Hearing Volume No. 112-56)

    On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment held a legislative hearing to examine research 
needs and priorities relating to Energy Critical Elements 
(ECE). The Subcommittee asked witnesses to comment on H.R. 
2090, ``The Energy Critical Elements Advancement Act of 2011'' 
introduced on June 2, 2011 by Representative Hultgren and 
cosponsored by Representatives Biggert and Lipinski.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the Honorable 
David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and 
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. Derek 
Scissors, Research Fellow, the Heritage Foundation; Dr. Robert 
Jaffe, Jane and Otto Morningstar Professor of Physics, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. Karl Gschneidner, 
Jr. Senior Materials Scientist, Ames Laboratory; Mr. Luka 
Erceg, President and CEO, Simbol Materials.

        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) has 
been criticized 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 (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.

     June 14, 2011_The Federal Perspective on a National Critical 
             Materials Strategy (Hearing Volume No. 112-24)

    On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the federal 
perspective on a national critical materials strategy, 
including rare earth elements and other critical materials. The 
hearing was held to examine Chinese dominance of the rare earth 
materials market and recent shortages in supply resulting from 
the Chinese government's decision to reduce production. The 
hearing also inspected ways to diversify the critical materials 
market and increase domestic production.
    Witnesses discussed beneficial steps the federal government 
could take such as expanding research into critical materials, 
improving access to market information, loan guarantees for 
domestic production, stockpiling of certain materials, and 
streamlining the permitting process for miners. The 
Subcommittee heard about the actions of the federal government 
through the interagency working group on critical and strategic 
mineral supply chains headed by the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), and examined the Department of 
Energy's ``Critical Materials Strategy'' report.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. John Holdren, 
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Mr. David 
Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International 
Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Jeff Doebrich, Program 
Coordinator (Acting), Mineral Resources Program, U.S. 
Geological Survey.

     July 14, 2011_EPA's IRIS Program: Evaluating the Science and 
      Process Behind Chemical Risk Assessment (Hearing Volume No. 
                                112-30)

    On Thursday, July 14, 2011 the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the process behind 
the development of EPA's IRIS assessments. The hearing was 
prompted in part by the National Academies' National Research 
Council report on EPA's formaldehyde assessment which 
reiterated several previous criticisms of EPA's IRIS process 
and provided recommendations for improvement. The goal of the 
hearing was to better understand the development of IRIS 
assessments, whether EPA plans on adopting the NAS' 
recommendations, and whether or not EPA assessments are based 
on the best available evidence and evaluated in accordance with 
established protocols.
    Witnesses discussed problems with IRIS and methods for 
improving the process and science behind IRIS assessments. The 
Committee also heard about regulatory impacts on industry and 
communities.
    The committee received testimony from: The Honorable Paul 
Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and 
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Trimble, 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Dr. Jonathan Samet, MD, MS, Professor 
and Flora L. Thorton Chair, Department of Preventive Medicine, 
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, and 
Chair, Committee to Review EPA's Draft IRIS Assessment of 
Formaldehyde, National Research Council, the National 
Academies; The Honorable Calvin Dooley, President and CEO, 
American Chemistry Council; Ms. Rena Steinzor, Professor, 
University of Maryland School of Law, and President, Center for 
Progressive Reform; Dr. Gail Charnley, Principal, HealthRisk 
Strategies; The Honorable J. Christian Bollwage, Mayor, City of 
Elizabeth, New Jersey.

                September 23, 2011_From NPOESS to JPSS:

                 An Update on the Nation's Restructured

                    Polar Weather Satellite Program.

        (JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING) (Hearing Volume No. 112-39)

    On Friday, September 23, 2011 the Subcommittees on 
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment met to 
examine the impact of the Administration's decision to 
restructure the National Polar-orbiting Operation Environmental 
Satellite System (NPOESS) and progress at NOAA and NASA in 
developing the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program as 
the replacement system for polar-orbiting civilian weather 
satellites and climate services.
    Witnesses discussed the cost, schedule, and performance 
capabilities associated with the new polar-orbiting weather 
satellite program.
    The committee received testimony from: The Honorable 
Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D., Assisstant Secretary of Commerce for 
Environmental Observation and Prediction and Deputy 
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate Administrator, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration; Mr. David Powner, 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues, Government 
Accountability Office.

      October 13, 2011_The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the 
        Nexus of Science and Policy (Hearing Volume No. 112-44)

    On Thursday, October 23, 2011 the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the combination of 
science and policy decisions made under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA). The hearing reviewed the influence of the growing 
number of judicial disputes over ESA-related actions and the 
importance of accurate scientific data for policy decisions.
    Witnesses discussed the process for designating species as 
endangered, delisting species from protection, the quality of 
science used in policy making decisions, impacts on local 
communities, benefits and problems associated with the ESA, and 
methods of improvement.
    The committee received testimony from: Mr. Gary Frazer, 
Assistant Director, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service; The Honorable Craig Manson, General Counsel, Westlands 
Water District; Mr. Douglas Vincent-Lang, Senior Biologist, 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Dr. Neal Wilkins, Director, 
Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources; Mr. 
Jonathan Adler, Professor, Case Western Reserve University 
School of Law; Dr. Francesca T. Grifo, Senior Scientist and 
Director, Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned 
Scientists.

