[House Report 105-847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 488
105th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 105-847
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
for the
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JANUARY 2, 1999
January 2, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
--------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-706 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois RMM*
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
JOE BARTON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana
KEN CALVERT, California JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan** ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
DAVE WELDON, Florida LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
MATT SALMON, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
MARK FOLEY, Florida BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
Mississippi NICK LAMPSON, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
KEVIN BRADY, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MERRILL COOK, Utah BARBARA LEE, California
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., VACANCY
Washington
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
VACANCY
Todd R. Schultz, Chief of Staff
Barry C. Beringer, Chief Counsel
Patricia S. Schwartz, Chief Clerk/Administrator
Vivian A. Tessieri, Legislative Clerk
Robert E. Palmer, Democratic Staff Director
----------
*Ranking Minority Member.
**Vice Chairman.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, January 2, 1999.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
The Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Trandahl: In compliance with Rule XI, Clause 1(d)
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit
the Summary of Activities of the Committee on Science for the
105th Congress.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Members of the
House of Representatives, as well as the general public, with
an overview of the legislative and oversight activities
conducted by this committee, as defined by Rule X, Clause 1(n)
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
This document is intended as a general reference tool, and
not as a substitute for the hearing records, reports, and other
committee files.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Committee History................................................ 1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science.... 13
1.1--P.L. 105-23, To amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields
Research and Public Information Dissemination Program (H.R.
363)....................................................... 13
1.2--P.L. 105-47, To authorize appropriations for carrying
out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes (S. 910/H.R.
2249)...................................................... 15
1.3--P.L. 105-85, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (H.R. 1119)............................... 17
1.4--P.L. 105-108, United States Fire Administration
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (S. 1231/
H.R. 1272)................................................. 20
1.5--P.L. 105-135, Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997
(S. 1139/H.R. 2261/H.R. 2429)--(Note H.R. 2429 was
incorporated as Title VII of H.R. 2261, House companion
measure to S. 1139)........................................ 21
1.6--P.L. 105-155, FAA Research, Engineering, and Development
Authorization Act of 1998 (H.R. 1271)...................... 22
1.7--P.L. 105-160, The National Sea Grant College Program
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (S. 927/H.R. 437).............. 23
1.8--P.L. 105-178, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (H.R. 2400/H.R 860)................................ 25
1.9--P.L. 105-207, National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 1998 (H.R. 1273/S. 1046)............................ 26
1.10--P.L. 105-234, Fastener Quality Act Amendments (H.R.
3824)...................................................... 27
1.11--P.L. 105-255, Commission on the Advancement of Women in
Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act (H.R.
3007)...................................................... 28
1.12--P.L. 105-261, Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (H.R. 3616)......... 28
1.13--P.L. 105-303, Commercial Space Act of 1998 (H.R. 1702). 30
1.14--P.L. 105-305, Next Generation Internet Research Act of
1998 (H.R. 3332/S. 1609)................................... 32
1.15--P.L. 105-309, Technology Administration Act of 1998
(H.R.1274/S. 1325)......................................... 34
1.16--P.L. 105-383, Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998
(H.R. 2204/H.R. 4235--Title VI of H.R. 2204)............... 35
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on
Science........................................................ 37
2.1--Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act (H.R. 922)....... 37
2.2--Civilian Space Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1998 and
1999 (H.R. 1275/S. 1250)................................... 38
2.3--Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1997 (H.R. 1276)...................... 41
2.4--Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development
Act of 1997 (H.R. 1277).................................... 42
2.5--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 1997 (H.R. 1278)...................... 45
2.6--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 (H.R. 1903)... 46
2.7--Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1998 (H.R.
2544/H.R. 4859)............................................ 47
Chapter III--Other Measures Discharged by the Committee on
Science........................................................ 49
3.1--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on
the Committee Print entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward
A New National Science Policy'' (H.Res. 578)............... 49
3.2--To provide for the conveyance of certain property from
the United States to Stanislaus County, California (H.R.
112)....................................................... 49
3.3--Oceans Act of 1998 (H.R. 3445).......................... 50
3.4--National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 1998 (H.R.
3610)...................................................... 51
3.5--Year 2000 Preparedness Act of 1998 (H.R. 4756).......... 52
3.6--Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1998 (H.R.
4859/See H.R. 2544 in Chapter II).......................... 53
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee
Legislative Activities......................................... 55
4.1--Committee on Science.................................... 55
4.1(a) February 12, 1997--The Status of Russian
Participation in the International Space Station
Program................................................ 55
4.1(b) March 12, 1997--The United States and Antarctica
in the 21st Century.................................... 57
4.1(c) May 14, 1997--Department of Energy Posture........ 58
4.1(d) July 23, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and
Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV,
Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).................. 59
4.1(e) July 30, 1997--Demanding Results: Implementing the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).......... 59
4.1(f) September 10, 1997--The Next Generation Internet.. 61
4.1(g) September 18, 1997--International Space Station,
Parts I-V.............................................. 63
4.1(h) September 24, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and
Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV,
Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).................. 69
4.1(i) October 8, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and
Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV,
Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).................. 70
4.1(j) October 29, 1997--Science, Math, Engineering and
Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts I-IV,
Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).................. 72
4.1(k) February 4, 1998--Road From Kyoto, Part I: Where
Are We, Where Are We Going, And How Do We Get There?... 74
4.1(l) February 12, 1998--Road From Kyoto, Part II: Kyoto
and the Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Request................................................ 75
4.1(m) March 4, 1998--National Science Policy Study,
Parts I-VII............................................ 75
4.1(n) March 5, 1998--The Road From Kyoto, Part III:
State Department Overview.............................. 77
4.1(o) March 11, 1998--National Science Policy Study,
Parts I-VII............................................ 78
4.1(p) March 25, 1998--National Science Policy Study,
Parts I-VII............................................ 79
4.1(q) April 1, 1998--National Science Policy Study,
Parts I-VII............................................ 81
4.1(r) April 22, 1998--National Science Policy Study,
Parts I-VII............................................ 84
4.1(s) May 6, 1998--International Space Station, Parts I-
V...................................................... 86
4.1(t) May 14, 1998--National Science Policy Study, Parts
I-VII.................................................. 87
4.1(u) June 10, 1998--National Science Policy Study,
Parts I-VII............................................ 90
4.1(v) June 24, 1998--International Space Station, Parts
I-V.................................................... 92
4.1(w) June 25, 1998--China: Dual-Use Space Technology... 94
4.1(x) August 5, 1998--International Space Station, Parts
I-V.................................................... 97
4.1(y) October 7, 1998--International Space Station,
Parts I-V.............................................. 99
4.1(z) October 9, 1998--The Road From Kyoto-Part IV: The
Kyoto Protocol's Impact on U.S. Energy Markets and
Economic Activity...................................... 101
4.2--Subcommittee on Basic Research.......................... 102
4.2(a) March 5, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), Parts I-III..................................... 102
4.2(b) March 13, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), Parts I-III..................................... 104
4.2(c) March 18, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization of
the United States Fire Administration (USFA)........... 106
4.2(d) April 9, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), Parts I-III..................................... 109
4.2(e) April 24, 1997--National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program...................................... 113
4.2(f) September 25, 1997--Internet Domain Names, Parts I
and II................................................. 116
4.2(g) September 30, 1997--Internet Domain Names, Parts I
and II................................................. 117
4.2(h) March 31, 1998--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and
II..................................................... 119
4.2(i) April 22, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Authorization Request: National Science Foundation..... 121
4.2(j) May 21, 1998--External Regulation Of DOE Labs:
Status Of OSHA And NRC Pilot Programs.................. 122
4.2(k) July 23, 1998--The National Science Foundation's
Statewide Systemic Initiatives: Are SSI's The Best Way
to Improve K-12 Math and Science Education?............ 124
4.2(l) September 23, 1998--GAO Report On DOE National
Laboratory Management Reform........................... 126
4.2(m) September 28, 1998--Remote Sensing................ 128
4.2(n) October 6, 1998--High Performance Computing....... 130
4.2(o) October 7, 1998--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and
II..................................................... 133
4.3--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.................. 135
4.3(a) March 6, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Office of
Energy Research and DOE Management of Major System
Acquisitions........................................... 135
4.3(b) March 11, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency
Research and Development............................... 136
4.3(c) March 12, 1997--The Science Behind the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III.......... 137
4.3(d) March 13, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and H.R. 437, The Marine
Revitalization Act of 1997............................. 138
4.3(e) March 19, 1997--FY 1998 Budget Request: Department
of Energy, Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal Technology
Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
and, H.R. 363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic
Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination
Program................................................ 138
4.3(f) March 20, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE)--
Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety and Health; and
Environment Restoration and Waste Management (Non-
Defense)............................................... 139
4.3(g) April 9, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research and
Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).................................. 140
4.3(h) May 7, 1997--The Science Behind the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and
Particulate Matter, Parts I-III........................ 141
4.3(i) May 21, 1997--The Science Behind the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and
Particulate Matter, Parts I-III........................ 142
4.3(j) July 31, 1997--S.417, To extend energy
conservation programs under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act through September 30, 2002............ 143
4.3(k) September 11, 1997--Preparing for El Nino......... 143
4.3(l) October 7, 1997--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III.. 144
4.3(m) October 9, 1997--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III.. 145
4.3(n) November 6, 1997--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III. 146
4.3(o) February 25, 1998--DOE FY 99 Budget Authorization
Request; H.R. 1806, To Provide For The Consolidation Of
The DOE Offices Of Fossil Energy, Renewable Energy, And
Energy Efficiency; S. 965, To Amend Title II Of The
Hydrogen Future Act of 1996............................ 146
4.3(p) March 4, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request:
NOAA................................................... 147
4.3(q) March 11, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 EPA R&D Budget
Authorization.......................................... 148
4.3(r) March 18, 1998--Diesel Technology for the 21st
Century................................................ 149
4.3(s) March 25, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Authorization Request for the Department of Energy,
Environmental Protection Agency Research and
Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration......................................... 150
4.3(t) March 31, 1998--Electric Utility Deregulation:
Implications for Research and Development.............. 150
4.3(u) May 20, 1998--EPA's Rule On Paints And Coatings:
Has EPA Met The Research Requirements Of The Clean Air
Act?................................................... 151
4.3(v) June 17, 1998--The Human Genome Project: How
Private Sector Developments Affect the Government
Program................................................ 152
4.3(w) July 15, 1998--The Science of Risk Assessment:
Implications for Federal Regulation.................... 153
4.3(x) September 15, 1998--S. 1418, Methane Hydrate
Research and Development Act of 1998................... 153
4.3(y) October 2, 1998--Here Comes La Nina: What To
Expect From the Weather in the Winter of 1998-1999..... 154
4.4--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics................... 155
4.4(a) March 4, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA
Authorization, Parts I-VI.............................. 155
4.4(b) March 12, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA
Authorization, Parts I-VI.............................. 156
4.4(c) March 13, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA
Authorization, Parts I-VI.............................. 157
4.4(d) March 19, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA
Authorization, Parts I-VI.............................. 160
4.4(e) April 9, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA
Authorization, Parts I-VI.............................. 161
4.4(f) April 10, 1997--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA
Authorization, Parts I-VI.............................. 164
4.4(g) May 21, 1997--The Commercial Space Act of 1997,
Parts I-III............................................ 165
4.4(h) May 22, 1997--The Commercial Space Act of 1997,
Parts I-III............................................ 168
4.4(i) June 4, 1997--The Commercial Space Act of 1997,
Parts I-III............................................ 169
4.4(j) October 1, 1997--Space Shuttle Safety............. 171
4.4(k) October 24, 1997--NASA's Study of Space Solar
Power.................................................. 173
4.4(l) October 30, 1997--Indemnification and Cross Waiver
Authority.............................................. 176
4.4(m) November 5, 1997--Status and Cost Overruns of the
International Space Station Program.................... 179
4.4(n) February 5, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Parts I-IV............................................. 185
4.4(o) February 12, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Parts I-IV............................................. 187
4.4(p) February 25, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Parts I-IV............................................. 189
4.4(q) March 19, 1998--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Parts I-IV............................................. 191
4.4(r) May 21, 1998--Asteroids: Perils and Opportunities. 194
4.4(s) September 10, 1998--Delays in NASA's Earth Science
Enterprise............................................. 195
4.4(t) September 29, 1998--U.S. Spacepower in the 21st
Century................................................ 197
4.4(u) October 1--NASA at 40: What Kind of Space Program
Does America Need for the 21st Century?................ 199
4.5--Subcommittee on Technology.............................. 201
4.5(a) February 11, 1997--Secure Communications.......... 201
4.5(b) February 27, 1997--Surface Transportation Research
Needs for the Next Century, Parts 1-2.................. 202
4.5(c) March 5, 1997--Biotechnology and the Ethics of
Cloning: How Far Should We Go?......................... 203
4.5(d) March 13, 1997--Federal Aviation Administration
Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization... 205
4.5(e) March 19, 1997--Funding Needs for the Technology
Administration and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Parts I-II...................... 206
4.5(f) March 20, 1997--Year 2000 Risks: What Are the
Consequences Of Information Technology Failure?........ 207
4.5(g) April 10, 1997--Funding Needs for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Parts I
and II................................................. 208
4.5(h) April 23, 1997--Surface Transportation Research
Needs for the Next Century, Parts I-II................. 209
4.5(i) May 6, 1997--Technology in the Classroom: Panacea
or Pandora's Box....................................... 211
4.5(j) June 12, 1997--Review of the President's
Commission's Recommendations on Cloning................ 213
4.5(k) June 19, 1997--Computer Security Enhancement Act
of 1997: To Amend The National Institute Of Standards
and Technology Act to Enhance The Ability Of The
National Institute of Standards And Technology To
Improve Computer Security, And For Other Purposes...... 214
4.5(l) June 24, 1997--The Role of Research & Development
In Improving Civilian Air Traffic Management........... 216
4.5(m) July 10, 1997--Will Federal Government Computers
Be Ready For the Year 2000?............................ 218
4.5(n) July 15, 1997--Meeting The Needs Of People With
Disabilities Through Federal Technology Transfer....... 220
4.5(o) July 22, 1997--The Prohibition of Federal Funding
of Human Cloning Research.............................. 222
4.5(p) September 4, 1997--Reauthorization of the Small
Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR)............ 224
4.5(q) September 25, 1998--Promoting Technology Transfer
by Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned Inventions. 226
4.5(r) October 21, 1997--Technology to Reduce Aircraft
Noise.................................................. 228
4.5(s) October 28, 1997--Do You Know Who You Are Doing
Business With? Signatures in a Digital Age............. 230
4.5(t) November 4, 1997--The Global Dimensions of the
Millennium Bug......................................... 233
4.5(u) November 6, 1997--The Role of Computer Security in
Protecting U.S. Infrastructures........................ 235
4.5(v) February 4, 1998--FAA at Risk: Year 2000 Impact on
the Air Traffic Control System......................... 238
4.5(w) February 26, 1998--Review of the Fiscal Year 1999
Administration Request for the Technology
Administration and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology......................................... 240
4.5(x) March 10, 1998--Review of H.R. 3007, The
Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering, and
Technology Development Act............................. 242
4.5(y) March 12, 1998--Review of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Research and
Development Budget Request, Including the Flight 2000
Program................................................ 243
4.5(z) March 17, 1998--Facilitating Licenses to
Federally-Owned Inventions: A Legislative Hearing on
H.R. 2544, Technology Transfer Commercialization Act... 246
4.5(aa) March 18, 1997--Year 2000........................ 248
4.5(bb) March 24, 1998--Educating Our Children With
Technology Skills To Compete In the Next Millennium.... 250
4.5(cc) April 28, 1998--International Standards, Parts I
and II................................................. 253
4.5(dd) May 7, 1998--Aviation Manufacturing and The
Fastener Quality Act................................... 256
4.5(ee) May 14, 1998--Y2K Effect on Energy Utilities..... 257
4.5(ff) June 4, 1998--International Standards, Parts I
and II................................................. 260
4.5(gg) July 21, 1998--Community Colleges in the 21st
Century: Tackling Technology........................... 262
4.5(hh) August 4, 1998--Developing Partnerships for
Assistive and Universally Designed Technologies for
Persons with Disabilities.............................. 265
4.5(ii) August 6, 1998--Technology Development at the
Federal Aviation Administration: Computer and
Information Technology Challenges of the 21st Century.. 267
4.5(jj) September 17, 1998--Industrial Biotechnology: A
Solution for the Future?............................... 270
4.5(kk) September 24, 1998--Year 2000: What Every
Consumer Should Know................................... 272
4.5(ll) September 29, 1998--Aviation and the Year 2000... 274
4.5(mm) October 2, 1998--Status of the District of
Columbia's Year 2000 Compliance Effort................. 278
4.5(nn) October 8, 1998--Fastener Quality Act: Needed or
Outdated?.............................................. 279
APPENDIX
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for Fiscal Year
1998........................................................... 283
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for Fiscal Year
1999........................................................... 305
Committee on Science: Analysis and Review........................ 334
GAO Documents.................................................... 395
List of Publications of the Committee on Science (105th Congress) 424
Union Calendar No. 488
105th Congress Report
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105-847
=======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
_______
January 2, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
The Committee on Science has its roots in the intense
reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik on October 4, 1957.
Early in 1958 Speaker Sam Rayburn convened the House of
Representatives, and the first order of the day was a
resolution offered by Majority Leader John McCormack of
Massachusetts. It read, ``Resolved that there is hereby created
a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration * *
*''
The Select Committee performed its tasks with both speed
and skill by writing the Space Act creating the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and chartering the
permanent House Committee on Science and Astronautics, now
known as the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, with
a jurisdiction comprising both science and space.
The Science and Astronautics Committee became the first
standing committee to be established in the House of
Representatives since 1946. It was also the first time since
1892 that the House and Senate had acted to create standing
committees in an entirely new area.
The committee officially came into being on January 3,
1959, and on its 20th Anniversary the Honorable Charles Mosher
said, the committee ``was born of an extraordinary House-Senate
joint leadership initiative, a determination to maintain
American preeminence in science and technology, * * *''
The formal jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
Astronautics included outer space, both exploration and
control, astronautical research and development, scientific
research and development, science scholarships, and legislation
relating to scientific agencies, especially the National Bureau
of Standards, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Council and
the National Science Foundation.
The committee retained this jurisdiction from 1959 until
the end of the 93rd Congress in 1974. While the committee's
original emphasis in 1959 was almost exclusively astronautics,
over this 15-year period the emphasis and workload expanded to
encompass scientific research and development in general.
In 1974, a Select Committee on Committees, after extensive
study, recommended several changes to the organization of the
House in H. Res. 988, including expanding the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Science and Astronautics, and changing its
name to the Committee on Science and Technology.
To the general realm of scientific research and development
was added energy, environmental, atmospheric, and civil
aviation R&D, and also jurisdiction over the National Weather
Service.
In addition to these legislative functions, the Committee
on Science and Technology was assigned a ``special oversight''
function, giving it the exclusive responsibility among all
Congressional standing committees to review and study, on a
continuing basis, all laws, programs and government activities
involving Federal nonmilitary research and development.
In 1977, with the abolition of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, the committee was further assigned jurisdiction
over civilian nuclear research and development thereby rounding
out its jurisdiction for all civilian energy R&D.
A committee's jurisdiction gives it both a mandate and a
focus. It is, however, the committee's chairman that gives it a
unique character. The Committee on Science and Technology has
had the good fortune to have five very talented and distinctly
different chairmen, each very creative in his own way in
directing the committee's activities.
Congressman Overton Brooks was the Science and Astronautics
Committee's first chairman, and was a tireless worker on the
committee's behalf for the two and one-half years he served as
chairman.
When Brooks convened the first meeting of the new committee
in January of 1959, committee Member Ken Hechler recalled,
``There was a sense of destiny, a tingle of realization that
every member was embarking on a voyage of discovery, to learn
about the unknown, to point powerful telescopes toward the
cosmos and unlock secrets of the universe, and to take part in
a great experiment.'' With that spirit the committee began its
work.
Brooks worked to develop closer ties between the Congress
and the scientific community. On February 2, 1959, opening the
first official hearing of the new committee Chairman Brooks
said, ``Although perhaps the principal focus of the hearings
for the next several days will be on astronautics, it is
important to recognize that this committee is concerned with
scientific research across the board.'' And so, from the
beginning, the committee was concerned with the scope of its
vision.
Overton Brooks died of a heart attack in September of 1961,
and the chairmanship of the committee was assumed by
Congressman George Miller of California.
Miller, a civil engineer, was unique among Members of
Congress who rarely come to the legislature with a technical or
scientific background. He had a deep interest in science, and
his influence was clearly apparent in the broadening of the
charter of the National Science Foundation and the
establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment. He
pioneered in building strong relationships with leaders of
science in other nations. This work developed the focus for a
new subcommittee established during his chairmanship, known as
the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development.
Just a few months before Miller became Chairman, President
John F. Kennedy announced to a joint session of Congress the
national commitment to land a man on the moon and return him
safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Thus, during
Miller's 11-year tenure as chairman, the committee directed its
main efforts toward the development of the space program.
Chairman Miller was not reelected in the election of 1972,
so in January of 1973, Olin E. Teague of Texas took over the
helm of the committee. Teague, a man of directness and
determination, was a highly decorated hero of the second World
War. He was a long-standing Member of Congress and Chairman of
the Veterans Committee before taking over the chairmanship of
the Science and Technology Committee.
Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, Teague chaired the
Science Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee, and in
that capacity firmly directed the efforts to send a man to the
moon.
As chairman of the committee, Teague placed heavy emphasis
on educating the Congress and the public on the practical value
of space. He also prodded NASA to focus on the industrial and
human applications of the space program.
One of Teague's first decisions as chairman was to set up a
subcommittee on energy. During his six-year leadership of the
committee, energy research and development became a major part
of the committee's responsibilities.
In 1976, Chairman Teague saw the fruition of three years of
intensive committee work to establish a permanent presence for
science in the White House. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy was established with a Director who would
also serve as the President's Science Advisor.
Throughout his leadership, he voiced constant concern that
the complicated technical issues the committee considered be
expressed in clear and simple terms so that Members of
Congress, as well as the general public, would understand the
issues.
After six years as Chairman, Teague retired from the
committee and the Congress due to serious health problems. He
was succeeded by Don Fuqua, a representative from northern
Florida.
Fuqua became Chairman on January 24, 1979, at the beginning
of the 96th Congress and was the youngest Member to succeed to
the committee's chairmanship.
Don Fuqua came to the Congress after two terms in the
Florida State Legislature and was, at age 29, the youngest
Democrat in Congress when he was elected in 1962.
Fuqua's experience on the committee dated back to the first
day of his Congressional service. Since 1963, he had served as
a Member of the Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee.
When Olin Teague became chairman of the committee in 1973,
Fuqua took Teague's place as chairman of the subcommittee.
As the subcommittee chairman he was responsible for major
development decisions on the Space Shuttle and the successful
Apollo-Soyuz link-up in space between American astronauts and
Soviet cosmonauts. Later, the subcommittee's responsibility was
expanded to cover all other NASA activities and was renamed the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.
As Chairman of the committee, Fuqua's leadership could be
seen in the expansion of committee activities to include
technological innovation, science and math education, materials
policy, robotics, technical manpower, and nuclear waste
disposal. He worked to strengthen the committee's ties with the
scientific and technical communities to assure that the
committee was kept abreast of current developments, and could
better plan for the future.
During the 99th Congress, the Science and Technology
Committee, under Fuqua's chairmanship, carried out two
activities of special note.
The first was the initiation of a study of the nation's
science policy encompassing the 40-year period between the end
of the second World War and the present. The intent was to
identify strengths and weaknesses in our nation's science
network. At the end of the 99th Congress, Chairman Fuqua issued
a personal compilation of essays and recommendations on
American science and science policy issues in the form of a
Chairman's Report.
The second activity was a direct outgrowth of the Space
Shuttle ``Challenger'' accident of January 28, 1986. As part of
the committee's jurisdictional responsibility over all the NASA
programs and policies, a steering group of committee Members,
headed by Congressman Robert Roe, the ranking Majority Member,
conducted an intensive investigation of the Shuttle accident.
The committee's purpose and responsibility were not only the
specific concern for the safe and effective functioning of the
Space Shuttle program, but the larger objective of insuring
that NASA, as the nation's civilian space agency, maintain
organizational and programmatic excellence across the board.
Chairman Fuqua announced his retirement from the House of
Representatives at the termination of the 99th Congress. He
served 24 years on the Committee on Science and Technology and
8 years as its chairman.
Congressman Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, a long-time Member
of the Committee, became its new Chairman at the beginning of
the 100th Congress. With this fifth Chairman, the Committee was
once again presided over by an individual with professional
technical expertise. Congressman Roe was trained as an engineer
and brought that broad knowledge and understanding to bear on
the Committee's issues from the first day of his tenure.
Congressman Roe's first official act as Chairman was to
request a change in the Committee's name from the Committee on
Science and Technology to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology. This change was designed not only to reflect the
Committee's broad space jurisdiction, but also to convey the
importance of space exploration and development to the Nation's
future.
In the 100th Congress, under Chairman Roe's stewardship,
the Committee kept close scrutiny over NASA's efforts to
redesign and reestablish the space shuttle program. The
successful launch of the Shuttle Discovery in September, 1988
marked America's return to space after 32 months without launch
capability.
The vulnerability of having the nation's launch capability
concentrated singularly in the Space Shuttle, and the rapid
increase of foreign competition in commercial space activities,
precipitated strong Committee action to help ensure the
competitive posture of the nation's emerging commercial launch
industry.
Chairman Roe's leadership to stabilize and direct the
nation's space program led to the Committee's first phase of
multi-year authorizations for research and development programs
with the advent of three year funding levels for the Space
Station.
Within the national movement to improve America's
technological competitiveness, Chairman Roe headed the
Committee's initiative to expand and redefine the mission of
the National Bureau of Standards* in order for it to aid
American industry in meeting global technological challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Now named the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) (P.L. 100-418, Title V, Part B, Subpart A, Sections 5111 through
5163, enacted August 23, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Science Committee has a long tradition of alerting the
Congress and the nation to new scientific and technological
opportunities that have potential to create dramatic economic
or societal change. Among these have been recombinant DNA
research and supercomputer technology. In the 100th Congress,
Members of the Committee included the new breakthroughs in
superconductivity research in this category.
Several long-term efforts of the Committee came to fruition
during the 101st Congress. As the community of space-faring
nations expanded, and as space exploration and development
moved toward potential commercialization in some areas, the
need arose for legal certainty concerning intellectual property
rights in space. Legislation long advocated by the Science
Committee defining the ownership of inventions in outer space
became public law during this Congress.
Continuing the Committee's interest long range energy
research programs for renewable and alternative energy sources,
a national hydrogen research and development program was
established to lead to economic production of hydrogen from
renewable resources its use as an alternative fuel.
At the end of the 101st Congress, the House Democratic
Caucus voted Representative Roe Chairman of the Public Works
and Transportation Committee to fill the vacancy in that
Committee's Chairmanship.
Congressman Roe, who served as Chairman of the Science,
Space, and Technology for the 100th and the 101st Congresses,
brought a leadership style of high energy and strong enthusiasm
to the Committee. He was known for his tenacious commitment to
understanding an issue down to its smallest detail.
The hallmark of Representative Roe's four-year tenure as
Chairman was his articulation of science, space, and technology
as the well-spring for generating the new wealth for America's
future economic growth and long-term security.
At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991,
Representative George E. Brown, Jr. of southern California
became the sixth Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee. He was the third chairman, among the six, to bring
scientific or technical experience to the position. Trained in
industrial physics, Brown worked as a civil engineer for many
years before entering politics.
Elected to the Congress in 1962, Brown has been a member of
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee since 1965. During
his more than two decade tenure on the Committee before
becoming its Chairman, he chaired subcommittees on the
environment, on research and technology, and on transportation
and aviation R&D.
Whether from his insightful leadership as a subcommittee
chairman or from the solitary summit of a futurist, Brown
brought a visionary perspective to the Committee's dialogue by
routinely presenting ideas far ahead of the mainstream agenda.
George Brown talked about conservation and renewable energy
sources, technology transfer, sustainable development,
environmental degradation, and an agency devoted to civilian
technology when there were few listeners and fewer converts. He
tenaciously stuck to these beliefs and time has proven his
wisdom and clairvoyance.
Consistent with his long-held conviction that the nation
needed a coherent technology policy, Brown's first action as
Chairman was to create a separate subcommittee for technology
and competitiveness issues. During his initial year as
Chairman, Brown developed an extensive technology initiative
which was endorsed by the House of Representatives in the final
days of the 102nd Congress. The work articulated Brown's
concept of a partnership between the public and private sectors
to improve the nation's competitiveness.
The culmination of the 102nd Congress saw Brown's
persistent efforts to redirect our national energy agenda come
to fruition. The first broad energy policy legislation enacted
in over a decade included a strong focus on conservation,
renewable energy sources, and the expanded use of non-petroleum
fuels, especially in motor vehicles.
In Brown's continuing concern to demonstrate the practical
application of advances in science and technology, he
instituted the first international video-conferenced meetings
in the U.S. Congress. In March of 1992, Members of the Science
Committee exchanged ideas on science and technology via
satellite with counterparts from the Commonwealth of
Independent States. This pilot program in the House of
Representatives resulted in a decision to establish permanent
in-house capacity for video-conferencing for the House.
As a final activity in the 102nd Congress, Brown issued a
Chairman's report on the federally funded research enterprise.
The work will serve as the starting point for a comprehensive
review and revision of federal science policy currently in the
planning stage.
The 1994 congressional elections turned over control of the
Congress to the Republican party. The House Republican
Conference acted to change official name of the Committee from
Science, Space, and Technology to the Committee on Science.
Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania became the Science Committee's
first Republican Chairman, and the seventh Committee chairman.
Walker had served on the Science Committee since his election
to Congress in 1976, and had been the Ranking Member since
1989.
Chairman Walker acted to streamline the subcommittee
structure from five to four subcommittees: Basic Research,
Energy and Environment, Space and Aeronautics, and Technology.
This action reflected the new Congress' mandate to increase
efficiency and cut expenses, and also reflected Walker's
personal desire to refocus the Committee's work. Due to the
reduction in the number of subcommittees and a sharper focus on
the issues, the number of hearings was reduced, while the
number of measures passed by the House and signed into law
increased.
Chairman Walker chose to use the Full Committee venue to
hold hearings exploring the role of science and technology in
the future. The first hearing, ``Is Today's Science Policy
Preparing Us for the Future?'' served as the basis for much of
the Committee's work during the 104th Congress.
For the first time in recent Science Committee history,
every agency under the Committee's jurisdiction was authorized.
To preserve and enhance the core federal role of creating new
knowledge for the future, the Science Committee sought to
prioritize basic research policies. In order to do so, the
Committee took strong, unprecedented action by applying six
criteria to civilian R&D:
1. Federal R&D efforts should focus on long-term, non-
commercial R&D, leaving economic feasibility and
commercialization to the marketplace.
2. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused
to the agencies' missions.
3. Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-
house research to areas in which their technical expertise and
facilities have no peer and should contract out other research
to industry, private research foundations and universities.
4. The federal government should not fund research in areas
that are receiving, or should reasonably be expected to obtain,
funding from the private sector.
5. Revolutionary ideas and pioneering capabilities that
make possible the impossible should be pursued within
controlled, performance-based funding levels.
6. Federal R&D funding should not be carried out beyond
demonstration of technical feasibility. Significant additional
private investment should be required for economic feasibility,
commercial development, production and marketing.
The authorization bills produced by the Science Committee
reflected those standards, thereby protecting basic research
and emphasizing the importance of science as a national issue.
As an indication of the Science Committee's growing influence,
the recommendations and basic science programs were prioritized
accordingly.
During the 104th Congress, the Science Committee's
oversight efforts were focused on exploring ways to make
government more efficient; improve management of taxpayer
resources; expose waste, fraud and abuse, and give the United
States the technological edge into the 21st century.
The start of the 105th Congress brought a change in
leadership to the Committee on Science. Congressman F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican representing the 9th District
of Wisconsin became the eighth Chairman. Sensenbrenner had been
a member of the Committee on Science since 1981 and prior to
his appointment as Committee head, served as Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
During the 105th Congress, under Chairman Sensenbrenner's
leadership, the Committee on Science worked in a bipartisan
fashion to report out a record number of legislative
initiatives focused on advancing U.S. interests in research and
development. Throughout the 105th Congress, the Science
Committee aggressively implemented the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA/Results Act), legislation making federal
agencies accountable for the money they spend.
For Fiscal Year 1998, the Administration's budget proposal
was only 1% over the Fiscal Year 1997 level for the research
and development programs under the Committee's jurisdiction. In
the Views and Estimates submitted to the Committee on the
Budget, the Science Committee stated that investment in science
is an investment in the future. Therefore, the Committee
recommended an increase of 3% for FY98 over the FY97 spending
levels. The Committee urged increased funding for basic
research, scientific infrastructure, and for selected NASA and
environmental programs. (See the appendix section for a copy of
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 1998.)
