[House Report 112-555]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 398
112th Congress, 2nd Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-555
THIRD SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
JUNE 28, 2012
June 28, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
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 DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
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 TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
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., JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois*
Wisconsin TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas** DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri VACANCY
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas VACANCY
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** FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
+RALPH M. HALL, Texas +EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
* LRanking Minority Member
** LVice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee.
+ LThe Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as Ex-
officio Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right
to vote and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all
matters before the Subcommittees.
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
112th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
------
Full Committee Staff
JANET POPPLETON Chief of Staff
MARGARET CARAVELLI Chief Counsel
KATY CROOKS, Deputy Chief Counsel
ZACHARY KURZ Communications Director
KATIE COMER Administrative Director
HARLAN WATSON Distinguished Professional Staff
SHANA DALE Principal Policy Advisor
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
ERIN HAVENER Staff Assistant
Democratic Staff
DICK OBERMANN Chief of Staff
JOHN PIAZZA Chief Counsel
RUSSELL NORMAN Deputy Counsel
KRISTIN KOPSHEVER Administrative and Communications Director
BRYSTOL ENGLISH Research and Legal Assistant
PAMITHA WEERASINGHE Staff and Press 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 Republican Professional Staff
KYLE OLIVER Republican Professional Staff Member
ALEX MATTHEWS Republican Policy Staff
ELLEN SCHOLL Republican Policy Staff
TAYLOR JORDON Republican Staff Assistant
CHRIS KING Democratic Subcommittee Staff Director
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 Subcommittee Counsel
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
MOLLY KEATON Republican Staff Assistant
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Subcommittee Staff Director
CHRIS O'LEARY 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 Subcommittee Counsel
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................................. 19
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities............... 35
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Oversight Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 44
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
Oversight Activities......................................... 52
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 60
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 65
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including
Selective Legislative Activities........................... 70
Oversight Plan Including Appendices
Transmittal Letter........................................... 80
Summary of Oversight Plan, Including Accomplishments To Date. 81
Jurisdiction................................................. 97
Hearings Held Pursuant to Rule XI Clauses 2(n), (o), and (p). 98
Committee Oversight Correspondence........................... 105
Summary of GAO High Risk Topics.............................. 115
GAO Request.................................................. 118
Appendix
Transmittal Letter for Views and Estimates for FY 2012....... 128
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology for FY 2012..................................... 129
Additional Views............................................. 143
Minority Views and Estimates for FY 2012..................... 149
Additional Minority Views.................................... 155
Transmittal Letter for Views and Estimates for FY 2013....... 159
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology for FY 2013..................................... 160
Additional Views............................................. 184
Minority Views and Estimates for FY 2013..................... 191
Additional Minority Views.................................... 205
History of Appointments, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology................................................. 209
Rules Governing Procedure, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology for the 112th Congress.......................... 212
List of Publications of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, 112th Congress, 1st Session & 2nd Session...... 224
Union Calendar No. 398
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-555
======================================================================
THIRD SEMIANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY
__________
June 28, 2012.--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 3, 2011 -- June 15, 2012
Business Meetings Held - 3
Bills and Resolutions Referred
to the Committee - 134
Hearings Held - 88
Witnesses Appeared Before the Committee - 364
Full Committee Markups Held - 7
Subcommittee Markups Held - 4
Reports Filed- 5
Legislation Passed the House - 11
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 15, 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 31, 2011, and became Public Law 112-81.
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). On April 27, 2012 Mr. McCaul moved to
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. The bill
passed the House, by Y-395, N-10 (Roll Call No. 193). On May 7,
2012, the bill as passed by the House was received in the
Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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, as amended, to the House by Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology on December 16, 2011 (H. Rept. 112-333,
Part I). On February 9, 2012 the Committee on Natural Resources
discharged and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar
(Calendar No. 271).
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 (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.
On March 20, 2012 Chairman Hall of the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, and Chairman Mica of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure exchanged
correspondence in which the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure waived further consideration of H.R. 3479.
FEBRUARY 7, 2012--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 3834,
ADVANCING AMERICA'S NETWORKING AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2012
Background and Need
The purpose H.R. 3834 is to advance America's networking
and information technology research and development by updating
the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. H.R. 3834 requires
the development and periodic update of a strategic plan for the
federal government Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD) program and codifies work
currently conducted by the National Coordination Office (NCO)
of the NITRD program. The bill requires the NCO Director to
convene a university/industry taskforce to explore mechanisms
for carrying out collaborative research and development
activities for cyber-physical systems. Additionally, the bill
requires the NCO Director to convene an interagency working
group to examine issues around cloud computing services.
Federal support for research and development (R&D) in
networking and information technology (NIT) originally stemmed
from an interest in and the challenge of developing computers
capable of addressing complex problems, primarily those focused
on national security and global competition. Today, NIT
encompasses a broad array of technologies from smart phones to
digital libraries and cloud computing. Having changed the way
we listen to music, drive our cars, and communicate with each
other, this ever-growing field has led to the creation of many
of the technologies and systems we rely on daily.
The NITRD program is the main Federal R&D investment
portfolio in networking, computing, software, cyber security,
and related information technologies. NITRD coordinates this
unclassified R&D across 14 contributing federal agencies. A
number of additional agencies do not contribute funding, but
also participate in NITRD planning activities.
The Subcommittee on NITRD of the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) is the internal deliberative
organization for NITRD policy, program, and budget guidance.
The NITRD Subcommittee includes representatives from each
participating agency, as well as the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The Subcommittee coordinates the planning,
budgeting, implementation, and reviews of NIT R&D across the
NITRD member agencies to help assure continued U.S. leadership,
satisfy the needs of the federal government for advanced IT
capabilities, and accelerate development and deployment of new
technologies.
The NITRD NCO provides staff support for the NITRD program.
The NCO provides program and financial management services,
technical and subject matter expertise in facilitation,
strategic planning, technical writing, networking and
information technology services, and administrative staff
support for the NITRD Subcommittee and other NITRD subgroups.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) serves as the host agency
for the NCO.
Congress originally authorized the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program
in the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194),
after recognizing that a number of federal agencies had ongoing
high-performance computing programs without a coordinating
body. The Act established that coordinating body to improve
interagency coordination, cooperation, and planning among those
agencies with high-performance computing programs. In addition,
it authorized a multi-agency research effort, called the High-
Performance Computing and Communications program, to accelerate
progress in the advancement of computing and networking
technologies and to support leading edge computational research
in a range of science and engineering fields. The statute
established a set of mechanisms and procedures to provide for
the interagency planning, coordination, and budgeting of the
research and development activities carried out under the
program. The Act has since been amended through the Next
Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 and the America
COMPETES Act of 2007.
In December 2010, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) completed a legislatively
required report on NITRD. The report, Designing a Digital
Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking
and Information Technology, found that ``NITRD is well
coordinated and that the U.S. computing research community,
coupled with a vibrant Networking and Information Technology
(NIT) industry, has made seminal discoveries and advanced new
technologies that are helping meet many societal challenges.''
The 2010 report made several assessments about the role of
the NIT field in answering the Nation's challenges and
priorities:
Advances in NIT are a key driver of economic
competitiveness. They create new markets and increase
productivity.
Advances in NIT are crucial to achieving our
major national and global priorities in energy and
transportation, education and life-long learning,
healthcare, and national and homeland security.
Advances in NIT accelerate the pace of
discovery in nearly all other fields.
Advances in NIT are essential to achieving
the goals of open government.
Stressing the need that federal investments be in NIT basic
research, since the private sector is heavily involved in the
development side, the report suggests that an investment of at
least $1 billion annually will be required for new, potentially
transformative research. The report also recognizes that in the
current economic uncertainty, repurposing and reprioritization
of funding will be necessary, but does not rule out new funding
and indicates a lower level of investment ``could seriously
jeopardize America's national security and economic
competitiveness.''