               October 27, 2011_Review of the Blue Ribbon

              Commission on America's Nuclear Future Draft

     Recommendations (JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING) (Hearing Volume 
                              No. 112-47)

    On Thursday, October 27, 2011, the Energy & Environment and 
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittees held a hearing to 
examine the recommendations contained in the Blue Ribbon 
Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) Draft Report to 
the Secretary of Energy.
    Additionally, the Subcommittees considered science and 
technology issues associated with spent nuclear fuel 
management.
    The Subcommittees received testimony from Mr. Jack Spencer, 
Research Fellow, Nuclear Energy Policy, Heritage Foundation; 
Dr. Peter Swift, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, 
Sandia National Laboratory; Dr. Roger Kasperson, Professor and 
Distinguished Scientist, Clark University; Mr. Gary Hollis, 
Chairman, Nye County Board of County Commissioners; Mr. Rick 
McLeod, Executive Director, Savannah River Site Community Reuse 
Organization; and Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy Laboratory Director 
for Programs, Argonne National Laboratory.

                 November 30, 2011_Stimulus Oversight:

               An Update on Accountability, Transparency,

              and Performance (Hearing Volume No. 112-53)

    On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to receive an update on 
accountability, transparency, and performance issues associated 
with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The 
hearing focused on efforts by agency Inspector General Offices, 
the Government Accountability Office, and the Recovery, 
Accountability, and Transparency Board to monitor ARRA funding. 
The Subcommittee previously held hearings on ARRA funding on 
March 19, 2009, and May 5, 2009.
    Witnesses discussed lessons learned in managing ARRA funds, 
transparency in awarding funds, assessing risks associated with 
these investments, and methods for improving the management of 
taxpayer dollars.
    The Committee received testimony from: Mr. Frank Rusco, 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, General 
Accountability Office; Mr. Michael Wood, Director, Recovery, 
Accountability, and Transparency Board; The Honorable Gregory 
Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy; The 
Honorable Todd Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; Ms. Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National 
Science Foundation; Ms. Gail Robinson, Deputy Inspector 
General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

             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 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 same language was added 
to H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, passed 
by the House but 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. 
Jeffrey 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.

    June 2, 2011_Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science Research: 
     Oversight of the Need for Federal Investments and Priorities 
                for Funding (Hearing Volume No. 112-22)

    On Thursday, June 2, 2011, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education held an oversight hearing to examine the need 
for Federal investments in the social, behavioral, and economic 
sciences; to better understand the impact of this type of 
research; and to assess its value to the American taxpayer.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Myron Gutmann, 
Assistant Director, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and 
Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation; Dr. Hillary 
Anger Elfenbein, Associate Professor of Organizational 
Behavior, Olin Business School, Washington University in St. 
Louis; Dr. Peter Wood, President, National Association of 
Scholars; Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Hudson 
Institute.

       July 26, 2011_The Merit Review Process: Ensuring Limited 
      Federal Resources are Invested in the Best Science (Hearing 
                           Volume No. 112-31)

    On Thursday, July 26, 2011 the Subcommittee held a hearing 
examining the merit review grant award process and its effect 
on federally funded scientific research, in an effort to 
understand the strengths and potential weaknesses of the 
process.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. Cora Marrett, 
Deputy Director, National Science Foundation; Dr. Keith 
Yamamoto, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of 
California, San Francisco; Dr. Nancy Jackson, President, 
American Chemical Society; Dr. Jorge Jose, Vice President for 
Research, Indiana University.

    September 21, 2011_Oversight of the Networking and Information 
    Technology Research and Development Program and Priorities for 
                 the Future (Hearing Volume No. 112-37)

    On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, the Subcommittee on 
Research and Science Education held a hearing to review the 
networking and information technology research and development 
(NITRD) program to ensure U.S. leadership in networking and 
information technology and to discuss priorities for the future 
and potential reauthorization.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. George Strawn, 
Director, National Coordination Office, Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) 
Program, Dr. Edward Lazowska, Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in 
Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Dr. 
Robert Sproull, Director of Oracle Labs, retired, and Dr. 
Robert Schnabel, Dean, School of Informatics, Indiana 
University.

    October 12, 2011_What Makes for Successful K-12 STEM Education: 
     A Closer Look at Effective STEM Education Approaches (Hearing 
                           Volume No. 112-42)

    On Wednesday, October 12, 2011, the Subcommittee on 
Research and Science Education held a hearing to review and 
examine the findings of the National Research Council Report, 
Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective 
Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics, as requested by Congress in 2009 to identify 
highly successful K-12 schools and programs in STEM.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Adam Gamoran, 
Director, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University 
of Wisconsin, Mr. Mark Heffron, Director, Denver School for 
Science and Technology: Stapleton High School, Dr. Suzanne 
Wilson, Chair, Department of Teacher Education, Division of 
Science and Math, Education, Michigan State University, Dr. 
Elaine Allensworth, Senior Director and Chief Research Officer, 
Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago, 
and Dr. Barbara Means, Director, Center for Technology in 
Learning, SRI International.