In addition, the Committee established the following
criteria to guide its deliberative process: (1) Federal
Research and Development should focus on essential programs
that are long-term, high risk, non-commercial, cutting edge,
well-managed, and have great potential for scientific
discovery; (2) Federal R&D should be highly relevant to and
tightly focused on agency missions, with accountability and
procedures for evaluating quality and results; (3) Activities
associated with evolutionary advances or incremental
improvements to a product or process, or the marketing or
commercialization of a product should be left to the private
sector; (4) Where possible, international, industry and state
science partnerships should be nurtured as a way to leverage
the United States taxpayer's R&D investment; and (5)
Infrastructure necessary for carrying out essential federal R&D
programs needs to be prioritized consistent with program
requirements.
Critical analysis by the Committee on Science in the second
session of the 105th Congress provided the first look at the
Administration's R&D budget proposal and the newly proposed
Research Fund for America (RFA) for fiscal year 1999. RFA was
one of three new funds (the other two being Environmental
Resources and Transportation) proposed that were not trust
funds and were essentially reclassifications in the President's
FY 1999 budget. The RFA was a $31 billion dollar proposal that
combined new and existing programs, with the majority of RFA
funds existing in already established federal R&D programs
prior to the proposed RFA. Seventy-five percent of the RFA
(from FY 1999 to FY 2003) was to be funded within the
discretionary cap and the remaining 25% of the funding was to
come from the tobacco settlement (15%), unspecified mandatory
cuts (4%), new fuel taxes (1%), and cuts to Veterans' Health
Care (5%). The major problems with RFA included:
1. funding from uncertain tax increases;
2. funding from uncollected monies from the proposed
tobacco settlement;
3. proposed spending increases were outside the
discretionary caps established by the historic 1997
Balanced Budget Agreement.
At numerous budget oversight hearings for fiscal year 1999,
the Committee requested that the Administration provide impact
statements for their respective agencies should the proposed
tobacco settlement fail and uncertain revenues not be realized.
The Committee recognized the potential harmful impact on United
States R&D if these two revenue sources failed to materialize.
The President's original request was for a 7.5% increase
for the RFA, and in the end, Congress approved a 9.7% increase
for agencies and programs included in the RFA through an
emergency supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 105-277). The
result of the second session of the 105th Congress is that R&D
now accounts for approximately 14% of discretionary spending.
Of the $2.794 billion increase Congress approved for
programs within the RFA, almost $2 billion or 70% was for NIH.
NSF and DOE research programs received a 7.2% and 8.8% increase
respectively. (See the appendix section for a copy of Committee
on Science: Analysis and Review, February 26, 1998.)
For Fiscal Year 1999, the Committee's Views and Estimates
reflected their goal to substantially increase research and
development funding, and urged a 4% increase for programs under
the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee's request for
increased funding reflected the continued support for the
historic balanced budget agreement, and recommended the funding
be within the agreed upon discretionary spending limits. In
addition, the Science Committee restated their commitment to
the goal of stable and sustainable research and development
funding for the long term. (See the appendix section for a copy
of Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY
1999.)
While the Science Committee was the last to officially
organize in the House, it became the first Committee to
complete action on all of its two-year agency authorization
bills during the 105th Congress. The Science Committee also
became the first to pass legislation banning federal funds for
human cloning research, as well as the first to get a computer
security bill through the House. Another significant
achievement of the Science Committee during the 105th Congress
was the passage of legislation encouraging the development of a
commercial space industry in the United States. The bipartisan
Commercial Space Act of 1998 was a revolutionary piece of
legislation opening up space for commercial use.
Other significant legislative accomplishments included:
Legislation passed by the House to assist small
businesses and universities develop advanced technologies.
(H.R. 2429)
Legislation enacted into law which supports
research and development programs to protect safety personnel
and civilians from fires and earthquakes. (H.R. 1272)
Exposure of the Administration's management
failures in the ``Next Generation Internet'' (NGI) program,
which led to the passage of a bill, revamping the
Administration's proposal and allowing for faster
communications for schools, businesses and communities.
Legislation enacted into law authorizing
appropriations through the fiscal year 1999 to study the
barriers that women face in science, engineering and
technology. The bill also directs the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to conduct a study of the educational
opportunities available to women who want to enter these
fields.
Chairman Sensenbrenner initiated amendments to the
Fastener Quality Act, which saved taxpayers millions of dollars
by eliminating redundant federal regulations.
At the start of the 105th Congress, the Committee on
Science was charged with the task of developing a long-range
science and technology policy. Chairman Sensenbrenner appointed
the Committee's Vice Chairman, Vernon Ehlers, (R-MI) to lead a
study of the current state of the Nation's science and
technology policy. The National Science Policy Study, entitled
``Unlocking Our Future Toward A New National Science Policy''
was unveiled in September of 1998 and was endorsed by the Full
House on Oct. 8, 1998, and serves as a policy guide to the
Committee, Congress and the scientific community.
Acting in accordance with the Committee on Science's
jurisdiction over climate change issues, Chairman Sensenbrenner
was chosen by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to lead the
U.S. delegation at the Kyoto (Dec. 97) and Buenos Aires (Nov.
98) global warming conferences. As any agreement would have to
be ratified by the Senate and implementing legislation approved
by the House, the Science Committee led delegation provided
important oversight of the negotiations and will continue to
provide guidance to the leadership and the country on global
warming negotiations. Throughout the 105th Congress, the
Committee examined the science supporting the Kyoto Protocol
and the economic harm it could pose to businesses; as well as
the science used to establish the regulatory framework for
ozone and air quality strategies.
As a result of the Committee's aggressive oversight agenda,
Chairman Sensenbrenner was recognized for his outstanding
oversight efforts by Majority Leader Richard Armey with the
``Excellence in Programmatic Oversight Award''. The award is
presented to members who hold federal agencies and programs
accountable to American taxpayers.
As the only standing committee chairman to receive the
award, Chairman Sensenbrenner was honored for, among other
things, exposing the Administration's failures in handling
Russian participation in the International Space Station.
Through nine hearings on the subject, the Chairman worked
tirelessly on a bipartisan basis to require the Administration
and NASA to develop clear-cut plans in dealing with Russian
non-performance and delays. In an effort to prevent future cost
growth and schedule delays, and direct NASA to solve systemic
problems, Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4820, the Save
the International Space Station Act of 1998 at the conclusion
of the 105th Congress.
The Science Committee examined a number of other issues
during the 105th Congress including: monitoring the safety
standards on the Russian Mir; national security and economic
implications of alleged satellite technology transfers from
Loral and Hughes to the Chinese; the Y2K problem; management
problems at Brookhaven National Lab resulting in changes that
have made the lab safer to the surrounding community; and
enforcement of the Results Act with federal agencies.
The leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner has produced 16
measures signed into law, a proven track record with its
aggressive oversight agenda, and a significantly reduced staff
level, evidence that more was accomplished with less during the
105th Congress.
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
During the 105th Congress, 81 bills were referred to the
Committee on Science; 27 bills were reported or discharged by
the Committee; 28 measures passed the House; committee
interests were conferenced in 3 bills; and, 16 measures were
enacted.
1.1-P.L. 105-23, TO AMEND SECTION 2118 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992
TO EXTEND THE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS RESEARCH AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION PROGRAM (H.R. 363)
Background and summary of legislation
Because of the prevalence of electricity in the day-to-day
operation of society, it is impossible to avoid exposure to the
electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced in the generation and
transmission of electrical power. Unlike the hazards from
shocks and burns by coming into contact with electrical
currents, which have been known since the first application of
electric current, the hazards of EMF's is a somewhat recent
discovery. Concerns first arose during World War II with
exposure to high-frequency radar systems and have steadily
increased through the late 1970's when public attention became
focused on possible adverse health effects to exposure to
EMF's. Several studies have drawn correlations between the
proximity of power lines and incidences of leukemia and other
childhood cancer. While these studies have been proven to
contain flaws, popular media focus on them has caused public
concern to be peaked.
Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT),
directed the Secretary of Energy to establish a 5-year cost-
shared program--the EMF RAPID Program--starting October 1, 1992
and expiring December 31, 1997. The EMF RAPID Program
objectives are to: (1) determine whether or not exposure to EMF
produced by the generation, transmission, and use of electric
energy affects human health; (2) carry out research,
development, and demonstration with respect to technologies to
mitigate any adverse human health effects; and (3) provide for
the dissemination of scientifically-valid information to the
public. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of
Health and Human Services' National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) are jointly responsible for directing
the program, with the DOE being responsible for the research,
development, and demonstration of new technologies to improve
the measurement and characterization of EMF and the NIEHS has
sole responsibility for research on possible human health
effects of EMF. In addition, the act created two advisory
committees to help guide the program. The Electric and Magnetic
Fields Interagency Committee (EMFIAC) is composed mostly of
employees of various federal agencies, while the National
Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory Committee (NEMFAC) is
made up of members of state agencies as well and private sector
employees and members of the public.
Finally, the EPACT established a number of reporting
requirements including: (1) the Director of the NIEHS reporting
to EMFIAC and to Congress the extent to which exposure to EMF
affects human health; (2) the EMFIAC reporting to the Secretary
of Energy and Congress on its findings and conclusions on the
effects, if any, and any actions that may be necessary to
minimize health effects, if any; and (3) the National Academy
of Sciences reporting to the EMFIAC and NEMFAC periodically
evaluating the research and recommending ways to disseminate
information effectively.
H.R. 363, as introduced, amends Section 2118 of EPACT by
extending by one year: (1) the EMF RAPID Program, EMFIAC, and
the NEMFAC termination dates (from December 31, 1997 to
December 31, 1998); (2) the deadline of the Director of the
Department of Health and Human Services' National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences report to the EMFIAC and to
Congress (from March 31, 1997 to March 31, 1998); and (3) the
deadline of the EMFIAC's report to the Secretary of Energy and
to Congress (from September 30, 1997 to September 30, 1998).
Legislative history
H.R. 363 was introduced by Representative Edolphus Towns on
January 7, 1997 and was co-sponsored by Congressman Frank
Pallone, Jr. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce
and, in addition, to the Committee on Science. On February 10,
1997 it was subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment.
The subcommittee held a hearing on March 19, 1997, and
received testimony on the bill from the Department of Energy
and non-Federal participants. The Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment then met to mark up H.R. 363 on April 9, 1997 and
ordered the measure reported to the Full Committee by a voice
vote.
On April 16, 1997, the Committee adopted the Subcommittee's
amendment by voice vote and ordered H.R. 363 reported to the
House, as amended. The Committee filed, H. Rept. 105-60, Part
2, on April 21, 1997. The House Committee on Commerce ordered
an identical measure reported to the House on April 21, 1997
(H. Rept. 105-60, Part 1).
The House voted to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 363 on
April 29, 1997 by: Y-387; N-35; Roll Call No. 94. The bill was
received in the Senate on April 30, 1997 and referred to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which held a
hearing on May 19, 1997. On June 12, 1997 the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources held a markup and ordered the
measure reported, without amendment, by a voice vote and filed
S. Rept. 105-27.
The Senate passed the measure without amendment by
unanimous consent on June 20, 1997, and the President signed
H.R. 363, To Amend Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 to Extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and
Public Information Dissemination Program, into law on July 3,
1997 (P.L. 105-23).
1.2-P.L. 105-47, TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION ACT OF 1977 FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND
1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (S. 910/H.R. 2249)
Background and summary of legislation
Congress created the National Earthquake Hazards and
Reduction Program (NEHRP) in P.L. 95-124, the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, in response to a recognized
national threat posed by earthquakes and in an effort to reduce
death and property loss from this natural disaster. Since its
inception, NEHRP has focused on earthquake research (physical,
seismic, structural, and social) as well as earthquake hazards
mitigation. NEHRP activities in research and mitigation are
executed by four separate federal agencies: The National
Science Foundation (NSF); the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST); the United States Geological Survey
(USGS); and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
As the designated lead agency for NEHRP, FEMA is charged
with the responsibility of coordinating the activities of the
other principal agencies, conducting planning for and managing
of federal responses to earthquakes, and funding state and
local preparedness activities.
The USGS conducts and supports earth science investigations
to understand the origins of earthquakes, characterize
earthquake hazards, and predict the geologic effects of
earthquakes. This agency also disseminates earth science
information.
The NSF funds earthquake engineering research, basic earth
sciences research, and earthquake-related social sciences
research. Earthquake engineering research includes assessing
the impact of earthquakes on buildings and lifelines.
NIST conducts and supports engineering studies to improve
seismic provisions of standards, codes, and practices for
buildings and lifelines.
Additional federal agencies contribute to the NEHRP through
research activities consistent with their primary missions. For
example, the Department of Energy has studied the seismic
safety of nuclear reactor designs as part of their nuclear
energy research program.
Over the years, NEHRP has provided insightful research and
useful information for earthquake hazards mitigation. The
program has lead to significant advances in knowledge of earth
science and engineering aspects of earthquake risk reduction.
NEHRP was last authorized by P.L. 103-374. This Act
authorized NERHP at $103 million for fiscal year 1995 and $106
million for fiscal year 1996. In addition, this Act directed
the President to conduct an assessment of earthquake
engineering research and testing facilities in the United
States. The Administration, through NSF and NIST, commissioned
the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) to conduct
the assessment. In a subsequent report released, EERI made a
number of recommendations regarding the state of the nation's
earthquake engineering testing facilities. The primary
recommendation among these, was a specific recommendation that
a comprehensive plan for upgrading existing earthquake
engineering research and testing facilities be developed and
implemented.
The bill authorizes appropriations to FEMA, USGS, NSF, and
NIST for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for carrying out activities
under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.
The bill also authorizes appropriations for operation of the
Global Seismic Network (GSN). In addition, H.R. 2249 authorizes
and provides funds for the development by USGS of a new
prototype real time seismic hazards warning system. This system
is to be a network of seismic sensors connected to receivers
located at sites such as electric utilities and gas lines. The
system would provide for timely warning to the facilities in
the event of a seismic event.
Finally, the bill requires the NSF, in conjunction with the
three other NEHRP agencies, to develop a plan to effectively
use earthquake engineering testing facilities, upgrade
facilities and equipment, and integrate new, innovative testing
approaches to earthquake engineering research in a systematic
manner.
Legislative history
H.R. 2249, a bill to authorize appropriations for carrying
out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1997 and for other
purposes. The bill was introduced by Science Committee Chairman
Sensenbrenner and Science Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA)
on July 24, 1997.
H.R. 2249 authorizes appropriations through the year 1999
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S.
Geological Survey to carry out the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.
On April 24, 1997, the Basic Research Subcommittee held a
hearing on H.R. 2249.
On July 29, 1997 the full Science Committee passed and
ordered reported H.R. 2249 (Report 105-238, Part I). The bill
provides funding for programs under the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program for the Global Seismic Network, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) for engineering research and
geosciences research, and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). H.R. 2249 also requires the USGS to
report to the Congress on (1) a program to develop a prototype
real-time seismic warning system, (2) regional seismic
monitoring networks in the United States, (3) improving the
seismic hazard assessment of seismic zones, and (4) the need
for additional Federal disaster-response training capabilities
that are applicable to earthquake response. The bill also
authorizes earth science teaching materials and requires NSF,
FEMA, USGS, and NIST to develop jointly a comprehensive plan
for earthquake engineering research to use effectively existing
testing facilities and laboratories, upgrade facilities and
equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing
approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic
manner.
S. 910, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1273 was passed
by the Senate on July 31, 1997, by the House under Suspension
of the Rules on September 16, 1997, and was signed into law on
October 1, 1997 as P.L. 105-47.
1.3-P.L. 105-85, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1998 (H.R. 1119)
Background and summary of legislation
The Committee requested and received outside conferee
status on the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act. In particular,
the Committee sought conferee status on provisions in the bill
regarding management of the U.S. Global Positioning System
(GPS). GPS is a space-based national security system that
broadcasts precise timing and location information that enable
individuals equipped with appropriate signal receivers to
determine their location in three dimensions with a high degree
of accuracy. Initiated as a national security system, the
Reagan Administration decided that a less precise signal would
be made available to civilian users. This has led to a dramatic
increase in the civilian and commercial use of the GPS system,
which falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science.
Commercial space revenues generated around the Global
Positioning System, for example, had risen from $1.3 billion in
1995 and were projected to grow to $6.4 billion in 1999.
The Senate version of the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act
contained several provisions related to the management of GPS,
but did not fully spell out a clear management structure or the
process for reviewing international agreements related to GPS.
In general, the Committee was concerned that the success of the
GPS system was leading too many federal department and agencies
to assert decision-making authority over the system. That was
resulting in inconsistent policy direction within the Executive
branch and undermining the continuing development of civilian
applications. The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee had
already held one hearing on this problem, while the Chairman
had received correspondence from a variety of private sector
users expressing their concern about the increasingly
contradictory decision-making processes employed in the
Executive Branch interagency process. The Committee recommended
two changes to the Senate version of the FY1998 Defense
Authorization Act to address this problem. First, in
recognition of the Defense Department's successful management
of GPS as a national security system--while at the same time
providing a stable policy environment that enabled the private
sector to aggressively develop new applications to benefit non-
national security activities--and in order to ensure policy
consistency, the Committee recommended legislative language to
ensure that the Defense Department not be required to accept
GPS rules initiated by other agencies as binding until such
time as the Defense Department had determined that such rules
were consistent with U.S. national security and the efficient
management of the Global Positioning System. The Committee
recommended that it might become necessary to change this
language if the interagency Global Positioning System Executive
Board later proved itself capable of effective interagency
management of the system. Second, the Committee recommended
language that would require the interagency Global Positioning
System Executive Board to review international agreements
affecting the GPS before such agreements be accepted by the
United States. The Committee was reacting to experience with
negotiations during the World Administrative Radio Conference
(WARC) making spectrum allocations that fall, during which time
the State Department failed to prepare adequately for the
implications that WARC negotiations might have on the Global
Positioning System and the United States narrowly avoided an
international agreement that would have reduced the reliability
of the Global Positioning System. Both the Committee's
recommendations were accepted and adopted in the bill, which
was signed into law as P.L. 105-85.
H.R. 1119: sections 241, 1074 and 3154
On July 25, 1997, the Speaker appointed Science Committee
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43), and
Science Committee Ranking Minority Member George E. Brown, Jr.
(CA-42) as additional conferees to H.R. 1119, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, for
consideration of Sections 214 and 3148 of the House-passed
bill, and Sections 234 and 1064 of the Senate amendment to H.R.
1119, and modifications committed to conference. These
conference committee deliberations resulted in the enactment of
three sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), which was signed into law
by the President on November 18, 1997: (1) Section 241
(Restructuring of National Oceanographic Partnership Program
Organization); (2) Section 1074 (Sustainment and operation of
the Global Positioning System); and (3) Section 3154 (Plan for
External Oversight of National Laboratories). Descriptions of
these provisions follow.
Section 241--Restructuring of National Oceanographic
Partnership Program Organization
In signing the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997, the President issued a statement that the
statute's method for the appointment of certain members of the
National Ocean Leadership Council would violate the
Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Although the statement
provided that the Council should not exercise significant
governmental authority, the administration allowed the Council
to be convened with the 12 members whose appointment did not
raise any constitutional issue, pending the enactment of
corrective legislation. The House-passed version of H.R. 1119
contained a provision (Section 214) that would amend Section
7902 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that the
President, or his designee, shall appoint members of the
National Ocean Research Council who are not already government
officers, to represent the views of the ocean industries, state
governments, and academia, and such other views as the
President considers appropriate.
The Senate amendment to H.R. 1119 contained a provision
(Section 234) that would amend Section 7902(b) to revise the
membership of the Council by removing those members whose
appointment would raise constitutional questions. The National
Ocean Leadership Council would remain as currently established
by the administration, with members representing the 12 Federal
agencies with significant oceanographic interest. The provision
also recommended that the membership of the Council's Ocean
Research Advisory Panel be expanded to include representatives
from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, as well as
government, academia, and the oceans industry.
The House receded with an amendment that clarifies the role
of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel with regard to membership
and responsibilities.
Section 1074--Sustainment and operation of the Global
Positioning System
The Senate amendment to H.R. 1119 contained a provision
(Section 1064) that would endorse and enact into law the
presidential policy on the sustainment and operation of the
Global Positioning System (GPS) issued in March 1996.
The House-passed bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment providing that the
Interagency GPS Executive Board, established pursuant to the
presidential GPS policy, be the forum for interagency review of
any proposed international agreement on the civil use of GPS.
The amendment also directs the Secretary of Defense not to
accept any restriction on the GPS system proposed by the head
of any other department or agency in the exercise of that
official's regulatory authority that would adversely affect the
military potential of GPS.
Section 3154--Plan for external oversight of national
laboratories
The House-passed version of H.R. 1119 contained a provision
(Section 3148) that would require the Secretary of Energy to
develop a plan for the external oversight of the national
laboratories. The plan would provide for the establishment of
an external oversight committee comprised of representatives of
industry and academia for the purpose of making recommendations
to the Secretary of Energy and to the congressional defense
committees on the productivity of the laboratories and on the
excellence, relevance, and appropriateness of the research
conducted at the laboratories. The plan also would provide for
the establishment of a competitive peer review process for
funding basic research at the laboratories.
The Senate amendment to H.R. 1119 contained no similar
provision.
The Senate receded with an amendment requiring the
Secretary to prepare a report on existing and potential new
external oversight practices at the national laboratories. The
report is due not later than July 1, 1999, and is to include
any recommendations from the Secretary and a plan to implement
such recommendations.
Legislative history
Congressman Floyd Spence, of South Carolina introduced H.R.
1119 in the House on March 19, 1997. The bill was originally
cosponsored by Congressman Ronald V. Dellums of California.
H.R. 1119 was referred to the House Committee on National
Security on March 19, 1997. The Committee on National Security
held a markup session on June 11, 1997. And on June 16, 1997,
reported H.R. 1119 to the House amended (House Report 105-132).
On June 25, 1997, the bill passed the House amended by a
recorded vote of 304-120 (Roll No. 236).
H.R. 1119 was received in the Senate on July 7, 1997. On
July 11, 1997, the bill was laid before the Senate by unanimous
consent, the Senate struck all after the enacting clause and
substituted the language of S. 936, as amended, and passed H.R.
1119 with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
insisted on its amendments and asked for a conference with the
House.
On October 23rd, 1997, the conferees filed the conference
report (House Report 105-340) to H.R. 1119 in the House. The
House agreed to the conference report by a yea-nay vote of 286-
123 (Roll No. 534) on October 28, 1997. And the Senate agreed
to the conference report by a yea-nay vote of 90-10 (Record
Vote No. 296) on November 6, 1997. On November 18, 1997, the
President signed the bill which became Public Law 105-85.
1.4--P.L. 105-108, UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999 (S. 1231/H.R. 1272)
Background and summary of legislation
In 1974 Congress enacted the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act in response to a nationwide concern about the
increasing number of lives and property lost to fires. The Act
established the USFA in an effort to prevent and reduce these
losses. The USFA coordinates the nation's fire safety and
emergency medical service activities. The USFA works with state
and local units of government to educate the public in fire
safety and prevention, collect and analyze data related to
fire, conduct research and development in fire suppression,
promote firefighter health and safety, and conduct fire service
training.
The USFA administers the National Fire Academy, which
provides education and training to fire and emergency service
personnel in fire protection and control.
This legislation will enable the USFA and NFA to continue
to pursue these important functions and to continue to minimize
fire losses. The bill authorizes $29.6 million and $30.5
million in appropriations, respectively, for Fiscal Years 1998
and 1999 in appropriations for the activities of the United
States Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy.
Legislative history
H.R. 1272, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 for the United States Fire Administration,
and for other purposes. The bill was introduced by Subcommittee
on Basic Research Chairman Schiff, Science Committee Chairman
Sensenbrenner, Science Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) and
Subcommittee on Basic Research Ranking Member Barcia on April
10, 1997.
H.R. 1272 authorizes through the year 1999 appropriations
to the United States Fire Administration (USFA), which is
housed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
National Fire Academy (NFA), which is administered by the USFA,
to provide vital assistance to the Nation's fire and emergency
services communities.
On March 18, 1997, the Basic Research Subcommittee held a
hearing on H.R. 1272.
On April 16, 1997, the Committee passed and ordered
reported H.R. 1272, amended (Report # 105-62). The bill, as
amended, provides funding for the United States Fire
Administration to carry out its four primary missions: fire
service training; fire-related data collection and analysis;
public education and awareness; and research and technology. In
addition, the bill authorizes funding so the agency can perform
a new counterterrorism training function.
H.R. 1272 was passed (amended) by the House on April 23,
1997 under Suspension of the Rules. The Senate companion bill,
S. 1231, was passed by the Senate on November 4, 1997, by the
House under Suspension of the Rules on November 9, 1997, and
signed into law on November 20, 1997 as P.L. 105-108.
1.5--P.L. 105-135, SMALL BUSINESS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997 (S.1139/
H.R. 2261/H.R. 2429)--(NOTE H.R. 2429 WAS INCORPORATED AS TITLE VII OF
H.R. 2261, HOUSE COMPANION MEASURE TO S. 1139)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 2429, reauthorizes and improves the Small Business
Technology Transfer program through FY 2000. Through a Senate
amendment, the authorization is extended through FY 2001.
The Small Business Innovation Development Act (P.L. 97-219)
created the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program
in 1982. In 1992 the program was reauthorized by P.L. 102-564
(15 U.S.C. 638). The reauthorization created a three-year pilot
program called the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
program.
STTR is intended to facilitate the commercialization of
university, non-profit, and contractor operated federal
laboratory research and development by small businesses. STTR
provides funding for research proposals which are developed and
executed cooperatively between small firms and scientists/
professors in research institutions. Currently, the Department
of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human
Services (HHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and National Science Foundation (NSF) all contribute to
the program. The STTR set-aside was last reauthorized as part
of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996. That
authorization expired on September 30, 1997.
The research is funded by a 0.15% set-aside of an agency's
extramural research and development budgets that exceed $1
billion.
Legislative history
On September 17, 1997, the Committee on Science convened to
mark up H.R. 2429. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member
Brown offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which
was adopted by voice vote. The amendment: (1) adds the
Committee on Science to the list of Committees that are to
receive the Small Business Administration's annual report on
the STTR and SBIR programs; (2) clarifies that agency program
needs are to be met by Phase II STTR awards; (3) reauthorizes
the STTR program at 0.15 percent through fiscal year 2000; (4)
reaffirms STTR will be included in each agencies' performance
plan as described in 31 U.S.C. 1115 (a) and (b), and that STTR
and SBIR will be included in each participating agencies'
updated strategic plan as described in 5 U.S.C. 306(b); (5)
requires agencies to collect data on the STTR program from
awardees that will enable them to assess the program's outputs
and outcomes; and (6) requires SBA to develop an outreach
program to small businesses and universities located in States
that have had less than 20 STTR awards in the previous 2 fiscal
years. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The Committee
reported H.R. 2429 (H. Rept. 105-259, Part I) on September 23,
1997.
H.R. 2429 passed the House under suspension of the rules as
Title VII of H.R. 2261, Small Business Programs Reauthorization
and Amendments Act of 1997 on September 29, 1997. Subsequently,
the House passed S. 1139, a similar Senate-passed bill, after
it was amended to contain the text of H.R. 2261 as passed by
the House. S. 1139 passed the Senate, amended, on October 31,
1997. As amended, Title V of the bill authorizes STTR through
FY 2001 and changed the eligibility requirement for
disadvantaged states from less than 20 STTR awards to less than
$5 million. S. 1139 passed the House under Suspension of the
Rules on November 9, 1997. S. 1139 was signed by the President
on December 2, 1997 (P.L. 105-135).
1.6--P.L. 105-155, FAA RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 1271)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 1271 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to conduct research, engineering and development
activities for fiscal years (FY) 1998 and 1999. The objective
of FAA's RE&D program is to develop and validate the technology
and knowledge required for the agency to ensure the safety,
efficiency, and security of our national air transportation
system. Advances developed through the RE&D program are helping
to transform our nation's air traffic control system into a
modern air traffic management system capable of meeting the
increased aviation demands of the coming century.
Overall, H.R. 1271, as enacted, authorizes $226.8 million
in FY1998 and $229.7 million in FY1999 for the FAA to carry out
the critical RE&D projects and activities. H.R. 1271 increases
funding for: the Capacity and Air Traffic Management account,
primarily to safeguard sensitive computer and information
system data from unauthorized disclosure; the Weather account,
to reflect recommendations by the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee
and the National Academy of Sciences that the FAA place a
higher priority on weather research projects and activities;
the Aircraft Safety account, to allow FAA safety inspectors and
certification engineers to assess potential aircraft safety
risks and to take proactive steps that reduce the rate of
aviation-related accidents; the Human Factors account
recognizing that ``human factors'' is a significant contributor
in most aircraft and airport accidents; and the Innovative/
Cooperative Research account, to establish a new undergraduate
research grants program.
H.R. 1271 contains language to require the FAA to provide
the House Committee on Science with notice of any major
reprogramming or reorganization effort within the RE&D program.
Finally, the legislation includes a ``Sense of Congress''
concerning the need for the FAA to assess immediately the
effect of the Year 2000 computer problem on its computer and
information systems.
Legislative history
The Science Committee marked up and ordered reported H.R.
1271 on April 16, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-61). The House of
Representatives passed H.R. 1271, as amended, on April 29, 1997
by a vote of 414-7. The Senate passed H.R. 1271 with an
amendment on November 13, 1997. The bill, as passed by the
Senate, authorized FAA RE&D activities for two years instead of
three. H.R. 1271, as amended by the Senate, was signed into law
on February 11, 1998 as P.L. 105-155.
1.7--P.L. 105-160, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998 (S. 927/H.R. 437)
Background and summary of legislation
The National Sea Grant College Act (33 U.S.C. 1121-1131),
enacted in 1966, established the National Sea Grant College
Program (Sea Grant) with the objective of increasing ``the
understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and
conversation of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources by providing assistance to promote a strong education
base, responsive research and training activities, and broad
and prompt dissemination of knowledge and techniques.'' While
patterned after the Land Grant College Program and first
assigned to the National Science Foundation (NSF), it was, in
1970, assigned to the then newly created National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce.
Currently, there are twenty-nine total Sea Grant College
and Institutional programs, encompassing coastal and Great
Lakes States and Puerto Rico. In Fiscal Year 1997, Sea Grant's
appropriations totaled $54.2 million and these programs are the
heart of a nationwide network of over 300 participating
institutions that utilize the talents and expertise of over
3,000 scientists, engineers, educators, and students.
An applicant must demonstrate a record of superior
performance in marine resource programs for a minimum of three
years, and once designated, programs receive priority in
obtaining federal grants for up to two-thirds of the total
project with the remaining one-third coming from non-federal
matching funds. Through the Sea Grant ``core'' programs,
designated institutions receive assistance for research,
education, and advisory services in fields related to the
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
Funding devoted to educational programs include the
development and strengthening of training programs for marine
scientists and technicians as well as education in aquatic
sciences for secondary school students and teachers. Year-long
fellowships for graduate students in marine-related disciplines
to work with Congressional offices, federal agencies, or
industry sponsors are also funded by Sea Grant.
S. 927/H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program
Reauthorization Act of 1997, as enacted, reauthorizes the
National Sea Grant College Program Act and authorizes
appropriations of $56.0 million in FY 1999, $57.0 million in FY
2000, $58.0 million in FY 2001, $59.0 million in FY 2002, and
$60.0 million in FY 2003 to carry out its contract, grant,
fellowship, and administrative functions; up to $2.8 million
for competitive grants for university research on the zebra
mussel; up to $3.0 million for competitive grants for
university research on oyster diseases and oyster-related human
health risks; and up to $3,000,000 for competitive grants for
university research on pfiesteria piscicida and other harmful
algal blooms. The bill also caps the program's administrative
expenses at five percent of appropriations; repeals the Sea
Grant international program; amends the National Sea Grant
College Program Act to add or modify various definitions;
amends provisions establishing and administering the National
Sea Grant College Program and provisions providing for the
designation of Sea Grant colleges and regional consortia; and
modifies requirements regarding the Sea Grant Review Panel.
Legislative history
On January 9, 1997, Representative Jim Saxton, along with
numerous co-sponsors, introduced H. R. 437, the National Sea
Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997. It was
referred to the Committee on Resources which held a markup on
March 5, 1997 and ordered the measure reported by voice vote.
The Committee on Resources filed H. Rept. 105-22, Part 1, on
March 12, 1997.
The measure was then referred to the Committee on Science
on March 12, 1997 for a period ending no later than April 28,
1997. It was subsequently referred to and discharged from the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 13, 1997. After
a markup held on April 16, 1997, the Committee on Science
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote and
filed H. Rept. 105-22, Part 2 on April 21, 1997.
The Committee on Rules on June 10, 1997 filed H. Rept. 105-
127 on H. Res. 164, providing for consideration of H.R. 437 by
a voice vote. The House agreed to H. Res. 164 by a voice vote
on June 18, 1997, and on the same day H.R. 437 passed the House
by: Y-422; N-3, Roll Call No. 208.