The PCAST report includes recommendations for increased
investments in long-term, multi-agency research initiatives in
health, energy, transportation, and cybersecurity. It
emphasizes, ``Where fundamental NIT advances are needed to
support these initiatives, mission agencies should invest in
fundamental research in NIT, either alone or in collaboration
with NSF, and should not limit their programs to application-
specific research.''
The report also calls for exercising leadership to bring
about changes in K-12 STEM education; enhancing the
effectiveness of government coordination of NIT research and
development; and redefining NITRD budget categories to separate
NIT infrastructure for R&D in other fields from NIT R&D.
In February 2011, NITRD released its Supplement to the
President's Budget request. The Supplement is a summary of the
NITRD research activities planned and coordinated for Fiscal
Year 2012 (FY12) for each of the participating agencies. The
NITRD request totals $3.9 billion for FY12, a 1.9 percent
increase from FY 10 expenditures, and reflects many spending
priorities recommended in the PCAST report.
In February 2012, NITRD released its Supplement to the
President's Budget request for FY13. The NITRD request totals
$3.8 billion, a 1.8 percent increase from FY11 expenditures,
and continues to reflect the spending priorities in the PCAST
report.
Legislative History
On January 27, 2012 Representative Ralph M. Hall (R-TX)
introduced the Advancing America's Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Act of 2012 along with
Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Mo Brooks (R-AL),
Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Judy Biggert (R-IL), and Ben Ray Lujan
(D-NM). H.R. 3834 was referred to the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
On February 7, 2012 the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 3834, as
amended by voice vote. Further, the Committee ordered H.R. 3834
favorably reported to the House, as amended by voice vote. The
Committee reported H.R. 3834, as amended, to the House on March
22, 2012 (H. Rept. 112-420) and it was placed on the Union
Calendar (Calendar No. 289). On April 27, 2012, the House
suspended the rules and voted to pass H.R. 3834, as amended, by
a voice vote. H.R. 3834 was received in the Senate on May 7,
2012 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
FEBRUARY 7, 2012--MARKUP HELD ON H.R. 3199,
TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF
THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF MID-LEVEL
ETHANOL BLENDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Background and Need
In 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved
the use of ten percent ethanol blended gasoline (E10) under
section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L.
110-140, or EISA) created the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS
II), an expansion on the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)
established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58,
or EPAct05). This expansion mandated the use of 15 billion
gallons of renewable fuel in 2012 and 36 billion gallons by
2022. As the result of increased ethanol fuel consumption
driven by these requirements and the limited use of E85, the
U.S. has approached the so-called ``blend wall'' for ethanol.
According to the United States Energy Information
Administration, the ``national share of ethanol in gasoline
reached ten percent in June 2011'' and ``the blend wall has
been reached in most areas'' of the United States.
Section 211(f) of the CAA requires that the Administrator
of the EPA may not grant a waiver for any fuel or fuel additive
that is ``not substantially similar'' to the existing
certification fuel. The current certification fuel is E0
(regular unleaded gasoline without ethanol added). However, in
making this determination under Section 211(f), the
Administrator may waive the substantially similar requirement
in 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines the fuel or fuel
additive will ``not cause or contribute to a failure of any
emission control device or system (over the useful life of the
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad
vehicle in which such device or system is used).''
In March of 2009 a coalition of ethanol supporters applied
to EPA for a waiver to increase the maximum allowable amount of
ethanol in gasoline from ten percent to 15 percent (E15). In
October of 2010 and January of 2011, EPA partially approved two
such waivers. The October partial waiver authorized the use of
E15 gasoline in model year 2007 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles (cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger
vehicles), while the January partial waiver extended E15 use to
model year 2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles. These decisions
relied primarily upon a test program conducted by the United
States Department of Energy in 2010 and 2011. Vehicles older
than model year 2001, as well as other gasoline-powered engines
such as those for outdoor equipment and recreation vehicles,
were not approved for E15 use.
In February of 2012, the Agency announced that information
submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy
would satisfy the emissions and health effects information
requirements for any future E15 registration application. On
April 2, 2012, EPA approved the first applications for
registering E15. In late April, the Agency approved a required
fuel survey funded by ethanol producers. Preliminary results
from a comprehensive study conducted by the Coordinating
Research Council, a nonprofit research organization that is
sustained by the petroleum and automotive industries, indicated
mechanical damage from the use of E15 in vehicles covered by
the partial waiver. The final results of this study were
released on May 16, 2012.
EPA's actions resulted in two overarching technical and
practical concerns: (1) the potential for E15 to damage onroad
vehicle engines for all model years, as well as off-road
engines; and (2) the potential of a newly bifurcated fueling
system to result in widespread misfueling of engines (i.e.
owners of model year 2000-and-older cars as well as nonroad
vehicles and equipment, filling tanks with unapproved E15
gasoline blends).
The purpose of H.R. 3199 is to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends. The bill
directs the EPA Administrator, acting through the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Research and Development, to
enter into an agreement, not later than 45 days after
enactment, with the National Academy of Sciences to provide
this assessment prior to the implementation of any waiver,
partial waiver, or decision pursuant to current law. The
assessment is required to compare mid-level ethanol blends to
gasoline blends containing both 10 and zero percent ethanol.
Legislative History
On October 13, 2011, Rep. James Sensenbrenner introduced
H.R. 3199. H.R. 3199 was referred to the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
On February 7, 2012, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 3199, as
amended, by a record vote of 19 yeas to 7 nays. Further, the
Committee ordered H.R. 3199 favorably reported to the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
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. On January 31, 2012, Mr. Cravaack asked
unanimous consent that the House disagree to the Senate
amendment, and agree to a conference, the motion was agreed to
without objection. On January 31, 2012, the Speaker appointed
conferees from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for consideration of the House bill and the
Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference;
from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for
consideration of sections 102, 105, 201, 202, 204, 208, 209,
212, 220, 321, 324, 326, 812, title X and title XIII of the
House bill and sections 102, 103, 106, 216, 301, 302, 309, 320,
327, title VI, and sec. 732 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference; from the Committee on
Ways and Means for consideration of title XI of the House bill
and titles VIII and XI of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
On February 1, 2012 conference report, H. Rept. 112-381 was
filed. The Committee on Rules filed Committee Report 112-382 on
H. Res. 533 on February 1, 2012. On February 3, 2012, Mr. Mica
brought up conference report H. Rept. 112-381 for
consideration. The conference report was agreed to by a vote of
Y-248, N-169 (Roll no. 33). On February 6, 2012, the Conference
report was considered in the Senate. The Senate agreed to the
conference report by a recorded vote of Y-75, N-20 (Record Vote
No. 15). The bill was signed into law by the President on
February 14, 2012. It became Public Law No. 112-95.
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 31, 2011, and became Public Law 112-81.
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 recorded vote of Y-418, N-2 (Roll no.
928).
On December 14, 2011, the bill was received in the Senate
and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
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 vote.
On December 13, 2011, the bill was received in the Senate,
read twice, considered, read a third time, and passed without
amendment by Unanimous Consent. On January 3, 2012, the bill
was signed into law by the President and became Public Law No.
112-90.
H.R. 4239, THE ``SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012''
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 4239 provides an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment
of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs. The bill
establishes funding levels for the portion of FY 2012 from
October 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 for surface
transportation programs, thereby extending funding for the
programs through June 30, 2012. The Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology has a jurisdictional interest in surface
transportation research programs.
Legislative History
H.R. 4239 was introduced on March 22, 2012 and referred to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in
addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Natural
Resources, Science, Space, and Technology, and Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On
March 27, 2012, Mr. Mica moved to suspend the rules and pass
H.R. 4239, as amended. On March 29, 2012, the motion to suspend
the rules and pass H.R. 4239, as amended, failed by a voice
vote.