     November 3, 2011_STEM In Action: Transferring Knowledge from 
       the Workplace to the Classroom (Hearing Volume No. 112-50)

    On Thursday, November 3, 2011, the Subcommittee on Research 
and Science Education held the fourth in a series of hearings 
to highlight Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 
education activities across the Nation, their role in inspiring 
and educating future generations, and their contribution to our 
future economic prosperity. The purpose of this hearing was to 
examine approaches and programs that encourage and assist STEM 
professionals looking to transition their knowledge and skills 
from industry to a second career in teaching or to give back to 
classroom education as a mentor.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Michael Beeth, 
Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University 
of Wisconsin Oshkosh; Mrs. Christine Sutton, Secondary Math 
Teacher, Virgil I. Grissom High School, Huntsville City 
Schools, Alabama; Ms. Robin Willner, Vice President, Global 
Community Initiatives, Corporate Citizenship & Corporate 
Affairs, IBM Corporation; Mr. Jason Morrella, President, 
Robotics Education and Competition Foundation; and Dr. Jennifer 
Jones, Principal Clinical Scientist, Abbott Vascular.

                 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 is 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 program 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.

    October 12, 2011_The International Space Station: Lessons from 
     the Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight (Hearing Volume 
                              No. 112-43)

    On Wednesday, October 12, 2011, the Subcommittee held an 
oversight hearing to examine the impacts of the Russian Soyuz 
launch vehicle failure on the safe operation and utilization of 
the International Space Station. The August 24th failure of a 
Soyuz-U launch vehicle carrying supplies to the International 
Space Station, coming about a month after the retirement of the 
Space Shuttle, underscores NASA's loss of the strategically 
important capability of U.S. human access to space. The hearing 
provided a current overview of the Russian Federal Space 
Agency's (Roscosmos) accident investigation, and NASA's 
involvement in the recertification and return-to-flight plans, 
as well as touching on the risks and implications of completely 
de-crewing the International Space Station. The Subcommittee 
also probed the basis and rationale for NASA's decision to 
resume the use of the Soyuz for transportation of its 
astronauts, including the advice received from independent 
external bodies. The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. 
William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human 
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA; 
Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford, USAF (Ret.), Chairman, 
International Space Station Advisory Committee; and Vice 
Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.), Chairman, Aerospace 
Advisory Panel.

     November 15, 2011_Exploring Mars and Beyond: What's Next for 
             Planetary Science? (Hearing Volume No. 112-51)

    On Tuesday, November 15, 2011, the Subcommittee held an 
oversight hearing on the prospects for future exploration of 
Mars and implications of the current fiscal crisis to the 
future of U.S. planetary science.
    On November 25, 2011, NASA launched the Mars Science 
Laboratory (MSL) to conduct a variety of experiments that will 
deepen our understanding of the history of the geological, 
atmospheric, and chemical composition of Mars and inform future 
missions, including human expeditions. Yet even as MSL begins 
its journey to Mars, the follow-on missions in 2016 and 2018--
planned jointly with the European Space Agency (ESA)--have been 
scaled back significantly and could be on the brink of 
cancellation altogether. Until the Administration delivers the 
fiscal year 2013 budget request, NASA is left without 
definitive answers for European partners. This uncertainty has 
left ESA to explore other opportunities--perhaps with Russia--
or to cancel part of the missions. The hearing provided a forum 
to discuss future plans for Mars exploration, the importance of 
collaborating on these missions with international partners and 
the importance of the U.S. maintaining global leadership and 
prestige by continuing to flagship missions in the future. The 
Subcommittee posed questions about the role OMB plays in making 
agency-level decisions on the types of mission NASA should 
pursue.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Jim Green, 
Planetary Science Division Director, Science Mission 
Directorate, NASA; and Dr. Steve Squyres, Chair, Committee on 
the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, National Academies of 
Science. The Office of Management and Budget was invited to 
testify but chose not to participate.

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION


            OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES,


               INCLUDING SELECTIVE 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 forwarded 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 
on January 27, 2010. On February 4, 2010 H.R. 4061 was passed 
by the House by 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.

     June 14, 2011_Transportation Research Priorities: Maximizing 
     Return on Investment of Taxpayer Dollars (Hearing Volume No. 
                                112-23)

    On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on Technology 
and Innovation held a hearing to review the research, 
development, and technology (RD&T) activities of the Department 
of Transportation. The hearing focused on issues related to the 
funding and prioritization of current research initiatives and 
how to maximize the efficiency of these activities. With the 
expiration of SAFETEA-LU in fiscal year 2009, the hearing also 
examined research issues to inform the current Federal surface 
transportation reauthorization effort.
    The Committee received testimony from: The Honorable Peter 
Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. John 
Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, and 
Chair, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials Standing Committee on Research; Mr. David Gehr, 
Senior Vice President, Highway Market, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 
and Chairman, American Society of Civil Engineers 
Transportation Policy Committee; Dr. Irwin Feller, Professor 
Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University, and 
Senior Visiting Fellow, American Association for the 
Advancement of Science; Ms. Lynn Peterson, Transportation 
Policy Advisor, Office of Governor John Kitzhaber (OR).

    July 13, 2011_Subcommittee Markup, H.R. 2463 , Border Security 
                   Technology Innovation Act of 2011

    On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 the Subcommittee met to 
consider H.R. 2463, the Border Security Technology Innovation 
Act of 2011. The Subcommittee ordered H.R. 2463 favorably 
forwarded to the Full Committee, as amended, by voice vote.