The measure was received in the Senate on June 19, 1997 and
was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. The Senate Committee ordered reported, by a
voice vote, a companion measure, S. 927, the Ocean and Coastal
Research Revitalization Act of 1997 to the Senate on June 19,
1997, and filed S. Rept. 105-150, on November 9, 1997. The
Senate passed the measure, renamed the National Sea Grant
College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997, with an amendment
by unanimous consent on November 13, 1997. On February 11,
1998, S. 927, renamed the National Sea Grant College Program
Reauthorization Act of 1998, passed the House, as amendment,
under suspension of the rules by voice vote. On February 12,
1998, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 927 by
unanimous consent, and the President signed S. 927 on March 6,
1998 (P.L. 105-160).
1.8--P.L. 105-178, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (H.R.
2400/H.R. 860)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 860 authorizes appropriations to the Department of
Transportation for surface transportation research and
development, and for other purposes. The bill was introduced by
Subcommittee on Technology Chairwoman Morella and Science
Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) on February 27, 1997.
H.R. 860 authorizes appropriations to the Department of
Transportation to carry-out surface transportation R&D
programs, including the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
program, for Fiscal Years 1998-2000. H.R. 860 establishes that
the federal role in surface transportation research and
development should be to sponsor and coordinate research and
development on new technologies that seek to provide safer,
more affordable transportation systems.
Additionally, the legislation consolidates the current
University Research Institutes and the University
Transportation Centers into a single program; authorizes a new
Community and Environmental Research Program to provide State
and local transportation officials with the tools and knowledge
necessary to better understand the environmental and community
impacts of transportation decisions; includes provisions
requiring the Department to conduct research on the use of
recycled and renewable materials to be used as transportation
fuels; and restricts Department of Transportation funds from
being used to ``lobby'' or influence pending legislation.
Legislative history
On September 17, 1997 the full Science Committee passed and
ordered reported H.R. 860, with an amendment (H. Rept. # 105-
503). The bill, as amended, provides funding to three main
categories that encompass the Department's surface
transportation R&D portfolio: Surface Transportation Research
and Technology Development, including research in the areas of
pavements, structures, materials, policy, planning,
environment, safety, and motor carriers; Technology Transfer
and Applied Research, including the National Highway Institute,
Local Technical Assistance Program, Transportation Fellowships,
University Research, Technology Partnerships, and the Applied
Research and Technology Development Program; and Intelligent
Transportation Systems and Infrastructure.
Provisions of H.R. 860 were incorporated into Title VI of
H.R. 2400, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), and signed into law on June 9, 1998 as P.L. 105-178.
TEA-21 incorporates research and development programs, projects
and activities from H.R. 860 totaling $372.15 million in FY98;
$378.15 million in FY00; $411.75 million in FY01; $422 million
in FY02; and $437 million in FY03.
1.9--P.L. 105-207, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF
1998 (H.R. 1273/S. 1046)
Background and summary of legislation
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 authorizes and
directs NSF to initiate and support basic research and programs
to strengthen research potential and education at all levels in
the sciences and engineering. The Act reinforces that basic
research and education have traditionally constituted the heart
of the NSF's mission.
The National Science Foundation Act of 1997 authorizes
appropriations for the major activities and budget categories
of the NSF for FY 1998, FY 1999 and FY 2000. In addition, the
bill provides full authorization of the Antarctic
rehabilitation program, and authorizes the Polar Cap
Observatory and design and development of the Millimeter Array
radio telescope in the Major Research Equipment account.
Further, the bill requires an annual report on the
construction, repair and upgrades to National Research
Facilities; a report on indirect cost savings; subjects
temporary NSF employees to the same financial disclosure
requirements as permanent employees; requires NSF supported
universities to develop policies to compensate military
reservists who are involuntarily called to active duty;
redesignates the Critical Technology Institute as the Science
and Technology Policy Institute; contains no new authorization
for the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative; places
limits on lobbying activities; places a funding ban on
institutions which receive earmarks; requires reprogramming
notification to all the relevant Committees of both the House
and Senate; and includes a sense of Congress that NSF should
have a plan that its date-related computer programs will
operate effectively in the year 2000 and beyond.
Legislative history
H.R. 1273, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000 for the National Science Foundation,
and for other purposes. The bill was introduced by Subcommittee
on Basic Research Chairman Schiff on April 10, 1997.
H.R. 1273 authorizes through the year 2000 appropriations
to the National Science Foundation to carry out research and
education programs in science and engineering through
competitive grants and cooperative agreements. H.R. 1273
supports basic research to help America maintain its lead in
science and engineering and prioritizes efforts to improve math
and science education.
On March 5, 1997; March 13, 1997; April 9, 1997; and April
22, 1998 the Basic Research Subcommittee held hearings on H.R.
1273.
On April 16, 1997, the Committee passed and ordered
reported H.R. 1273, as amended (Report # 105-63). The bill, as
amended, provides funding for each of the National Science
Foundation's five directorates including the Education and
Human Resources, which funds education programs; Research and
Related Activities, which provides the resources for a broad
portfolio of science and engineering activities including
biological sciences, computer and information science and
engineering, engineering, geosciences, mathematical and
physical sciences, social, behavioral, and economic sciences,
the United States Polar Research Programs, the United States
Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, the Critical
Technologies Institute, and the Next Generation Internet
program; and the Major Research Equipment account.
H.R. 1273 was passed by the House on April 24, 1997 and by
the Senate (amended) on May 12, 1998. The House agreed to the
Senate Amendment to H.R. 1273 under Suspension of the Rules on
July 14, 1998, and this bill was signed into law on July 29,
1998 as P.L. 105-207.
1.10--P.L. 105-234, FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS (H.R. 3824)
Background and summary of legislation
The Fastener Quality Act (FQA) (P.L. 101-592) was signed
into law in 1990. It requires all threaded, metallic, through-
hardened fasteners of one-quarter inch diameter or greater that
directly or indirectly reference a consensus standard to be
tested or documented by a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) certified laboratory.
Despite its enactment in 1990, no final regulations for the
Act have been implemented. NIST's final rule of April 14, 1998
was due to be implemented on July 26, 1998. NIST's current
final rule was developed only after legislative changes were
adopted to the Act in 1996.
H.R. 3824 amends the FQA by exempting fasteners produced or
altered to the standards and specifications of aviation
manufacturers from the regulations of the Act. Proprietary
fasteners of aviation manufactures are currently subject to the
federal quality assurance programs of the FAA. Aviation
manufacturers are already required to demonstrate to the FAA
that they have a quality control system which ensures that
their products, including fasteners, meet design
specifications. According to testimony taken by the House
Science Committee Technology Subcommittee, both NIST and the
FAA agree that requiring such fasteners to fall under FQA
regulations would create duplicative and potentially confusing
regulations that would not assist the Federal Government in its
efforts to ensure the safety of the flying public. Furthermore,
neither the FAA nor the National Transportation Safety Board
are aware of any fatal aviation accidents caused by substandard
proprietary fasteners.
H.R. 3824 addresses this unnecessary duplicative regulatory
burden, and, as amended, delays implementation of the FQA's
regulations until June 1, 1999 or 120 days after the Secretary
of Commerce has issued a report on changes needed to the law,
whichever is later. The delay will give Congress and Secretary
of Commerce the opportunity to review the law to ensure that
other sectors of the U.S. manufacturing economy are not harmed
by outdated or unneeded regulation.
Legislative history
The Committee on Science marked up and favorably reported,
with an amendment, H.R. 3824 by a voice vote on May 13, 1998.
H.R. 3824 subsequently passed the full House under Suspension
of the Rules on June 16, 1998 and the full Senate, with an
amendment, on July 31, 1998. The full House agreed to the
Senate amendment and passed H.R. 3824 on August 6, 1998. The
bill was subsequently signed into law by the President on
August 14, 1998, and became P.L. 105-234.
1.11--P.L. 105-255, COMMISSION ON THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN IN SCIENCE,
ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACT (H.R. 3007)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 3007 was introduced by Chairwoman Morella on November
9, 1997. The legislation establishes a commission to determine
why women are underrepresented in the high-tech workforce;
examine what current practices and policies have been
successful in recruiting, retaining, and advancing women in
science, engineering, and technology development; and provide
Congress with a list of recommendations on ways to encourage
women to pursue careers in the science and engineering fields.
The Commission will consist of eleven individuals, seven of
which will be appointed from private sector entities and four
drawn from academic institutions. H.R. 3007 requires the
Commission to complete its report not later than one year after
the initial appointment of the Commissioners.
Legislative history
On March 10, 1998 the Subcommittee held a joint hearing
with the Subcommittee on Basic Research to discuss H.R. 3007.
The Committee on Science marked up and reported H.R. 3007, with
an amendment, by a voice vote on May 13, 1998. The Committee on
Education and the Workforce marked up H.R. 3007, as amended by
the Science Committee, on June 24, 1997. Congressman Payne (D-
NJ) offered an amendment, which was adopted, requiring the
Commission to also examine the lack of participation of
minorities and the disabled in the science and engineering
fields.
H.R. 3007, as amended by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, passed the full House under Suspension of the Rules
on September 14, 1998 and the full Senate under Unanimous
Consent on October 1, 1998. It was signed into law on October
14, 1998 as P.L. 105-255.
1.12--P.L. 105-261, STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 (H.R. 3616)
Background and summary of legislation
On July 22, 1998, the Speaker appointed The Honorable F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Science, The
Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, and The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science as additional conferees
to H.R. 3616, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999, for consideration of Sections 3135
and 3140 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3616, and
modifications committed to conference. These conference
committee deliberations resulted in the enactment of two
sections of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-261), which was signed into
law by the President on October 17, 1998: (1) Section 3136
(Authority for Department of Energy Federally Funded Research
and Development Centers to Participate in Merit-Based
Technology Research and Development Programs); and (2) Section
3137 (Activities of Department of Energy Facilities).
Descriptions of these provisions follow.
Section 3136--Authority for Department of Energy federally
funded research and development centers to
participate in merit-based technology research and
development programs
The Senate amendment to H.R. 3616 contained a provision
(Section 3135) that would amend the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (P.L. 103-337) to grant
Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored federally funded research
and development centers (FFRDCs) the same ability to compete
for contracts as Department of Defense (DOD)-sponsored FFRDCs.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3616 bill contained no
similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment limiting the authority
to those activities conducted under contract with, or on
behalf, of the Department of Defense. In addition, the
conferees adopted conference report (H. Rept. 105-736) language
that states the following:
The conferees do not support the concept of DOE
FFRDCs competing directly or indirectly with the
private sector. In implementing this authority, the
conferees expect DOE FFRDCs to comply fully with all
DOD and DOE policy guidance and regulations governing
FFRDCs. The conferees expect DOE FFRDCs to focus on
their core competencies, expertise, or unique
facilities.
Section 3137--Activities of Department of Energy facilities
The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3140)
that would establish a uniform Federal administrative charge of
three percent on all contract research activities carried out
for non-Department of Energy (DOE) entities at DOE contractor-
operated facilities. The provision would eliminate the
Secretary of Energy's current authority to waive the Federal
administrative charge, except that the Secretary would be
authorized to continue existing waivers, if the Secretary so
determines, and would be authorized to waive charges for small
businesses, institutions of higher education, non-profit
entities, and state and local governments. The provision would
also authorize the Secretary to enter into a five-year pilot
program at selected facilities to develop reduced overhead
charges designed to recover all costs generated by external
entities who may not utilize the full range of services at a
DOE facility for which overhead costs may be charged. And, the
provision would encourage the Secretary to establish a new
small business technology partnership program to make DOE
expertise and capabilities more accessible to small businesses,
and would encourage the Secretary to pursue partnerships and
interactions with universities and private businesses.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment allowing the Secretary
to waive the Federal administrative charge at all DOE
facilities. The conferees did not include the small business
technology partnership or partnerships and interactions
provisions. In addition, the conferees adopted conference
report (H. Rept. 105-736) language that states the following:
The conferees encourage the Secretary to continue the
establishment of cooperative partnerships and
interactions with universities and private industry at
contractor-operated facilities where such interaction
will help the Department better carry out its national
security missions. The conferees further encourage the
Secretary to create small business technology
partnership programs at contractor-operated facilities
where such interaction will help the Department better
carry out its national security missions. The Secretary
is encouraged to designate small funding pools at DOE
sites to carry out such programs. The Secretary should
include annually with the President's budget request a
report on the effectiveness and applicability of any
such programs to the missions of the Department of
Energy.
Legislative history
H.R. 3616 was referred to the Committee on National
Security on April 1, 1998 which subsequently reported the bill,
as amended, on May 12, 1998 and filed H. Rept. 105-532. The
bill passed the House amended on May 21, 1998 by: Y-357; N-60;
Roll Call No. 183.
Upon receiving the bill on May 22, 1998 the Senate
subsequently passed H.R. 3616, as amended, on June 25, 1998.
The Senate insisted on its amendments and requested a
conference. The House disagreed with the Senate amendments and
agreed to a conference.
On September 22, 1998, Conference Report 105-736 was filed.
The House agreed to the Conference Report on September 24, 1998
by: Y-373; N-50; Roll Call No. 458. The Conference Report was
then sent to the Senate which, on October 1, 1998, agreed to it
by Y-96; N-2; Roll Call No. 293. The President signed H.R.
3616, The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999, into law on October 17, 1998 (P.L. 105-261).
1.13--P.L. 105-303, COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 1702)
Background and summary of legislation
The Department of Commerce estimated that revenue from
commercial space activity in the United States totaled
approximately $7.5 billion in 1995. Revenues from commercial
space activities exceeded government expenditures for the first
time in 1996. For more than a decade, commercial space
businesses have grown faster than the economy and proven
relatively recession-proof. Congress and the White House have
supported and encouraged the growth and development of this
industry on a bipartisan basis, regardless of which political
party controlled either branch of government.
The Clinton Administration has developed and published a
range or policy statements that continue the work of his
predecessors, Presidents Reagan and Bush, in establishing a
stable business environment from which the commercial sector
can create new space businesses and jobs. Those policies deal
with space transportation, commercial remote sensing, and the
Global Positioning System. The President issued a new National
Space Policy on September 19, 1996 which reinforced the
government's support of commercial space development, noting
that ``expanding U.S. commercial space activities will generate
economic benefits for the Nation and provide the U.S.
government with an increasing range of space goods and
services.'' Taking the position that the government's role is
more appropriately limited to creating a stable and predictable
environment in which the entrepreneurial spirit of American
enterprise can succeed, the policy states, ``Commercial space
sector activities shall be supervised or regulated only to the
extent required by law, national security, international
obligations and public safety.''
The Commercial Space Act of 1998 incorporates lessons
learned in commercial space with the goal of improving the
legal and regulatory framework governing commercial space
development. Like any young industry, commercial space business
is vulnerable to the inconsistencies and sudden changes of
government policy. H.R. 1702 provides another building block
for clear, precise, and predictable laws that will allow U.S.
companies to survive in the fiercely competitive global
marketplace of commercial space.
H.R. 1702 contains numerous provisions which will create a
better business environment for space transportation, data
collection, navigation, and space services. Despite numerous
negotiations with the Administration and the Science
Committee's willingness to negotiate, a feasible compromise
could not be worked out on Title II of the bill. This title,
which dealt with remote sensing, had to be stripped from the
compromise bill that was passed by the House and Senate in
October 1998. The remote sensing provisions amended the Land
Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555), a law which
enabled the private sector to obtain licenses to operate
commercial remote sensing satellites.
President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 23
in 1994 which established the President's policy for
implementing the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992. In a
statement released by Deputy Secretary of Commerce David Barram
announcing the President's new policy on remote sensing, Mr.
Barram stated, ``This policy is particularly significant
because it acknowledges the relationship between this country's
national security and its long-term economic security. It
recognizes the two as inextricably woven together: our long-
term national security is directly tied to our ability to
effectively compete in this critical global imaging market.''
The remote sensing provisions came from the President's
policy and real-world licensing experiences since enactment of
the 1992 law. The amendments to the 1992 law were intended to
stabilize the regulatory regime, thereby enabling U.S. industry
to develop rational business plans, raise capital, market its
services, and meet customer demand. Given the time constraints
at the end of the 105th Congress, the desire to move the other
important provisions in the Commercial Space Act of 1998, and
the inability to reach a workable solution with the State
Department, the remote sensing provisions were pulled from the
bill.
The final bill requires an independent market study of, and
a NASA report on, progress in commercialization of the
International Space Station; authorizes the Department of
Transportation to license the reentry of space transportation
vehicle; makes permanent a launch voucher demonstration program
so that scientists can buy their own launch services;
encourages the President to ensure that the U.S. Global
Positioning System (GPS) becomes the world standard so that
foreign systems will not interfere with the GPS satellite
signals; encourages NASA to buy commercial data for both space
science and earth science researchers; directs NASA to manage
its commercial space centers out of NASA Headquarters; creates
a better business environment for the U.S. commercial remote
sensing industry by clarifying regulations; requires the
federal government to purchase space transportation services
instead of building and operating its own vehicles; requires
NASA to plan for the potential privatization of the Space
Shuttle; allows the use of excess ICBMs as low-cost space
transportation vehicles; and requires that the Department of
Defense study our national launch demand and infrastructure
capability through the year 2007.
Legislative history
Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., of Wisconsin
introduced H.R. 1702 on May 22, 1997. The bill was originally
cosponsored by Congressmen George E. Brown, Jr., of California,
Dana Rohrabacher of California, Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr., of
Alabama, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held 3 hearings
on this bill in 1997: May 21, May 22, and June 4. On June 11,
1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics marked up H.R.
1702 and forwarded it to the full committee. On June 18, 1997,
the Science Committee passed and ordered reported H.R. 1702.
The report was filed on October 24, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-347).
After months of negotiation with the Administration, H.R. 1702
passed the House, with an amendment, under suspension of the
rules on November 4, 1997. The Senate filed its report on H.R.
1702 on June 2, 1998 (S. Rept. 105-198) and it passed the
Senate on July 30, 1998. The House and Senate negotiated a
compromise bill which passed the House on October 5, 1998 and
passed the Senate on October 8, 1998. On October 28, 1998, the
President signed the bill which became P.L. 105-303.
1.14--P.L. 105-305, NEXT GENERATION INTERNET RESEARCH ACT OF 1998 (H.R.
3332/S. 1609)
Background and summary of legislation
The Internet is an international, cooperative computer
network of networks that links many types of users, such as
governments, schools, libraries, corporations, hospitals,
individuals and others. The United States has achieved national
strategic advantages and prominence as a result of American
leadership in information technology.
Furthermore, U.S. dominance in this field grew from
critical federal investment, and continued investment is
necessary to maintain that dominance and leadership. The
explosion of business, government, and academic uses of the
Internet has created the need to overhaul the network
infrastructure. Additional research must be undertaken in order
to develop new applications that will improve educational
access, while still contributing to economic growth.
Federal efforts to support computer and telecommunications
applications and education have been strongly endorsed by the
Clinton Administration since 1993. In October 1996, President
Clinton called for a renewed resolve to create the Next
Generation Internet (NGI). However, the Administration's
proposal was redefined after Congressional concerns were
raised. Thus, the NGI Implementation Plan was completed in July
1997. The new proposal identified NGI as a research initiative
(rather than a deployment initiative) more clearly than in the
previous plan.
The NGI implementation plan combined both policy and
program prescriptions in three specific goals.
Goal 1: Experimental Research for Advanced Network
Technologies. Develop main areas of network service and
corresponding protocols including the following: end-to-end
Quality of Service (QoS), security and robustness, network
growth engineering, new or modified protocols for routing and
switching. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
serves as the lead federal agency.
Goal 2: Next Generation Network Fabric. Develop a next
generation network testbed to connect universities and federal
research institutions at rates that are sufficient to
demonstrate new technologies and support future research. DOE
serves as the lead federal agency.
Goal 3: Revolutionary Applications. Demonstrate new
applications that meet important national goals and missions.
Potential areas for applications include: health care,
education, scientific research, national security, environment,
government, and design and manufacture.
In its FY 1998 budget request, the Administration requested
$100 million in funding for the NGI initiative. Although many
in Congress expressed support for the basic principles outlined
in the NGI plan, several concerns relating to implementation of
the plan remained and funding for the initiative was withheld.
The level of funding appropriated for FY 1998 was 10-15 percent
less than the level of funding included in the President's
budget request.
The Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 would
advance the current state of the Internet, advance university
research capabilities, and assist federal agencies in achieving
their missions. The bill would provide for a multi-agency
program concentrated upon the research and development of a
coordinated set of technologies that seeks to create a network
infrastructure to support greater speed, robustness, and
flexibility beyond what is available in the current Internet.
Legislative history
H.R. 3332, a bill to amend the High-Performance Computing
Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for the Next Generation
Internet program, to require the Advisory Committee on High-
Performance Computing and Communications, Information
Technology, and the Next Generation Internet to monitor and
give advice concerning the development and implementation of
the Next Generation Internet program and report to the
President and the Congress on its activities, and for other
purposes. The bill, known as the Next Generation Internet Act,
was introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Science Committee Ranking Member Brown (CA) on March 4, 1998.
H.R. 3332 authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 1999
and 2000 to the National Science Foundation, the Departments of
Energy, and Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to support the
Next Generation Internet Program (Program), with specified
objectives for increasing Internet capabilities as well as the
development of other networking technologies.
On September 10, 1997, the full Science Committee held a
hearing on H.R. 3332.
On May 13, 1998 the full Science Committee passed and
ordered reported H.R. 3332. The bill provides for a coordinated
effort by several federal agencies to improve the speed,
reliability and capability of today's Internet through the
development of new cutting-edge networking technologies.
H.R. 3332 was passed by the House under Suspension of the
Rules on September 14, 1998, by the Senate on October 8, 1998
and was cleared for the President on October 8, 1998.
1.15--P.L. 105-309, TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1998 (H.R. 1274/S.
1325)
Background and summary of legislation
As introduced, H.R. 1274, authorized appropriations for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology for Fiscal Years
1998 and 1999.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
is the Nation's oldest federal laboratory. It was established
by Congress in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).
NBS was renamed NIST by the passage of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988. The Act also expanded NIST's scope
by establishing both the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP).
NIST is part of the Department of Commerce. Its mission is
to promote economic growth by working with industry to develop
and apply technology, measurements, and standards. As the
nation's arbiter of standards, NIST enables our country's
businesses to engage each other in commerce and participate in
the global marketplace.
The precise measurements required for establishing
standards associated with today's increasingly complex
technologies require NIST laboratories to maintain the most
sophisticated equipment and the most talented scientists in the
world.
H.R. 1274, as passed the House in 1997, included
authorizations for NIST's programs for FY 1998 and FY 1999. The
bill also provided express authorization for 1998 and 1999 for
the Office of the Undersecretary for Technology and the Office
of Technology Policy.
The Senate passed H.R. 1274 with a substitute amendment
which struck the authorization of appropriations and included
the following provisions: Officially establishes the Office of
Space Commercialization (OSC). The OSC is a coordinating office
that has been in existence for a decade. H.R. 1274 defines its
charter; a program to allow elementary and secondary school
math and science teachers access to NIST laboratories and
scientists during the summer months to improve the teachers'
understanding of science; authorizes the expansion of the
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Awards Program into healthcare and
education; authorizes for one year the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCOT); and, lifts the six
year sunset requirement for Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) program centers.
The bill as amended by the Senate was signed into law on
October 30, 1998 (PL 105-309).
Legislative history
H.R. 1274 was introduced on April 10, 1997 by Technology
Subcommittee Chairwoman Constance Morella. The Committee on
Science passed the bill, as amended, on April 16 by voice vote
(H. Rept. 105-64). The House passed H.R. 1274, as amended, by
voice vote on April 24, 1997. On October 9, 1998, the Senate
Commerce Committee discharged H.R. 1274 and the Senate amended
and passed the bill. On October 13, 1998, the House passed the
bill under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The President
signed H.R. 1274 into law on October 30, 1998 (PL 105-309).
1.16--p.l. 105-383, coast guard authorization act of 1998 (h.r. 2204/
h.r. 4235--title vi of h.r. 2204)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 4235, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998 , as introduced, requires the establishment
of an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
and Hypoxia (Task Force)--chaired by the Department of
Commerce, and including representatives of the EPA, the
Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, the Navy, and Health
and Human Services, EPA, NSF, NASA, and other agencies--through
the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the
National Science and Technology Council. The Task Force is
charged with the development of a comprehensive and coordinated
national action plan dealing with HABs within one year of the
date of enactment, and with submitting to Congress three annual
reports describing the progress made on the action plan. In
addition, the Task Force is to submit to Congress and the
President an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Northern
Gulf of Mexico no later than March 30, 1999; and no later than
March 30, 2000, the President must develop and submit to
Congress an action plan based on this assessment. The measure
authorizes $25.5 million for each of fiscal years (FYs) 1999,
2000 and 2001, both within NOAA labs and through competitive,
peer-reviewed extramural grants for research, monitoring, and
assessment activities for HABs and hypoxia; and amends the
National Sea Grant College Program Act to allow up to $3
million to be made available annually through the National Sea
Grant College Program for competitive grants for university
research, education, training, and advisory services on
Pfiesteria piscicida and other HABs. Finally, H.R. 4235 amends
section 318(a) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1464(a)) to authorize up to $2 million in
total appropriations during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for
technical assistance under section 310 of the CZMA to support
State implementation and analysis of the effectiveness of
measures to prevent, reduce, mitigate, or control HABs and
hypoxia.
Legislative history
H.R. 4235, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998, was introduced by Representative
Christopher John on July 16, 1998, and was referred to the
Committee on Science, and, in addition, to the Committee on
Resources. Within the Science Committee, the bill was referred
to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on July 23, 1998.
The companion Senate measure, S. 1480, was introduced by
Senators Olympia Snowe and John Breaux as the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1997 on November
8, 1997, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. The Committee ordered S. 1480
reported on July 9, 1998 with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and filed S. Rept. No. 105-357 on September 30,
1998. H.R. 4235 is virtually identical to S. 1480, as reported.
On October 12, 1998, the Senate passed H.R. 2204, the Coast
Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000
with an amendment by unanimous consent. Title VI of the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2204 includes the text of S. 1480 as
reported. On October 15, 1998, the House concurred in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 2204, with an amendment, under
suspension of the rules by a voice vote. The House amendment,
which renames H.R. 2204 as the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
1998, changes the authorization levels of Title VI (H.R. 4235/
S. 1480) from $25.5 million for each of Fiscal Years 1999, 2000
and 2001 to $15.0 million in FY 1999, $18.25 million in FY
2000, and $19.0 million for FY 2001. The House amendment also
deletes the Title's amendment to the National Sea Grant College
Program Act to allow up to $3 million to be made available
annually through the National Sea Grant College Program for
competitive grants for university research, education,
training, and advisory services on Pfiesteria piscicida and
other HABs. On October 21, the Senate concurred in the House
amendment to H.R. 2204 by unanimous consent, and the President
signed H.R. 2204, The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, on
November 13, 1998 (P.L. 105-383).
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
2.1--human cloning research prohibition act (h.r. 922)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 922 prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to
conduct or support research which includes the cloning of
humans. In order to address the lack of a permanent statutory
ban on the use of federal research funds to produce cloned
human embryos, Congressman Vern Ehlers of Michigan introduced
H.R. 922 on March 5, 1997. H.R. 922 was referred to the
Committee on Commerce and sequentially to the Committee on
Science.
In the wake of the announcement that scientists in Scotland
had succeeded in cloning an adult sheep, the Science Committee
held a series of three hearings, over five months, on human
cloning. The Committee examined the legal and ethical issues
associated with the use of cloning technology, reviewed the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report, ``Cloning
Human Beings,'' and discussed the parameters for federal
funding of human cloning research.
H.R. 922 prohibits the use of federal funds to conduct or
support any project of research that includes the use of human
somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce an embryo.
The bill also defines ``human somatic cell nuclear transfer''
and ``somatic cell.''
H.R. 922 provides for the Director of the National Science
Foundation to enter into an agreement with the National
Research Council to conduct a review of the impact of H.R. 922
on research. This report would be completed no later than five
years after the date of enactment. The Committee on Commerce
took no action on H.R. 922.
Legislative history
The Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Technology held
three hearings on cloning in the 105th Congress. On March 5,
1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, ``Biotechnology
and the Ethics of Cloning: How Far Should We Go?''. On June 12,
1997, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, ``A Review of
the President's Commission's Recommendations on Cloning.'' And
on July 22, 1997, a hearing entitled, Prohibition of Federal
Government Funding of Human Cloning Research.'' The Science
Committee marked up H.R. 922 on July 29, 1997. The Committee
filed the report on H.R. 922 (H. Rept. 105-239, Part I) on
August 1, 1997. H.R. 922 was primarily referred to the
Committee on Commerce which took no action on the bill.
2.2--civilian space authorization act, fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (h.r.
1275/s. 1250)
Background and summary of legislation
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was
created in 1958 to help win the Cold War. In the last decade of
the 20th century, the agency finds itself working with former
Cold War adversaries and undertaking activities in new areas.
The end of the Cold War, changes in NASA's mission, and changes
in the Administration have led to budgetary instability during
the 1990s. As late as 1992, projections of NASA's annual budget
had it rising to almost $20 billion by the year 2000. For
fiscal year 1997, the White House submitted a request that cut
NASA's budget to $11.6 billion in the year 2000. For fiscal
year 1998, the budget runout for fiscal year 2000 is $13.2
billion. For fiscal year 1999, the runout for fiscal year 2000
is $13.278 billion.
The budget request for fiscal year 1999 was $13.465
billion. VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations for
fiscal year 1999 funded NASA at $13.665 billion, $200 million
over the President's request. H.R. 1275 was intended to address
NASA's budget instabilities and provide NASA with a budget that
grew, but remained slightly below the level of inflation.
Besides the agency's declining budget requests, NASA is
rapidly approaching initial construction on the International
Space Station (ISS). The Clinton Administration invited the
Russians to join the program in1993. The Russians have
consistently failed to fund and construct their elements of the
Space Station. Consequently, construction of the Space Station
has been delayed by one year and delivery of the Russian
Service Module on time is highly questionable. NASA has sent
the Russian Space Agency $60 million in 1998 and intends to
send another $40 million before the end of the year. These
funds are ostensibly for the purchase of Russian crew time and
stowage space, but the funds are ultimately intended for
further work on the Service Module. Although not yet approved
by the Office of Management and Budget, NASA is currently
entertaining the notion of paying the Russian Space Agency $150
million per year for the next four years to help pay for
Russia's commitments to the Space Station.
Since the introduction of the Russians into the ISS program
in 1993, the Science Committee has advocated an enhancing,
rather than enabling, role for the Russians. Unfortunately, the
White House negotiated a deal in which the Russians provide
components vital to the ISS. So when the Russians' vital
components are late, the entire Station is delayed in its
schedule, and the Russians have thus become part of the
``critical path.'' The Science Committee has persistently
requested the Administration develop a viable plan to deal with
the Russian problem. Pressure from the Science Committee and
others in Congress led to an independent assessment, known as
the Chabrow report, which validated many of the Committee's
concerns. This report has led NASA to recommend a change in
policy to the White House in an effort to actively pursue
removing the Russians from the critical path. One of the main
recommendations of the Chabrow report was for the U.S. to
develop an independent propulsion capability, commonly referred
to as a propulsion module. This module would provide permanent,
independent re-boost and attitude control. The NASA
Administrator, in a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner on October
15, 1998, stated, ``Upon completion of a detailed technical
requirements review by NASA this fall, NASA will proceed on the
long-lead procurements for this propulsion capability.''
[emphasis added] The Committee remains concerned about the
funding source for the propulsion capability and a crew return
capability, which is also necessary to remove the Russians from
the critical path. NASA too often has been forced to raid
funding for the Shuttle program and science programs in order
to pay for shortfalls in the ISS program.
Through Title II of H.R. 1275, the Science Committee sought
to impose discipline into the decision-making process with the
goal of containing future cost growth and preventing additional
schedule slips in the program. This title requires an
independent market study and a report from NASA on efforts to
commercialize the International Space Station; requires the
NASA Administrator to report on the costs of Station agreements
with foreign entities and report on international hardware
agreements; prohibits NASA from transferring money or in-kind
payments to Russia for their critical components; requires NASA
to develop a contingency plan with decision points for removing
each element of Russian hardware in the critical path; directs
the NASA Administrator to certify on a monthly basis that the
Russians are meeting their obligations; requires the President
to make a decision on whether to proceed with permanent
replacements for the Russian critical path items with the cost
implications; and directs the NASA Administrator to certify
that Mir meets or exceeds U.S. safety standards.
The bill authorizes appropriations to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for the International
Space Station; Space Shuttle; Payload and Utilization
Operations; Space Science; Life and Microgravity Science;
Mission to Planet Earth; Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology; Mission Communication Services; Academic Programs;
Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance; Space Communication
Services; Research and Program Management; Construction of
Facilities; Inspector General; and the United States-Mexico
Foundation for Science. The bill also authorizes appropriations
to the Department of Transportation for the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation and the Department of Commerce
for the Office of Space Commerce.