H.R. 4257, THE ``FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2012''
Background and Summary of Legislation
The Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012
(H.R. 4257) enhances the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 by improving the framework for
securing federal information technology systems. H.R. 4257
updates and amends the activities required to secure federal
information systems. It establishes a mechanism for improved
oversight of federal agency information security programs and
systems through a focus on automated and continuous monitoring
of agency information systems, when possible, and through
conducting regular threat assessments. The Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology has a jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 4257 due to the involvement of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in developing and proposing
both standards and guidelines for Federal government agencies
to follow to ensure that the networks and information
maintained by the Federal government agencies are secure. The
language of H.R. 4257 seeks to amend the law in a number of
different ways, all of which affect the role of NIST in the
promulgation of standards and guidelines for information
security within Federal agencies.
Legislative History
On March 26, 2012, Representative Issa introduced H.R.
4257. On April 18, 2012, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform ordered H.R. 4257 to be reported, as amended,
H.R. 4257, filed H. Rept. 112-455, and the bill was placed on
the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 318. On April 26, 2012,
Chairman Hall of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology and Chairman Issa of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform exchanged correspondence. Chairman Issa
acknowledged the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology in the bill, H.R. 4257, as
amended, and Chairman Hall agreed to waive a referral of the
bill. The exchange was included in the report on the bill, H.
Rept. 112-455, as well as the Congressional Record on April 27,
2012. On April 26, 2012, Mr. Issa moved to suspend the rules
and pass H.R. 4257, as amended, which was agreed to by voice
vote. The bill was received in the Senate on May 7, 2012.
H.R. 4281, THE ``SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012''
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 4281 provides an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of
a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs. The bill
establishes funding levels for the portion of FY 2012 from
October 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 for surface
transportation programs-resulting in an extension of funding
for the programs through June 1, 2012. The Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology has a jurisdictional interest in
surface transportation research programs.
Legislative History
H.R. 4281 was introduced on March 28, 2012, and referred to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in
addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Natural
Resources, Science, Space, and Technology, and Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The
Committee on Rules filed H. Rept. 112-424 on H. Res 600,
providing for consideration of H.R. 4281. On March 29, 2012 the
House passed H.R. 4281, as amended, by: Y-266, N-158 (Roll Call
No. 147).
H.R. 4310, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
Background and Summary of Legislation
H.R. 4310 authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2013
for military activities of the Department of Defense and
establishes military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013.
The Department of Defense programs were last authorized under
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(P.L. 112-81). The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
has a jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of the
bill, including, but not limited to, those provisions dealing
with prohibiting the use of funds to implement an international
agreement on space activities without ratification by the
Senate or authorization in statute (Section 913 of H.R. 4310 as
reported), authorizing a report on counter space technology
(Section 915 of H.R. 4310 as reported), establishing an
interagency council on the strategic capability of the National
Laboratories (Section 1062 of H.R. 4310 as reported), the
interagency collaboration on unmanned aircraft systems (Section
1074 of H.R 4310 as reported), an independent review and
assessment of the technologies developed under the Small
Business Innovation Research program (Section 1615 of H.R. 4310
as reported), management of research laboratories and entities
utilized for civilian and defense projects, nuclear science,
and the development of and demonstration of domestic national-
security-related enrichment technologies.
Section 913 of the House bill prohibits the Secretary of
Defense or the Director of National Intelligence to limit the
activities of the Department of Defense or the intelligence
community in outer space pursuant to an international agreement
unless such agreement has been ratified by the Senate or
authorized in statute. Additionally, this section requires a
report on the progress of negotiations on an international
agreement concerning outer space activities to the
``appropriate congressional committees,'' including the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Section 915
requires a report describing key space technologies that could
be used or are being sought by foreign countries with a counter
space program. Section 1062 establishes an Interagency Council
responsible for identifying and considering the science,
technology, and engineering capabilities of the national labs
that could be leveraged to support national security missions.
Section 1074 provides interagency collaboration by DOD, the
FAA, and NASA on research and solutions for the safe
integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the National
Airspace. Several provisions in H.R. 4310, as reported, would
alter current law with regard to the Small Business Act; the
Committee has jurisdiction over changes to the Small Business
Act affecting the Small Business Innovation Research program
(SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
program. Section 1615 requires an independent assessment of
these programs related to the transition of technologies from
these programs for use in DOD programs.
In addition to the provisions included in H.R. 4310, as
reported, several amendments of interest to the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology were adopted on the House Floor,
including, among others, a provision to amend Title 51
(National and Commercial Space Programs) to require the
Secretary of Defense to take steps to maximize the use of the
capacity of the space transportation infrastructure of the
Department of Defense by the private sector in the United
States, a provision to require the Secretary of Energy to
establish a pilot program to accelerate technology transfer
from the national labs to the marketplace, and a provision to
remove satellites and related components and technology from
the United States Munitions List.
Legislative History
H.R. 4310 was introduced by Representative Buck McKeon (R-
CA) by request on March 29, 2012 and referred to the Committee
on Armed Services. On May 9, 2012 the Committee on Armed
Services reported, as amended, H.R. 4310, filed H. Rept. 112-
479, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar
No. 335. On May 15, 2012 the Committee on Armed Services filed
a supplemental report, H. Rept. 112-479, Part II. The Committee
on Rules filed H. Rept. 112-481 on H. Res 656, providing for
consideration of H.R. 4310. On May 18, 2012 the House passed
H.R. 4310, as amended, by: Y-299, N-120 (Roll Call No. 291).
H.R. 4348, THE ``SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART
II''
Background Information
H.R. 4348 provides an extension of Federal-aid highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust.
H.R. 4348 maintains funding pending enactment of a
multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, includes provisions
to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a
permit without additional conditions for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Keystone oil pipeline, and
requires a trust fund to be known as the ``Gulf Coast
Restoration Trust Fund'' to be established in the Treasury of
the United States. The legislation as introduced contained a
number of provisions affecting surface transportation research
programs in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
After the House passed the legislation, the Senate
considered the legislation. The Senate struck all of the
legislative text included by the House and replaced the
language with language from S. 1813 and requested a conference.
Because both H.R. 4348 and S. 1813 included numerous provisions
in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, conferees from the Committee were appointed by the
Speaker. Provisions reauthorizing programs included in S. 1813
had also been included in two pieces of legislation in the
House, H.R. 7, the ``American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs
Act of 2012,'' reported by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and H.R. 3833, the ``Driving Research through
Innovative Viable Economic Solutions Act of 2012'' introduced
by Chairman Hall.
The Committee was appointed conferees on numerous
provisions affecting surface transportation research programs,
environmental research programs, energy related research
programs and various highway safety research programs. The
Committee has jurisdiction over transportation-related
research, development, and technology transfer programs at the
Department of Transportation as well as the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. The Committee also has a
jurisdictional interest in the establishment of a ``Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Council'' that would conduct marine
research and environmental research on effects on coastal
wildlife and coastal ecosystems, and develop centers of
excellence to focus on science, technology and monitoring of
wildlife ecosystems, as well as research and technology to
improve development of energy resources. Additional provisions
of interest to the Committee in these bills include uranium
enrichment research, research on transportation of hazardous
materials, research to improve motor coach safety, and research
to improve vehicle technology.
Legislative History
H.R. 4348 was introduced by Representative Mica on April
16, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and
Means, Natural Resources, Science, Space, and Technology, and
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned. On April 17, 2012, the Committee on Rules filed H.
Rept. 112-446 on H. Res. 619, providing for consideration of
H.R. 4348. On April 18, 2012 the House passed H.R. 4348, as
amended, by a vote of: Y-293, N-127 (Roll Call No. 170).
On April 19, 2012, H.R. 4348 was received in the Senate. On
April 24, 2012, the measure was laid before the Senate. The
Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the
language of S. 1813. The Senate insisted on its amendment,
asked for a conference, and appointed conferees. On April 25,
2012, Mr. Mica asked unanimous consent that the House disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to a conference. The motion
was agreed to without objection.
H.R. 5325, THE ``ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FY 2013''
Background Information
H.R. 5325 appropriates resources for FY 2013 to Department
of Energy programs within the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology's jurisdiction. Key programs within the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology funded by H.R. 5325 include: 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.