    September 8, 2011_Empowering Consumers and Promoting Innovation 
           through the Smart Grid (Hearing Volume No. 112-32)

    On Thursday, September 8, 2011 the Subcommittee on 
Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology held a hearing to examine the status of efforts 
led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 
coordinate the development of a common framework as well as the 
open standards necessary to ensure a secure and interoperable 
nationwide smart grid. The hearing provided the Subcommittee 
with witness perspectives on the actions necessary to drive the 
development of innovative smart grid technologies while 
protecting consumer interests.
    The Committee received testimony from: Dr. George Arnold, 
National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology; The Honorable Donna 
Nelson, Chairman, Public Utility Commission of Texas; Mr. John 
Caskey, Assistant Vice President, Industry Operations, National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association; and Mr. Rik Drummond, 
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Scientist, The Drummond 
Group.

      September 21, 2011_The Next IT Revolution? Cloud Computing 
        Opportunities and Challenges (Hearing Volume No. 112-36)

    On Wednesday, September 21, the Subcommittee on Technology 
and Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology held a hearing to examine the potential 
opportunities and challenges associated with cloud computing, 
and to assess the appropriate role of the Federal Government in 
the cloud computing enterprise. The hearing focused on 
innovation and efficiency opportunities associated with cloud 
computing, challenges restraining the widespread adoption of 
cloud computing, and federal cloud computing adoption 
initiatives.
    The Committee received testimony from: Mr. Michael 
Capellas, Chairman and CEO, Virtual Computing Environment 
Company; Dr. Dan Reed, Corporate Vice President, Technology 
Policy Group, Microsoft Corporation; Mr. Nick Combs, Federal 
Chief Technology Officer, EMC Corporation; Dr. David McClure, 
Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen Services and 
Innovative Technologies, General Services Administration.

     November 2, 2011_Creating and Growing New Business: Fostering 
              U.S. Innovation (Hearing Volume No. 112-48)

    On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, the Subcommittee on 
Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology held a hearing to examine the current state of 
small, innovative startup companies, and their roles as engines 
of both transformative innovations and job creation. The 
hearing focused on the obstacles limiting individuals with the 
ideas and desire to either start a new company or take a 
fledgling company to a place of rapid growth.
    The Committee received testimony from: Mr. Brink Lindsey, 
Senior Scholar in Research and Policy, Ewing Marion Kauffman 
Foundation; Mr. Julian Mann, Co-Founder and Vice President, 
Product Development and Research, Skybox Imaging; Mr. Ray 
Rothrock, Partner, Venrock; Mr. Steve Dubin, Former CEO, Martek 
Biosciences, and Senior Advisor to DSM Nutritional Products.

       November 15, 2011_Subcommittee Markup, Committee Print , 
               Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011

    On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 the Subcommittee met to 
consider the Committee Print, the Natural Hazards Risk 
Reduction Act of 2011. The Subcommittee ordered the Committee 
Print favorably forwarded to the Full Committee, as amended, by 
a record vote of 10 yeahs to 4 nays.

                             Oversight Plan

                              ----------                                




                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 112th CONGRESS

                    (INCLUDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS OF

                           DECEMBER 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

          Full Committee Hearing
          A Review of NASA's Space Launch Systems
          July 12, 2011

          Full Committee Hearing
          NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We 
        Go From Here?
          September 22, 2011

          Full Committee Hearing
          NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program: Accomplishments 
        and Challenges
          October 26, 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.

          Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
          Exploring Mars and Beyond: What's Next for U.S. Planetary 
        Science
          November 15, 2011

          Full Committee Hearing
          The Next Great Observatory: Assessing the James Webb Space 
        Telescope
          December 7, 2011

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.

          Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
          The International Space Station: Lessons from the Soyuz 
        Rocket Failure and Return to Flight
          October 12, 2011

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.

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Energy Critical Elements: Identifying Research Needs and 
        Strategic Priorities
          December 7, 2011

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.

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          An Examination of DOE's Clean Technology Programs
          June 15, 2011

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

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Advancing Coal Research and Development for a Secure Energy 
        Future
          October 13, 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

          Joint Subcommittee Hearing
          Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
          Review of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 
        Future Draft Recommendations
          October 27, 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.

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Hitting the Ethanol Blend Wall: Examining the Science on E15
          July 7, 2011

          Full Committee Hearing
          Out of Thin Air: EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
          September 15, 2011

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Quality Science for Quality Air
          October 4, 2011

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Conflicts and Unintended Consequences of Motor Fuel Standards
          November 2, 2011

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Need for Common Sense 
        Reform
          November 17, 2011

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on Common 
        Sense Reform
          November 30, 2011

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

          Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing
          Examining NOAA's Climate Service Proposal
          June 22, 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.

          Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
          Transportation Research Priorities: Maximizing Return on 
        Investment of Taxpayer Dollars
          June 14, 2011

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 & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
          The Next IT Revolution? Cloud Computing Opportunities and 
        Challenges
          September 21, 2011

          Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
          Creating and Growing New Business: Fostering U.S. Innovation
          November 2, 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

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

          Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
          Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science Research: Oversight 
        of the Need for Federal Investments and Priorities for Funding
          June 2, 2011

          Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
          The Merit Review Process: Ensuring Limited Federal Resources 
        are Invested in the Best Science
          July 26, 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.