H.R. 1275 contains various administrative provisions on the
availability of appropriated amounts; reprogramming for
construction of facilities; reporting on unauthorized programs;
and using funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary
expenses. H.R. 1275 provides limitations regarding earth
science data buys, the consolidated space operations contract,
and the International Space University. The bill requires the
NASA Administrator to prepare a report on the agency's
restructuring activities; authorizes the Department of
Transportation to license the reentry of space transportation
vehicles; requires NASA to conduct independent cost analyses
for projects over $75 million; establishes the Office of Space
Commerce and defines its responsibilities; amends the NASA Act
of 1958 to allow for delaying the unrestricted public
disclosure of technical data; establishes commercial
procurement initiatives; encourages NASA to buy commercial data
for both space science and earth science researchers; requires
NASA to buy commercially available space goods and services,
when feasible; requires a report on threats to the EOSDIS core
system; requires NASA to plan for the potential privatization
of the Space Shuttle; and deletes outdated references in the
launch voucher program.
The bill also encourages the NASA Administrator to use
abandoned and underutilized buildings when NASA needs
additional facilities; provides direction in calculating cost
effectiveness; prohibits NASA from entering into contracts with
foreign governments where the foreign government can recover
profit if the contract is terminated; grants NASA the authority
to suspend contract payments when there is substantial evidence
of fraud; ensures that the Science Committee will be able to
review and authorize the Next Generation Internet; prohibits
authorized funds to be used to ``lobby'' or influence pending
legislation; provides notice requirements; states the sense of
the Congress on the year 2000 problem; authorizes NASA to
participate in the National Oceanic Partnership program;
encourages NASA to provide excess capability on the Tracking
Data Relay Satellite System to the National Science
Foundation's Antarctic Program; requires compliance with the
Buy American Act; and updates the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act
of 1949.
Legislative history
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California introduced H.R.
1275 on April 10, 1997. The bill was cosponsored by Congressmen
George E. Brown, Jr., of California, Robert E. (Bud) Cramer,
Jr., of Alabama, Dave Weldon of Florida, James A. Traficant,
Jr., Mark Foley of Florida, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of
Texas, Congressmen Charles W. (Chip) Pickering of Mississippi,
Walter H. Capps of California, Nick Lampson of Texas, and Joe
Barton of Texas.
The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held 6
authorization hearings in 1997: March 4, March 12, March 13,
March 19, April 9, and April 10. The Science Committee passed
and ordered reported H.R. 1275 on April 16, 1997. The bill was
filed on April 21, 1997 (H. Rept. 105-65) and passed the House,
as amended, on April 24, 1997.
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee introduced S. 1250, a bill
to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, on October
3, 1997. The bill was cosponsored by Senator John D.
Rockefeller of West Virginia, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana,
and Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
S. 1250 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on October 3, 1997. On March 12,
1998 the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
held a meeting (markup) on S. 1250 and ordered the measure
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On May 22, 1998 the
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation filed Senate
Report 105-195 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute
and as an amendment to the title. S. 1250 was placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under general orders (Calendar No. 387).
No further action was taken on this measure.
2.3--environmental research, development, and demonstration
authorization act of 1997 (h.r. 1276)
Background and summary of legislation
EPA research and development (R&D) programs are funded in
five separate appropriation accounts in the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill: Environmental Programs
and Management (Science Advisory Board), Science and
Technology, Superfund Research and Development, Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Research, and Oil Spills Research.
The Science and Technology appropriation account, created
in 1996, represents the largest component of EPA's R&D
activities and funds the operating programs of the Office of
Research and Development, the Office of Air and Radiation's
Office of Mobile Sources, and the Program Office laboratories.
The EPA Office of Research and Development controls twelve
research laboratories and four assessment offices, which fall
under the management of three national laboratories and two
national centers: (1) the National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory in Triangle Park, North Carolina;
(2) the National Exposure Research Laboratory in Triangle Park,
North Carolina; (3) the National Risk Management Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio; (4) the National Center for Environmental
Research Quality Assurance in Washington, DC; and (5) the
National Center for Environmental Assessment in Washington, DC.
The Science and Technology Appropriations account also
funds five non-Office of Research and Development Laboratories:
(1) the National Vehicles and Fuels Emission Laboratory, (2)
National Radiation Laboratories, (3) Analytical and
Environmental Chemistry Laboratories, (4) Drinking Water
Program Laboratory, and (5) National Enforcement Investigations
Center.
Congress has funded most of EPA R&D programs through direct
appropriation without annual legislative authorization. The
last comprehensive EPA research and development bill was the
Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act of
1981 (P.L. 96-569), which expired on September 30, 1981. The
sole exception is Drinking Water Research, which is authorized
at $26,593,00 for Fiscal Year 1997 through Fiscal Year 2003 by
Title II of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996 (P.L.
104-182).
The purpose of H.R. 1276, The Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997, is to
authorize appropriations for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 for
research, development, and demonstration programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). H.R. 1276 authorizes
$639,580,500 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $658,077,600 for Fiscal
Year 1999 for these programs.
The measure also eliminates funding authorization for 11
congressionally-earmarked activities funded in FY 1997; assigns
the EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
the duties of developing and integrating a strategic plan for
EPA research activities, and requires the Assistant
Administrator to review all EPA research to ensure that it is
of high quality and not duplicative; requires the EPA
Administrator to ensure that any fellowship award funded under
this Act is used only to support EPA scientific research
activities; requires the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to submit
to Congress and to the EPA Administrator a report on the
Board's views on proposed research programs as described in the
President's budget for research, development and demonstration
activities of the EPA and to evaluate selected planned research
development and demonstration activities of the EPA; requires
the EPA Administrator to submit to Congress any SAB report
required to be submitted to the Administrator; prohibits
lobbying activities; excludes from consideration for grant
agreements, for a period of 5 years, any person who received
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based
award process; sets forth congressional committee notice
requirements applicable to fund reprogramming actions and any
major reorganization of an EPA program, project, or activity;
expresses the sense of the Congress with respect to EPA
planning for the Year 2000 computer problem; prohibits an
entity from expending funds appropriated pursuant to this Act
unless it agrees to comply with the Buy American Act; and
expresses the sense of the Congress that in the case of
equipment or products authorized to be purchased with financial
assistance provided under this Act, recipients should purchase
only American-made equipment and products.
Legislative history
The Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment held
hearings relevant to the EPA's fiscal year 1998 budget request
on March 11, March 12, and April 9, 1997. The Honorable Ken
Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
introduced H.R. 1276, Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997, on April 10, 1997. The
bill was co-sponsored by Representatives George Brown, Shelia
Jackson Lee, and Vernon Ehlers.
The Committee on Science held a markup on April 16, 1997,
and ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote.
On May 16, 1997, the Committee filed H. Rept. 105-99, Part 1
and the measure was referred to the Committee on Commerce. The
Committee on Commerce held a markup on June 25, 1997 and
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote and
filed
H. Rept. 105-99, Part 2, on June 26, 1997.
2.4--department of energy civilian research and development act of 1997
(h.r. 1277)
Background and summary of legislation
Three circumstances dictate the need for H.R. 1277, The
Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of
1997: (1) the importance of preserving and strengthening the
Nation's scientific leadership; (2) the lack of specific
authorizations for the bulk of Department of Energy's civilian
research, development, demonstration and commercial application
activities under the Committee on Science's jurisdiction; and
(3) the necessity to balance the budget.
Because of its belief that the Nation's future is directly
tied to science, the Committee on Science also believes that
the Federal Government should take an active role in the
promotion and support of scientific endeavors. As we near the
millennium, we are faced with numerous problems that can be
dealt with by enhancing our scientific and research base.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is superseded only by the
National Institutes of Health and the National Science
Foundation in size of basic research programs. The DOE supports
major energy research and development efforts, including solar
and renewable energy, energy efficiency, fossil energy, and
nuclear and fusion energy. However, with the exception of
Hydrogen Research which is authorized through 2001 by the
Hydrogen Futures Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-271), very few of the
Department's programs have specific authorizations. Most are
covered under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and will soon
expire if they have not already. Therefore, these circumstances
make it necessary to enact a comprehensive authorization bill
to provide guidelines and support for the programs of the DOE
that support and strengthen the Nation's science base and
energy future.
It should also be noted that the Committee enthusiastically
supports the efforts to balance the budget. This is necessary
in order to preserve the future of science and technology
funding. To prepare America for an increasingly
technologically-advanced competitive world and to prepare our
next generation of scientists and engineers, we need to first
assure our Federal financial house is in order.
In light of the needs to enhance our scientific base within
budget constraints the Committee has closely examined the DOE
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request and has established the
following five criteria in prioritizing its funding
recommendations:
1. Federal Research and Development should focus on
essential programs that are long-term, high-risk, non-
commercial, cutting edge, well-managed, and have great
potential for scientific discovery; funding for programs that
do not meet this standard should be eliminated or decreased to
reduce budget demands and to enable new initiatives.
2. Federal R&D should be highly relevant to and tightly
focused on agency missions, with accountability and procedures
for evaluating quality and results.
3. Beyond the demonstration of technical feasibility,
activities associated with evolutionary advances or incremental
improvements to a product or process, or the marketing or
commercialization of a product or process should be left to the
private sector.
4. Where possible, international, industry, and state
science partnerships should be nurtured as a way to leverage
U.S. taxpayer R&D investment.
5. Infrastructure necessary for carrying out essential
federal R&D programs needs to be prioritized consistent with
program requirements.
H.R. 1277, The Department of Energy Civilian Research and
Development Authorization of 1997, meets the Committee's
responsibilities to set priorities for good fundamental science
and a balanced energy research portfolio that is vital to the
Nation's future and a balanced budget. H.R. 1277, as amended
and reported by the Science Committee, authorizes
appropriations of $4,605,143,000 for the FY 1998 and
$4,621,732,000 for FY 1999 for the civilian research,
development, demonstration and commercial application
activities of the Department of Energy. The measure also sets
forth funding limitations by specifying programs for which the
use of funds under this Act is prohibited (except to fulfill
contractual obligations). In addition, the bill directs the
Secretary of Energy to arrange with the National Academy of
Sciences to report to the Congress on: (1) DOE activities
concerning high energy and nuclear physics activities within
specified budgetary parameters; (2) DOE basic energy sciences
activities based upon certain budget options for the entire
Basic Energy Sciences account and all related research and
energy asset activities; and (3) construction and operation
costs of the National Spallation Neutron Source at alternative
sites, including the National Laboratories at Argonne,
Brookhaven, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge; proscribes the use of
funds for the Next Generation Internet (except for continuation
of FY 1997 activities); and directs the Secretary to exclude
from consideration for grant agreements any person who received
grant funds from a Federal funding source for a project that
was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award
procedure. It also expresses the sense of the Congress with
respect to DOE planning for the Year 2000 computer problem;
prohibits an entity from expending funds appropriated pursuant
to this Act unless it agrees to comply with the Buy American
Act; and expresses the sense of the Congress that in the case
of equipment or products authorized to be purchased with
financial assistance provided under this Act, recipients should
purchase only American-made equipment and products.
Legislative history
H.R. 1277, the Department of Energy Civilian Research and
Development Act of 1997, was introduced by The Honorable Ken
Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, on
April 10, 1997, and was referred to the Committee on Science.
The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives George Brown,
Shelia Jackson Lee, and Mark Foley.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held hearings
relevant to the Department of Energy's (DOE's) fiscal year (FY)
1998 budget request on March 6, 1997, and 20, and on April 9,
1997, and the full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1277
on April 16, 1997. The Committee ordered the bill reported, as
amended, on April 16, 1997 and filed H. Rept. 105-67, Part 1,
on April 22, 1997.
On April 23, 1997, H.R. 1277, as amended, was sequentially
referred to the Committee on Commerce for a period ending not
later than June 6, 1997 for consideration of such provisions of
the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee. Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, which
forwarded the measure, as amended, to the Committee by a voice
vote on May 22, 1997. The Committee on Commerce ordered the
bill reported, as amended, on June 4, 1997 and filed H. Rept.
105-67, Part 2, on June 9, 1997.
2.5--national oceanic and atmospheric administration authorization act
of 1997 (h.r. 1278)
Background and summary of legislation
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was
created by President Nixon in 1970 as part of a plan to
consolidate many of the nation's civil programs related to the
oceans and atmosphere. NOAA's most recent strategic plan stated
that its mission is ``to describe and predict changes in the
Earth's environment, and conserve and manage wisely the
Nation's coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable
economic opportunities.''
The NOAA programs for which the Committee on Science has
sole jurisdiction include: the National Weather Service (NWS);
the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information
Service (NESDIS); the Program Support's Aircraft Services
account; and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Climate
and Atmospheric programs. In addition, the Committee has
jurisdiction over the line accounts for the programs listed
above under the Construction and the new Capital Assets
Acquisitions accounts. The Committee on Science also shares
jurisdiction (with the Committee on Resources) over OAR's
National Undersea Research Program, Sea Grant, Marine
Prediction Research, Administration, and Fleet Maintenance and
Planning.
Since its creation, NOAA has obtained most of its program
funding through direct appropriation without annual legislative
authorization. However, during the 102nd Congress, the first
comprehensive NOAA authorization bill was approved and signed
into law, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-567). Most of the program
funding included in this authorization expired after Fiscal
Year 1993 and no comprehensive NOAA authorization bills have
been signed into law since the 102nd Congress.
The purpose of H.R. 1278, The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1997, is to
authorize appropriations for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 for
programs and missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science. H.R. 1278 authorizes $1,462,414,000 for Fiscal Year
1998 and $1,575,232,000 for Fiscal Year 1999.
The measure also terminates 10 programs and accounts and
requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress
certifying that all programs and accounts listed to be
terminated will be terminated by September 30, 1997;
disestablishes the NOAA Corps after Fiscal Year 1997; prohibits
unauthorized persons from interfering with any National Data
Buoy Center weather data buoys, and authorizes the NOAA
Administrator to assess a penalty for each violation and to
offer and pay rewards for information regarding violations;
delineates the duties of the National Weather Service (NWS) and
prohibits the Service from competing with the private sector
when a service not specifically designated as a NWS service is
provided, or can be provided, by commercial enterprise, unless
the Secretary of Commerce finds that the private sector is
unwilling or unable to provide the service; gives the Secretary
of Commerce the authority to contract out for data and days-at-
sea; sets forth congressional committee notice requirements
applicable to fund reprogramming actions and any major
reorganization of a NOAA program, project, or activity;
expresses the sense of the Congress with respect to NOAA
planning for the Year 2000 computer problem; prohibits an
entity from expending funds appropriated pursuant to this Act
unless it agrees to comply with the Buy American Act; and
expresses the sense of the Congress that in the case of
equipment or products authorized to be purchased with financial
assistance provided under this Act, recipients should purchase
only American-made equipment and products.
Legislative history
The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment, introduced H.R. 1278, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1997, on April
10, 1997. The bill was co-sponsored by Representatives George
Brown, Sheila Jackson Lee, Mark Foley, and Vernon Ehlers. The
measure was referred to the Committee on Science and, in
addition, to the Committee on Resources.
Hearings were held on March 13 and April 9, 1997 by the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment relevant to the bill.
The Committee on Science held a markup on April 16, 1997,
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote, and
subsequently filed H. Rept. 105-66, Part 1, on April 22, 1997.
The measure was then referred to the Committee on Resources on
April 23, 1997. The Committee held a markup and ordered the
measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote; and, filed H.
Rept. 105-66, Part 2 on June 20, 1997.
2.6--computer security enhancement act of 1997 (h.r. 1903)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 1903, amends the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act to enhance the ability of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) to improve computer
security, and for other purposes.
The Computer Security Act of 1987 gave authority over
computer and communication security standards in federal
civilian agencies to NIST. The Computer Security Enhancement
Act of 1997 strengthens that authority and directs funds to
implement practices and procedures to improve the security of
federal civilian information technology systems.
Much has changed in the 10 years since the Computer
Security Act of 1987 was enacted. The proliferation of
networked systems, the Internet, and web access are just a few
of the dramatic advances in information technology that have
occurred. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997
addresses these changes and provides for greater security for
the federal civilian agencies that base their procurement
decisions for computer security hardware and software on NIST
standards. H.R. 1903 also promotes the use of commercially
available products and encourages an open exchange of
information between NIST and the private sector.
Legislative history
The Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Technology held
a hearing on H.R. 1903 on June 19, 1997. The Subcommittee on
Technology then marked up H.R. 1903 on July 28, 1997. The full
Science Committee marked up H.R. 1903 on July 29, 1997
(H. Rept. 105-243). The House of Representatives passed H.R.
1903, as amended, on September 16, 1997 under Suspension of the
Rules. The Senate Committee on Commerce passed H.R. 1903 on
October 1, 1998. The Senate took no action on H.R. 1903.
2.7--technology transfer commercialization act of 1998 (h.r. 2544/h.r.
4859)
Congress has established a system to facilitate the
transfer of technology from Federal Government laboratories to
the private sector and to state and local governments. The
primary law to promote the transfer of technology from our
federal laboratories is the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980. The Stevenson-Wydler Act, P.L. 96-480,
makes it easier to transfer technology from the laboratories
and provides a means for private sector researchers to access
laboratory developments.
Subsequently, Congress enacted additional laws to foster
technology transfer, including the Federal Technology Transfer
Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502); the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-418); the National
Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-189);
and the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-
245). In addition, Congress enacted the Amendments to the
Patent and Trademark Laws, also known as the Bayh-Dole Act of
1980 (P.L. 96-517).
Most recently, in the 104th Congress, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113)
was enacted. Public Law 104-113 amends the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and the Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 to improve United States competitiveness
by speeding commercialization of inventions developed through
collaborative agreements between the government and industry.
The law also promotes partnership ventures with federal
laboratories and the private-sector and creates incentives for
laboratory personnel to develop new inventions.
H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of
1998, streamlines the reporting requirements for licensing of
technology created in federal laboratories, allowing them to
proceed in a more timely manner. It provides parallel
authorities for government-owned, government-operated federal
laboratories to those currently in place under the Bayh-Dole
Act for licensing university or university-operated federal
laboratory inventions. The bill also amends the Stevenson-
Wydler Act to allow federal laboratories to include already
existing patented inventions into a cooperative research and
development agreement (CRADA).
Through these changes, agencies would be provided with two
important new tools for effectively commercializing on-the-
shelf federally-owned technologies--either licensing them as
stand-alone inventions, under the bill's revised authorities of
Section 209 of the Bayh-Dole Act, or including them as part of
a larger package under a CRADA. This will make both mechanisms
much more attractive to United States companies that are
striving to form partnerships with federal laboratories.
Legislative history
The Science Committee's Subcommittee on Technology held two
hearings relative to H.R. 2544. On September 25, 1997, the
Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, ``Promoting Technology
Transfer by Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned
Inventions.'' And on March 17, 1998, the Subcommittee held a
hearing entitled, ``Facilitating Licenses to Federally Owned
Inventions: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2544.'' The
Subcommittee on Technology marked up H.R. 2544 on March 26,
1998 and reported the bill by a voice vote. The Committee filed
the report on H.R. 2544 (H. Rept. 105-620) on July 14, 1998.
H.R. 2544 was subsequently passed by the full House under
Suspension of the Rules on July 14, 1998. On July 15, 1998 H.R.
2544 was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Chapter III--Other Measures Discharged by the Committee on Science
3.1--expressing the sense of the house of representatives on the
committee print entitled ``unlocking our future: toward a new national
science policy'' (h. res. 578)
Background and summary of legislation
H. Res. 578, a bill to express the sense of the House of
Representatives that the print of the Committee on Science
entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science
Policy'' should serve as a framework for future deliberations
on congressional science policy and funding. The bill was
introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner on
October 7, 1998.
In February of 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich charged the
House Science Committee with the task of developing a long-
range science and technology policy for the Nation. Science
Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner appointed Congressman
Vern Ehlers, the Committee's Vice-Chairman, to lead a Committee
study of the current state of the Nation's science and
technology policies.
On October 23, 1997 and December 12, 1997, the Committee on
Science held roundtables on the science policy study. On March
4, 1998; March 11, 1998; March 25, 1998; April 1, 1998; April
22, 1998; May 14, 1998; and June 10, 1998, the Committee on
Science held hearings on the science policy study.
On September 24, 1998, the Committee on Science released
the report, ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National
Science Policy,'' which updates the science policy model
formulated by Vannevar Bush in his 1945 report, ``Science: The
Endless Frontier.''. Moving beyond the frontiers of an earlier
generation, the National Science Policy Study broadens the
focus of the federal science enterprise to include high
technology, education, and the competitive arena of
international science.
H. Res. 578 was passed by the House under Suspension of the
Rules on October 8, 1998.
3.2--to provide for the conveyance of certain property from the united
states to stanislaus county, california (h.r. 112)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 112 requires the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to convey to
Stanislaus County, California, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to specific property. The property
is approximately 1528 acres of land in Stanislaus County, known
as the NASA Ames Research Center, Crows Landing Facility. The
bill also conveys all improvements to the specific site and any
other federal property designated by NASA to be transferred,
which is under the jurisdiction of NASA and located on the
specific site. The conveyance shall not relieve any federal
agency of responsibility under law for any environmental
remediation of soil, groundwater, or surface water. Any
remediation of contamination within or related to structures or
fixtures on the property shall be subject to negotiation. NASA
retains the right to use the specific site for aviation
activities. NASA is required to relinquish legislative
jurisdiction over the conveyed property to the State of
California. NASA shall relinquish this right by filing a notice
of relinquishment with the Governor of California or in any
other manner prescribed by the laws of California. Further, the
NASA Administrator may negotiate additional terms to protect
the interests of the United States.
Legislative history
Congressman Gary A. Condit introduced H.R. 112 on January
7, 1997. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on
Science. On February 10, 1997, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. The Subcommittee
discharged the bill on September 11, 1997. On November 9, 1997,
the House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 112. On
November 13, 1997, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
action was taken on this measure.
3.3--oceans act of 1998 (h.r. 3445)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 3445, Oceans Act of 1998, as introduced, directs the
President to (1) maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and
long-range national ocean and coastal policy, including a plan
to meet infrastructure requirements of federal ocean and
coastal programs; and (2) biennially report to the Congress on
the relationship between federal programs and the achievement
of objectives specified in this Act. It also requires each
agency or department involved in ocean and coastal activities
to include with its annual appropriations request a report on
elements of its proposed budget relating to those activities
and how each element contributes to implementation of the
national policy. In addition, the bill directs the President to
establish a Commission on Ocean Policy; terminates the
Commission after its final report; authorizes appropriations of
$1.0 million for FY 1998, $2.0 million for FY 1999, and $1.0
million for FY 2000; and removes provisions of Federal law
relating to marine resources and engineering development.
The House-passed version of H.R. 3445 includes amendments
that prohibit the Commission on Ocean Policy from making any
specific recommendations with respect to lands and waters
within the boundary of any State located North of 51 degrees
North latitude, or with respect to lands and waters within the
State of Idaho; and reduced the authorization of appropriations
to $2.0 million for FY 1999, and $1.0 million for FY 2000.
Legislative history
H.R. 3445, the Oceans Act of 1998, was introduced by
Representative Jim Saxton on March 12, 1998, and referred to
the House Committee on Resources, and subsequently to the
Committee's Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife
and Oceans.
On April 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans approved H.R. 3445, as
amended, by a voice vote. On July 29, 1998, the Resources
Committee ordered H.R. 3445, amended, reported to the House by
a voice vote. The Committee reported the measure, as amended,
and filed H. Rept. 105-718, Part 1 on September 15, 1998. Also,
on September 15, 1998, H.R. 3445, as amended, was referred to
the Committee on Science and in addition to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for a period ending not later
than September 15, 1998 for consideration of such provisions of
the bill and amendment as fall within their jurisdiction. The
Committees on Science and Transportation and Infrastructure
discharged H.R. 3445 on September 15, 1998. The House passed
the measure on September 15, 1998, under suspension of the
rules by a voice vote; and the bill was received in the Senate
on September 16.
The companion Senate measure, S. 1213, the Oceans Act of
1997, was introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings on September
24, 1997, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. The Committee ordered S. 1213
reported, as amended, on November 8, 1997 and filed S. Rept.
105-151, on November 8, 1997. The Senate passed the measure
with an amendment by unanimous consent on November 13, 1997. On
January 27, 1998, the Senate-passed version of S. 1213 was
referred to the House Committees on Resources, Science, and
Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of such
provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned. The bill was subsequently referred to the Science
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on January
30, 1998, and to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittees on Water Resources and
Environment, and Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation on
February 9, 1998.
3.4--national oilheat research alliance act of 1998 (h.r. 3610)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 3610, National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 1998,
as introduced, authorizes the oilheat industry to conduct a
referendum through a qualified industry organization among
retailers and wholesalers for the creation of a National
Oilheat Research Alliance to develop programs concerning
oilheat research and development, safety issues, consumer
education, and training. The bill defines industry to include
those persons involved in the production, transportation, and
sale of oilheat, and in the manufacture and distribution of
oilheat utilization equipment, in the United States (but not
the ultimate consumers of oilheat); permits State participation
in such Alliance; and prescribes guidelines for Alliance
membership and representation. In addition the measure requires
the Alliance to: (1) establish a program coordinating its
operation with that of any similar State, local, or regional
program; and (2) levy and collect annual assessments on the
wholesale sale of No. 1 distillate and No. 2 dyed distillate
sufficient to cover Alliance plans and program costs. Finally,
H.R. 3610 empowers the Alliance to bring suit in Federal court
to compel compliance with any assessments it levies.
H.R. 3610, as passed by the House, includes three new
provisions in addition to those provisions in the original bill
described above. The first provision requires that any consumer
education activity undertaken with funds provided by the
Alliance to include a statement that the activities were
supported, in whole or in part, by the Alliance. The second
provision prohibits consumer education activities from
including references to private brand names, making false or
unwarranted claims on behalf of oilheat or related products, or
making reference to the attributes of any competing product.
And the third provision provides for the Act to sunset four
years after the date on which the Alliance is established.
Legislative history
H.R. 3610, the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of
1998, was introduced by Representative James C. Greenwood on
March 31, 1998, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On September 17, 1998, the Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Energy and Power approved H.R. 3610, as
amended, by a voice vote for Committee consideration. On
September 24, 1998, the Committee on Commerce ordered H.R. 3610
reported, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee filed H.
Rept. 105-787, Part 1 on October 6, 1998. H.R. 3610, as
amended, was referred to the Committee on Science for a period
ending not later than October 7, 1998 for consideration of such
provisions of the bill and amendments that fall within its
jurisdiction. The Committee on Science took no action and was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3610 on October
7, 1998. The House passed the measure on October 10, 1998,
under suspension of the rules by a voice vote; and the bill was
received in the Senate on October 12, 1998.
3.5--year 2000 preparedness act of 1998 (h.r. 4756)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 4756 seeks to ensure that the United States is
prepared to meet the Year 2000 computer problem. The bill urges
the President to provide for the acceleration of business
continuity plans to ensure uninterrupted delivery of federal
services and programs; urges the President to take a high
profile national leadership position to aggressively promote
Y2K; enhances Congressional oversight by providing that all
agency reports be submitted to Congress; codifies certain
recommendations made by the General Accounting Office regarding
electronic data exchanges, which GAO has identified as critical
to Y2K compliance; provides for Y2K assistance for small and
medium-sized businesses; and develops a Y2K consumer awareness
program.
H.R. 4756 is essentially an amalgamation of three
introduced Year 2000 bills and incorporates certain provisions
from each bill. The bills are:
(1) H.R. 4706, the Year 2000 Preparedness Act--
Introduced by Congresswoman Morella, Chair of the
Technology Subcommittee.
(2) H.R. 4682, the Year 2000 Act--Introduced by
Congressman Barcia, the Ranking Member of the
Technology Subcommittee.
(3) H.R. 3968, the National Year 2000 Critical
Infrastructure Readiness Act--Introduced by Congressman
Leach, Chair of the Banking Committee.
Legislative history
H.R. 4756 was discharged from the Committee on Science and
passed the full House under Suspension of the Rules on October
13, 1998. The Senate took no action on the bill.
3.6--technology transfer commercialization act of 1998 (h.r. 4859/see
h.r. 2544 in chapter ii)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 4859 is an amended version of H.R. 2544, introduced to
reconcile the provisions of H.R. 2544 with changes requested by
the Senate. (See H.R. 2544 in Chapter 2 for more details)
Legislative history
H.R. 4859 was introduced by Technology Subcommittee
Chairwoman Constance Morella on October 20, 1998. The House
Science and Judiciary Committees discharged the bill that day,
and it passed the House by voice vote. The Senate took no
action on the bill.
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee Legislative
Activities
A hallmark of Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership in the
Science Committee in the 105th Congress was rigorous oversight
of agency programs to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse and
ensure that taxpayer dollars were spent as efficiently as
possible. Aggressive oversight by full committee and
subcommittees aided in part by the General Accounting Office
and Inspector Generals identified:
--major problems with regards to space safety for
U.S. astronauts on the Mir space station;
--difficulties with Russian participation in the
International Space Station;
--concerns with initial implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act; the need for
better management of scientific agencies and programs
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on
Science.
As a result of the Committee oversight efforts, Chairman
Sensenbrenner was awarded with the ``Excellence in Programmatic
Oversight Award'' by the Majority Leader of the House.
The General Accounting Office provided the Committee on
Science with 32 assessments that included both audits and
testimony in the 105th Congress. These assessments were
instrumental in examining the efficiency and efficacy of
numerous federal science programs. (See GAO Documents Data Base
in the appendix section.)
The following chapters, sections 4.1 though 4.5, include
oversight, investigations and other activities of the Committee
on Science, including selected subcommittee legislative
activities.
4.1--committee on science
4.1(a)--The Status of Russian Participation in the International Space
Station Program
February 12, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-2
Background
On February 12, 1997, the Committee on Science held a
hearing entitled, ``The Status of Russian Participation in the
International Space Station Program.'' Testimony before the
Committee focused on the February 6-8, 1997 meetings between
Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin;
updated the Committee on the status of Russia as a partner in
the ISS and progress on the Russian Service Module; and,
reviewed contingency plans that NASA has developed for the
International Space Station (ISS) if Russia continues to fall
behind schedule with the Service Module.
Witnesses included: The Honorable John H. Gibbons, Director
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; The Honorable
Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; and Ms. Marcia S. Smith, Specialist in
Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Library of Congress.
The Space Station was initiated by President Ronald Reagan
in 1984 as an international scientific program with Canada,
Japan, and the European Space Agency. President Clinton, in
1993, ordered a redesign of the Station (then known as Space
Station Freedom). On September 2, 1993, Vice President Gore and
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin announced their intention to
include Russia as a partner in the Station program,
necessitating another redesign effort.
Some of Russia's contributions to the ISS are ``in the
critical path'' (essential to the operation of the Station).
The Russians are currently eight months behind schedule on the
Service Module (life support, habitation capability, and
guidance). Adequate funding has not been released by the
Finance Ministry to the Russian contractors.
Summary of hearing
The Russian Service Module is eight months behind schedule.
During the Gore/Chernomyrdin Commission (February 6-8, 1997),
Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin promised that the Russian
Space Agency (RSA) would receive $100 million by February 28,
1997, and an additional $250 million by the end of the year.
NASA is currently reviewing whether to 1) proceed with the
first two scheduled launches (November and December 1997) for
the International Space Station (ISS) and pursue an interim
guidance capability to offset delays in the service Module; or
2) delay the first two launches by six months. Under the first
option, NASA is studying use of a spacecraft bus (referred to
as the Interim Control Module) from the Naval Research
Laboratory and an FGB2. The FGB2 would be bought from the
Russian contractor, Krunichev.
NASA does not have a sufficient level of insight into the
Russian government's finances in order to track disbursements
to RSA. NASA intends, instead, to monitor work on the factory
floors of the Russian space contractors. Another way to track
Russian progress will be the General Design Review (GDR) for
the Service Module. The GDR could be held shortly after funding
is released. At the GDR, Russian contractors and subcontractors
disclose whether they have any money to work on the program and
whether they will be able to meet the schedule.
Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, reported that the FGB tug, a component that
the U.S. is buying through a Boeing/Krunichev contract, will be
on time and ready for launch later this year. Dr. Gibbons said
that the Russians are experiencing extraordinary economic,
fiscal, and political difficulties as they face the challenges
of transitioning to a market economy, and their overall space
program is no exception. He explained that as a stopgap
measure, the U.S. rephased $20 million of existing funds from
Shuttle-Mir activities and applied it to the Service Module
work. During the Gore/Chernomyrdin Commission (February 6-8,
1997), Dr. Gibbons said that the U.S. reiterated in the
strongest terms that Russia needs to meet its commitments on
the Service Module. Dr. Gibbons assured the Committee that it
was made very clear to the Russians that if they fail to meet
those commitments, the U.S. will be forced to take steps that
will reduce Russia's role in the ISS program. In closing, Dr.
Gibbons said that he was pleased to report that Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin responded to the Vice President by stating that
the Russian government would begin--by the end of February--to
provide necessary funds to proceed with construction, and that
adequate funds were budgeted to the Russian Space Agency (RSA)
in 1997 to keep the Service Module on track. Dr. Gibbons said
that between now and the end of the month, the U.S. will
continue to examine two contingency plans (Interim Control
Module and FGB2) if Russian delays continue.
Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, noted that he has
known for 16 months that ISS funds were not being released by
the Russian government to the contractors responsible for the
Service Module. Mr. Goldin said that right now, RSA is waiting
to receive $100 million by the end of February. If the U.S.
cannot validate that the money is flowing and that there is
progress in outfitting the Service Module, the U.S. must pursue
other alternatives.
Marcia S. Smith, a Specialist in Aerospace and
Telecommunications Policy from the Congressional Research
Service, testified regarding options available to NASA because
of the delay in the Service Module. (1) Maintain launch
schedule for the first two segments of the ISS and hope that
the Service Module is ready no later than the end of 1998,
noting that without the Service Module the first two segments
of the ISS would reenter the atmosphere and be destroyed. (2)
Pay Russia to build the Service Module. (3) Maintain current
launch schedule and build an interim capability to keep the
first two segments in orbit in case the Service Module is not
ready in time. Ms. Smith mentioned that both options (1 and 2)
which NASA is considering would not provide living quarters for
a crew. She reiterated the importance of following the flow of
funds allocated by the Russian government for the ISS, noting
that for the past three years the Ministry of Finance has not
transferred the full amount of funding allocated by the Duma
(Russian parliament) to RSA. RSA only received between 70 and
83 percent of allocated funding from 1994 to 1996. In closing,
Ms. Smith said that considering Russia's economic situation, it
simply may not be possible for them to allocate their resources
to the ISS program.
4.1(b)--The United States and Antarctica in the 21st Century
March 12, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-4
Background
On March 12, 1997, the Committee on Science held a hearing
entitled, ``The United States and Antarctica in the 21st
Century.'' The Hearing was held to review the United States
Antarctic Program External Panel's report entitled, ``The
United States and Antarctica in the 21st Century.'' The
discussion focused on the importance of U.S. presence in the
Antarctic. The hearing also addressed the long-term funding
issues of the U.S. Antarctic Program, including the future of
the South Pole Station.
Witnesses included: Mr. Norman Augustine, Chairman of the
United States Antarctic Program External Panel for the National
Science Foundation.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Augustine testified that U.S. presence in Antarctica is
essential for continued political stability in the area and the
preservation of its ecological system. He further discussed the
Panel's conclusion that it is a necessity to redevelop
America's research facility at the South Pole in order to
respond to the challenges of modern-day science in the
Antarctic. The Panel recommends a year-round presence in the
Antarctic to protect the U.S. position on sovereignty in the
region and to allow the U.S. a decisive role in the Antarctic
Treaty's activities-based decision system, both of which are
essential to maintaining the political and legal balance that
makes the Treaty work. Mr. Augustine identified four factors
which make the time between now and the year 2000 a
particularly significant period for new means of reducing costs
and re-inventing ways of conducting Antarctic activities. In
his testimony he listed twelve principle recommendations made
by the Panel to continue U.S. leadership in Antarctic issues.
4.1(c)--Department of Energy Posture
May 14, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-41
Background
On Wednesday, May 14, 1997, the Committee on Science held a
hearing entitled, ``Department of Energy Posture'' to receive
testimony from the new Secretary of Energy, the Honorable
Federico F. Pena.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Federico F. Pena,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.
Summary of hearing
Secretary Pena testified to the importance of the
Department of Energy (DOE) as a Federal science and technology
department; described the scientific research achievements of
DOE in the past year; and discussed the CERN Large Hadron
Collider project in Geneva, Switzerland, funding for the Next
Generation Internet, DOE management at DOE (including the DOE
laboratories), and DOE's implementation of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
4.1(d)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET)
Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education)
July 23, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-40
Background
On July 23, 1997, the Committee on Science held the first
in a series of hearings entitled, ``The State of Science, Math,
Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In America, Parts
I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' The purpose of this
initial hearing was to familiarize the Committee with ongoing
federal SMET education programs at the Department of Education
(DoED) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and to help
identify issues that may need to be examined as the Committee
proceeds with this effort.
Witnesses included: Mr. Richard Riley, Secretary of
Education; and Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science
Foundation.
Summary of hearing
Secretary Riley stated that the nation's economic future is
dependent on the ability of our workers to be proficient in
math, science and technology. He noted that about 190,000 high
tech jobs are currently going unfilled due to the lack of
qualified applicants. He testified that students are not
learning the more advanced mathematics necessary for the new
economy.
Director Lane stated that the continued involvement of the
Federal Government in SMET education is important to instigate
the major changes required for preparing U.S. students for the
21st Century. He testified that through human resource
development in partnership with teachers, workers, state and
local government, academia, and business, the Federal
Government ensures quality and equality of educational
opportunity. He also stated that these commitments are central
to producing the finest scientists and engineers needed to
maintain U.S. leadership across the frontiers of science in the
21st Century.
4.1(e)--Demanding Results: Implementing the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA/Results Act)
July 30, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-11
Background
On July 30, 1997, the Committee on Science held a hearing
entitled, ``Demanding Results: Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act (Results Act).'' The hearing was
held to review the status of science-agencies implementation of
the Results Act. The testimony before the Committee focused on
draft strategic plans for science agencies and the need for
agencies and the Administration to address crosscutting
programs and initiatives.
Witnesses included: Ms. Susan Kladiva, Acting Associate
Director, Energy Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General
Accounting Office; Mr. Alan Ladwig, Associate Administrator for
Policy and Plans, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; Ms. Diana H. Josephson, Deputy Undersecretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dr. Joe
Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director, National Science Foundation;
Mr. Marc Chupka, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, Department of Energy.
The Results Act directs federal departments and agencies to
manage performance for results. Under the Act each federal
agency must submit 5-year strategic plans to Congress beginning
September 30, 1997. The strategic plans are the framework for
implementing all other parts of the Results Act to set up a
system of program goal-setting and performance measurements.
Summary of hearing
Ms. Kladiva, U.S. General Accounting Office, testified that
the draft strategic plans showed progress toward meeting the
Results Act requirements, but only one of the six agencies
reviewed for the Committee had met all six of the Act's
elements of the completed elements some were insufficient.
Additionally, GAO testified to the importance that under the
guidance of the Office of Management and Budget, the agencies
final submissions should include crosscutting activities.
Mr. Alan Ladwig, Associate Administrator for Policy and
Plans, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
assured the Committee of NASA's intention to continue the
consultation process to ensure its planning documents become
increasingly effective as management tools. Mr. Ladwig also
testified that NASA intends to focus on several methods to
ensure progress in implementing NASA's goals. Mr. Ladwig
promised to write the editor of Aerospace America to correct an
inaccurate statement that claimed Congress had delayed NASA's
release of its strategic plan in February after the Chairman
pointed out that he and Ranking Member George Brown's first
requested the plan in a March 1997 letter and NASA did not
respond until April.
Ms. Diana H. Josephson, Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), testified to the
importance of the Results Act in improving the performance of
agencies and improving the communications of NOAA's strategic
goals, responsibilities, resource requirements and
achievements. She assured the Committee that NOAA's strategic
plan would be integrated with the other Commerce bureaus into a
comprehensive Commerce strategic plan.
Dr. Joe Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation, testified that the National Science Foundation
views the implementation of the Results Act as an opportunity
to strengthen its strategic planning process and link its goals
to its budget formulations. While acknowledging the challenge
NSF faces in measuring performance of research, Dr. Bordogna
concluded that the Results Act provides a valuable tool for
shaping programs and improving returns on public investment in
science and engineering research and education. Dr. Bordogna
admitted that NSF has not spent time working at the issue of
sharing responsibility in the crosscutting goals under the
Results Act.
Mr. Marc Chupka, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, testified
that the Department supported the Results Act legislation. The
Chairman pointed out that the Department's draft strategic plan
had some serious deficiencies. Mr. Chupka promised the next
draft, due on August 1, 1997, would meet those deficiencies.
4.1(f)--The Next Generation Internet
September 10, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-31
Background
On September 10, 1997, the Committee on Science held a
hearing entitled, ``Next Generation Internet.'' The hearing was
held to review the status of the Administration's detailed plan
for implementation of the Next Generation Internet (NGI), the
role of the participating federal agencies and the
recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the
NGI program. The Committee also discussed the involvement of
academia and the private sector.
Witnesses included: Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology; Mr. David J. Farber,
Presidential Advisory Committee for High Performance Computing,
Communications, Information Technology and NGI; Dr. Larry H.
Landweber, Professor, Department of Computer Science,
University of Wisconsin; Dr. Joe F. Thompson, Professor of
Aerospace Engineering, National Science Foundation Engineering
Research Center; Dr. Stephen S. Wolff, Executive Director,
Advanced Internet Initiatives Division, Cisco Systems; Dr.
Edward H. Shortliffe, Professor of Computer Science and
Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Gibbons opened his testimony with a brief discussion
about the importance of information and information systems for
our Nation's competitiveness and how important the original
investments in the DARPANET and the NSFNET have been in
generating the U.S.'s leadership position in information
technology. He stated, however, that today's Internet
technologies are simply not designed to meet the kind of
increased demands for greater communication speeds and better
quality of service demanded by American citizens and
businesses. Dr. Gibbons then outlined several reasons for
supporting the Next Generation Internet Initiative. First, the
private sector will not undertake the kind of highly
collaborative, long-term research and development needed to
produce the next generation of Internet technologies. Second,
the Federal Government has an obligation to ensure that the
U.S. remains at the forefront of information technologies.
Third, Federal agencies must have access to state-of-the-art
communication and information systems, and fourth, the
government must ensure that our nation's researchers have the
best possible communications systems. Dr. Gibbons pointed out
that the President's Advisory Committee made a thorough review
of the NGI Initiative and will continue to provide guidance for
agencies involved with NGI activities. Dr. Gibbons closed his
testimony by remarking that just as federal investments laid
the foundation for today's Internet, the NGI initiative will
become the genesis for the information technologies, which will
sustain America's leadership in information technology well
into the 21st century.
David Farber, a member of the Presidential Advisory
Committee on High-Performance Computing and Communications,
Information Technology, and the Next Generation Internet,
opened his testimony with a discussion of the recent activities
of the Presidential Advisory Committee. He stated that the
Advisory Committee was given the task of reviewing the
Administration's NGI Initiative in February of 1997 and asked
to report on the initiative by the end of May 1997. The report,
which he submitted with his testimony, enthusiastically
supported the Administration's initiative. Professor Farber
reiterated the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the
goals of the NGI initiative should be restated so as to clarify
the real intent of the effort. The goals of the NGI initiative
are to create an experimental test-bed, scaled sufficiently to
stress the underlying technological building blocks, and to
develop and demonstrate new Internet applications that will
meet federal agency mission needs and national goals. Professor
Farber also clarified the differences between the NGI
initiative and ``Internet2'', a program run by an independent
consortium of academic institutions with the goal of connecting
its members with new high-tech Internet technologies. As for
NGI, Professor Farber closed his testimony by stating that like
today's Internet, which has grown into something unforeseen by
the original Internet researches, perhaps the most important
advances made by the NGI initiative will be those we can yet
foresee.
Professor Joe Thompson, the Aerospace Engineering Founding
Director of NSF's ERC for Computational Field Simulation at
Mississippi State University, focused his testimony on NGI
activities at Mississippi State University and other
universities. He stated that today's collaborative computer
activities, for example DoD's need for computer simulation of
submarine maneuvering, need astonishing amounts of computer
power. With today's Internet it would take 10 days to transfer
the data for such a simulation, whereas the NGI initiative will
shorten that time to 17 minutes. Professor Thompson stated that
development and installation of high bandwidth connectivity is
needed for national security reasons. The NGI initiative will
help accomplish this goal. Professor Thompson stated that
federal support for NGI is critical.
Lawrence Landweber, Professor of Computer Science at the
University of Wisconsin, opened his testimony by comparing the
1970's research that led to the Internet with the research that
will be done through the NGI initiative. Unlike the original
research, the NGI research will have practical goals such as
improving tele-medicine and distance-education. In addition to
giving a brief history of the Internet, Professor Landweber
discussed why federal involvement is needed even though the
Internet is now a billion dollar a year industry. He stated
that the unpredictability of the research is what keeps private
business away from conducting such long-term research. In such
instances, government has a critical obligation to step in and
do the basic research. In closing, Professor Landweber stated
that the NGI initiative is critical to the United States' pre-
eminence in information technology.
Stephen Wolf, Executive Director of the Advanced Internet
Initiatives Division of Cisco System, Inc., discussed Cisco's
participation in the Internet2 program and the NGI initiative.
Mr. Wolf stated that Cisco will respond to public solicitations
that are part of the NGI and will support basic research at
universities and elsewhere. Mr. Wolf stated that that Cisco's
involvement in NGI will be through the agencies that are
participating in the program and, as a result, Cisco's
activities will be as diverse as the agencies involved. He said
that he was delighted to see that the National Library of
Medicine, one of the first federal agencies involved in the
ARPANET, will play a critical role in the NGI initiative.
Dr. Edward Shortliffe, Professor of Medicine and Computer
Science and the Associate Dean for Information Resources and
Technology, Stanford University, discussed the implications
that the NGI initiative will have on the medical profession. As
a medical student who also studied computer science while a
student at Stanford in the early 1970's, Dr. Shortliffe stated
that he was fortunate to be able to be introduced to the world
of electronic mail and file transfers during those years.
However, he stated that it was unfortunate that the medical
community was slow to understand and to adopt computing and
communication technologies that had great promise for
influencing the Nation's health. He stated that only now, 25
years later, are we beginning to see the health care industry
understanding and adopting the Internet. Dr. Shortliffe then
discussed various medical uses of the Internet such as video-
linking of doctors and electronic files that patients and
doctors can access over the Internet. He discussed how success
of the NGI will help researchers, hospital administrators and
the infirm. He noted, however, that with today's technology
there is much we can not accomplish and, therefore, the NGI
initiative is important and needed. Dr. Shortliffe closed his
testimony by stating that only government and academia will do
the long-term research necessary to create to next generation
of information technologies.
4.1(g)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (Mir Safety)
September 18, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-79
Background
On September 18, 1997, the Committee on Science held the
first in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International
Space Station, Parts I-V.'' Testimony before the Committee
focused on: procedures that NASA has in place for assessing
safety, with particular attention to how that process of
determining whether David Wolf would be launched to Mir;
problems in developing the relationship between the United
States and Russia in space cooperation and how those problems
have been resolved (or not resolved); the merits of continuing
the Shuttle-Mir program; the suitability of Mir for long-term
habitation by U.S. astronauts; the research productivity aboard
Mir; the cost-effectiveness of continuing the U.S. presence on
Mir versus placing greater emphasis on completing the
International Space Station; the original policy and
programmatic goals of the Shuttle-Mir program and the program's
success in accomplishing its goals; the programmatic
accomplishments of the Shuttle-Mir program to date, which may,
or may not, have been anticipated; the policy options regarding
the future of the Shuttle-Mir program as they relate to science
performed aboard Mir; and the general state of the Russian
space program as it relates to the overall health of Mir.
Witnesses included: Ms. Roberta L. Gross, Inspector
General, NASA; Mr. Frank Culbertson, Manager, Phase I Program,
NASA; Mr. James Oberg, Consultant; and Ms. Marcia S. Smith,
Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Library
of Congress.
I. Background on Mir
The former Soviet Union and Russia have more experience in
long-term human spaceflight than any other country. The former
Soviet Union has launched seven orbiting space stations since
1971. In contrast, the United States launched only one space
station, Skylab, in the early 1970s.
Russia's most recent and largest space station is known as
Mir. The first element is called the ``core module'' or ``base
block'' and was launched on February 20, 1986. The crew lives
in the core module. Mir's first crew took up residence on March
13, 1986. Since then, Russia has added five major modules to
the space station: Kvant-1 (astrophysics, docking, storage) was
launched on March 31, 1987; Kvant-2 (biotechnology, Earth
observation, airlock) on November 26, 1989; Kristall
(biological and materials research) on May 31, 1990; Spektr
(atmospheric research and surface studies) on March 20, 1995;
and Priroda (remote sensing and Earth observation) on April 23,
1996. A special docking module was added in 1995 to allow the
U.S. Space Shuttle to dock with Mir.
Mir was originally designed for a five-year operational
lifespan. Mir-2 was to have been launched in the early 1990s as
a replacement. However, economic and political difficulties in
the former Soviet Union and its successor states reduced
funding for the Russian space program and dragged out the
assembly of Mir. Russia's space station was only completed in
1996, five years after it was to have ended its designed
lifetime. Rather than proceeding with an eighth independent
space station, the Russians in 1994 formally accepted the
invitation of the Clinton Administration to join the United
States, Europe, Canada, and Japan in construction of the
International Space Station Alpha. Mir-2 components, some of
which exist in various states of completion, have since been
redesignated as the Russian contribution to the International
Space Station.
II. Background on U.S.-Russian cooperation in space
During 1993, U.S. Vice President Albert Gore and Russian
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin held several meetings to
discuss U.S.-Russian technical cooperation. Following these
meetings of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, the White House
announced on September 2, 1993, that an agreement had been
reached to merge the U.S. and Russian space station programs.
At that time, Russia's Mir space station was in orbit while the
recently redesigned and downsized International Space Station
Alpha was on the drawing board. As part of that cooperation,
NASA agreed to purchase a Russian space tug, known as the
Functional Cargo Block (FGB) as the newly redesigned
International Space Station's first element. NASA paid the
Russian government $25 million directly and then another $190
million for the FGB through Boeing's single prime contract to
build the U.S. segments of the International Space Station.
Vice President Gore traveled to Moscow in December of 1993, and
on December 16, 1993, a letter contract was signed between NASA
and the Russian Space Agency for multiple cooperative projects
in human spaceflight. During the June 22-23, 1994 meetings of
the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission in Washington, the principals
reached agreement on a definitized contract.
On June 24, 1994, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin and
Russian Space Agency (RSA) Administrator Yuri Koptev signed
NASA contract number NAS15-10110. The contract was intended to
result in: ``enhancement of Mir-1 operational capabilities;
joint space flights; and joint activities leading to Russian
participation in the design, development, operation, and
utilization of an International Space Station.'' The contract
initially called for the United States to pay the Russian
government $400 million, including $334.6 million for Phase I
activities and $65.4 million for Phase II activities. These
funds were paid in annual $100 million increments from fiscal
year 1994 through fiscal year 1997.
The contract between NASA and RSA was modified in 1996,
after the Russians indicated to the Clinton Administration that
they would be unable to meet their commitments to build the
International Space Station on schedule and proposed instead
attaching the newer U.S., European, and Japanese modules to the
Mir. NASA rejected the Russian proposal, but agreed to pay
Russia an additional $72 million for cooperation in space
(split between Phases I and II) and to exercise the option for
two additional flights to Mir. The total amended funding
breakout for U.S. payments to Russia is summarized below:
NASA-RSA to purchase Russian FGB........................ $25,000,000
NASA-Boeing to purchase Russian FGB..................... 190,000,000
Phase I:
Management.......................................... 26,531,000
Mir Lifetime Extension.............................. 27,000,000
Mir Capabilities Expansion.......................... 152,740,000
Mission Support (to Mir)............................ 115,620,000
Extension (flights 8 & 9)........................... 41,932,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Phase I Subtotal.................................... 363,823,000
Phase II Subtotal................................... 108,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Phase I and II................................ 471,823,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total Payments to Russia........................ 686,823,000
U.S. astronauts took up residence in Mir for long-term
spaceflight beginning in March 1995, with the launch of Norman
Thagard aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule for a 115-day stay on
Mir. He was followed by Dr. Shannon Lucid who visited Mir from
March to September 1996. Dr. Lucid's mission was extended by
about 6 weeks when technical problems with the Shuttle's solid
rocket boosters delayed the launch of STS-79 from July 31 to
September 16, 1996. John Blaha followed Dr. Lucid and resided
on Mir from September 1996 through January 1997. Dr. Jerry
Linenger, who experienced the fire aboard Mir in February,
lived on Mir from January to May 1997. Dr. Michael Foale, who
was aboard Mir during its June 25 collision with a Progress
resupply vehicle, began his current mission on Mir in May. Drs.
Linenger and Foale both performed external spacewalks on Mir
using Russian spacesuits.
Dr. Foale was replaced by David Wolf with the launch of
STS-86 on September 25, 1997. Mr. Wolf, who was originally
slated to be the seventh astronaut to remain on Mir for an
extended period, replaced Wendy Lawrence on the STS-86 manifest
when NASA decided that the Russian Orlon spacesuits were too
large for Ms. Lawrence to wear safely. Mr. Wolf's mission is
scheduled to last through mid-January 1998. He is to be
followed by Andy Thomas launched aboard STS-89 on January 15,
1998 and to return aboard STS-91 on June 7, 1998, bringing the
Shuttle-Mir program to a close.
U.S. astronauts are aboard Mir to learn how the Russians
operate their space station and to conduct scientific
experiments as a prelude to doing work on the International
Space Station. In addition, the Space Shuttle carries a
considerable amount of supplies to Mir, helping it remain
aloft. In the judgment of some space policy experts, the
Shuttle's role in providing logistics to Mir is significant and
the Russians are now dependent on these flights to keep Mir
aloft.
III. Congressional oversight
Concerns have been raised about Mir's safety given the
frequency of breakdowns in its systems and the fact that its
core module has been in space more than twice its design life
of five years. Those concerns crystallized in many minds when
Mir suffered a major fire in Kvant-1's backup oxygen generating
system on February 23, 1997. In 1994, a filter on the same
system reportedly ignited and burned when the crew failed to
clean it properly prior to use.
These concerns prompted Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking
Minority Member Brown to offer an amendment to H.R. 1275, the
Civilian Space Authorization Act, during markup at the full
committee on April 16, 1997. The amendment included a provision
which read: ``The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
shall not place another United States astronaut on board the
Mir Space Station, without the Space Shuttle attached to Mir,
until the Administrator certifies to Congress that the Mir
Space Station meets or exceeds United States safety standards.
Such certification shall be based on an independent review of
the safety of the Mir Space Station.'' The Committee agreed to
the amendment and the House passed the bill on April 23, 1997.
On June 25, 1997, a Progress spacecraft, which the Russians
use to resupply Mir, crashed into the station, puncturing the
Spektr science module and damaging its solar arrays. Most of
the American science experiments were aboard Spektr. The crew
successfully sealed the Spektr module from the rest of the
station and began working to minimize the impact and recover
some capabilities. On July 11, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr.
Brown sent the NASA Inspector General, Roberta Gross, a letter
requesting that she collect and provide to the Committee source
documents and working-level materials related to ``(1) the
suitability of Russia's Mir space station for habitation by
U.S. astronauts and (2) research productivity and cost
effectiveness of continued NASA involvement in the Mir space
station program.'' Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Brown further
asked the Inspector General to analyze the aforementioned
documents.
On August 29, 1997, the Inspector General sent her first
interim response and identified the risk areas on which her
inquiry would focus: (1) Soyuz as a Rescue Vehicle; (2) Fire
Hazards; (3) Problems with Oxygen Generation and Carbon Dioxide
Removal; (4) Fatigue and Stress; (5) Training; (6) U.S./Russian
Communications; (7) Ethylene Glycol Exposure; (8) Lack of
Knowledge About Mir Systems; and (9) the Russian pay system.
The Committee received the letter on September 2, 1997, and on
September 10, announced that it would hold a hearing on Mir
safety on September 18.
IV. Recent Mir system failures
On March 4, during an attempt to use a new method of
manually docking Progress resupply vehicles with the Space
Station, the remote television system used by the crew to dock
Mir failed. The commander aborted the docking attempt, and the
Progress spacecraft sailed by Mir about 200-250 meters away in
what many consider a near-miss. On March 7, the primary
elektron oxygen generating system failed. The second system was
turned on, but produced too much hydrogen and had to be turned
off, forcing the crew to rely on the backup oxygen candles, the
same type that had led to the February 23 fire. On March 19,
Mir's gyrodynes, which control the station's orientation in
space, failed, leading to free drift in space while the backup
thrusters were used to regain control. During April, the
station's thermal cooling system, which regulates the
distribution of heat throughout Mir and its systems, sprung
several leaks, which the crew was eventually able to isolate.
These leaks led to the presence of ethylene glycol in the crew
cabin, which caused some upper respiratory problems for the
crew. The thermal control system has a long history of leaks
exposing the crew to ethylene glycol, dating back to November
of 1995. Temporary shut-downs of the thermal control system led
other Mir systems to overheat, and the Vozdukh system for
removing carbon dioxide from the air failed, forcing the crew
to rely on its backup system of lithium hydroxide canisters to
clean Mir's air.
On June 25, a Progress resupply vehicle collided with Mir
during another test of a new manual docking procedure.
Explanations for the cause of the collision vary, although it
has been reported that the crew commander lost control of the
cargo vehicle's speed and that the range/rate radar used to
assess closure rates between Mir and other vehicles was not
functioning. The collision caused Mir to tumble in space,
preventing its solar arrays from collecting adequate energy
from the sun, which resulted in Mir's systems being turned off.
After the collision, the crew set about gaining control of the
station's orientation and then restarting Mir's major systems.
Unfortunately, during July, a data cable for the main computer
was accidentally disconnected, again causing Mir's main systems
to shut down and the station to suffer from an uncontrolled
spin. The crew went back to the beginning and restarted the
entire station. On August 5, Mir's elektron oxygen generating
system failed. The crew was forced to make repairs and operate
the system at a reduced capacity. On August 18, during a
docking of another Progress resupply spacecraft, Mir's computer
failed, forcing the crew to switch over to manual during the
maneuver. The docking was successful, and the failed unit was
subsequently replaced. On August 22, while the crew was
beginning its internal spacewalk to reconnect cables to the
damaged Spektr's solar arrays, a glove on one of the Russian
Orlon spacesuits began leaking. The crew successfully fixed the
problem and continued the spacewalk. On August 25, one of the
elektron systems again failed. On August 26, the backup oxygen
generating system failed, but it was successfully replaced. The
main computer failed again on September 15, 1997. The crew is
expected to build a replacement from parts salvaged from two
non-functional computers aboard.
According to press reports, Mir has suffered from more than
1,400 catalogued problems during its lifetime. In the clear
majority of these cases, however, the Russians were successful
in either repairing, replacing, or working around the affected
system. One current concern, however, is that the rate of
systems failure has gone up significantly since Mir passed its
first decade in orbit, due to its age and/or the fact that the
Russian space program has fallen on hard times since the end of
the Cold War.
Summary of hearing
The hearing focused on the issues and questions raised in
the August 29, 1997 letter from NASA's Inspector General. In
her testimony, Ms. Roberta Gross, Inspector General, NASA,
questioned whether NASA has adequate processes and procedures
to assess risk versus the benefits of participating in the
Russian Mir Space Program. Ms. Gross indicated that NASA has
three mechanisms for assessing its participation on Mir:
internal safety reviews conducted by the NASA Shuttle/Mir
Program Manager; safety reviews conducted by the NASA Associate
Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance; and, safety and
operational readiness reviews conducted by an independent team
led by Lieutenant General Stafford. While not being able to
conduct a systematic evaluation because of time constraints,
Ms. Gross reported that some former as well as current NASA
employees have questioned the adequacy of these assessment
processes. She illustrated the three main areas of concern as
indicated by the employees: (1) the inability to discuss and
criticize freely within NASA; (2) the perceived lack of
independence of the Stafford team; and (3) the reduced level of
risk assessment performed because of the overriding goals to
continue participation in the United States-Russian
partnership. In conclusion, Ms. Gross questioned whether
concentration of program responsibility at Johnson Space Center
provides sufficient checks and balances to ensure adequate
program assessment.
Mr. Frank Culbertson, Phase I Program Manager, NASA,
reported that the flight readiness review conducted for STS-86
deemed the mission safe and recommended that it continue as
planned. In response to the conditions on Mir, Captain
Culbertson noted that often items on the space station are
operated until failure. Captain Culbertson also commented that
reports of uncontrolled spinning and other station malfunctions
are exaggerated. The real risks in the operation, in Captain
Culbertson's opinion, occur on the actual ascent of the
Shuttle. He concluded by reiterating his total commitment to
safety.
Mr. James Oberg, a consultant, testified that the problems
aboard Mir are predictable consequences of known, measurable
causes, namely the decline of the Russian space industry. Mr.
Oberg stated that the safety of Mir is impossible to determine
because the normal ground-up safety assessments have never been
fully applied. Mr. Oberg also indicated that there are
significant questions surrounding the American astronauts
ability to operate the Soyuz landing capsule. Mr. Oberg
concluded that given the adverse conditions, the Mir space
station is not safe for an American at the present time.
Ms. Marcia Smith, a senior analyst for the Congressional
Research Service, testified that while there are legitimate
concerns about Mir's safety, the portrayal of the events have
often been exaggerated and misinterpreted. Ms. Smith detailed
NASA's desire to continue Shuttle/Mir cooperation in full
because of the benefits of increased operational experience and
opportunities for more science research. She indicated that the
agency also would like to fulfill its agreement with Russia.
Ms. Smith illustrated three possible policy options for NASA:
(1) continue with the program as planned; (2) complete the
planned dockings, but not leave astronauts on Mir; and (3)
terminate the program entirely. In conclusion, Ms. Smith
questioned whether the benefits provided sufficient
justification for astronauts to remain on Mir.
4.1(h)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET)
Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education-Curriculum Development)
September 24, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-40
Background
On September 24, 1997, the Science Committee held the
second in a series of four hearings entitled, ``The State of
Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In
America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' The
hearing focused on elementary and secondary level curriculum
development and pedagogical styles. In America, K-12 curricula
are developed at the school-district level using broad
guidelines from the states. There is little monitoring of
schools by school districts, and of school districts by states,
to ensure compliance with standards. Teachers have been given
wide latitude to design course content, and textbooks are
written broadly to appeal to a wide audience. Many education
experts agree that this less focused, ``mile wide and inch
deep'' approach to teaching a core subject, such as math or
science, may not suit students' needs. These experts along with
professional education associations have worked to develop
curricular guidelines that they believe will better prepare our
youth for a high technology global economy.
Witnesses included: Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the
National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Gerald F. Wheeler, Executive
Director, National Science Teachers Association; Mrs. Gail
Burrill, President, National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics; and Ms. Barbara Sampson, President, Technical
Education Research Center.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Alberts discussed the development and state of support
for national standards in science and mathematics. He stated
that modern standards movement represents a response to a
series of major reports expressing dissatisfaction with the
state of American education coupled with a broad recognition of
a heightened need to prepare the nation to cope with an
increasingly technological and complex society. He also
testified that with these standards, curriculum decisions are
left to states and local school districts. He noted that
effective use of standards requires strong support from local
communities, requiring a level of understanding that takes
years to build.
Dr. Gerald F. Wheeler testified that there are three
barriers which hinder the use of standards: (1) lack of time on
the teachers part; (2) teacher isolation; and (3) a lack of
quality resources and professional development opportunities.
Mrs. Gail Burrill stated that most states determine the
qualification needed for becoming a teacher and that in many
schools students taught by teachers with little or no
preparation in math and science. She testified that the key to
improving the teaching and learning of mathematics is to have a
standards-based curriculum and teachers who can implement that
curriculum.
Ms. Barbara Sampson noted three goals for high-performance
education: (1) all students excel; (2) students understand what
they are learning; and (3) students develop an enthusiasm for
learning that lasts a lifetime.
4.1(i)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET)
Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education--Third International Math and
Science Study)
October 8, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-40
Background
On October 8, 1997, the Science Committee held the third in
a series of four hearings entitled, ``The State of Science,
Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In America,
Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' The purpose of this
hearing was to assess where the United States stands in
comparison to our industrial competitors overseas in K-12 math
and science education and to discuss how policy makers and
educators can improve the way we teach these core subjects.
TIMSS is the largest comparative study of educational
achievement ever performed. The study involved over one million
students from 15,000 schools in 50 nations during the 1995
school year. TIMSS produced data on how, and how well, students
in participating nations learn math and science.
Witnesses included: Dr. William Schmidt, Chairman of U.S.
TIMSS National Research Coordinator at Michigan State
University in East Lansing, MI; Dr. James Hiebert, Professor,
TIMSS Videotape Study Department of Educational Development at
the University of Delaware in Newark, DE; and Mr. Roger Bybee
from the National Academy of Science in Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Schmidt testified that instead of using the results of
TIMSS to mimic what other countries are doing, the science
community should determine where American students are
excelling and find out what educators are doing right in these
areas. Once we know what we are doing well, we can adapt these
operating principles into the areas where we have fallen
behind. This suggests that it is easier to adopt things from
our own culture instead of learning and applying to the U.S.
what works in other cultures. Dr. Schmidt noted that what is
interesting about the results is what happens between fourth
and eighth grades. Our fourth graders are equal to and ahead of
the rest of the world. However, by the eighth grade, our
students have fallen significantly behind. The difference is
that in these years, our students are no longer challenged with
new concepts, and only repeat material they have already
learned. He went on to say that tracking regulated up to 80
percent of our students to basic elementary arithmetic, which
was unique to our education system. He added that our
curriculum is more of a ``to do'' list instead of a coherent
directives. Dr. Schmidt concluded that we need to concentrate
our efforts and focus on material that will allow our students
to exceed our own expectations and those of our international
competitors.