Legislative History
H.R. 5325 was introduced by Representative Frelinghuysen on
May 2, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. On
May 2, 2012, the Committee on Appropriations reported an
original measure, H.R. 5325, filed H. Rept. 112-462, and the
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 323. On May
31, 2012 the Committee on Rules filed H. Rept. 112-504 on H.
Res. 667, providing for consideration of H.R. 5325. On June 6,
2012 the House passed H.R. 5325, as amended, by: Y-255, N-165
(Roll Call No. 342).
On June 11, 2012, H.R. 5325 was received in the Senate.
H.R. 5326, THE ``COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FY 2013''
Background Information
H.R. 5326 appropriated funds for FY 2013 to agencies and
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), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA.
H.R. 5326 also sought to authorize in areas within the
Committee's jurisdiction. In regard to NASA, the bill struck a
provision in current law that prohibited NASA from making any
reductions in force prior to FY 2014. The bill also authorized
NASA to transfer money from refunds to its working capital
fund.
Legislative History
H.R. 5326 was introduced by Representative Wolf on May 2,
2012 and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. On May 2,
2012, the Committee on Appropriations reported an original
measure, H.R. 5326, filed H. Rept. 112-463, and the bill was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 324. On May 7, 2012,
the Committee on Rules filed H. Rept. 112-464 on H. Res. 643,
providing for consideration of H.R. 5326. On May 10, 2012, the
House passed H.R. 5326, as amended, by: Y-247, N-163 (Roll Call
No. 249).
On May 14, 2012, H.R. 5326 was received in the Senate.
H.R. 5855, THE ``DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR 2013''
Background Information
H.R. 5855 appropriated funds for FY 2013 for programs at
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology's jurisdiction, including the
Science and Technology Directorate, which administers research
and development programs for the Department of Homeland
Security.
Legislative History
H.R. 5855 was introduced by Representative Aderholt on May
23, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. On
May 23, 2012 the Committee on Appropriations reported an
original measure, H.R. 5855, filed H. Rept. 112-492, and the
bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 345. On May
31, 2012 the Committee on Rules filed H. Rept. 112-504 on H.
Res. 667, providing for consideration of H.R. 5855. On June 6,
2012, the bill H.R. 5855 was brought before the House for
consideration. On June 7, 2012 the House passed H.R. 5855, as
amended, by: Y-234, N-182 (Roll Call No. 370).
On June 11, 2012, H.R. 5855 was received in the Senate.
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.
2nd Session
February 8, 2012_Assessing America's Nuclear
Future_A Review of the Blue Ribbon Commission's
Report to the Secretary of Energy
(Hearing Volume 112-60)
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, the Committee held a
hearing to examine the recommendations contained in the Blue
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) Report to
the Secretary of Energy, as well as broader science and
technology issues associated with spent nuclear fuel
management.
The Committee received testimony from Lieutenant General
Brent Scowcroft (Ret.), Co-Chairman, Blue Ribbon Commission on
America's Nuclear Future; The Honorable Richard Meserve,
Commissioner, Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future; and The Honorable Pete Lyons, Assistant Secretary of
Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
February 17, 2012_An Overview of the
Administration's Federal Research and
Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
(Hearing Volume No. 112-61)
On Friday, February 17, 2012, the Committee held a hearing
to examine President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2013 (FY13)
budget request for research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application programs.
Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), reviewed the proposed budget in the
context of the President's overall priorities in science,
space, and technology and described the mechanisms the
Administration uses to determine priorities across scientific
disciplines and the mechanisms used to coordinate scientific
research and technical development activities across federal
agencies.
The Committee received testimony from Dr. John P. Holdren,
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
March 1, 2012_An Overview of the Department of
Energy Research and Development Budget for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Hearing Volume No. 112-65)
On Thursday, March 1, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to
examine energy policy and budget priorities related to the
President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget request, including
activities within the DOE offices of Science, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy,
Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, and the Loan Guarantee Program Office.
The Committee received testimony from Dr. Steven Chu, U.S.
Secretary of Energy.
March 7, 2012_An Overview of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
(Hearing Volume 112-68)
On Wednesday, March 7, 2012, the Committee held an
oversight hearing to examine the Administration's FY 2013
budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. In addition to budgets, Members questioned the
witness on the status of current programs, proposed
programmatic changes, and the agency's priorities and
challenges. Of particular concern to many Members was the
progress being made on developing a successor to the Shuttle,
and the reasoning behind NASA's proposal to impose significant
reductions to its planetary sciences program.
The Committee received testimony from the Honorable Charles
F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator.
March 28, 2012_Securing the Promise of the
International Space Station: Challenges and
Opportunities (Hearing Volume No. 112-72)
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the Committee held an
oversight hearing to examine the current state of ISS
utilization, research, access and maintenance of the
International Space Station. NASA's focus is shifting from
assembly and activation, to utilization and maintenance. The
decision to extend the life of the ISS through at least 2020
provides an unprecedented opportunity to perform promising
scientific research. The hearing reviewed NASA's plans for
conducting ISS research, and ensuring that essential spares,
facilities, transportation and other resources are adequate to
meet the research needs on the ISS through 2020, and on the
formation of an organization for the management of the ISS
National Laboratory.
The Committee received testimony from Mr. William H.
Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and
Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and
Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and
Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford, USAF (Ret.), Chairman,
International Space Station Advisory Committee.
April 17, 2012_Tapping America's Unconventional
Oil Resources for Job Creation and Affordable
Domestic Energy: Technology and Policy Pathways (Hearing Volume
No. 112-75)
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, the Committee held a hearing to
examine unconventional oil resources and identify technology
and policy pathways to develop domestic energy resources.
The Committee received testimony from Mr. Andrew Slaughter,
Chair--Resource & Supply Task Group, National Petroleum Council
Report ``Prudent Development''; Ms. Karen Harbert, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for 21st Century Energy,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Dr. Michelle Michot Foss, Chief
Energy Economist, Center for Energy Economics, Bureau of
Economic Geology, University of Texas-Austin; Mr. James Brown,
President and Chief Operating Officer, Whiting Petroleum
Corporation; and Mr. Daniel Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director
of Climate Strategy, Center for American Progress Action Fund.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ACTIVITIES
Oversight, Investigation, and Other Activities, Including Selective
Legislative Activities
1st Session
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.
2nd Session
February 1, 2012_Fractured Science_Examining
EPA's Approach to Ground Water Research: The Pavillion Analysis
(Hearing Volume No. 112-58)
On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a hearing to review the EPA's approach to
ground water research in Pavillion, Wyoming.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Jim Martin,
Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Mr.
Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas
Conservation Commission; Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President,
Government & Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance; and Dr.
Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School
of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh.
February 3, 2012_Fostering Quality Science at EPA:
Perspectives on Common Sense Reform-Day II
(Hearing Volume No. 112-59)
On Friday, February 3, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a second day of testimony 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.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Daniel
Greenbaum, President and Chief Executive Officer, Health
Effects Institute; Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor,
Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota, and
Chairwoman, EPA Science Advisory Board; Mr. Michael Walls, Vice
President, Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry
Council; Dr. Richard Belzer, President, Regulatory Checkbook;
Dr. Jerald Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair in Engineering,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Iowa; and Dr. S. Stanley Young, Assistant Director for
Bioinformatics, National Institute of Statistical Sciences.
March 6, 2012_An Overview of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency Budgets for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Hearing Volume No. 112-67)
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing to examine the Administration's
Fiscal Year 2013 budget requests for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Science and Technology (S&T)
Programs.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Jane
Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
March 28, 2012_To Observe and Protect: How NOAA
Procures Data for Weather Forecasting
(Hearing Volume No. 112-73)
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment held a hearing to examine how the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) develops,
evaluates, and executes plans to deliver the best and most cost
effective data necessary to meet requirements for severe
weather prediction and other observational needs.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Mary Kicza,
Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Research Laboratories and
Cooperative Institutes, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research, NOAA; Mr. John Murphy, Chief, Programs and Plans
Division, National Weather Service, NOAA; Mr. Eric Webster,
Vice President and Director, Weather Systems, ITT Exelis; Dr.