          Full Committee Hearing
          STEM Education in Action: Learning Today . . . Leading 
        Tomorrow
          June 16, 2011

          Full Committee Hearing
          STEM in Action: Inspiring the Science and Engineering 
        Workforce of Tomorrow
          September 13, 2011

          Full Committee Hearing--Field Hearing
          STEM in Education In Action: Communities Preparing for Jobs 
        of the Future
          September 26, 2011

          Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
          What Makes for Successful K-12 STEM Education: A Closer Look 
        at Effective STEM Education Approaches
          October 12, 2011

          Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
          STEM in Action: Transferring Knowledge from the Workplace to 
        the Classroom
          November 3, 2011

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,

          Full Committee Hearing
          An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research and 
        Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
          February 17, 2011

          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

          Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
          Oversight of the Networking and Information Technology 
        Research and Development Program and Priorities for the Future
          September 21, 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.

          Joint Subcommittee Hearing
          Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
          Review of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 
        Future Draft Recommendations
          October 27, 2011

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.

          Joint Subcommittee Hearing
          Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
          From NPOESS to JPSS: An Update on the Nation's Restructured 
        Polar Weather Satellite Program
          September 23, 2011

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.

          Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
          The Federal Perspective on a National Critical Materials 
        Strategy
          June 14, 2011

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.

          Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
          Stimulus Oversight: An Update on Accountability, 
        Transparency, and Performance
          November 30, 2011

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.

          Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
          EPA's IRIS Program: Evaluating the Science and Process Behind 
        Chemical Risk Assessment
          July 14, 2011

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.

          Full Committee Hearing
          Impacts of the LightSquared Network on Federal Science 
        Activities
          September 8, 2011

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.

          Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
          The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus of Science 
        and Policy
          October 13, 2011

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 JURISDICTION 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
          Stimulus Oversight: An Update on Accountability, 
        Transparency, and Performance
          November 30, 2011

    On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 10:00am, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to receive an update on 
accountability, transparency, and performance issues associated with 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The hearing focused 
on efforts by agency Inspector General Offices, the Government 
Accountability Office, and the Recovery, Accountability, and 
Transparency Board to monitor ARRA funding. The Subcommittee previously 
held hearings on ARRA funding on March 19, 2009, and May 5, 2009.
    Witnesses discussed lessons learned in managing ARRA funds, 
transparency in awarding funds, assessing risks associated with these 
investments, and methods for improving the management of taxpayer 
dollars.
    The committee received testimony from: Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment Team, General Accountability Office; 
Mr. Michael Wood, Director, Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency 
Board; The Honorable Gregory Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Energy; The Honorable Todd Zinser, Inspector General, 
U.S. Department of Commerce; Ms. Allison Lerner, Inspector General, 
National Science Foundation; and Ms. Gail Robinson, Deputy Inspector 
General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

          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) has been 
criticized 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; and 
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.''

          Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
          EPA's IRIS Program: Evaluating the Science and Process Behind 
        Chemical Risk Assessment
          July 14, 2011

    On Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 10:00am, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the process behind the 
development of EPA's IRIS assessments. The hearing was prompted in part 
by the National Academies' National Research Council report on EPA's 
formaldehyde assessment which reiterated several previous criticisms of 
EPA's IRIS process and provided recommendations for improvement. The 
goal of the hearing was to better understand the development of IRIS 
assessments, whether EPA plans on adopting the NAS' recommendations, 
and whether or not EPA assessments are based on the best available 
evidence and evaluated in accordance with established protocols.
    Witnesses discussed problems with IRIS and methods for improving 
the process and science behind IRIS assessments. The Committee also 
heard about regulatory impacts on industry and communities.
    The committee received testimony from: The Honorable Paul Anastas, 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Trimble, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Dr. 
Jonathan Samet, MD, MS, Professor and Flora L. Thorton Chair, 
Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University 
of Southern California, and Chair, Committee to Review EPA's Draft IRIS 
Assessment of Formaldehyde, National Research Council, the National 
Academies; The Honorable Calvin Dooley, President and CEO, American 
Chemistry Council; Ms. Rena Steinzor, Professor, University of Maryland 
School of Law, and President, Center for Progressive Reform; Dr. Gail 
Charnley, Principal, HealthRisk Strategies; and The Honorable J. 
Christian Bollwage, Mayor, City of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

          Joint Subcommittee Hearing
          Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
          From NPOESS to JPSS: An Update on the Nation's Restructured 
        Polar Weather Satellite Program
          September 23, 2011

    On September 23, 2011 at 10:00am, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the impact of the 
Administration's decision to restructure the National Polar-orbiting 
Operation Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and progress at NOAA 
and NASA in developing the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program 
as the replacement system for polar-orbiting civilian weather 
satellites and climate services.
    Witnesses discussed the cost, schedule, and performance 
capabilities associated with the new polar-orbiting weather satellite 
program.
    The committee received testimony from: The Honorable Kathryn 
Sullivan, Ph.D., Assisstant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental 
Observation and Prediction and Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate 
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and Mr. 
David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 
Government Accountability Office.