Dr. Hiebert testified about the differences in classroom
lessons. While foreign students experience a smooth transition
from one topic to the next, American students are subjected to
choppy, mundane lessons that do little to capture the attention
and creativity of the students. He agreed that instead of
copying what other cultures are doing, we should explore our
own successes and implement those principles throughout our
curriculum. He suggested we develop a teaching system to train
educators in improved ways to reach students and then institute
these teaching methods in the classrooms. Dr. Hiebert concluded
that we should implement changes that will ensure better
classrooms and a better education system.
Mr. Bybee echoed the sentiment of the first two witnesses
saying that our curriculum is incoherent, unfocused and
fragmented. He suggested that we implement standards at some
level, whether it be federal, state, or local, so that the
school systems would have a mission to focus on and a structure
to accomplish their missions. Mr. Bybee cautioned, however,
against swinging the pendulum too far to a point where we focus
too much on one set of subjects, saying there is a point in the
middle that we need to find. He suggested that our initial
focus should be on teaching methods to find the best way for
teaching our students as other, older cultures have already
done.
4.1(j)--The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET)
Education In America, Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education (SMET) in America--Collaboration
and Coordination of Federal Agency Efforts in SMET K-12 Education)
October 29, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-40
Background
On October 29, 1997, the Science Committee held the last in
a series of four hearings entitled, ``The State of Science,
Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education In America,
Parts I-IV, Including The Results Of The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).'' This hearing focused
on the roles that various federal agencies play in K-12 Science
and Math Education Programs. The major issues addressed at this
hearing were the collaboration and coordination of federal
science and math programs, and the priorities and allocation of
federal resources.
Many federal agencies support science and math education
programs. For example, in 1996 the Eisenhower National
Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (ENC)
published The Guidebook of Federal Resources for K-12
Mathematics and Science. ENC's comprehensive listing runs more
than 1500 pages. This hearing focused on federal SMET education
programs, specifically at agencies other than the Department of
Education (DOEd) and the National Science Foundation, and how
those programs are related to and coordinated with DOEd and NSF
activities.
Witnesses included: Dr. Clifford Gabriel, Acting Associate
Director, Science Division, Office of Science and Technology
Policy; Dr. David E. Shaw, Chairman, Panel on Educational
Technology, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology; Gordon Ambach, Executive Director, Council of Chief
State School Officers; and Dr. James Rutherford, Chief
Education Officer, American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Gabriel testified that there is a solid need for a
federal presence in the primary and secondary curriculum, even
as local and state governments take on an increasingly larger
role in funding education. Dr. Gabriel said that the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST), and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
had examined the results of TIMSS and had discussed reforms
based on the results. Their suggestions included developing a
strategy to improve teaching, increasing the availability of
high-quality materials, and illustrating the effective use of
technology in the classroom. He also said that these groups are
reviewing the priorities of federal sponsorship in new
educational programs and the methods used for determining these
priorities. He concluded that agencies must coordinate scarce
resources, make use of lessons learned, and share experiences
openly to promote educational excellence.
Dr. Shaw testified that there is not enough research into
finding significant improvements in our current education
system. He felt that the problem had less to do with
underfunding more to do with inadequate research into teaching
methods. He suggested exploring alternative educational
approaches, testing them as target research projects, then
gathering the results of these projects with the object of
forming a better, more comprehensive educational system. He
said this would require a central coordination system, either
by a single entity or by a multi-agency consortium. Deciding
the best approach would involve a background study on the
agency or agencies given this charge.
Mr. Ambach testified that the federal government plays an
essential role for its ability to gather enormous amounts of
funding for research and development in teaching methods and
materials. He voiced his concerns as to whether all the sources
for research and development were being used, and he cited
programs within the Defense Department and Department of Energy
(DOE) lab system that receive federal funding but are not
looked upon as alternatives by the National Science Foundation
and Department of Education. He went further saying that within
these agencies there are existing programs that are specially
designated and that do not share research and methodology
within a larger review of educational ideas. He concluded that
there must be better coordination between agencies in providing
research and support for education and that there must be a
meeting point where the resources come together to coordinate
these resources.
Dr. Rutherford testified that the results of TIMSS have
given us a purpose to develop Science and Math Education
policy. He stated that federal programs seeking funding should
provide a roadmap of what they are trying to accomplish, how
they intend to get there, and how the mission would help all
students in understanding math and science topics. He also
testified that politicians and agencies should spend more time
focusing policy on the suggestions of scientists and educators
on how to approach educational restructuring. He also said that
more effort should be made to simplify the system so that ideas
and funds will flow to the areas when and where they are
needed. When outside agencies are seeking science and math
education funding, they should be required to show how their
programs will link with the existing structure. Finally, a
better system of coordination of research and development
projects is needed so that all our resources can be used to
generate reforms to our education system.
4.1(k)--Road from Kyoto, Part I: Where Are We, Where Are We Going, and
How Do We Get There? (Road from Kyoto, Parts I-IV)
February 4, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-73
Background
On February 4, 1998, the Committee on Science held the
first in a series of four separately published hearings
entitled, ``Road from Kyoto, Part I: Where Are We, Where Are We
Going, and How Do We Get There?,'' to examine the outcome and
implications of the climate change negotiations concluded at
the Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) held in Kyoto,
Japan from December 1-11, 1997. On December 11, COP-3 adopted
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that the U.S. reduce its net
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels.
Witnesses included: Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty, Chair, Council
on Environmental Quality; Dr. Jay E. Hakes, Administrator,
Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of
Energy; Mr. David Smith, Director of Public Policy Program,
AFL-CIO; Mr. Joseph Goffman, Senior Attorney, Environmental
Defense Fund; Mrs. Connie Holmes, Chairman, Global Climate
Coalition; and Mr. Michael Marvin, Executive Director, Business
Council for Sustainable Energy.
Summary of hearing
Ms. McGinty testified that the choice between jobs and the
environment is a false one, that mechanisms in the Kyoto
Protocol will show that the environment and the economy can
work together, and that the Protocol was a ``work-in-
progress.'' Dr. Hakes testified on EIA's projections of energy
trends--which forecast that U.S. carbon emissions from energy
will increase to levels 34 percent above 1990 levels by 2010--
and described many factors that could change the projections by
either restraining or encouraging the growth of carbon
emissions. Mr. Smith argued that climate change is a global
problem requiring global participation, and that the President
should not sign the Kyoto treaty--which has enormous
consequences in terms of costs and the way people live. Mr.
Goffman stated that the Kyoto Protocol's greenhouse gas
emissions reduction objectives could be met through the use of
international emissions trading, and asked the Congress and the
Administration to focus on the potential of the Protocol's new
market-based mechanisms. Mrs. Holmes testified that the Kyoto
Protocol was fatally flawed and should not be ratified in its
current form. And Mr. Marvin testified that there is sufficient
information about the science of global climate change to merit
a response by policymakers and that the agreement reached in
Kyoto could be a first step, although it fails to address a
number of topics with clarity.
4.1(l)--Road from Kyoto, Part II: Kyoto and the Administration's Fiscal
Year 1999 Budget Request. (Road from Kyoto, Parts I-IV)
February 12, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-74
Background
On February 12, 1998, the Committee on Science held the
second in a series of four separately published hearings
entitled, ``Road from Kyoto, Part II: Kyoto and the
Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request,'' to examine
the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 budget proposals
related to the Kyoto Protocol and the Protocol's requirement
that the U.S. reduce its net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
7 percent below 1990 levels. In particular, the hearing
considered the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI)--a
five-year (FY 1999-FY 2003), $2.710 billion research and
technology initiative and a $3.635 billion package of tax
credits--to reduce U.S. GHG emissions. In addition, testimony
was presented on the FY 1999 budget request for the U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP).
Witnesses included: Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology, and Director, Office of
Science and Technology Policy; Dr. Ernest J. Moniz, Under
Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Mr. David
M. Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and,
Mr. Gary R. Bachula, Acting Under Secretary for Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Gibbons testified on behalf of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), a program designed to provide
scientific information necessary to understand climate change
for making policy decisions. Dr. Moniz described DOE's R&D
portfolio and discussed the Administration's draft framework of
a comprehensive energy strategy. Mr. Gardiner testified on the
President's proposed Climate Change Technology Initiative
(CCTI). And Mr. Bachula described the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's contribution to the CCTI.
4.1(m)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Math and Science
Education, Part I: Maintaining the Interest of Young Kids in Science)
March 4, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On March 4, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the first in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
examine the common components educators have found that are
critical to engaging children in science, and thereby
successfully imparting scientific understanding to them.
This was the first of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Mr. Bill Nye of the television program
``Bill Nye the Science Guy''; Dr. Joel Schneider, Vice
President for Education and Research, Children's Television
Workshop; Ms. Sandra Parker, fifth grade teacher at Flint Hill
School, Oakton, Virginia and recipient of the 1997 Presidential
Award for Teaching Excellence in Mathematics and Science; Dr.
Thomas Krakauer, Director, North Carolina Museum of Science and
Technology; and Dr. Susan Carey, Department of Psychology, New
York University.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Nye testified that science is intrinsically
interesting. He acknowledged that his educational television
show is entertainment and that if the show stopped being
entertaining, its ratings would drop, and the show would be
taken off the air. He stated that science teachers should try
to make their own classrooms as interesting as possible. He
noted that science has an inherent advantage over other
disciplines in that only science has the ``gizmos and
demonstrations'' that are the basics of scientific
experimentation. He said that teachers should use all the
gizmos that they can in order to make the classroom
interesting. He stated that grammar school and high school
science textbooks should be written in plain English and not
bogged down with unnecessary scientific verbiage. Mr. Nye said
that the government should support more funding for schools,
support programs to help encourage women and under-represented
minorities to enter scientific professions, and also suggested
that the U.S. should convert to the metric system.
Dr. Scheider stated that his 30 years of experience in
education and educational television has convinced him that
informal science and math education is extremely important. He
stated that perhaps the most valuable contribution of informal
science and math education is that it fosters a culture of
learning amongst our children. As examples of informal science
and math education, Dr. Scheider showed four short video clips
from recent children's television shows. The four video clips
showed that women can be mathematicians, doing science takes
desire and perseverance, and that science helps to solve
everyday problems. The clips demonstrate how science education
can be interesting and relevant. Dr. Scheider stated that these
themes are repeated over and over throughout effective
children's educational television shows.
Ms. Sandra Parker opened her testimony by stating that much
has changed since she was a science student. She stated that in
terms of science teaching, there are three things that need to
be improved. First, there needs to be more coordination between
science textbooks and science classroom experiment kits.
Second, teacher training needs to be improved, and third,
science classes must be fun so that students complain when the
class is over. She stated that science should be integrated
into reading, writing and all other areas of instruction. She
stated that students need to be taught about the basic
practices of science; namely, classifying, data collection,
keeping records, inferring, hypothesizing, and becoming
critical thinkers. In support of using hands-on science
activities, Ms. Parker quoted the following proverb: I hear, I
forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand. Ms. Parker
stated that the National Science Foundation's Activities to
Integrate Math and Science (AIMS) program and the Thinkquest
program are two excellent science education programs.
Dr. Krakauer opened his testimony with an short description
of the Life and Science Museum. He said the museum is hands-on
and allows a single exhibit to speak directly to a broad
spectrum of visitors who differ in age, educational background
and personal experience. The museum celebrates scientific
success rather than testing for failure. Mr. Krakauer also
discussed the Museum's program for underserved teenagers which
hires teenagers to work in the museum. He stated that the
museum's hands-on structure is perfect for young students. He
said that is important because experts have found that many
students decide by fourth or fifth grade if science is going to
be part of their lives. According to Mr. Krakauer, science
education need not be confined to a classroom. Formal and
informal science education can be made interesting and can help
promote a love of science among America's next generation.
Professor Carey testified that the last concerted national
initiative to improve math and science education was in the
1960's and unfortunately math and science instruction in this
country is now in a crisis. The major reason for this situation
is that in the 1960's educators and psychologists misanalyzed
the problem. Since the 1960's, educators have focused on what
individual students lack. The educators should have focused on
what the student has, rather than lacks. What young students
have is curiosity and science classes should build on that
curiosity. Unfortunately, young students often have different
theories or understandings of the world around them. For
example, many young students do not understand the idea of
weight density differentiation. Teachers first must understand
how the student thinks, and then work from there. Professor
Carey compared this kind of thinking to the actual history of
the scientific progress. The way medieval scientists viewed the
world was very different to how today's scientist views the
world. Teachers must understand the student's concepts about
science. If the teacher understands this, the teacher can use a
student's misunderstanding of a scientific concept as an
opportunity to advance a student's conceptual thinking, rather
than a humiliation for the student.
4.1(n)--Road from Kyoto, Part III: State Department Overview (Road from
Kyoto, Parts I-IV)
March 5, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-75
Background
On March 5, 1998, the Committee on Science held the third
in a series of four separately published hearings entitled,
``Road from Kyoto, Part III: State Department Overview.'' This
hearing was the third in a series to examine the outcome and
implications of the climate change negotiations concluded at
the Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) held in Kyoto,
Japan from December 1-11, 1997. On December 11, COP-3 adopted
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that the U.S. reduce its net
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels.
The hearing's sole witness was the Honorable Stuart E.
Eizenstat, Under Secretary for Economic, Business and
Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State and the U.S.
delegation's chief negotiator at Kyoto.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Eizenstat testified that there was a scientific
consensus that humans are changing the climate by increasing
the global concentrations of greenhouse gases. He stated that
the Kyoto Protocol is a work in progress, but that it does
contain two of the three objectives that the President and Vice
President insisted be addressed: (1) realistic targets and
timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions among the
world's major industrial nations; and (2) flexible market-based
mechanisms for achieving those targets cost-effectively. The
third objective--meaningful participation from key developing
countries--has not been met and will be the focus of future
work in the coming months and years. He stated that the U.S.
intends to sign the Protocol by mid-March of next year to
``lock in'' the progress made thus far. He also addressed what
he described as some ``misconceptions'' about the Kyoto
Protocol.
4.1(o)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Defining Successful
Partnerships and Collaborations in Scientific Research)
March 11, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On March 11, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the second in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
identify aspects of successful research partnerships and
collaborations that can be applied to federal science programs.
It examined different partnering models among Federal and State
Governments, universities, and industry in an attempt to
discern what factors are common to successful collaborations.
With the amount of interdisciplinary research increasing,
understanding how to organize effective joint research efforts
to increase the likelihood of success has become of growing
importance.
This was the second of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Dr. Lewis Branscomb, Professor
Emeritus, Harvard University; Dr. Charles Vest, President,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. David C. Mowery,
Professor, University of California at Berkeley; Mr. Jim
McGroddy, former Senior Vice President for Research at IBM.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Branscomb discussed the need for collaboration when
each individual or group has a common purpose, but ``diverse
and complimentary'' skills and research. Also, collaboration is
more suitable in like fields and interests where the final
product is a common goal and a partnership is more beneficial
economically. Finally, Dr. Branscomb discussed opportunities
for collaboration in the interest of improving foreign
relations and foreign policy.
Dr. Vest testified that the Federal Government must
continue to be the fiscal basis of support for cooperative
efforts and could steer science toward more partnerships
through budgetary policy. He also discussed the need for
flexibility in partnerships, noting that it can not be a ``one
size fits all'' policy. Dr. Vest also testified that
universities, and the industry organizations relevant to their
research, have begun developing these partnerships. He cited
factors that make solid partnerships include recognition of
each organization's role, talents and resources, concise
expectations and an agreement on mutual management.
Dr. Mowery testified that analyzing the purpose of
partnerships and evaluating the roles in a partnership must be
flexible, and added that even after a partnership had begun,
that it must have flexibility in its frame work to be
accommodating as new alternatives develop. He suggested some
changes in Federal regulations and requirements placed on
university research to allow increased flexibility.
Mr. McGroddy discussed funding issues involved in
determining whether a partnership is feasible. Other
alternative factors such as management must also be analyzed
before establishing a collaborative effort. Mr. McGroddy also
talked about deriving a motivation for partnerships and
research and development in general to replace the goals of
Cold War research. Finally, he discussed openness and its
benefits to the science community and suggested this had to be
the foundation by which these partnerships are built.
4.1(p)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (International
Science)
March 25, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On March 25, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the third in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
examine why the United States should participate in
international scientific collaborations, when they are likely
to be effective, and how to prevent them from being manipulated
to meet goals other than scientific goals. The hearing
identified reasons why international collaboration is often in
the United States' interest, highlighted factors common to
successful collaborations, and discussed recommendations to
promote science priorities abroad and international
collaborations in the U.S. While the United States still leads
the world in the largest number of research disciplines, it has
become increasingly clear in recent years that researchers in
foreign nations are performing top-notch work and that our
scientists and engineers can benefit greatly from working
together with their international counterparts.
This was the third of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Admiral James D. Watkins, President,
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education and former
Secretary of Energy; Dr. Bruce Alberts, President, National
Academy of Sciences; Dr. J. Thomas Ratchford, Director, Center
for Science, Trade, and Technology Policy, George Mason
University; Professor Homer A. Neal, Director, Michigan ATLAS
Project, University of Michigan; and Ms. Caroline Wagner,
Senior Analyst, Critical Technologies Institute at RAND.
Summary of hearing
Admiral Watkins highlighted the difficulties that foreign
policy poses for continuous international collaboration in
science. This not only hurts the country we are trying to
influence, but also burdens our own scientific community while
giving the United States a reputation of being an unreliable
science partner. To remedy this situation, Admiral Watkins
suggested we be more inclusive of science and technology
leaders when determining the course of our foreign policy. He
also encouraged Congress and the Administration to make a
commitment to these fields and structure a broad, yet
effective, scientific mission instead of focusing entirely on
environmental issues.
Dr. Alberts urged a policy that maintains better
communication between our scientists and those from other
nations, including improvements in international
telecommunications technology. As communications improve and
ideas are shared, better less expensive technologies will
become more available and bring other developing countries into
the 21st century, allowing them to become less dependent upon
the industrialized nations. Dr. Alberts testified that the
National Academy of Science has started new programs, such as
``Frontiers of Science,'' that encourage younger scientist from
around the globe to develop closer ties so that as they become
the leaders in these fields. A clearer professional atmosphere
will assist in sharing and swapping ideas, methods and
technologies. He also endorsed the idea that the U.S. needs to
make science and technology a focus of our national and foreign
policy.
Dr. Ratchford discussed a series of trends in research and
development that show a decreasing role in government funding
that has conversely affected the efficiency rate at which
corporate funding is used. This, along with a growing ``inter-
relationship'' in research and development, has ``pushed the
globalization of research and technology.'' He explained that
companies make more sound investments in developing
technologies to ensure the greatest return. He also addressed
problems that have arisen as companies fill short-term, low-
load strategies which leave long-term technology funding to
governments which, as earlier stated, have been reducing the
amount of funding they invest into research and development
projects. He suggested that we develop more effective science
and technological policies and improve implementation of these
policies internationally.
Dr. Neal proposed economic factors would encourage
international science collaboration. As the scientific
community works to solve obstacles through R&D, our society
would see greater benefit if funds and ideas were shared so
that, as less overlapping research was done, less individual
expenditure could yield greater technological benefit at a
faster rate, because of the larger professional talent pool. He
also weighed the potential downsides of international
collaboration, such as the greater complexity of management,
and the reduction in spots for our own undergraduate and
graduate students in these research arenas. However, he
reiterated that the most important goal was to continue to
explore the vast frontiers of science. Dr. Neal also stated
that greater abilities in our communication network would
increase international scientific progress.
Ms. Wagner spoke on specific budget policies that probe
inadequacies in the status quo. Of current federal R&D
expenditures, only $3.3 billion dollars, 4.5 percent of the
total R&D budget, are allocated to initiatives involving
international cooperation. She outlined the criteria that have
encouraged past and current cooperative research projects such
as the expense and size of the project, the scope and what
aspects of our environment would benefit, such as oceanic and
atmospheric programs. Also, she discussed the measurement of
collective vs. comparative individual benefits. Ms. Wagner
concluded that greater interagency cooperation within our own
government may also eliminate some of the obstacles and
ultimately improve international collaboration.
4.1(q)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Math and Science
Education, Part II: Attracting and Graduating Scientists and Engineers
Prepared to Succeed in Academia and Industry)
April 1, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On April 1, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the fourth in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
investigate how best to prepare scientists and engineers for
their future careers, from research, engineering, and
management positions in academia and industry to positions in
finance, teaching, policy, law and journalism. The hearing also
addressed the issues of how best to attract enough well-
qualified students to pursue graduate scientific or engineering
degrees, how to gain insight into the types of skills industry
looks for in the scientists and engineers they hire, and how to
review recommendations from the 1995 report (``Reshaping the
Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers'') from the
National Academy of Sciences', Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP).
This was the fourth of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Dr. David Goodstein, Vice Provost,
California Institute of Technology; Ms. Catharine Johnson,
Graduate Student, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Earl Dowell,
Dean of Engineering, Duke University; Mr. Michael Peralta,
Executive Director, Junior Engineering and Technical Society;
and Dr. Phillip Griffiths, Director, Institute for Advanced
Study and former Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences'
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Goodstein opened his testimony by stating that the U.S.
has a surplus of highly selected and trained Ph.D's in science
and engineering, but also a shortage of scientifically and
technically trained people. He stated that the number of Ph.D's
increased throughout the 20th century until about 1970. Since
1970, however, the percentage of science and engineering
college students who have decided to go on to graduate school
has steadily decreased. Dr. Goodstein noted, however, that the
number of students from overseas has increased to a point that
now 50 percent of graduate students in science and engineering
are from abroad. Dr. Goodstein compared the selection process
for science and engineering professorships to the process of
mining gems--the good ones are kept and all the rest are
discarded. He suggested that this may be why the country has
wonderfully trained professors and a scientifically illiterate
workforce. According to Dr. Goodstein, a second problem with
the current education system is that graduate students are
trained to be professors, while the number of professorships is
not increasing. He suggested that a result of this system is
that everyone other than the scientific elite is left out and
presently undergraduate enrollment in physics is at a 40-year
low. He noted that this is a real problem because undergraduate
work is probably the best preparation for the professions that
will be created in the next few decades. In addition, the
system has resulted in a lack of qualified middle school and
high school teachers. Dr. Goodstein stated that this system
must to be reformed, changes must be made to the culture of our
education system, and we must end the mutual disdain that
exists between scientists and non-scientists. Dr. Goodstein
concluded his testimony by stating that this will take a
tremendous amount of work, and the reforms must not harm our
nation's ability to produce top-notch scientists.
Ms. Johnson stated that American science is in a rapid
state of evolution. She stated that the present system of
education is designed to replenish the ranks of academic
faculty but as the scientists' sphere of influence in our
society expands, this system does not adequately prepare young
scientists for the future. Ms. Johnson stated that most post-
graduate science students spend close to ten years after
college finding what she referred to as a ``real job.''
According to Mr. Johnson, during this time most graduate
students work for their faculty advisor. As a result, the
current system is designed to benefit the faculty rather than
the interests of the students. Ms. Johnson quoted several polls
showing a growing interest in non-academic science by graduate
students. The same polls suggested, however, that less than 50
percent of the graduate students believed that the faculty is
supportive of students who are interested in non-academic
careers. Ms. Johnson stated that this must change. She
suggested the degree of ``Master of Science'' should be
reinstated. Ms. Johnson also discussed the financial burdens of
science graduate students in comparison to those of law and
business students. She ended her testimony with four
recommendations: (1) expand the career paths of young
scientists; (2) increase the scientific flexibility and reduce
the time to receive a degree; (3) revalidate the Master's
programs; and (4) reduce the opportunity costs for pursuing
advanced degrees in science and math.
Dr. Dowell opened his testimony by stating that science and
engineering schools are facing serious challenges such as
attracting young people, preparing them for careers in both
academia and in industry, giving them the depth, but also the
breadth to participate in multidisciplinary teams, and the
people skills to be involved in a multi-national economy where
business relationships cut across boundaries. Dr. Dowell stated
that although 50 percent of Ph.D. students are from abroad, the
majority of them remain in the United States and become
American citizens. He also stated that undergraduate
engineering degrees are in demand with many graduating seniors
getting ``signing bonuses'' like NBA athletes, of course
however, for not as much money. Dr. Dowell pointed out,
however, that over the last several years, enrollment in
undergraduate engineering programs has fallen by 15 percent.
Dr. Howell focused much of his remaining testimony on academic-
industry relations. He highlights several federal programs that
facilitate such relationships such as: NSF's Visiting Scholar
Program; NSF's Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering
Educational Reform; and, the NSF-funded Engineering Research
Centers. He concluded his testimony by thanking the Congress
for its investment in engineering and science and by stating
that he believes this has been a prudent investment.
Mr. Peralta testified that the engineering educational
system is shifting to accommodate industry more and more. His
organization, Junior Engineering and Technical Society (JETS),
plays an important role in supporting this shift. His
organization allows high school students to apply their
knowledge of concepts to real engineering situations. The goal
of the JETS programs is to show these students that engineering
is fun and relevant. Mr. Peralta discussed the results of the
TIMSS study and stated that the U.S. must do more to improve
our country's overall standing. JETS, which was founded in
1950, helps this cause by running various hands-on engineering
programs for high school students. Mr. Peralta outlined several
of these programs. He concluded his remarks by stating that
these program are designed to show students the wonders of
engineering.
Mr. Griffiths testified that if we are to maintain American
leadership in science and engineering, then we need to give our
students the best possible preparation for that leadership. He
addressed a series of myths concerning science and engineering
education. According to Mr. Griffiths, the first myth is that
most Ph.D.'s spend their careers in academic positions. The
truth is that more than 50 percent of Ph.D.'s go on to jobs
that are not primarily academic. The second myth is that there
is high unemployment and underemployment among Ph.D.'s. The
truth is that unemployment among scientists and engineers is
about 2 percent. The third myth is that we are training far too
many Ph.D.'s for the available jobs. The truth is that
enrollment in science and engineering Ph.D. programs is
declining, so the growth in the Ph.D. population may be moving
towards some kind of equilibrium. However, there needs to be
some changes in the education of scientists and engineers, such
as shortening the length of time to degree, and that focusing
more on the need to teach students more interpersonal,
communication and management skills. Mr. Griffith quoted a
report prepared by his organization that recommended that
graduate programs should be made more flexible and more career
information should be given to students. He also discussed the
NSF Integrated Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT)
program. He said that the program has been an improvement and
concluded his testimony by stating that he has been impressed
with the recent innovations in science and engineering
education.
4.1(r)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (The Irreplaceable
Federal Role in Funding Basic Scientific Research)
April 22, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On April 22, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the fifth in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
receive testimony on the performance, funding, and use of basic
scientific research. The hearing examined the unique federal
role in funding research that, owing to its risk and lack of
clearly defined outcomes, industry is ill-prepared to support.
While it is clear that industry does fund a substantial amount
of basic research, and that the Federal Government has and in
certain circumstances should continue to fund research of a
more applied nature, because the results of industry basic
research are almost always proprietary, the Federal Government
has an irreplaceable role to play in generating new knowledge
that is available for widespread dissemination. The hearing
also looked at the role of private foundations in funding
innovative, far-sighted research, and the role of state-based
partnerships in the dissemination of research results for
economic development purposes.
This was the fifth of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Dr. Claude Barfield, Director of
Science and Technology Policy Studies, American Enterprise
Institute; Mr. George Conrades, President, GTE Internetworking;
Dr. Michael P. Doyle, Vice President, Research Corporation; Mr.
William Todd, President, Georgia Research Alliance.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Barfield discussed the Vannevar Bush report and
described its shortcomings regarding its description of the so-
called ``linear model'' of innovation and how it completely
divorced basic research from any considerations of practical
ends. He then proceeded to discuss the findings of two
important recent science policy studies for comparison. Dr.
Barfield also described some of the important economic
rationales that should support our national civilian research
enterprise, and some of the considerations that should underlie
intellectual property policies and the appropriate role of the
states.
Mr. Conrades testified regarding the results of the report
written by the Committee for Economic Development, ``America's
Basic Research: Prosperity through Discovery.'' Their report
argued that the success of our basic research enterprise has
grown from its uniquely American organization, not simply as a
result of the amount of money that has been spent on research.
They believe it is vital that the Federal Government maintain
its commitment to funding basic research because basic research
has provided the intellectual and technological foundation for
many practical inventions. Mr. Conrades said that our basic
research establishment must constantly renew itself, as today
it faces important questions about the priorities and balance
of its basic research missions, the consistency of government
support, the global dissemination of new knowledge, and the
collapse of Cold War rationales for massive investments in
defense research. Their report attempts to make a compelling
case for supporting basic research, and in his testimony Mr.
Conrades lists twelve findings and fourteen recommendations
included in the upcoming report.
Dr. Doyle described some of the history of the Research
Corporation, how it operates, the disciplines in which it
grants awards, and the amount of grants it awarded in 1997. He
also discussed the seven categories in which they offer grants,
as well as the process they use to review the proposals they
receive. In particular, Dr. Doyle testified about the
difficulty they had in finding sufficient qualified
investigators to receive their new Research Innovation Awards,
only awarding 48 of the 60 they had planned, even though they
received 185 applications. He also discussed their Cottrell
Award that integrates research and teaching, and their focus on
awarding grants in the physical sciences. Dr. Doyle closed by
providing information on the modest overall level of private
foundation support for basic research into the physical
sciences.
Mr. Todd described how the Georgia Research Alliance model
for developing local technology industries has been effective
in its mission, pointing out the importance of managing their
investments as a portfolio, including a commercialization
center in each of the new initiatives they develop, and being
able to rely on the Federal Government to fully participate in
early stage research. Mr. Todd discussed the portfolio in terms
of a pipeline that must be kept full at all stages of the
innovation process, and discussed some of the lessons they have
learned regarding business incubation and commercialization.
Mr. Todd emphasized in his testimony that the federal
government should renew its commitment to being the primary
sponsor of early-stage research, and the importance of the
Federal and State Governments working together to maintain a
full pipeline of basic research in order to reap the maximum
economic benefits.
4.1(s)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (The International Space
Station: Problems and Options)
May 6, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-79
Background
On May 6, 1998, the Committee on Science held the second in
a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space
Station, Parts I-V.'' The hearing focused on the analysis of
the NASA Advisory Council's Cost Assessment and Validation
(CAV) Task Force, which had recently audited the International
Space Station (ISS) program in order to develop a more complete
and accurate cost assessment. The CAV Task Force also
identified the principal causes of continuing cost growth and
schedule delays in the ISS program.
Witnesses included: Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman, NASA
Advisory Council's Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force;
Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator; Dr. Duncan Moore,
Associate Director for Technology, White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy; Mr. Franklin Raines, Director,
White House Office of Management and Budget; Lt. General Thomas
Stafford, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council's Stafford Task
Force.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman of the NASA Advisory Council's
Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, summarized his
group's findings: (1) Continued Russian non-performance is the
single biggest threat to the program; (2) The ISS has been
underfunded since its 1993 redesign and requires another $130
to $250 million annually in order to achieve the baseline
program (leading to a total cost estimate of about $24.7
billion, an increase of $7.3 billion from NASA's original
estimates); and (3) The Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for ISS
development is too low.
Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, testified that U.S.
and Russian progress on the first two ISS flight elements (the
FGB and Node 1) was proceeding well and all signs pointed to
their readiness for launch on schedule. Problems in developing
the software for the U.S. laboratory continued. Russian
government funding for the Service Module continued to be
inadequate and the Russian Space Agency (RSA) had admitted that
the Service Module would not be ready for launch before March/
April 1999. (At the time of the hearing, the Service Module was
scheduled to be launched in December 1998.) Mr. Goldin declined
to comment on the CAV Task Force report at the hearing, instead
asking for time to review it and assess its findings, which he
promised the agency would complete by the second week of June.
Finally, Mr. Goldin confirmed that NASA did not believe that
the Russians could sustain ISS and Mir at the same time.
Consequently, NASA and RSA had developed and agreed to a plan
to de-orbit the Mir by December 1999.
Dr. Duncan Moore, Associate Director for Technology in the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that
the Administration had requested multi-year funding for the
International Space Station in its Fiscal Year 1999 budget
request and that it had provided the International Space
Station with $1.2 billion more in this budget than had been
contained in earlier budget profiles. He stated that the
decision to bring Russia into the International Space Station
program was made in the belief that the Russians could make
positive contributions in the areas of science and technology,
based on their years of experience with Russian space stations,
and that the Phase I Shuttle-Mir program had been successful in
improving the working relationship between NASA and RSA.
Mr. Franklin Raines, Director of the White House Office of
Management and Budget, indicated in his prepared statement that
the Administration remained committed to building the
International Space Station. He confirmed that the
Administration had felt compelled to lift its annual $2.1
billion ISS budget cap in Fiscal Year 1997 and that the
Administration had budgeted an additional $1.2 billion for ISS
during the period FY1999-2003 and would make another $200
million available to the ISS program by cutting some of NASA's
other programs. Finally, Mr. Raines indicated that if
additional resources were necessary for ISS, the Administration
would seek to identify those resources from within NASA's
overall budget.
Lt. General Thomas Stafford reported in his prepared
statement that his Task Force on the Shuttle-Mir and ISS
programs had concluded that the June collision of a Progress
resupply vehicle with Mir was the result of multiple causes,
and not simply the fault of the crew, which the Russia media
had reported. He also indicated that the decision to launch
astronaut Dave Wolf to Mir for an extended stay in September
1997, had been the right one and that NASA was continuing to
conduct science aboard Mir, was learning about long-duration
spaceflight, and was proving itself a reliable partner to the
Russians.