David Crain, Chief Executive Officer, GeoMetWatch; Mr. Bruce
Lev, Vice Chairman, AirDat LLC; and Dr. Berrien Moore, Dean,
University of Oklahoma College of Atmospheric and Geographic
Sciences, and Director, National Weather Center.
May 10, 2012_Supporting American Jobs and the
Economy Through Expanded Energy Production:
Challenges and Opportunities of Unconventional
Resources Technology (Hearing Volume No. 112-84)
On Thursday, May 10, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy and
the Environment held a hearing to examine challenges and
opportunities associated with expanding development and use of
unconventional oil and gas production technologies.
The Subcommittee received testimony from The Honorable
Charles McConnell, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy; Ms. Anu Mittal, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Ms. Samantha Mary Julian, Director, Office of Energy
Development, State of Utah; Mr. Jim Andersen, Chief Executive
Officer and President, U.S. Seismic Systems, Inc; Mr. Cameron
Todd, Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Oil Sands, Inc; and Mr.
Tony Dammer, Member, Board of Directors, National Oil Shale
Association.
June 6, 2012_EPA's Impact on Jobs and Energy
Affordability: Understanding the Real Costs and
Benefits of Environmental Regulations
(Hearing Volume No. 112-88)
On Wednesday, June 6, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing
to examine the process used by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency in
evaluating the costs and benefits of federal environmental
regulations, including the recently announced Carbon Pollution
Standard for New Power Plants.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Michael
Honeycutt, Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality; Mr. Eugene Trisko, Attorney at Law, On
behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity;
Mr. Tom Wolf, Executive Director, Energy Council, Illinois
Chamber of Commerce; Mr. David Hudgins, Director of Member and
External Relations, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative; and Mr.
Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant, Trinity Consultants.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
1st Session
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.
2nd Session
January 24, 2012_A Review of the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy
(Hearing Volume No. 112-57)
On Tuesday, January 24th, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight met to receive an update on
accountability, transparency, and performance issues associated
with the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). The
hearing focused on recent reports from the Department of Energy
Inspector General (DOE IG) report OAS-RA-11-11, ``Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy'' and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report 12-112, ``Advanced Research
Projects Agency Could Benefit from Information on Applicants'
Prior Funding.''
Witnesses discussed metrics used to evaluate the agency's
performance, reviewed its statutory objectives to fund ``high-
risk, high reward'' research, technology transfer, and efforts
to prevent duplicate research spending.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. Arun
Majumdar, Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy; The Honorable Gregory Friedman,
Inspector General, U.S Department of Energy; Mr. Frank Rusco,
Director, Energy and Science Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
February 29, 2012_NASA Cybersecurity:
An Examination of the Agency's Information Security (Hearing
Volume No. 112-64)
On Wednesday, February 29th, 2012, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight met to examine the state of
information security at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). The hearing focused on recent reports
from the NASA Office of the Inspector General (IG) concerning
information security, the steps NASA is taking to address the
recommendations contained in those reports, and future
challenges to the Agency's information security posture.
Witnesses discussed the types and origins of cyber threats,
recommendations from the IG reports, governance issues
concerning the limited authority of the Chief Information
Office (CIO), and internal agency cultural differences that
compound the difficulties in protecting the agency's networks.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Ms. Linda
Cureton, Chief Information Officer, NASA; and the Honorable
Paul Martin, Inspector General, NASA.
March 29, 2012_Federally Funded Research:
Examining Public Access and Scholarly Publication Interests
(Hearing Volume No. 112-74)
On Thursday, March 29, 2012, the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight held an oversight hearing to
examine various models for disseminating federally funded
research and the corresponding effects on the scientific
process. Federally funded research is accessed through an
increasing variety of methods beyond the traditional scholarly
journals maintained by a scientific society that is made
available only through a paid subscription. Some of the push
towards greater public access stems from increasing complaints
about the widely varying subscription costs of journals.
Witnesses discussed the impact of federal public access
policies on scientific journals, publishers, and scientific
societies, including the costs and revenue generated from
publication and public access to taxpayer funded research.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. H. Frederick
Dylla, Executive Director and CEO, American Institute of
Physics; Mr. Elliot Maxwell, Project Director for the Digital
Connections Council, Committee on Economic Development; Dr.
Crispin Taylor, Executive Director, American Society of Plant
Biologists; Mr. Stuart Shieber, Director, Office for Scholarly
Communications, Harvard University; and Mr. Scott Plutchak,
Director, Lister Hill Library at University of Alabama at
Birmingham.
April 19, 2012_Impact of Tax Policies on the
Commercial Application of Renewable Energy
Technology (JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING) (Hearing Volume No.
112-78)
On Thursday, April 19, 2012, the Subcommittees on
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment held a
joint hearing to examine recently expired, current, and
proposed renewable energy tax preferences, and their impact on
the commercial application of renewable energy technologies.
Witnesses discussed the costs of renewable energy tax
preferences and of renewable energy technologies compared to
traditional sources such as fossil fuels, renewable energy
policies in various states and countries, and the impact of
such policies on businesses and consumers.
The Subcommittees received testimony from: Dr. Molly
Sherlock, Specialist in Public Finance, Congressional Research
Service; Mr. John Parcell, Acting Deputy Tax Legislative
Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Dr. Michael Pacheco,
Vice President, Deployment and Industrial Partnerships,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Mr. Rhone Resch,
President and CEO, Solar Energy Industries Association; Mr.
Terry Royer, CEO, Winergy Drive Systems Corporation; Mr. Steven
Erby, Vice President, Monolith Solar Associates, LLC; Dr.
Benjamin Zycher, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise
Institute; Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist, American Council for Capital Formation; and Ms. Lisa
Linowes, Executive Director, Industrial Wind Action Group.
April 25, 2012_How the Report on Carcinogens Uses
Science to Meet its Statutory Obligations,
and its Impact on Small Business Jobs
(JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING WITH
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
HEALTHCARE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE) (Hearing Volume No.
112-79)
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations &
Oversight, and the Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on
Healthcare and Technology, met to examine the Report on
Carcinogens (RoC). The hearing provided the committees an
opportunity to understand how the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services' (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), an
interagency program administered by the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), produces the RoC.
Witnesses discussed the history of the RoC, how NTP uses
science to meet its statutory obligations, and the RoC's impact
on stakeholders, particularly small businesses.
The committees received testimony from: Dr. Linda S.
Birnbaum, Director, National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences & National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services; Mr. Charles A. Maresca, Director of
Interagency Affairs, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration; Dr. James S. Bus, Director of External
Technology, Toxicology and Environmental Research and
Consulting, The Dow Chemical Company; Dr. L. Faye Grimsley,
Associate Professor, Tulane School of Public Health and
Tropical Medicine, Department of Global Environmental Health
Sciences; Ms. Bonnie Webster, Vice President, Monroe
Industries, Inc.; Ms. Ally LaTourelle, Esq., V.P. Government
Affairs, Bioamber, Inc.; Mr. John E. Barker, Corporate Manager,
Environmental Affairs, Safety and Loss Prevention, Strongwell
Corporation; Dr. Richard B. Belzer, President, Regulatory
Checkbook.
May 8, 2012_The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems
(Hearing Volume No. 112-82)
On Tuesday May 8, 2012, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing to examine the scientific record that green building
rating systems are based upon. The Subcommittee reviewed the
General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of
Energy's investments in green buildings through federal
research and development funding and construction choices.
Witnesses discussed DOE and GSA's analysis of green
building rating systems to be used by the federal government
for the next five years, cost benefit analyses of green
building standards, the impact of such standards on the public
and private sector, and third party rating systems, including:
Green Globes, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) system, and the American Society of Hearing,
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers 189.1 (ASHRAE).