          Full Committee Hearing
          NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program: Accomplishments 
        and Challenges
          October 26, 2011

    On Wednesday, October 26, 2011, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing to examine NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) office, 
focusing on accomplishments achieved by the agency and industry 
following two rounds of grant awards totaling $320 million (aggregate 
of FY10 & FY11), and the biggest programmatic and technical challenges 
remaining. Speaking about challenges ahead, industry witnesses and NASA 
officials highlighted the uncertainty of Congress' willingness to 
provide full funding for CCP over the next five years. Many Committee 
Members asked questions of the witnesses about the size of the 
commercial markets (i.e., spaceflight participants exclusive of NASA-
sponsored astronauts, such as space tourists and/or astronauts from 
countries having no indigenous space industry).
    The Committee received testimony from: Mr. John Elbon, Vice 
President and General Manager for Space Exploration, the Boeing 
Company; Mr. Steve Lindsey, Director of Space Exploration for the 
Sierra Nevada Corporation; Mr. Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technology 
Officer, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX); Mr. Charlie 
Precourt, Vice President, ATK Launch Systems Group; Dr. George Sowers, 
Vice President, United Launch Alliance; the Honorable Paul Martin, 
Inspector General of NASA; and Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate 
Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, 
NASA.

          Full Committee Hearing
          The Next Great Observatory: Assessing the James Webb Space 
        Telescope
          December 6, 2011

    On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing to examine NASA's management and re-plan of the James Webb 
Space Telescope. In 2001, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was 
ranked as the highest priority large space mission in astronomy by the 
National Academies of Science in their decadal survey Astronomy and 
Astrophysics in the New Millennium. Originally estimated by the decadal 
committee to cost $1 billion and to be launched in 2007, JWST was 
dubbed as the next Great Observatory that will be three times more 
powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope in the infrared and eight 
times more powerful than the Spitzer Space Telescope. However, after 
high-level scrutiny arising from years of program cost and schedule 
overruns, NASA recently developed a revised plan for JWST that--if 
fully funded--would enable completion and launch by October, 2018. The 
revised budget life cycle costs now total just over $8.8 billion.
    The Committee received testimony from: Mr. Rick Howard, NASA 
Program Manager of the James Webb Space Telescope; Dr. Roger Blandford, 
Professor of Physics, Stanford University and Former Chair, Committee 
for the Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics, National Research 
Council; Dr. Garth Illingworth, Professor & Astronomer, UCO/Lick 
Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz; and Mr. Jeffrey D. 
Grant, Sector Vice President and General Manager, Space Systems 
Division, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.

          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 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 Prof. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of 
Space Policy and International Affairs at the George Washington 
University.

          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.

          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.

          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 E


                                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 FY12 for all non-defense and non-health specific research 
and development, a 10.8 percent increase over the FY10 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 FY12 budget request of $18.7 billion, 
the same amount appropriated by Congress for FY 1O and continued thus 
far in FY11.
    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 FY12 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 FY12 budget request would, in the 
aggregate, save $3.8 billion for FY 12-FY 14, compared to last year's 
budget request.
    NASA's FY12 request qualified their out-year assumptions as 
``notional.'' However, NASA's ``notional'' assumptions are 
significantly higher than the corresponding numbers used in OMB's FY12 
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 FY11 and FY12 requests, amounting to 
a 0.2 percent 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 FY11 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 of 2010 
(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 FY12 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 FY12 budget includes a new program first 
proposed last year: Space Technology. The FY12 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 FY12 budget request for NSF is $7.7 billion, an increase of 13 
percent, or $894.5 million over the FY10 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 FY12 budget request includes $6.3 billion for Research and 
Related Activities (RRA), an increase. of $690 million or 12.4 percent 
over FY10 enacted. New programs established as part of the increased 
research funding request for FY12 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 FY12 
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 FY12 budget request also includes a plan to invest 
broadband spectrum receipts in a variety of areas, including $150 
million to NSF in FY12 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 FY12 budget request for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is 
$911 million, a $38.4 million or 4.4 percent increase over FY10. The 
Administration 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 FY12 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 FY12 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 1O. 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 FY12 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 $10 million or 18.2 percent and the Math and Science 
Partnership is $48.2 million, also a decrease of $10 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 FY10, 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 FYI2 budget request for DOE is $29.5 billion, which represents 
a $3.1 billion or 11.8 percent increase of FY10 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 FY12 budget request for SC is $5.4 
billion, a 9.1 percent increase over FY 1O 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 ARPA-E in FY12. 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 FY10, 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 FY10 enacted level and ten percent decrease from the FY11 
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 FY10 enacted level and a 
36 percent increase ($845 million) over the President's FY11 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 FY10 
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 FY10 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 FY12 budget request. This 
would reflect an increase of $71.4 million (58.8 percent) from enacted 
FY10 levels and a $48.5 million increase (33.6 percent) from the 
President's FY11 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 FY12 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 FY10 enacted levels. This correlates to a 23 percent 
decrease ($134 million) from the President's FY11 budget request.
    The FY12 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 of 2005 (P.L. 109-
58). Section 999H(a) sets the funding for this program at a level of 
$50-million-per-year provided from Federal lease royalties, rents, and 
bonuses paid by oil and gas companies--not taxpayers. It should be 
clear that the overall program was initiated and carried out to reach 
energy known to exist in the areas targeted--energy that was impossible 
to produce without new technology--and that the required technology 
would be eventually be paid for from the energy captured. 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 FY12 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 of 2005. 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 FY12 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 FY12 budget request is 5.5 billion, an increase of $749 
million or 15.8 percent above the FY10 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 FY12 budget request for the NESS is $2 billion, a $698.2 
million increase over FY 2010 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 FY12 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 2010 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) FY12, budget request of $988.0 million which is a 
1.2 percent decrease from the FY10 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 FY12, the Administration has requested a funding level of $1 
billion or a 16.9 percent increase from FY10 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 FY10 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 FY12.