4.1(t)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (Communicating
Science and Engineering in a Sound-Bite World)
May 14, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On May 14, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the sixth in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
receive testimony on ways to improve the communicating of
science and engineering in the media, the classroom, and before
the public. The hearing examined the challenges of
communicating increasingly complex topics to the American
people. For many well-informed Americans, the last time they
were exposed to math or science was in their last high school
or college course in algebra or chemistry. Today most Americans
get their science and technology information from print and
broadcast journalism. Much of the hearing, therefore, focused
on ways to improve the ability of journalists to report
accurately on science, the problems scientists, engineers and
other technical experts often face when they communicate with
journalists, and some of the important factors that determine
whether or not science and technology stories are eventually
printed or aired. At the same time, because improving the
communication of science and technology can also be looked at
as a form of ``continuing education'' for the American people,
the hearing will also investigate other ways to communicate
vital information that do not rely on the mass media.
This was the sixth of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Mr. Jim Hartz, former co-host, the
``Today Show''; Dr. Rich Chappell, Director of Science and
Research Communications, Vanderbilt University; Ms. Deborah
Blum, Professor of Journalism, University of Wisconsin; Dr.
Stuart Zola, Professor of Psychiatry, University of California
at San Diego; and Dr. David Billington, Gordon Y. S. Wu
Professor of Engineering, Princeton University.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Hartz testified that a survey conducted by the First
Amendment Center and published in ``Worlds Apart: How the
Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America's
Future'' (co-authored with Dr. Chappell), shows that there is a
wide gulf between the views of scientists and journalists.
Scientists were generally deeply distrustful of the media and
viewed poorly the way in which scientific issues were reported,
but these problems were not seen as insurmountable. The
journalists viewed the scientific community as being both
arrogant and prone to jargon. They also noted that many science
stories were felt to be beyond the comprehension of their
audiences and to be of little relevance. Nevertheless,
scientists recognized the need to do a better job of
communicating science stories to the American public, and many
scientists expressed an interest in taking communications or
journalism courses to improve their skills. Mr. Hartz also
noted that many journalists do not see themselves as educators
but made the point that if the media are not involved in
reporting on science issues, the public will be left in the
dark. This could be accomplished by expanding media coverage of
science and technology issues, he said.
Dr. Chappell emphasized that scientists can do a number of
things to improve relations with the media, but that scientists
will ultimately be dependent on the media in taking the message
to the public. He noted that scientists spend most of their
time communicating with students and peers, and spend very
little time communicating with the general public. Many
indicated, however, that they would be willing to spend more
time talking with journalists and the public. He made four
recommendations: (1) The scientific community as a whole must
recognize the need to communicate better and invest time in
doing so. (2) Universities should train science and engineering
students in communication. (3) A new category of science
communicators should be developed who could work as
journalists, public information officers, and public outreach
professional for industrial firms, hospitals, and laboratories.
(4) The science journal process should include a new
requirement requiring authors to submit with a research paper a
plain-English abstract of the paper's findings and its
significance. Dr. Chappell added that the science community
needs to develop spokesmen so that the media will be able to
get ``a good sound bite, but get a sound bite that's got good
content.'' He suggested that different scientific societies
could develop Internet sites that could act as vehicles to
deliver this information.
Ms. Blum began her testimony by stating that science
changes the world around us and that people need to be aware of
changes in science. She compared science to politics, saying
that both are forces that change people's lives. But while
politics may seem relatively straightforward, science is often
mysterious and off-putting. While noting the importance of
improving science education for non-scientists, Ms. Blum
stressed the importance of regional media in informing the
public about science and technology issues. However, she stated
that most journalists are not comfortable with science. To
improve science reporting, Ms. Blum made two recommendations:
(1) increase the number of science journalists and the number
of university programs to train science journalists; and (2)
expand scientist job descriptions to include science
communication. Ms. Blum ended her testimony by pointing out
that journalists and scientists need to build bridges with each
other so that they can minimize misunderstandings and develop
an appreciation for how the other profession thinks and
operates.
Dr. Zola, a neuroscientist who performs basic research
involving monkeys, testified to his experience in countering a
campaign by animal rights activists to limit his research. He
noted that these activists were very good at discrediting basic
research, pointing to the lack of any applied results. Dr. Zola
said he was shocked at the response of the public, who he felt
was being misinformed about the value of his work. With the
support of the University of California at San Diego's
administration, which was vital, Dr. Zola and his colleagues
began a concerted effort to inform the public about what the
university researchers were actually doing. With the help of
media experts, Dr. Zola developed effective techniques to
counter criticism and educate the public about the nature of
his work. Dr. Zola also testified to the importance of
scientists visiting legislators to give their side of the
story. Dr. Zola closed by noting that scientists are beginning
to come to terms with the importance of communicating the
excitement and utility of science to the general public and
decisionmakers.
Dr. Billington approached the issue of communications from
the perspective of a university teacher trying to instill an
appreciation for and understanding of engineering in non-
technical students. He addressed three issues: (1) how to make
connections between the humanities and engineering; (2) how to
attract students to take these courses; and (3) how to make
engineering accessible to a non-technical audience. Concerning
the issue of making connections, Dr. Billington said his
courses focused on great engineering works that have
transformed society in significant ways. He cited as examples
Fulton's steamboat, the Wright Flyer, and Kilby's and Noyce's
microchip. Concerning the issue of attracting students, he said
that students are attracted to his courses because they are
based on scholarship, the lectures are done visually, and the
courses have become part of the core curriculum and satisfies
the science requirement. Concerning the issue of making
engineering accessible, he said that the courses are relevant
because they emphasize the work of individual innovators who
made their work as simple as possible. This allows the
innovators main ideas to be accessible and presented in easily
grasped mathematical formulas. Dr. Billington noted that the
stories of individual engineers and their work, such as Gustave
Eiffel's Tower, can be coupled with scientific principles to
make engineering accessible and understandable to all students.
4.1(u)--National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII (The Role of Science
in Making Effective Decisions)
June 10, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-60
Background
On June 10, 1998, the National Science Policy Study Task
Force conducted the final in a series of seven hearings
entitled, ``National Science Policy Study, Parts I-VII'' to
examine the role of science in helping to inform legal,
legislative, and policy decisions that have significant
scientific and technological components. Because the number of
these types of difficult decisions will continue to increase
significantly, it is vital that the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial branches of government develop effective techniques to
identify, analyze, and resolve these important matters. Policy
and legal decision makers will increasingly rely on the science
and engineering establishment for assistance, requiring clear,
effective communication between scientists and policymakers,
regulators, judges and juries.
This was the last of seven hearings held by the Committee
on Science as part of the National Science Policy Study led by
Congressman Vernon Ehlers, Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Witnesses included: Dr. John Graham, Founding Director,
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Dr. Roger McClellan,
President and CEO, Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology;
Dr. Mark Frankel, Director, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility,
and Law Program, American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS); Dr. Dennis Barnes, President, Southeastern
Universities Research Association.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Graham began his testimony by stating that, ``the
science of risk analysis can help regulatory organizations make
better decisions.'' Using mandated automobile airbags as a case
study, Dr. Graham said that better use of science in the
regulatory process could have resulted in airbag design and
policies that are less risky and more effective than current
design and policies. He noted that estimates of the number of
lives saved through use of airbags has dropped substantially
for three reasons: (1) Airbags can be dangerous to small
passengers, which was suggested by automobile industry
researchers in the 1970s, whose analyses were not taken
seriously by Federal authorities. (2) The ability of airbags to
protect unbelted adults were overly optimistic. (3) The
consequences of the airbag safety for the safety of women, the
elderly, and short drivers are not known. Dr. Graham said that
the lesson from this experience is that regulators should tell
the public about the risks as well as the benefits of this type
of regulation. The government's decision mandating airbags was,
he said, an adversarial one, with lawyers and politicians
exerting as much influence as scientists and engineers. He
added that technical experts in government and industry did not
trust each other. The general lessons of the airbag case study
were twofold: (1) Government and industry need to support an
academic research community with expertise in automobile
safety, risk analysis, and injury prevention. (Such an
independent source of knowledge was not available to help
resolve some of the issues surrounding airbags.) (2)
Legislation is needed requiring regulators to analyze not only
the benefits of their regulatory proposals, but also their
risks, called substitution risks.
Dr. McClellan's testimony focused on environmental,
occupational, and health issues. He noted the huge costs
involved in regulation and said that the impact of errors can
be great. Good decisions to protect the environment and human
health require sound scientific information, and the
development of this information requires time, planning, and
resources to conduct targeted research. He suggested that the
development of improved scientific information can be
facilitated by four paradigms. (1) The use of a risk paradigm,
that includes risk research, assessment, and management should
be part of any research program. He also noted the importance
of risk assessment in setting or altering the research agenda,
as well as the risk communication element. (2) Potential
sources of toxicants need to be linked with human health
responses of concern, recognizing the complex nature of the
issues involved and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach.
(3) Information obtained at different levels of biological
organization-from the molecular level to cells, tissues, etc.-
needs to be integrated. (4) Government, academia, and industry
need to coordinate the planning and conduct of research needed
to improve the information base of decision-makers.
International efforts in this area also should be considered.
Dr. McClellan testified that he believes adopting these four
paradigms would improve the scientific basis for regulatory
decisions.
Dr. Frankel testified on the use of science in the courts.
He began by citing a speech by Associate Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer, who observed that the law increasingly requires
access to sound science because society is becoming more
dependent for its well being on complex technology. In the face
of this, questions have been raised about the ability of judges
or juries to make reasoned decisions. The primary method of
getting technical information to judges and juries today is
through the use of expert witnesses, who are almost always
hired by one party to the suit or the other. The issue for
judges and juries is whether the parties' experts are really
experts or scientific guns-for-hire. Rather than trying to
clarify technical matters, what often occurs is that the
experts are pitted against one another with the aim of
destroying the credibility of the opponent. In the ``Daubert v.
Merrill'' decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Federal trial
judges have the responsibility to determine whether the
reasoning or methodology underlying scientific testimony is
valid and will assist the trier of fact. Subsequently, the
``General Electric v. Joiner'' decision held that methodology
and conclusions may be considered as linked; if an expert's
conclusions are not supported by valid reasoning, they may be
excluded. Since the 1970's, courts have had the option to call
on scientific experts but have not done so consistently.
Recognizing the need for expert advice in the courtroom, AAAS
and the American Bar Association have proposed a joint
demonstration project that would identify highly-competent,
impartial experts to advise the courts on science and technical
issues.
Dr. Barnes testified on the potentially chilling effect of
scientific research on recent civil claims against researchers
and their universities, often for research that was conducted
decades ago. Dr. Barnes stressed that he was not referring to
research conducted in relation to the manufacture of a product,
but research that has been conducted by university scientists
to increase the public pool of knowledge that has been subject
to peer review and open publication. Two recent cases, one
involving Carnegie-Mellon University and Syracuse University,
were discussed. Both of these cases were dismissed and the
importance of free inquiry recognized, but Dr. Barnes also
noted the issue is not settled and other cases are bound to
arise. Dr. Barnes concluded by urging the Congress to provide a
legal remedy so that researchers will not have to divert time
and resources to defending themselves.
4.1(v)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (``Houston, We Have a
Problem:'' The Administration's Plan to Fix the International Space
Station)
June 24, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-79
Background
On June 24, 1998, the Committee on Science held the third
in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space
Station, Parts I-V.'' This hearing was held as a follow-up to
the Committee's May 6 hearing on the International Space
Station (ISS) in order to receive NASA's responses to and
analysis of the NASA Advisory Council's Cost Assessment and
Validation (CAV) Task Force on the International Space Station
and to review a report by the General Accounting Office on the
International Space Station's total cost.
Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator;
Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman, CAV Task Force; Mr. Allen Li,
Associate Director, U.S. of the General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
The NASA Administrator, Mr. Daniel Goldin, essentially
confirmed that NASA agreed with the bulk of the NASA Advisory
Council's Cost Assessment and Validation (CAV) Task Force's
findings about the International Space Station, i.e., continued
Russian non-performance is the single biggest cost-threat to
ISS; the program has been underfunded; and its development
costs are climbing to roughly $24.7 billion from NASA's initial
$17.4 billion estimate. He testified, however, that the Fiscal
Year 1999 budget request was sufficient to achieve acceptable
risk levels. He also noted that a delay in the assembly
sequence announced since the May 6 hearing largely addressed
the near-term risks identified by the CAV Task Force in April.
Mr. Goldin further testified that the Russian Space Agency had
made ISS its top priority and that the Service Module had been
shipped from Khrunichev to Energia for completion and checkout.
However, Mr. Goldin noted that the 1998 Russian Space Agency
budget was inadequate to meet Russia's ISS core contributions.
(It should be noted that RSA's ``core contributions'' are a
subset of the total contributions that Russia was to make to
the ISS program.) While confirming that the CAV report was
largely on target, the NASA Administrator concluded by stating
that any additional funds required for ISS would be provided
from within NASA's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request, requiring
cuts to other programs, and that the Administration would
consider implementation of the CAV Task Force's long-term
recommendations in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget process. Mr. Jay
Chabrow, Chairman of the CAV Task Force, welcomed NASA's
acceptance of his group's findings, but stated several concerns
based on NASA's actions in response to the problems. First, he
noted that NASA was failing to take proactive action to deal
with the known problems in Russia and that it was ``hard to
understand why NASA and the Administration are not identifying
the immediate steps they will take to protect the U.S.
investment.'' Second, Mr. Chabrow stated a concern that NASA
had not yet identified annual funding profiles to accommodate
any of the cost growth it now accepted would occur. Third, Mr.
Chabrow stated that NASA continued to take an optimistic
position relative to completion of the assembly sequence and
that ``the level of funding profile NASA is projecting in 1999
does nothing to convince us that anything is being done
differently.'' Mr. Chabrow re-stated the CAV Task Force
findings that NASA's budget request was inadequate to cover
currently estimated future costs for ISS.
Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director of the General Accounting
Office, testified that the total ISS costs had risen from $93.9
billion to $95.6 billion, figures which include associated
Shuttle launch costs, operating costs, the science program, and
NASA overhead. Mr. Li indicated that the bulk of the cost
growth had occurred within the ISS development budget, which is
consistent with the general scope of the CAV Task Force's
findings. Mr. Li further testified that costs would increase if
the assembly completion date slipped beyond 2003 (which the CAV
Task Force expected) and that the program was likely to require
more Shuttle flights than were contained in the current
baseline. GAO estimated that each month's delay in the assembly
sequence cost an additional $100 million. Mr. Li further noted
that GAO continued to have a concern that the ISS program
reserves were inadequate to address known risks. Mr. Li
concluded by noting that several factors were not counted in
its estimate of ISS total costs, including: potential debris
tracking and the impact of a recently announced delay in the
assembly sequence.
4.1(w)--China: Dual-Use Space Technology
June 25, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-81
Background
On June 25, 1998, the Committee on Science held a hearing
entitled, ``China: Dual-Use Space Technology.'' The purpose of
the hearing was to (1) discuss the significance of information
that may have been transferred by Loral and Hughes to the
People's Republic of China; (2) examine the implications of an
improved Long March on U.S. national security, U.S. launch
industry competitiveness, and the U.S. industrial base; and (3)
review components of space-related agreements that the
Administration has been negotiating with the People's Republic
of China. Actions by Loral and Hughes were the catalyst for the
controversy surrounding potential missile technology transfer
to China. The 1996 participation of Loral and Hughes in a
launch failure investigation resulted in the May 1997 Pentagon
Report and the investigation by the Justice Department. Due to
the Justice Department investigation, the February 1998 waiver
by President Clinton for export of a Loral-built satellite for
launch in China also became part of the controversy. Several
Congressional hearings focused on the export control process,
including the differences between the Bush Administration and
the Clinton Administration. The primary purpose of the Science
Committee hearing was to examine the issue from the standpoint
of the U.S. launch industry.
China's Great Wall Industry Corporation has been China's
space launch company since 1986. It is a state-owned
corporation and belongs to China Aerospace Corporation which
oversees China's space and missile research and development
establishment. China Aerospace Corporation develops strategic
and tactical ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles,
surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles, and military and
civilian satellites. China reportedly launched its first
satellite on April 24, 1970. By May 31, 1998, China had
conducted 60 launches, eight of which were complete failures
and four placed satellites into incorrect orbits. On April 7,
1990, China Great Wall Industry Corporation launched its first
commercial foreign satellite, Asiasat 1. The entry of China,
Russia, and Ukraine into the commercial launch market has
confronted U.S. launch providers with non-market economy
competitors who are able to undercut U.S. launch bids
significantly even under the terms of existing launch service
trade agreements. The United States currently has launch trade
agreements with all three countries. The purpose of the
agreements is to manage the international market for launch
services and reduce the impact of low prices charged by non-
market economies on U.S. launch providers. Two of the
conditions included in the 1989 agreement were that China would
seek to launch no more than nine international satellites
between 1989 and 1994, and that it would charge prices ``on a
par'' with other launch service providers. The six-year
agreement signed in 1989 expired at the end of 1994. A new
seven-year agreement was signed on March 13, 1995, allowing
China up to 11 new launches for international customers to
geostationary orbit. Existing contracts for four launches under
the 1989 agreement were incorporated into the agreement, thus a
total of 15 launches are allowable in the 1995-2001 timeframe.
The 1995 agreement stipulated that China was to charge no less
than 15% below what Western companies charge or a U.S. review
of the price would be triggered.
Witnesses included: Mr. Gary Milhollin, Director, Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control; Mr. Oren Phillips, Vice
President Business Development, Thiokol Propulsion; Mr. John
Pike, Director of Space Policy, Federation of American
Scientists; Mr. Leon McKinney, President, McKinney Associates;
and Mr. Paul Ross, Group Vice President of Space and Strategic
Systems, Alliant Techsystems.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Gary Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on
Nuclear Arms Control, testified about the origin of India's
largest nuclear-capable missile, the ``Agni.'' He stated that
India learned how to build the first stage from the United
States, and how to build the second stage from France and
Russia. The U.S. and French help was supposed to be for
peaceful space exploration, but it wound up helping India's
missile program. Mr. Milhollin testified that the first rockets
in both India and Pakistan were launched by NASA under a policy
of peaceful space cooperation. But the result of the
cooperation has been long-range missiles tipped with nuclear
warheads. He also testified about the Administration's
invitation for China to join the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) and the consequences if China joins.
Mr. Oren Phillips, Vice President Business Development for
Thiokol Propulsion, testified about Thiokol's business of
designing, developing, and producing solid rocket motors for
various military, civil, and commercial applications. He noted
that with the opening of the U.S. commercial satellite market
to foreign launch vehicles, the U.S. launch industry is facing
unprecedented price competition from the non-market economies
of Russia, China, and Ukraine. These countries have current
labor costs at one-tenth of those in the U.S. Thus, there is no
way for the U.S. to compete directly, regardless of the
advanced state of American technology or the efficiency of the
production processes.
Mr. Phillips testified that the impact of these space-
launching, non-market economies on the U.S. defense capability
and industrial base are being ignored. The same technologies,
facilities, people and products support both the strategic
defense and commercial space business. He noted that at the
same time as the U.S. defense capability is deteriorating,
launches of U.S. commercial satellites on launch vehicles of
former adversaries greatly subsidizes their military. He
testified that exports of satellites for launch in non-market
countries may not necessarily involve technology transfer, but
it does harm U.S. interests because with each launch the non-
market country becomes a little smarter, a little more capable,
a little more reliable, and ultimately more competitive.
Mr. John Pike, Director of Space Policy, Federation of
American Scientists, testified that American companies dominate
the commercial communications satellite industry globally and
thus the American launch vehicle industry has perhaps a less
compelling claim on the attention of decision-makers. He noted
that spacecraft (i.e. satellites) continue to be a design-
intensive high-technology sector whereas the launch vehicle
industry is characterized by ``routine metal-bashing'' that
would tend to migrate towards lower-wage areas such as China
just as other sectors like textiles and footwear have migrated.
He noted that the nature and volume of technical data alleged
to have been transferred by American companies is surely
trivial compared to the extensive Soviet aid that facilitated
Chinese efforts in launch vehicles. Mr. Pike testified that
there is no indication that U.S. technical information related
to ICBM's has been transferred to China. In conclusion, he
discussed the opportunities presented by closer cooperation
with China's space program, including China becoming a partner
in the International Space Station and a critical player in the
effort to extend human presence to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Mr. Leon McKinney, President, McKinney Associates,
testified about there being virtually no difference between a
launch vehicle and a missile. Thus, if improvements have been
made to launch vehicle guidance technology, simultaneous
improvements have been made to missile guidance technology. He
noted that very small improvements in boost trajectory accuracy
result in big gains in targeting accuracy. Mr. McKinney
discussed the risks of technology transfer through technical
discourse. It would have been of immense help to Chinese
engineers to have American engineers with knowledge about
similar launch vehicle failures, make suggestions or ask
particular questions about specific subsystems. He also
discussed the potential earth science agreement between the
U.S. and China, noting that detailed models of atmospheric
winds or the earth's geodetics would definitely improve the
accuracy of China's launch vehicles and missiles.
Mr. Paul Ross, Group Vice President of Space and Strategic
Systems, Alliant Techsystems, testified that the company's
production lines are increasingly used for commercial space
launch boosters instead of missiles. The Federal Government
benefits from solid rocket motor manufacturers and their lower
tier suppliers being so heavily involved in the commercial
market because it helps to maintain a vital capability that
would otherwise be much more expensive to support. Mr. Ross
noted that the Chinese launch vehicle industry has demonstrated
a willingness to substantially undercut the U.S. domestic
launch vehicle industry through its pricing of satellite
launches. He has not seen or heard of a scenario where the U.S.
space launch industry, using domestically produced launch
vehicles, is not able to satisfy the launch manifest for the
U.S. satellite manufacturers. Mr. Ross testified that a loss of
satellite launch business to foreign competition diminishes
companies that support the U.S. strategic deterrent, while at
the same time subsidizing the development of a foreign
capability.
4.1(x)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (The White House
Perspective on the International Space Station's Problems and
Solutions)
August 5, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-79
Background
On August 5, 1998, the Committee on Science held the fourth
in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space
Station, Parts I-V.'' The hearing was announced as a follow-up
to the June 24 hearing and to receive the testimony from the
White House Office of Management and Budget and Office of
Science and Technology Policy, which both White House offices
had committed to deliver at some point in lieu of their
appearance before the Committee on June 24. At the conclusion
of the June 24 hearing on the International Space Station,
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Minority Member Brown sent
the President a letter asking him to direct the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan for implementing
the recommendations of the NASA Advisory Council's Cost
Assessment and Validation Task Force and for OMB to deliver
that plan to Congress in 30 days so that it could be assessed
and implemented in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget cycle.
Witnesses included: Mr. Jacob Lew, Director, White House
Office of Management and Budget; Dr. Duncan Moore, Associate
Director for Technology, White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy; Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Jacob Lew, Director of the White House Office of
Management and Budget, testified that the Administration had
increased ISS funding $250 million over the $17.4 billion
baseline during Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 by cutting other
NASA programs and that in the Fiscal Year 1999 request, the
White House increased the ISS budget another $1.2 billion for
the period FY1999-2003 by cutting NASA's other programs. As an
initial step to deal with some of the problems caused by
Russian non-performance on the ISS program, the White House had
adopted NASA's recommendation to fund the Interim Control
Module and approved on August 4, 1998, NASA's request to submit
a reprogramming request to Congress in order to begin modifying
the Space Shuttle fleet to perform some of the ISS reboost
functions originally to be provided by the Russian Progress
vehicles. Nevertheless, Mr. Lew testified that the White House
thought it was premature to take steps to remove Russia from
the ISS critical path. In the meantime, he stated that the
White House believed the Fiscal Year 1999 budget request was
adequate to meet NASA's ISS obligations in Fiscal Year 1999 and
that any additional funds required by the ISS program would
come from within NASA's total budget and would be made
available by cutting other NASA programs.
Dr. Duncan Moore, Associate Director for Technology in the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, testified
that NASA concurred with the findings of the CAV Task Force and
that the Administration had developed and implemented specific
measures to deal with continuing Russian problems in the ISS
program. Dr. Moore testified that NASA's plan contained four
elements. First, NASA was pressing Russia to launch the Service
Module ``on-time'' in April 1999 and to deorbit Mir safely.
(The Service Module was originally scheduled to be launched in
April 1998. As of November 1998, the Service Module is
scheduled for launch in July 1999, but NASA has indicated it
may not be launched until the fall of 1999.) Second, the
Administration wanted to begin modifying the Space Shuttle in
order to enable it to perform some of the reboost functions
that Russia committed to provide, but appeared unlikely to
provide. Third, the Administration wanted to explore using
additional Russian Soyuz vehicles for assured crew return to
fill the gap between the time when ISS is expected to be
capable of sustaining 6 crew and the time when NASA expects its
own operational crew return vehicle to be available. Finally,
the Administration sought to address the lack of aggressive
Multi-Element Integrated Testing (MEIT) throughout the program
by taking undetermined corrective measures. Finally, Dr. Moore
confirmed that the Administration would seek to meet any ISS
requirements for additional funds from within NASA's budget by
cutting other NASA programs.
Mr. Daniel Goldin, the NASA Administrator, testified that
the Russian Space Agency had a requirement for $340 million in
1998 just to meet its ISS obligations, but the Russian
government had budgeted only $160 million, and RSA had received
only $20 million. He conceded that this situation put the April
1999 launch date of the Service Module at some risk. Mr. Goldin
further noted that RSA could not sustain both the Mir space
station and ISS in orbit at the same time and that Russia had
an obligation to safely deorbit Mir at some time. Mr. Goldin
continued by noting that NASA had developed and started
implementation of a contingency plan to enable ISS development
to continue in the face of continued Russian funding problems.
That plan's initial step was to consult with the Russians
regarding mechanisms for improving RSA's funding situation.
According to Mr. Goldin, the second element of the plan was to
develop capabilities necessary to provide backup for Russia's
contributions, including taking the step of requesting
Congressional concurrence the day of the hearing to reprogram
funds in order to modify the Shuttle fleet and enable it to
conduct some of the Russian reboost functions. Mr. Goldin also
noted that the U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) effort was
proceeding at pace with a successful flight test of the X-38
technology demonstrator in March and a scheduled re-flight in
October. Nevertheless, he confirmed that a U.S.-developed CRV
would not be ready until 2003 at the earliest and that NASA was
considering the use of Russian Soyuz vehicles to enable the
Station to sustain a 6-person crew before the U.S. CRV was
developed. Mr. Goldin concluded by noting that delays in the
ISS assembly sequence had led NASA to rephase the purchase of
spare parts for ISS by pushing the process out in time.
4.1(y)--International Space Station, Parts I-V (International Space
Station: The Administration's Proposed Bail-Out for Russia)
October 7, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-79
Background
On October 7, 1998, the Committee on Science held the last
in a series of five hearings entitled, ``International Space
Station, Parts I-V.'' On September 29, 1998, the NASA
Administrator sent the Committee a request for Congressional
support of NASA's decision to begin paying the Russian Space
Agency (RSA) $60 million immediately, ostensibly in return for
some of Russia's research time aboard the International Space
Station (ISS), but in reality in order to provide the Russian
Space Agency (RSA) with funding to continue work on the Service
Module. Normally, Congress has 30 days to review such requests,
but NASA asked the Committee to provide a response in a time
frame that would enable NASA to begin making payments to Russia
on October 9th. The Chairman promptly announced a hearing on
the subject to review NASA's request and its implications. On
September 29, witnesses were informed by phone of the
Committee's intention to hold a hearing on October 7, 1998.
Formal invitations followed on October 2, 1998.
Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator;
Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council's Cost
Assessment and Validation (CAV) Task Force; Professor Judyth
Twigg, Virginia Commonwealth University; Mr. James Oberg, an
independent aerospace consultant.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, testified that a
General Designer's Review (GDR) had taken place in Russia on
September 28, 1998, to review the status of the International
Space Station (ISS) in preparation for the scheduled first
element launch on November 20, 1998. As a result of the GDR,
the Service Module's scheduled April 1999 launch date had been
delayed to ``no earlier than summer 1999.'' Mr. Goldin
testified that this delay was the result of a lack of funding.
He noted that NASA's approach to deal with Russian
uncertainties was one of ``incrementally buying down risk.''
One example of NASA's approach was the decision to develop the
Interim Control Module. Mr. Goldin testified that research was
a key goal of the ISS program. In order to improve the
program's research capabilities, Mr. Goldin announced that
additional delays in the International Space Station's research
capabilities would be compensated for by adding a new Shuttle
mission to NASA's plans in 2000 to give researchers more access
to space. He also noted that NASA signed a protocol with the
Russian Space Agency to purchase Russian crew time at the
September 1998 GDR. Additionally, Mr. Goldin testified that
NASA would pay the Russian Space Agency $60 million for this
research time and that RSA would use these funds to continue
making progress on the Service Module. If additional funds
proved necessary, the Administration would make such
adjustments in the initial Operating Plan for Fiscal Year 1999
and in the budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. Goldin also
noted that NASA was seeking to develop its own capabilities to
reduce the impact of Russian failures to meet its obligations.
These steps included modifying the Shuttle orbiters to enable
them to perform some of the Russian reboost functions and
completing the Interim Control Module. NASA has completed a
technical definition study for an independent U.S. propulsion
capability and is evaluating the near-term initiation of long-
lead procurements for this module. Mr. Goldin also expressed
his hope that European development of the Ariane Transfer
Vehicle or the Japanese Hope Transfer Vehicle would provide
some options for replacing continued reliance on Russia for
various propulsion functions. Mr. Goldin also noted that the
Russian financial situation had not improved, yet all of the
ISS partner countries supported a decision to continue with the
existing launch schedule. Mr. Goldin concluded by noting that
resource issues would be dealt with in the initial Operating
Plan submission to Congress for Fiscal Year 1999 and the Fiscal
Year 2000 budget request.
Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman of the NASA Advisory Council's
Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, testified that
nothing had happened in Russia to improve the Russian financial
situation with regard to the International Space Station. He
also testified that Russian space capabilities continued to be
critical to the International Space Station and that NASA
remained dependent on Russia for propulsion, command and
control, crew habitability, and crew return. Russia's failure
to provide these capabilities will increase ISS costs. Mr.
Chabrow testified that in the near term, finding a mechanism to
enable Russia to successfully make its near-term contributions
would be less expensive than proceeding with the International
Space Station as planned without the Russian contributions.
With that in mind, Mr. Chabrow stated that he supported NASA's
near-term decision to provide RSA with $60 million in order to
continue working on the Service Module. He did, however,
express concern that NASA was not taking the steps recommended
by the CAV Task Force to eliminate long-term dependence on
Russia by beginning the procurement of long-lead items for a
U.S. propulsion module. Mr. Chabrow stated, ``Each month that
passes by without developing the capabilities necessary to
achieve U.S. independence, puts the program at further risk for
additional cost growth.''
Dr. Judyth Twigg, Assistant Professor at the Virginia
Commonwealth University, testified that the Russian aerospace
industry is in a state of collapse and that additional funding
for the Russian aerospace industry was necessary to improve its
health, but that funding alone was not sufficient to solve the
problems that the Russian aerospace industry was experiencing.
She noted several factors contributing to the collapse of the
Russian aerospace industry, including: (1) a flight of
experienced and knowledgeable personnel; (2) a general neglect
of infrastructure; and (3) a lack of modernization potential
due to personnel loss and the neglect of infrastructure.
Professor Twygg also noted that the Russian space program did
not appear to be a high priority for the Russian government or
population. Consequently, Professor Twygg concluded that a lack
of funding was not the sole cause of Russia's failures to meet
its obligations. She then offered alternative explanations for
Russia's continuing failures to meet its obligations to the ISS
program. First, the possibility existed that the Russian
government was purposely introducing problems into the ISS
program to express dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy
related to NATO expansion. Second, the possibility existed that
Russian industrial and programmatic ``culture'' simply did not
take deadlines and schedules, which NASA is accustomed to using
as management tools, seriously. Third, the Russians might be
missing deadlines because they felt that the relationship with
NASA was not in their best interests. Finally, delays might
also be explained by Russia's own internal budgetary politics
as a result of changes in government personnel, notably the
departure of Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. For the
future, Dr. Twygg concluded that additional short-term funding
for the Russian space program would not resolve the systemic
problems that were contributing to Russia's inability to meet
its obligations to the International Space Station. Instead,
she noted, ``bailouts from the West may, in fact, serve only to
prolong the agony before Russia is forced to face the real work
of significant financial and industrial restructuring.''