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. Kathleen
Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE); Mr. Kevin Kampschroer, Director of the Office of
High-Performance Green Buildings, GSA; Mr. Ward Hubbell,
President, U.S. Green Building Initiative; Mr. Roger Platt,
Senior Vice President, Global Policy and Law, U.S. Green
Building Council; Professor John Scofield, Professor of
Physics, Oberlin College; Mr. Victor Olgyay, Principal
Architect, Built Environment Team, Rocky Mountain Institute;
Mr. Tom Talbot, CEO, Glen Oak Lumber and Milling of Wisconsin.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES,
INCLUDING SELECTIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1st Session
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.
2nd Session
February 28, 2012_An Overview of the National
Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
(Hearing Volume No. 112-62)
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education held a hearing that examined the
Administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 (FY13) budget
request for the National Science Foundation.
The Committee received testimony from Dr. Subra Suresh,
Director, National Science Foundation and Dr. Ray Bowen,
Chairman, National Science Board.
March 8, 2012_NSF Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Management: Ensuring Fiscal
Responsibility and Accountability
(Hearing Volume No. 112-69)
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education held a hearing that examined the
management and operations of Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects at the National
Science Foundation.
The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Cora Marrett,
Deputy Director, National Science Foundation, Dr. Jose-Marie
Griffiths, Chairman, Subcommittee on Facilities, National
Science Board; Vice President of Academic Affairs, Bryant
University, Mr. James H. Yeck, IceCube Project Director,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Tony Beasley, COO/Project
Manager, Neon, Inc., and Dr. Tim Cowles, Vice President and
Director, Ocean Observing, Consortium for Ocean Leadership.
April 18, 2012_NSF Major Multi-User Research
Facilities Management: Ensuring Fiscal
Responsibility and Accountability
(Hearing Volume No 112-76)
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012, the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education held a hearing to examine the planning,
management, operations, and stewardship of major multi-user
research facilities funded through the National Science
Foundation.
The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Ethan J.
Schreier, President, Associated Universities, Inc., Dr. William
S. Smith, Jr., President, Association of Universities for
Research in Astronomy, Dr. David Divins, Vice President and
Director, Ocean Drilling Programs, Consortium for Ocean
Leadership, Inc., Dr. Gregory S. Boebinger, Director, National
High Magnetic Field Laboratory and Professor of Physics,
Florida State University and University of Florida, Dr. Sol
Michael Gruner, Director, Cornell High Energy Synchrotron
Source and The John L. Wetherill Professor of Physics, Cornell
University.
April 30, 2012_STEM Education in Action: Local
Schools, Non-Profits, and Businesses Doing Their
Part to Secure America's Future
(Hearing Volume No. 112-81)
On Monday, April 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. at Bob Jones High
School, 650 Hughes Road, Madison, Alabama 35758, the
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing
entitled STEM Education in Action: Local Schools, Non-Profits,
and Businesses Doing Their Part to Secure America's Future. The
purpose of the hearing was to highlight local science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
programs and partnerships and to examine their impact on the
next generation of STEM professionals, local jobs, and the U.S.
economy.
The Committee received testimony from: Dr. Camille H.
Wright, Director of Secondary Instruction, Madison City
Schools, Dr. Robert A. Altenkirch, President, University of
Alabama, Huntsville, Dr. Marilyn C. Beck, President, Calhoun
Community College, Dr. Neil Lamb, Director of Educational
Outreach, HudsonAlpha Institute of Biotechnology, and Mr.
Andrew Partynski, Chief Technology Officer, Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
May 9, 2012_Ensuring the Best Stewardship of
American Taxpayer Dollars at the National
Science Foundation (Hearing Volume No. 112-83)
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, at 2:00pm, the Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education met to examine and receive
testimony on various initiatives by and issues identified by
the NSF Office of Inspector General.
The witness discussed the work of the NSF Office of
Inspector General to promote the efficiency and effectiveness
of the Foundation and to safeguard the integrity of its
programs and operations. The hearing addressed a number of
potential waste, fraud, and abuse concerns, including issues
with Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
funding for contingencies, problems with the Small Business
Innovation Research program, and funding beyond expenses and
per diem provided to merit review panel participants.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Ms. Allison C.
Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES,
INCLUDING SELECTED LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1st Session
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 launch 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.
2nd Session
March 20, 2012_Office of Commercial Space
Transportation FY 2013 Budget Request
(Hearing Volume No. 112-70)
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, the Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing on the FAA Office of Commercial Space
Transportation FY 2013 budget request. The hearing provided
Members an opportunity to examine the office's roles and
responsibilities as the commercial market is expected to
achieve dramatic growth, as well as the role of a government-
sponsored indemnification program. AST's FY 2013 budget request
seeks $16.700 million, a 2.6% increase over the FY 2012 enacted
level ($16.271 million). Based on industry-provided launch
manifests, FAA forecasts 40 commercial launch and reentry
operations in 2012, compared with only one licensed launch in
FY 2011.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. George Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, and Capt. Wilbur Trafton,
Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee.
April 26, 2012_An Overview of the NASA Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate Budget for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Hearing Volume 112-80)
On Thursday, April 26, 2012, the Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing to examine (1) the FY 2013 budget request for
NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and (2) the
agency's strategy for managing its aeronautics research
portfolio. Additionally, the hearing discussed a report
recently issued by the National Research Council, ``Recapturing
NASA's Aeronautics Flight Research Capabilities,'' that looked
into the efficacy and affordability of strengthening the
agency's integrated flight research program.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Jaiwon Shin,
Associate Administrator for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate; Ms. Marion Blakey, Chair of the Aeronautics
Committee, NASA Advisory Council, and President of the
Aerospace Industries Association; Dr. Wesley Harris, Chair of
the Committee to Assess NASA's Aeronautics Flight Research
Capabilities, National Research Council, and the Charles Stark
Draper Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; and Dr. John Tracy, Chair, National
Research Council's Aeronautics Research and Technology
Roundtable, and Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice
President of Engineering, Operations, and Technology, The
Boeing Company.
June 6, 2012_An Examination of FAA's Launch Indemnification
Program (Hearing Volume 112-87)
On Wednesday, June 6, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing
on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST) which manages a
federally-sponsored liability risk-sharing regime (commonly
referred to as ``indemnification '') for third party loss
(injury or property damage to the uninvolved public) during
launch and reentry of a licensed commercial launch system. The
current authorization for indemnification expires December 31,
2012. The hearing reviewed FAA's management of the program,
whether the program should be extended, and discussed if newly
emerging commercial launch markets necessitated changes to
current policy.
Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Dr. George
Nield, Associate Administrator for the Office of Commercial
Space Transportation, FAA; Ms. Alicia Cackley, Director of
Financial Markets and Community Investment Team, Government
Accountability Office (GAO); Mr. Frank Slazer, Vice President,
Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association; and Ms. Alison
Alfers, Vice President, Defense and Intelligence, DigitalGlobe
Inc.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
OVERSIGHT, INVESTIGATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES,
INCLUDING SELECTIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1st Session
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 yeas to 4 nays.
2nd Session
February 29, 2012_Promoting Innovation,
Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles for
Effective Domestic and International Standards Development
(Hearing Volume No. 112-63)
On Wednesday, February 29, 2011, the Subcommittee held a
hearing exploring the principles that support effective
standards development processes, with respect to the effect of
standards development on innovation, competition, and economic
growth. The hearing analyzed the ways in which the Federal
government, industry, and other organizations work to promote
the application of principles in the international standards
development arena. Additionally, the hearing examined the ways
in which trading partners may use standards as technical
barriers to trade and how the Federal government and other
stakeholders seek to address these challenges in the global
arena.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Ms. Mary H. Saunders,
Director, Standards Coordination Office, National Institute of
Standards and Technology; Mr. S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO,
American National Standards Institute; Mr. Philip Wennblom,
Director of Standards, Intel Corporation; Mr. Mark Grimaldi,
Owner, Equinox Chemicals; and Mr. James Seay, President,
Premier Rides.