    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 2010 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 FY12. 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 FY12 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 FY12 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 FY12 budget request for DHS S&T is $1.2 billion, an increase of 
16.9 percent, or $170 million over the FY10 enacted level. Most of this 
increase reflects the transfer of R&D' , programs from the DNDO to DHS 
S&T Within DNDO, the FY12 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 FY10 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 FY10 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 
FY12 budget request for S&T is $825.6 million, a 2.6 percent reduction 
from FY10 enacted levels. The budget request for ORD is $584.1 million, 
a 2.1 percent decrease from FY10 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 Committee 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 FY12 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 percent) above the FY11 request. Agency R&D 
is spread among four accounts:

        1.  Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST)--Safety. 
        The FY12 budget request is $566,000 for OCST Safety, a $401,000 
        or 243 percent increase over FY11. 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 FY12 request of $190 million, is $500,000 
        less than the amount requested in FY11. 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 FY12 request of $177.5 million, a $22.3 
        million or 14 percent increase over the FY11 request.

        4.  A portion of the Airport Improvement Program account 
        (Aviation Trust Fund) with an FY12 request of $44.3 million, an 
        increase of $2.1 million over five percent over FY11.

    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 FY12 budget request for OCST (operations) is $26.6 million, an 
increase of $10.9 million or 70 percent over the FY11 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 FY12 Administration research request for RITA is $17.6 million, 
or $4.6 million above the FY10 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 FY 2012 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 technological 
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 (out 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 2010 as the Administration has placed 
a relative higher priority on commercial crew and underfunded 
development of the Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) 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.

August 3, 2011

Mr. Wu resigned from the United States House of Representatives.

                         Subcommittee Selection

February 9, 2011--Republican Subcommittee Assignments

                         Energy & Environment:

Andy Harris (Chair), Dana Rohrabacher, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Frank D. 
Lucas, Judy Biggert, W. Todd Akin, Randy Neugebauer, Paul C. Broun, 
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, Ralph M. Hall (Ex Officio)

                      Investigations & Oversight:

Paul C. Broun (Chair), F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Sandy Adams, Randy 
Hultgren, Larry Bucshon, Dan Benishek, Ralph M. Hall (Ex Officio)

                     Research & Science Education:

Mo Brooks (Chair), Roscoe G. Bartlett, Benhamin Quayle, Steven M. 
Palazzo, Andy Harris, Randy Hultgren, Larry Bucshon, Dan Benishek, 
Ralph M. Hall (Ex Officio)

                          Space & Aeronautics:

Steven M. Palazzo (Chair), F. James Sensenbrenner, Lamar S. Smith, Dana 
Rohrabacher, Frank D. Lucas, W. Todd Akin, Michael T. McCaul, Sandy 
Adams, E. Scott Rigell, Mo Brooks, Ralph M. Hall (Ex Officio)

                        Technology & Innovation:

Benjamin Quayle (Chair), Lamar S. Smith, Judy Biggert, Randy 
Neugebauer, Michael T. McCaul, Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann, E. 
Scott Rigell, Randy Hultgren, Chip Cravaack, Ralph M. Hall (Ex Officio)

February 9, 2011--Democratic Subcommittee Assignments

                         Energy & Environment:

Brad Miller (Ranking Member), Lynn C. Woolsey, Ben R. Lujan, Paul D. 
Tonko, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry McNerney, Eddie Bernice Johnson (Ex Officio)

                      Investigations & Oversight:

Donna F. Edwards (Ranking Member), Zoe Lofgren, Brad Miller, Jerry 
McNerney, Eddie Bernice Johnson (Ex Officio)

                     Research & Science Education:

Daniel Lipinski (Ranking Member), Hansen Clarke, Paul D. Tonko, John P. 
Sarbanes, Terri A. Sewell, Eddie Bernice Johnson (Ex Officio)

                          Space & Aeronautics:

Gabrielle Giffords (Ranking Member), Marcia L. Fudge, Jerry F. 
Costello, Terri A. Sewell, David Wu, Donna F. Edwards, Frederica S. 
Wilson, Eddie Bernice Johnson (Ex Officio)

                        Technology & Innovation:

David Wu (Ranking Member), John P. Sarbanes, Frederica S. Wilson, 
Daniel Lipinski, Gabrielle Giffords, Ben R. Lujan, Eddie Bernice 
Johnson (Ex Officio)

October 26, 2011--Democratic Subcommittee Assignments

Ms. Edwards assigned as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Technology Innovation.

Mr. Tonko assigned as Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight.

Mr. Clarke assigned to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

                  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 and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
                               (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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 7, 2011                   Are We Prepared? Assessing Earthquake Risk Reduction    112-13*
                                Reduction 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. 13, 2011                  The Creating Jobs Through Small Business Innovation      H. R. 1425
                                Act of 2011
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on Technology and      .........................
                                Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2011                   Protecting Information in the Digital Age: Federal      112-19*
                                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: Are They Ready to    112-20*
                                Supply the Space Station in the Post Shuttle Era?
                                (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and         .........................
                                Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 2011                   Harmful Algal Blooms: Action Plans for Scientific       112-21
                                Solutions.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2, 2011                   Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Research:       112-22
                                Oversight of the Need for Federal Investments and
                                Priorities for Funding.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 2011                  Transportation Research Priorities: Maximizing Return   112-23
                                on Investment of Taxpayer Dollars.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 2011                  The Federal Perspective on a National Critical          112-24
                                Materials Strategy.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 15, 2011                  An Examination of DOE's Clean Technology Programs.      112-25
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 16, 2011                  STEM Education in Action: Learning Today. Leading       112-26
                                Tomorrow.
                               (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science, Space   .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22, 2011                  First Semiannual Report of Activities of the Committee  Business Meeting-2/112-
                                on Science, Space, and Technology.                      112**
                               ......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22, 2011                  Examining NOAA's Climate Service Proposal.              112-27
                               (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,  .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 7, 2011                   Hitting the Ethanol Blend Wall: Examining the Science   112-28
                                on E15.
                               (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,  .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 12, 2011                  A Review of NASA's Space Launch System.                 112-29
                               Oversight of the Need for Federal Investments and
                                Priorities for Funding.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 13, 2011                  Border Security Technology Innovation Act of 2011.      H. R. 2463
                               (Markup held by the Subcommittee on Technology and      .........................
                                Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 2011                  Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control.  H. R. 2484
                               Amendments Act of 2011 (Markup held by the              .........................
                                Subcommittee on Energy and Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 2011                  EPA's IRIS Program: Evaluating the Science and Process  112-30
                                Behind Chemical Risk Assessment.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 21, 2011                  Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2011.                  H. REPT. 112-264**
                               (Markup held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,   .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2011                  The Merit Review Process: Ensuring Limited Federal      112-31
                                Resources are Invested in the Best Science.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 28, 2011                  Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control   H. REPT. 112-333, PART
                                Amendments Act of 2011. Harmful Algal Blooms and        I**
                                Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011.
                               (Markup held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,   .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 8, 2011              Empowering Consumers and Promoting Innovation Through   112-32
                                the Smart Grid.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 8, 2011              Impacts of the LightSquared Network on Federal Science  112-33
                                Activities.
                               (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,  .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 13, 2011             STEM in Action: Inspiring the Science and Engineering   112-34
                                Workforce of Tomorrow.
                                (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science,        .........................
                                Space, and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 15, 2011             Out of Thin Air: EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.  112-35
                               (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,  .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 21, 2011             The Next IT Revolution: Cloud Computing Opportunities   112-36
                                and Challenges.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 21, 2011             Oversight of the Networking and Information Technology  112-37
                                Research and Development Program and Priorities for
                                the Future.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 22, 2011             NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future:       112-38
                                Where Do We Go From Here?
                               (Hearing held by the Full Committee on Science, Space,  .........................
                                and Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 23, 2011             From NPOESS to JPSS: An Update on the Nation's          112-39
                                Restructured Polar Weather Satellite Program.
                               (Joint Hearing held by the Subcommittee on              .........................
                                Investigations and Oversight and the Subcommittee on
                                Energy and Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 26, 2011             STEM Education in Action: Communities Preparing for     112-40
                                Jobs of the Future.
                               (Field Hearing--Hearing held by the Full Committee)     .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 4, 2011                Quality Science for Quality Air.                        112-41
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2011               What Makes for Successful K-12 STEM Education: A        112-42
                                Closer Look at Effective STEM Education Approaches.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 12, 2011               The International Space Station: Lessons from the       112-43
                                Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2011               The Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus of      112-44
                                Science and Policy.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2011               Advancing Coal Research and Development for a Secure    112-45
                                Energy Future.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 26, 2011               NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program:             112-46
                                Accomplishments and Challenges.
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and   .........................
                                Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 27, 2011               Review of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's       112-47
                                Nuclear Future Draft Recommendations. (Joint Hearing
                                held by Subcommittee on
                               Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on        .........................
                                Energy and Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2, 2011               Creating and Growing New Business: Fostering U.S.       112-48
                                Innovation.
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Technology and         .........................
                                Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2, 2011               Conflicts and Unintended Consequences of Motor Fuel     112-49
                                Standards.
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and             .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 3, 2011               STEM In Action: Transferring Knowledge from the         112-42
                                Workplace to the Classroom.
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 15, 2011              Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 2011                 .........................
                               Committee Print (Markup held by Subcommittee on         .........................
                                Technology and Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 112th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 15, 2011              Exploring Mars and Beyond: What's Next for U.S.         112-51
                                Planetary Science?
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Space and              .........................
                                Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 17, 2011              Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Need for Common   112-52
                                Sense Reform.
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and             .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 30, 2011              Stimulus Oversight: An Update on Accountability,        112-53
                                Transparency, and Performance.
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Investigations and     .........................
                                Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 30, 2011              Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on       112-54
                                Common Sense Reform.
                                (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Investigations and    .........................
                                Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 1, 2011               Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. (Markup     H.R. 3479
                                held by Full Committee on Science, Space, and
                                Technology )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 6, 2011               The Next Great Observatory: Assessing the James Webb    112-55
                                Space Telescope.
                               (Hearing held by Full Committee)                        .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 7, 2011               Energy Critical Elements: Identifying Research Needs    112-56
                                and Strategic Priorities.
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and             .........................
                                Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*LHearings that have been printed.
**LReports that have been printed.

                                    