March 6, 2012_An Overview of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology Budget for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Hearing Volume No. 112-66)
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing
to examine the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2013
(FY13) budget request for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). NIST is a non-regulatory agency within
the Department of Commerce. Originally founded in 1901 as the
National Bureau of Standards, NIST's mission is to promote U.S.
innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing
measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that
enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. By
working closely alongside industry, NIST has become recognized
as a provider of high-quality information utilized by the
private sector.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Patrick
Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, who reviewed the proposed budget in the context of
the Administration's overall priorities for NIST.
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Spending
(dollars in millions)
March 27, 2012_Fostering the U.S. Competitive Edge:
Examining the Effect of Federal Policies on
Competition, Innovation, and Job Growth
(Hearing Volume No. 112-71)
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing
to better understand how Federal policies and regulations
affect competition, innovation, and job growth, and to solicit
input from leaders of innovative companies on ways to improve
Federal economic and regulatory policy. The hearing focused on
recommendations for policies Congress should enact to improve
American competitiveness and to promote innovation; proposals
for Federal policy-makers to help alleviate the burdens of
current Federal policies that inhibit innovation; how
regulatory uncertainty affects companies' ability to make
business decisions; and how a country's economic policies
influence companies' decisions to establish or expand business
operations.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Ron Cohen,
President and CEO, Acorda Therapeutics; Mr. Mick Truitt, Vice
President, Ludlum Measurements, Inc.; Mr. Thomas M. Brandt,
Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.; and Mr. Richard A. Bendis,
Interim CEO, BioHealth Innovation Inc., President and CEO,
Innovation America.
April 18, 2012_Avoiding the Spectrum Crunch:
Growing the Wireless Economy through Innovation (Hearing Volume
No. 112-77)
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012, the Subcommittee held a
hearing to review efforts supporting the flexible and
innovative utilization of spectrum, while ensuring the
continued growth of the wireless economy. Given continued
growth projections and spectrum's finite nature, additional
allocations of spectrum will only address the ``spectrum
crunch'' for an indefinite period of time. Smartphone sales
have eclipsed PC sales, and mobile broadband is being adopted
faster than any computing platform in history.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. James Olthoff,
Deputy Director, Physical Measurement Laboratory, National
Institute of Standards and Technology; Mr. Richard Bennett,
Senior Research Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation; Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs, CTIA-The Wireless Association; Ms. Mary
Brown, Director, Technology and Spectrum Policy, Cisco Systems,
Inc.; and Dr. Rangam Subramanian, Chief Wireless and Technology
Strategist, Idaho National Laboratory.
May 17, 2012_Working for a Fire Safe America:
Examining United States Fire Administration Priorities (Hearing
Volume 112-85)
On Thursday, May 17, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing
to examine the priorities of the fire service community for the
future of the United States Fire Administration (USFA). The
USFA is responsible for leadership, coordination, best
practices, and support for the nation's fire prevention and
control, fire training and education, and emergency medical
services activities. It prepares first responders and health
care leaders to react to all hazard and terrorism emergencies.
Witnesses discussed the current effectiveness of the USFA;
priorities for future research, development, and training
activities; and the areas of greatest importance for the
upcoming reauthorization.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Ernest Mitchell,
Jr., Administrator, United States Fire Administration; Dr. John
R. Hall, Jr., Division Director, Fire Analysis and Research,
National Fire Protection Association; Chief Jim Critchley,
Tucson Fire Department; President, Western Fire Chiefs
Association; Mr. Kevin O'Connor, Assistant to the General
President for Governmental Affairs, International Association
of Fire Fighters.
May 31, 2012_Assembling the Facts: Examining the
Proposed National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (Hearing Volume No. 112-86)
On Thursday, May 31, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing
to examine the proposed National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation (NNMI). The Administration requested $1 billion in
mandatory spending for the NNMI in the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). The NNMI is designed to promote the development of
manufacturing technologies with broad applications through
collaboration between the Federal Government and public and
private sector stakeholders. Since the NIST fiscal year 2013
budget hearing in early March, the Administration has moved
forward with establishing the pilot institute as well as the
planning process for the greater NNMI. At the time of the
hearing, Under Secretary Gallagher was unable to provide
substantial details about the program. This hearing sought to
follow up on the March 6, 2012 hearing, and specifically learn
more about the proposed network and status of FY12 activities
related to the pilot institute.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Patrick
Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and
Technology and Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Oversight Plan
----------
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 112th CONGRESS
(INCLUDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS OF
JUNE 15, 2012)
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 spaceflight
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
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
March 7, 2012
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
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Budget for
Fiscal Year 2013
March 20, 2012
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
An Examination of FAA's Launch Indemnification Program
June 6, 2012
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
Full Committee Hearing
Securing the Promise of the International Space Station:
Challenges and Opportunities
March 28, 2012
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.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate
Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
April 26, 2012
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
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the Department of Energy Research and
Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
March 1, 2012
Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency Budgets
for Fiscal Year 2013
March 6, 2012
Subcommittee Hearing
To Observe and Protect: How NOAA Procures Data for Weather
Forecasting
March 28, 2012
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
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
Impact of Tax Policies on the Commercial Application of
Renewable Energy Technology
April 19, 2012
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
Full Committee Hearing
Tapping America's Unconventional Oil Resources for Job
Creation and Affordable Domestic Energy: Technology and Policy
Pathways
April 17, 2012
Subcommittee Hearing
Supporting American Jobs and the Economy through Expanded
Energy Production: Challenges and Opportunities of
Unconventional Resources Technology
May 10, 2012
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
Full Committee Hearing
Assessing America's Nuclear Future-A Review of the Blue
Ribbon Commission's Report to the Secretary of Energy
February 8, 2012
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
Subcommittee Hearing
Fractured Science-Examining EPA's Approach to Ground Water
Research:
The Pavillion Analysis
February 1, 2012
Subcommittee Hearing
Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on
Common Sense Reform- Day II
February 3, 2012
Subcommittee Hearing
EPA's Impact on Jobs and Energy Affordability:
Understanding the Real Costs and Benefits of Environmental
Regulations
June 6, 2012
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
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
March 6, 2012
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
Assembling the Facts: Examining the Proposed National Network
for Manufacturing Innovation
May 31, 2012
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 & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth:
Principles for Effective Domestic and International Standards
Development
February 29, 2012
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
Fostering the U.S. Competitive Edge: Examining the Effect of
Federal Policies on Competition, Innovation, and Job Growth
March 27, 2012
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
Avoiding the Spectrum Crunch: Growing the Wireless Economy
through Innovation
April 18, 2012
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.
Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Hearing
Working for a Fire Safe America: Examining United States Fire
Administration Priorities
May 17, 2012
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
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget for FY
2013
February 28, 2012
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
NSF Major Multi-User Research Facilities Management: Ensuring
Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability
April 18, 2012
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
Ensuring the Best Stewardship of American Taxpayer Dollars at
the National Science Foundation
May 9, 2012
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
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing - Field
Hearing
STEM Education in Action: Local Schools, Non-Profits, and
Businesses Doing Their Part to Secure America's Future
April 30, 2012
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.
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities Management:
Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability at NSF
March 8, 2012
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
Full Committee Hearing
An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research and
Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
February 17, 2012
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
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
Federally Funded Research: Examining Public Access and
Scholarly Publication Interests
March 29, 2012
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
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
A Review of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
January 24, 2012
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
NASA Cybersecurity: An Examination of the Agency's
Information Security
February 29, 2012
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment
Subcommittee Hearing
Impact of Tax Policies on the Commercial Application of
Renewable Energy Technology
April 19, 2012
Joint Subcommittee Hearing
Investigations & Oversight and Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Health & Technology
How the Report on Carcinogens Uses Science to Meet its
Statutory Obligations, and its Impact on Small Business Jobs
April 25, 2012
Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Hearing
The Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems
May 8, 2012
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.
Research & Science Education Subcommittee Hearing
Ensuring the Best Stewardship of American Taxpayer Dollars
at the National Science Foundation
May 9, 2012
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, at 2:00pm, the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education met to examine and receive testimony on various
initiatives by and issues identified by the NSF Office of Inspector
General.
The witness discussed the work of the NSF Office of Inspector
General to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Foundation
and to safeguard the integrity of its programs and operations. The
hearing addressed a number of potential waste, fraud, and abuse
concerns, including issues with Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction funding for contingencies, problems with the Small
Business Innovation Research program, and funding beyond expenses and
per diem provided to merit review panel participants.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Ms. Allison C. Lerner,
Inspector General, National Science Foundation.
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
NASA Cybersecurity: An Examination of the Agency's
Information Security
February 29, 2012
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, the Subcommittee on Investigations
and Oversight met to examine the state of information security at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The hearing
focused on recent reports from NASA Office of the Inspector General
(IG) concerning information security, the steps NASA is taking to
address the recommendations contained in those reports, and future
challenges to the Agency's information security posture.
Witnesses discussed the types and orgins of cyber threats,
recommendations from the IG reports, governance issues concerning the
limited authority of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and internal
agency cultural differences that compound the difficulties in
protecting the agency's networks.
The Subcommittee received testimony from: Ms. Linda Cureton, Chief
Information Officer, NASA; and the Honorable Paul Martin, Inspector
General, NASA.
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
An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2013
March 20, 2012
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held an oversight hearing to examine the FY 2013 budget
request submitted by the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
The hearing examined the office's roles and responsibilities, as the
commercial market is expected to achieve dramatic growth, as well as
the role of a government-sponsored indemnification program. The FY 2013
budget request seeks $16.700 million, a 2.6% increase over FY 2012
enacted level ($16.271 million). Based on industry-provided launch
manifests, FAA forecasts 40 commercial launch an reentry operations in
2012, compared with only onne licensed launch in 2011.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. George Nield, FAA
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation and Capt.
Wilbur Trafton, Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory
Committee.
Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing
Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request
May 5, 2011
On Thursday, May 5, 2011, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held an oversight
hearing to examine the FY 2012 budget request submitted by the FAA
Office of Commercial Space Transportation and new initiatives in the
request to expand the office's roles and responsibilities. The FY 2012
budget request seeks $26.625 million, a 74% increase over the FY 2010
enacted level ($15.237 million) and a near 50% increase of the Office's
workforce, asserting that NASA-sponsored commercial cargo flights to
the International Space Station, plus the expected start-up of
commercial human sub-orbital flights, places new regulatory demands on
their operations.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. George Nield, FAA
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Dr. Gerald
Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, and Prof. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of
Space Policy and International Affairs at the George Washington
University.
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
OVERSIGHT CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH JUNE 2012
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 FY16, while last year's
budget (and associated out-years) assumed annual increases such that by
FY16, 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% 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 FY 10 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 FY I2 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 FY1O 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 FY 11 budget
request. This reflects President Obama's call in his State of the Union
speech for increased spending on clean energy technologies. Most EERE
programs receive significant funding increases relative to the 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 FY10. 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 FY12 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%) 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 FYI2, 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.
January 26, 2012
Ms. Giffords resigned from the United States House of Representatives.
February 16, 2012--H. Res. 533
Ms. Bonamici appointed to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology.
March 20, 2012--H. Res. 590
Mr. Sarbanes resigned from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology.
March 20, 2012--H. Res. 590
Ms. Fudge resigned from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology.
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.
January 26, 2012
Ms. Giffords resigned from the United States House or Representatives.
March 20, 2012
Mr. Sarbanes resigned from the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education and Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
March 20, 2012
Ms. Fudge resigned from the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
March 28, 2012
Ms. Bonamici was assigned to the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education and the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
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. REPT. 112-333, Part
I**
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 112-50
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 23, 2011 Second Semiannual Report of Activities - Committee on H. REPT. 112-347
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 24, 2012---------------A Review of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-------112-57-------------------
Energy.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 1, 2012 Fractured Science- Examining EPA's Approach to Ground 112-58
Water Research: Pavillion Analysis
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 3, 2012 Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on 112-59
Common Sense Reform-Day II
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 7, 2012 Advancing America's Networking and Information H. REPT. 112-420**
Technology Research and Development Act of 2012.
Passed by Voice Vote.
(Markup held by Committee on Science Space and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 7, 2012 To Provide a Comprehensive Assessment of the H.R. 3199
Scientific and Technical Research on the Implications
of the Use of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends, and for other
purposes H.R. 3199, was favorably reported as amended
to the House by a vote of 19Ayes-7 Nays
(Markup held by Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 8, 2012 Assessing America's Nuclear Future- A Review of the 112-60
Blue Ribbon Commission's Report to the Secretary of
Energy.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 17, 2012 An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research 112-61
and Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
(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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 28, 2012--------------An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget---112-62-------------------
for Fiscal Year 2013.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research Science .........................
Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 29, 2012 Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic 112-63
Growth: Principles for Effective Domestic and
International Standards Development.
( Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 29, 2012 NASA Cybersecurity: An Examination of the Agency's 112-64
Information Security.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1, 2012 An Overview of the Department of Energy Research and 112-65
Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 2012 An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 112-66
Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 2012 An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 112-67
Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7, 2012 An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space 112-68
Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
(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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 8, 2012------------------NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities-------------112-69-------------------
Management: Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility and
Accountability.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 2012 An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space 112-70
Transportation Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
(Held by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics) .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 27, 2012 Fostering the U.S. Competitive Edge: Examining the 112-71
Effect of Federal Policies on Competition Innovation,
and Job Growth.
(Held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 28, 2012 Securing the Promise of the International Space 112-72
Station: Challenges and Opportunities.
(Hearing held by the Committee on Science, Space, and .........................
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 28, 2012 To Observe and Protect: How NOAA Procures Data for 112-73
Weather Forecasting.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 29, 2012 Federally Funded Research: Examining Public Access and 112-74
Scholarly Publication Interests.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 11, 2012 Tapping America's Unconventional Oil Resources for Job 112-75
Creation and Affordable Domestic Energy: Technology
and Policy Pathways.
(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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 18, 2012-----------------NSF Major Multi-User Research Facilities Management:----112-76-------------------
Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 18, 2012 Avoiding the Spectrum Crunch: Growing the Wireless 112-77
Economy through Innovation.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 19, 2012 Joint Hearing - Impact of Tax Policies on the 112-78
Commercial Application of Renewable Energy
Technology.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations & .........................
Oversight and Energy and Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25, 2012 Joint Hearing - How the Report on Carcinogens Uses 112-79
Science to Meet its Statutory Obligations, and its
Impact on Small Business Jobs.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations .........................
and Oversight and Subcommittee Healthcare and
Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 26, 2012 An Overview of the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission 112-80
Directorate Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 30, 2012 STEM Education in Action: Local Schools, Non Profits, 112-81
and Business Doing Their Part to Secure America's
Future.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee Research and Science .........................
Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8, 2012 AThe Science Behind Green Building Rating Systems. 112-82
(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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 9, 2012--------------------Ensuring the Best Stewardship of American Taxpayer------112-83-------------------
Dollars at the National Science Foundation.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and .........................
Science Education)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 10, 2012 Supporting American Jobs and the Economy through 112-84
Expanded Energy Production: Challenges and
Opportunities of Unconventional Resources Technology.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2012 Working for Fire Safe America: Examining United States 112-85
Fire Administration Priorities.
(Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31, 2012 Assembling the Facts: Examining the Proposed National 112-86
Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Technology and .........................
Innovation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6, 2012 An Examination of FAA's Launch Indemnification 112-87
Program.
(Hearing Held by Subcommittee on Space and .........................
Aeronautics)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6, 2012 EPA's Impact on Jobs and Energy Affordability: 112-88
Understanding the Real Costs and Benefits of
Environmental Regulations.
(Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and .........................
Environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*LHearings that have been printed.
**LReports that have been printed.