Mr. James Oberg, an independent aerospace consultant and
author of several books and articles dealing with the Russian
space program, testified that: (1) Russia's inability to
fulfill its promises was not the result of any temporary
conditions in Russia; (2) the ``wobbly'' assembly strategy for
ISS was a clear warning that something is fundamentally wrong
with the program; (3) based on the recent history of Russian
space missions, alarm bells should be ringing that the Service
Module will be reliable once delivered; (4) NASA overestimates
the effectiveness of cash infusions on the Russian space
program, in part due to ``deliberate blindness'' towards
evidence of corruption within the Russian aerospace industry;
(5) recent Russian attempts to extend the lifetime of Mir would
violate agreements between RSA and NASA and shatter RSA's
ability to support the International Space Station; (6) every
promised benefit from bringing Russia into the program has
collapsed; and (7) the rush to launch the first ISS element in
six weeks was an attempt to prevent proper independent
assessment of the situation.
4.1(z)--Road from Kyoto, Part IV: Kyoto Protocol's Impact on U.S.
Energy Markets and Economic Activity (Road from Kyoto, Parts I-IV)
October 9, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-76
Background
On October 9, 1998, the Committee on Science held the last
in a series of four separately published hearings entitled,
``Road from Kyoto, Part IV: The Kyoto Protocol's Impact on U.S.
Energy Markets and Economic Activity'' to examine the outcome
and implications of the climate change negotiations concluded
at the Third Session of the Conference of Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-3) held in Kyoto,
Japan from December 1-11, 1997. On December 11, COP-3 adopted
the Kyoto Protocol, which requires that the U.S. reduce its net
greenhouse (GHG) emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels. In
particular, this hearing examined the Protocol's impacts on
U.S. energy markets and economic activity.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Jay E. Hakes,
Administrator, Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy; Dr. W. David Montgomery, Vice President,
Charles River Associates, Inc.; and Howard Geller, Executive
Director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Hakes presented an analysis by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) that showed that the Kyoto Protocol would
likely have significant negative impacts on U.S. energy use,
prices and the economy in the 2008-2012 time frame. Dr.
Montgomery compared the EIA study, an earlier analysis by the
Administration, and a report by Charles River Associates on the
impacts of the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Geller testified that the
EIA's new study was seriously flawed and that promoting greater
energy efficiency and support for innovative energy
technologies could reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
4.2--subcommittee on basic research
4.2(a)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III (The National Science Foundation's Fiscal
Year 1998 Authorization, Part I)
March 5, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-10
Background
On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
the first in a series of three hearings, entitled, Fiscal Year
1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), Parts I-III,'' to receive testimony on the
Administration's fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request for the
National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF is a key supporter of
U.S. scientific strength by funding research and education
activities in all fields of science and engineering at more
than 2,000 colleges, universities and research institutions
throughout the United States. NSF provides approximately 25
percent of basic research funding at universities and over 50
percent of the federal funding for basic research in certain
fields of science, including math, computer sciences,
environmental sciences, and the social sciences. Moreover, NSF
plays an important role in pre-college and undergraduate
science and mathematics education through programs of model
curriculum development, teacher preparation and enhancement,
and informal science education.
Witnesses included: Dr. Richard Zare, Director, National
Science Board, and Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science
Foundation, accompanied by Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy
Director, National Science Foundation.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Zare's testimony focused on the research and education
activities supported by the NSF as well as the work of the
National Science Board (NSB) in developing the NSF budget for
FY 1998 and in achieving a better understanding of how federal
agency research programs fit into the broader national picture
of federal support for research. According to Dr. Zare, NSF's
FY 1998 budget will fund thousands of research projects and
efforts to improve the education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology. Dr. Zare highlighted a new NSF
initiative, Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI), which
seeks to improve the connection between research, teaching and
learning technologies. He noted that the NSF's investments in
the Next Generation Internet will be a part of the KDI package,
but added that although NSF will have an important role in the
development of the Next Generation Internet, NSF is looking
beyond that project. Dr. Zare also indicated the NSB's
intention to adopt revised criteria for proposal review,
reducing the number of criteria from four to two, for NSF
project selection. In addition, he announced that the revised
plan has been open for public comment from the scientific
community. The NSB, added Dr. Zare, will also be providing
oversight of NSF as it develops methods and processes to comply
with the Government Performance and Results Act. Dr. Zare
pointed out that aside from the oversight of NSF, the NSB has a
role in monitoring the health of science and engineering in the
U.S. and in providing advise on national policy in research and
education.
Dr. Lane stated that the $3.367 billion budget request for
the NSF in FY 1998 allows for investment in more than 19,000
science and engineering research and education projects and
emphasized the budget's compliance with the NSF Strategic Plan.
He emphasized the NSF's efforts to develop performance
measurements so that the next budget submission complies with
the Results Act. Dr. Lane indicated that numerous innovations,
from biotechnology to high-speed computational and
communications technologies, have roots in the fundamental
research and education supported through the NSF and other
agencies and are the key to productivity in a wide array of
industries and sectors. In addition, Dr. Lane pointed out that
the NSF's role in support of university-based research and
education, a vital link to the competitive position of U.S.
industry, is among the most productive of all public
investments. Responding to concerns over the recompetition and
planned reduction in the number of the NSF's supercomputing
centers, Dr. Lane indicated the NSF's goal for a seamless
transition for high-end users under the new plan and stated
that detailed information on the impact of the down-selection
would be available later. Dr. Lane highlighted priorities in
the FY 1998 request, including: a focused, multidisciplinary
$58 million program of activities in support of KDI research,
infrastructure development, and education; continued
development of the program for the study of life in extreme
environments; and support of innovative, systematic approaches
to education and training at all levels to address the
challenges of the changing scientific landscape facing students
of the 21st century. Further, Dr. Lane indicated the NSF's
understanding of the need for investment in research facilities
to support the activities of researchers and educators.
Addressing concerns of cost-overruns in the construction of new
NSF-funded facilities, Dr. Lane informed the Subcommittee that
the NSF is not only aware of the problem, but is actively
designing a plan to minimize cost-overruns.
4.2(b)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III (The National Science Foundation's Fiscal
Year 1998 Authorization (Part II): Math, Science, and Engineering
Education Programs)
March 13, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-10
Background
On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
the second in a series of three hearings entitled, ``Fiscal
Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III,'' to receive testimony on the
Administration's fiscal year (FY) 1998 budget request for the
National Science Foundation (NSF). Witnesses were asked to
assess the NSF's science, math, and engineering education
programs. In addition to examining the budget requests for
these programs, witnesses were also asked to address the
impacts and expectations of the initiatives.
Witnesses included: Mr. Richard P. Mills, Commissioner of
Education, New York State Department of Education, and
President of the University of the State of New York; Dr.
Edward A. Friedman, Director, Center for Improvement of
Engineering and Science Education, Stevens Institute of
Technology; Dr. Nathan S. Lewis, Professor of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology; and
Dr. Alfredo de los Santos, Jr., Vice Chancellor for Student and
Educational Development, Maricopa County Colleges.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Mills emphasized the importance of NSF education
initiatives, not only as a source of revenue, but also as a
strategic resource to improve the achievement level of New York
State's students. According to Mr. Mills, as result of NSF's
urging and the State's own needs, The New York State Systematic
Initiative (NYSSI), from its inception in 1993, has evolved
from an attempt to improve math, science, and technology
education in New York's challenging urban schools to become the
focus of the statewide effort to implement new learning
standards in math, science, and technology. He explained that
SSI is a philosophy of changes that help teachers develop
habits of planning and teaching that guide students to a deeper
understanding of concepts and an application of knowledge. Mr.
Mills pointed out that the NSF's $10 million investment has
been the driving force to bringing together the capacity to
meet these higher standards. He added that NSF has brought
vision and discipline to elementary and secondary education, an
insistence upon results, and a systematic approach that allows
students to engage in inquiry-based learning. However, Mr.
Mills indicated that in addition to NSF's contribution to the
establishment of higher standards, the curriculum, the teacher
training, and the links with higher education are factors
necessary for achieving better results in the education of the
nation's children.
Dr. Friedman expressed frustration that school systems
currently lag behind industry and higher education in
integrating information technology into the educational
process. He also indicated his concern that some schools are in
danger of moving ahead with hardware without the capability to
implement the technology into classroom learning. According to
Dr. Friedman, NSF should play a leadership role in transforming
schools into technological front runners by developing an
effective strategy and incorporating the technology into the
mainstream of NSF's various educational programs. He stressed a
need for the participation of practicing scientists in NSF
education programs as well as support for multidisciplinary
team efforts. As these programs develop, Dr. Friedman
emphasized that they will need mechanisms to facilitate timely,
wide-scale dissemination requiring coordination with
publishers, educational television producers, and state
departments of education. In addition, he indicated the
advantage of regional centers where teachers and school systems
can receive guidance and support for the integration of
technology. Dr. Friedman suggested NSF engage in the
implementation of an infrastructure that makes use of distance
learning technologies with on-site support from such regional
resource centers. He emphasized these training centers should
be pursued in parallel with curriculum development, teacher
enhancement, evaluation, and other programs which NSF supports.
Mr. Friedman added that although teachers and students in some
foreign countries, like Bulgaria, have superior training and
education in math and science, the U.S. leads the world in the
use of technology in the classroom. According to Mr. Friedman,
the U.S. has a real opportunity to expand its effectiveness in
math and science education by capitalizing on this resource.
Dr. Lewis commended NSF for allowing Caltech to establish a
national model for a coordinated, institution-wide effort to
incorporate multimedia materials into the routine course
experiences of the science and engineering student. His
testimony focused on the new NSF-supported Teaching and
InterDisciplinary Education program (TIDE) at Caltech which was
designed to foster institute-wide development of multi-media
educational tools involving the combined teaching skills and
technical backgrounds of undergraduate students and Caltech
faculty. Although the program was primarily designed to enhance
the educational experience of Caltech students, according to
Dr. Lewis, the project is now involved in expanding the effort
to make the new media and technology widely available for many
science and technology disciplines in order to educate the
broadest cross section of students at different educational
levels. Dr. Lewis cited the Caltech Chemistry Animation
Project, one example of an effective teaching resource
developed at Caltech, which is used in six countries by over
half a million students to help teach chemistry to students and
teachers. In addition to its support of education programs at
Caltech, Dr. Lewis commended NSF for not putting all of its
eggs into one basket and allowing for experimental technology
integration programs at all educational levels. He added that
networking among teachers is the highest leverage that the U.S.
has to improve its entire educational system and advocated a
teacher training center at which educators from the K-12 and
community college level can share experimental ideas and
results.
Dr. de los Santos noted that increasingly, as adults must
return to school to obtain new skills and upgrade old ones, the
task of providing that education falls upon undergraduate
institutions, especially community colleges. He explained that
NSF, through their Division of Undergraduate Education,
supports institutes, laboratories, and curriculum development
projects that are having a substantial effect on the ability of
community colleges to provide the high level of education and
training necessary for a technology-based society. According to
Dr. de los Santos, one of Division's programs, the Advanced
Technology Education (ATE) program, is a unique partnership
designed for associate degree-granting institutions to promote
improvement in advanced technological education through the
support of curriculum development and program improvement, and
by targeting technicians being educated for employment that
requires the use of advanced technologies. He explained that
the ATE program's success can be measured in several ways: It
produces new ways to train and educate the workforce; it brings
business and education together in new and productive ways;
and, it stimulates innovation among those competing for the
grants. Dr. de los Santos added that ATE's greatest strength is
the very close partnerships between industry and educational
institutions it fosters, and he indicated that companies such
as Motorola and Intel are contributing equipment, software and
scholarships. He praised NSF for fostering a fundamental change
in the relationships between community colleges and business
and industry.
4.2(c)--Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization of the United States Fire
Administration (USFA)
March 18, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-14
Background
On March 18, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
a hearing entitled, ``The Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization of the
United States Fire Administration (USFA),'' to receive
testimony on the Administration's FY 1998 budget request for
the programs of the USFA and the National Fire Academy (NFA).
In addition, the Subcommittee questioned witnesses about the
effects of the repeal of the reporting requirements in the
Hotel-Motel Fire Safety Act (P.L. 101-391) that occurred in the
FY 1997 Department of Defense authorization (P.L. 104-206).
In 1974, Congress created the USFA and the Fire Academy in
response to the dismal assessment of the nation's fire problem
presented in a report by the President's National Commission on
Fire Prevention and Control, entitled ``America Burning.'' The
USFA, which is housed in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) building, is currently charged with helping to
prevent and control fire-related losses. The USFA also
administers the National Fire Academy which provides
management-level training and education to fire and emergency
service personnel in fire protection and control activities.
The Fire Academy, located in Emmitsburg, MD, trains tens of
thousands of fire and emergency personnel a year through its
on- and off-campus programs.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Carrye Brown,
Administrator, United States Fire Administration (USFA),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Mr. Steve Robinson,
Executive Director, National Fallen Firefighters Foundation;
Mr. Tracy Boatwright, State Fire Marshal of Indiana, and
Chairman, National Association of State Fire Marshals; and, Mr.
Kenneth Newton, Director, National Volunteer Fire Council,
Fireman's Association of New York.
Summary of hearing
Administrator Brown stated the USFA's mission is to reduce
the nation's loss of life and property due to fire by focusing
on data collection and analysis, public education and
awareness, technology and research, and fire service training.
She commended Members of the Subcommittee for their continued
support of the most visible program of the USFA: the state-of-
the-art leadership and management training at the National Fire
Academy in Emmitsburg, MD. Administrator Brown stated that
83,000 members of the fire and emergency communities received
training by the National Fire Academy through all of its
programs in 1996, and announced the USFA's goal to triple the
number of trained firefighters within five years through the
use of distance education programs. According to Mrs. Brown,
self-study courses on CD ROM, interactive Internet, satellite
transmitting courses, and other technologies will be utilized
by the Fire Academy, in partnership with state and local
training academies, to allow greater flexibility in when, where
and how firefighters can receive training. Administrator
Browner added that the USFA-sponsored a counter-terrorism
training needs assessment symposium featuring a panel of
domestic and international terrorism experts who developed a
plan for training courses aimed to prepare personnel to
mitigate and respond to the consequences of terrorism. In
addition, she announced that the President's National Arson
Prevention Initiative, headed by FEMA Director James Lee Witt,
will be merged into the USFA's program to provide public
education and promote public-private partnerships.
Administrator Brown addressed the impact of the changes to
the Hotel/Motel Fire Safety Act and assured the Subcommittee
that while the USFA will continue to collect and publish the
master list of hotels that comply with the 1992 Act, the Fire
Administration will also work in partnership with stakeholders
to improve the Act's implementation or augment the compliance
section of the Act.
In response to questions on the implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act, Ms. Brown stated that
the mission of the USFA is very much performance-based and
reported that results from the agency's self-assessment have
been translated into priorities for the next two years:
mitigation and prevention programs; stronger partnerships with
the private and public sector; and, marketing prevention and
mitigation efforts to individuals, communities and businesses.
Mr. Robinson discussed the National Fallen Firefighters
Foundation's efforts to follow the priorities set forth by
Congress in 1992, including sponsorship of the annual National
Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emmitsburg, Maryland;
necessary expansion of the memorial site; promotion of state
and local efforts to recognize firefighters who die in the line
of duty; support of families of firefighters so that they may
attend the national tribute; and establishment of programs to
assist families of fallen firefighters with a family support
network and scholarships for education and job training. He
reported that through private donations, the Foundation has
paid for a substantial amount of the costs associated with the
annual memorial service in Emmitsburg, Maryland. In addition,
Mr. Robinson announced that the Foundation will soon assume
responsibility for the direction, planning, and management of
the annual memorial service in cooperation with the U.S. Fire
Administration. He also highlighted the Foundation's plans to
work in partnership with government agencies and fire
organizations to make information on federal, state, and local
benefits available to all fire emergency service departments.
Mr. Boatwright explained that the National Association of
State Fire Marshals (NASFM) has established a partnership with
the USFA at the state and local levels to assist firefighters
and other emergency personnel in preparing to respond to fires
as effectively, efficiently and safely as possible. Mr.
Boatwright highlighted four important functions of the USFA:
collecting and analyzing national data on fires to establish
fire prevention and protection priorities; training by the
National Fire Academy which provides key management and
professional skills which are crucial supplements to local
training academies of the NASFM; public fire safety education
aimed at reaching populations most at risk; and technical
guidance and support for innovative work in areas from arson
prevention and investigation to data analysis and research into
the causes of arson. He indicated that a critical part of the
technical guidance and support from USFA is the fire research
performed by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
However, Mr. Boatwright pointed out the NASFM's difficulty in
working with NIST. He expressed concern that the NIST
laboratory's priorities are targeted more toward serving
industry than firefighters, leaving firefighter research needs
unanswered. Mr. Boatwright recommended that the fire research
facilities remain at NIST, but suggested that the USFA be given
the authorization for those activities as well as the
accountability for ensuring that the research agenda is
responsive to the needs of the emergency responders entrusted
to protect the lives and property of citizens.
Mr. Newton stated that the National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC) represents the interests of the nation's 800,000
volunteer fire and emergency personnel who generally have full-
time professions in addition to donating their time and
expertise for the safety of their communities. He pointed out
that as more urban dwellers move to suburban and rural areas
they will create an increased demand on the volunteer fire
service. However, in spite of this trend, Mr. Newton reported
that the ranks of volunteer fire service membership are
dwindling at a rate of two to three percent each year. In order
for the Nation's shrinking volunteer fire service to provide
adequate protection for an increasing population, he indicated
that programs of the USFA and the NFA have become increasingly
important to provide education and training to fire and rescue
personnel throughout the United States. According to Mr.
Newton, the most visible and direct benefit that the USFA
provides to the volunteer fire service is the hosting of the
Volunteer Incentive Program at the Academy which compresses two
weeks' worth of courses into an intense six-day session. In
addition to the extensive training and educational programs, he
stated that the USFA provides assistance to the NVFC in the
form of cooperative agreements that provide the resources
necessary to support local training and education programs. He
commended the Academy's outreach program for allowing
volunteers to remain in their communities for training without
incurring travel expenses. Mr. Newton highlighted that as
partners in the President's National Arson Prevention Program,
the USFA and the NVFC conducted a workshop designed to give
emergency responders the skills they need to combat arson in
their communities.
4.2(d)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Parts I-III (The National Science Foundation Fiscal
Year (FY) 1998 Authorization, Part III)
April 9, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-10
Background
On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
the last in a series of three hearings entitled, Fiscal Year
1998 Budget Authorization for the National Science Foundation
(NSF), Parts I-III,'' to receive testimony on the National
Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 1998 authorization.
Witnesses testified on the results of the National Science
Board's Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure
(PACI) program as well as the new proposed facilities within
the Major Research Equipment (MRE) Account of the NSF budget
and the Internet II/Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative.
Witnesses included: Dr. Richard Zare, Chairman, National
Science Foundation; Dr. Neal Lane, Director, National Science
Foundation; Dr. Paul Young, Senior Advisor, Computer and
Information Science and Engineering (CISE), National Science
Foundation; and Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Member of the Executive
Committee, National Science Board. Testimony on programs within
the MRE Account and the Internet II/Next Generation Internet
(NGI) initiative was received from Dr. Graham B. Spanier,
President, Penn State University; Dr. Michael Kelley,
Professor, School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell
University; and Dr. Paul A. Vanden Bout, Director, National
Radio Astronomy Observatory.
Summary of hearing
Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure
(PACI) Program
Dr. Zare announced the National Science Board's (NSB)
approval for selection of two awardees for the PACI program and
the phase out awards for two existing supercomputer centers.
Dr. Zare emphasized that the rapidly shifting world of computer
science and engineering has forced the Board to make difficult
choices to curtail support for good projects and initiate
support for others with promise to produce better results.
According to Dr. Zare, this is why the NSB requested that the
NSF develop a plan for supercomputing designed to take
advantage of the newly distributed environment in information
science and technology. He indicated that the new PACI program
is made possible by breakthroughs in high-speed networking and
advance computer architecture and is consistent with the
Board's vision of the future in information science and
technology. According to Dr. Zare, the program will keep the
U.S. ahead in all fields of science and engineering while also
pushing the technological advances that will fuel economic
growth. Dr. Zare stated that the program will also allow
students and scientists at all levels to enjoy a vast resource
for education and training through the multitude of new
participating PACI institutions. He emphasized that innovative
partnerships, which increase the opportunities for more people
to use these resources and push the frontiers of knowledge, are
the core of the PACI program.
Dr. Lane stated that NSF's PACI program goes well beyond
the current paradigm of supercomputing centers and was
carefully designed to build the infrastructure needed for both
education and training of future generations of world leaders
in science and technology. He stated that after ten years of
the successful Supercomputer Centers Program, the NSB asked
whether NSF should continue support for the current program or
phase out the existing program to make room for a new one. To
answer that question, Dr. Lane appointed the Hayes Task Force,
comprised of high performance computing experts from academia,
industry and government. It presented a vision of the future of
supercomputing and proposed that NSF announce a new competition
for a restructured High Performance Computing Centers program
that would permit funding of selected sites for a period of
five years. Dr. Lane stated the two major changes to the
existing program recommended by the task force: (1) support of
national ``leading-edge sites'' with a balanced set of high-end
hardware and software capabilities, coupled with appropriate
staff; and (2) partnering of each leading-edge site with
experimental facilities at universities, NSE research centers,
and/or national and regional high performance computing
centers. According to Dr. Lane, the task force also urged that
the new PACI program support the needs of the national
computational science community through leading edge sites and
their partners, rather than through independent basic research.
He highlighted the report's recommendation that the
computational capability of the leading edge centers should be
one or two orders of magnitude beyond what is available at
leading research universities. According to Dr. Lane, it was
clear that a reduction in the number of sites would likely be
necessary to achieve such economies of operation and to
maintain the very high end capability.
Dr. Young stated that the new PACI program is an important
element in the Foundation's future infrastructure for the
support of academic science and engineering, research and
education. He announced that the selection of the National
Computational Science Alliance (NCSA), led by the University of
Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, and the National Partnership for
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (NPACI), led by the
University of California, San Diego, represents the formal
beginning of the new PACI Program. Dr. Young indicated that the
Hayes Task Force felt that two major technological factors
called for a change in the structure of the Centers Program:
the increasing dominance of scaleable parallel computers, with
their promise of highly cost-effective computing power, and,
the expected growth and ubiquity of high speed networks.
According to Dr. Young, breakthrough technologies and
intellectual challenges led the Task Force to recommend a new
program based on extensive partnerships and on selection
through a rigorous open competition for the best ideas and
minds. He emphasized that the panel's decision was unanimous
that two of the organizations had met the requirements in the
program solicitation. The two successful proposals were highly
complementary, forming together a balanced national program
involving some of the best minds and the finest institutions in
the country. Dr. Young also stated that the Board approved
funds to phase out NSF's support for the current NSF
Supercomputer Centers at Pittsburgh and Cornell, convinced that
after a transition period, the new program would fully pick up
the load and that the new directions were the best way to
insure that computation would continue to flourish in the
coming environment.
Dr. Malcom provided insight into the processes and workings
of the National Science Board in considering the proposals
including those presented during the recompetition of the NSF
Supercomputer Centers. She stated that in May 1994, the Board
delegated to the Director the authority to approve awards up to
$3 million in one year and $15 million over five years. Dr.
Malcom indicated that the NSB reviews and acts directly on the
proposals above that threshold. She stated that the NSF staff
process includes reviews at higher management levels,
including, for packages that come to the NSB, a review by the
Director's Review Board (DRB). Once packages are approved by
the DRB, they come to the Board and are assigned to one of our
committees for in-depth consideration, then presented to the
Board for action. According to Dr. Malcom, the NSF staff
provided a presentation to the Board on the supercomputer
centers' proposal packages, after which a lead reviewer and a
secondary reviewer provided detailed reviews, commented on
issues for which more information was needed, and made comments
as to the fairness of the procedures and the appropriateness of
the recommendations from staff. She emphasized that the Board's
discussion of the proposals considered issues such as assurance
that a diverse set of computer architectures were used by the
partnerships, the management of large, far flung partnerships,
the effects of budget reductions on the overall coherence of
the proposed projects, and the transition process to the new
program and its impact on the user community. Dr. Malcom
assured the Subcommittee that the Board asked hard questions,
reviewed reports from the merit review process and assured
themselves that the review process was thorough, fair and
consistent with NSF's high standards.
Major research equipment (MRE) account programs and the
Internet II initiative
Dr. Spanier explained that in order to continue the rapid
growth of the Internet, investment in both basic and applied
research in networking will be necessary to meet the expanding
information and communication needs of the 21st Century. He
emphasized that the ``one size fits all'' Internet currently
used must be overhauled to support a greater variety of uses
and that there must also be an organized process through which
discoveries at the basic research level are moved into the
applied development phase and then transitioned into routine
commercial use. Dr. Spanier explained that the Internet II will
address the major challenges facing the next generation of
university networks by: creating and sustaining a leading edge
network capability for the national research community;
directing network development efforts to enable a new
generation of applications to exploit fully the capabilities of
broadband networks; and, integrating the work of Internet II
with ongoing efforts to improve production Internet services
for all members of the academic community. According to Dr.
Spanier, the President's Next Generation Internet (NGI)
Initiative's goals are compatible to those of the Internet II;
with the joint goal of ensuring that a developmental high
performance network is available to the academic and research
community at the earliest opportunity. However, he noted that
like all partnerships, there are areas of NGI and Internet II
that reflect the specific needs of the government and of the
universities that will be conducted separately. Finally, Dr.
Spanier recommended that the High Performance Connections (HPC)
element of the NSF's Very High Performance Backbone Network
System (vBNS) be used as the means to fulfill the federal role
in implementing the first goal of the NGI program.
Dr. Kelley announced that the proposed Polar Cap
Observatory (PCO) will be the next evolutionary step in an
existing chain of facilities sponsored by NSF. He indicated the
Foundation's support of four existing stations: one at the
magnetic equator near Lima, Peru (operated by Cornell
University), the second near Arecibo, Puerto Rico (also
operated by Cornell University), another near Boston,
Massachusetts (operated by MIT) and the fourth station located
in southern Greenland (operated by SRI International).
According to Dr. Kelly, the need for the completion of this
chain with an upper atmospheric observatory near the magnetic
North Pole has become clear as scientists have realized the
importance of the polar cap. He explained that the capstone
instrument at each site is a high power radar, capable of
measuring temperature, densities and wind velocity from the top
of the atmosphere to thousands of kilometers into space. Dr.
Kelley added the PCO will be able to measure the electronic
field that originates from solar wind which interacts with the
Earth's magnetic field and penetrates downward into the Earth's
upper atmosphere sometimes causing disruptions in
communications and satellite transmissions. He emphasized that
space weather can also destroy satellites, damage electrical
power grids and present a health hazard to astronauts. Dr.
Kelley indicated that the PCO will be a major contributor to
understanding space weather and assist in making timely and
accurate space environment forecasts in order to prevent damage
from powerful space storms.
Dr. Vanden Bout stated that the Millimeter Array (MMA) will
provide images of astronomical objects as they appear at
millimeter wavelengths which exceed the quality of those at
optical and infrared wavelengths taken with the Hubble Space
Telescope. He highlighted the MMA's capability to provide an
unprecedented view of the origins of galaxies, stars and
planets. According to Dr. Vanden Bout, the MMA has had an
extensive planning history, during which the community
developed the concept in response to scientific requirements.
He emphasized that no aperture syntheses telescope on the scale
of the Millimeter Array has ever been built at millimeter
wavelengths, and for that reason, two stages were proposed: a
development phase and a construction phase. He explained that
during the development phase, the antenna, key electronic and
software systems will all be designed and prototyped. Dr.
Vanden Bout stated that the goals of the development phase are
working prototypes, architectures of software systems, firm
cost estimates, schedule and a site, and established
arrangements with partners. He added that a number of
interested foreign partners for the endeavor are being pursued
including Chile, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain and Mexico. In
addition, he indicated that a series of workshops have been
conducted to forge a possible cooperation between the MMA and a
project proposed by Japanese radio astronomers.
4.2(e)--National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
April 24, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-15
Background
On April 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
a hearing entitled, ``1998 Budget Request for the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,'' to receive testimony on
the National Earthquake Hazards and Reduction Program (NEHRP).
The hearing examined the Administration's FY98 budget request
for NEHRP as well as issues related to a multi-year
reauthorization of the program. The NEHRP program was created
in 1977. Since its inception, NEHRP has focused on earthquake
research (physical, seismic, structural, and social) as well as
earthquake hazards mitigation. NEHRP activities in research and
mitigation are executed by four separate federal agencies: The
National Science Foundation (NSF); the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST); the United States Geological
Survey (USGS); and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
Witnesses included: Mr. Richard W. Krimm, Executive
Associate Director and Mitigation Directorate, FEMA; Dr. P.
Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, USGS; Dr. Elbert L. Marsh,
Acting Assistant Director of Engineering, NSF; Dr. Robert
Hebner, Acting Director, NIST; Dr. David Simpson, President,
the IRIS Corporation; Dr. Kerry Sieh, Professor of Geology,
Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology;
Dr. Joanne Nigg, President, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI); Dr. Daniel P. Abrams, the NEHRP Coalition;
and Dr. George Lee, Director, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (NCEER), SUNY Buffalo.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Krimm testified that FEMA is continuing its support of
earthquake risk reduction activities through individual state
and multi-state organizations. He noted that FEMA provides $5.4
million, approximately one-third of its earthquake program
budget, as grants or technical assistance to 38 participating
states and three multi-state consortiums. He stated that the
budget represents a funding decrease for the mitigation
activities within FEMA because there had previously been some
earmarks in its budget from Congress for the Portland Metro
System and for the University Nevada Shake Table. Additional
funding for those issues were not requested because they were
add-ons by Congress.
Dr. Leahy introduced a new USGS hazard information map for
the contiguous United States that depicts how the shaking
hazard varies across the country. He stated that federal
agencies use the maps to set construction standards for
critical facilities, and to allocate assistance funds to states
for earthquake education and preparedness. Dr. Leahy noted that
USGS develops partnerships that leverage scarce resources and
link researchers to the practitioners. He said that these
partnerships expedite the application of research results to
loss reduction practices. He also expressed frustration with
the $2 million decrease in the External Grants Program from FY
95 to FY 97 ($8 million to $6 million) which has decreased that
amount of work being conducted with the external community.
Dr. Marsh testified that NSF remains the most important
source of government funding for fundamental research in
earthquake engineering, and for the investigation of the
socioeconomic aspects of earthquake hazards. Dr. Marsh said
that due to the success of the Southern California Earthquake
Center and the National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER) as well as a recommendation from the
earthquake hazard reduction research community, NSF initiated a
new competition for earthquake engineering research centers. He
said that up to three such centers will be funded this fiscal
year for a period of five years. Dr. Marsh also stated that NSF
remains committed to the integration of research and education
and to the wide dissemination of research results.
Dr. Hebner emphasized the important role that standards
play in earthquake hazards reduction. He noted that NIST
conducts problem-focused research and development needed to
link the research to particular standards and practices for
buildings and lifelines. He testified that industry
participation and partnerships have been very rewarding.
Dr. Simpson praised NEHRP for its success which has
impacted the course of research in seismology, engineering, and
disaster planning, but stated that within the current funding
levels of NEHRP, they cannot accomplish the work that needs to
be done to reach the significant and attainable goals of the
program. He noted that after the Kobe earthquake, Japan
realized that its earthquake mitigation program, already
superior in many ways to the U.S. program, was in serious need
of improvement. He suggested that if we heed the warnings given
by recent earthquakes we should be investing in hazard
mitigation research and implementation at several times the
current rate. Dr. Simpson testified that a major upgrade is
required of U.S. facilities for earthquake monitoring and the
analysis, distribution and archiving of data. He stated that
such an upgrade should emphasize the collection of broadband
and strong motion seismic data and geodetic data within a
coordinated, standardized system for data collection, analysis
and distribution.
Dr. Sieh stated that the health of NEHRP is critically
dependent on the following activities: (1) the engineers'
ability to design safe buildings; (2) FEMA's ability to
rationally assess hazards and encourage mitigation efforts; and
(3) the private insurers' ability to establish premiums indexed
to the real level of risk. He testified that the results of
scientific research from the NEHRP program have had tremendous
downstream consequences in terms of mitigation expenditures
before an earthquake occurs.
Dr. Nigg testified that in order to affect escalating
earthquake disaster losses, substantial research efforts need
to be undertaken in three principal areas including: (1)
retrofiting existing building stock; (2) develop methodologies
for assessing community vulnerability; and (3) knowledge
transfer. She said that to increase the pace of implementing
earthquake risk reduction measures, there must be a balance
with research efforts among the earth sciences, engineering,
and the social sciences. Dr. Nigg noted that despite these
accomplishments, the losses in major recent earthquake
disasters continue to exceed the social and economic costs
created by other types of disaster events.
Dr. Abrams stated that continuing improvements in our
earthquake methods will result in significantly increased
earthquake safety as new and replacement structures and
infrastructure systems are built. He said achieving the
national goals of reducing earthquake risk to an acceptable
level, and creating a built-environment that is safe when
subjected to earthquakes, requires a continuing long-term
commitment of resources which is particularly important in
terms of upgrading existing test facilities because of the
capital investments required.
Dr. Lee called for the need for more closely coordinated
work among the NEHRP agencies, and stressed the importance of
collaboration with those non-NEHRP agencies which have concerns
about earthquake issues. He said that while we continue to work
towards reliable mitigation solutions for the future, it is
important to examine critically the practices of the past. Such
an effort, says Dr. Lee, will inevitably require state-of-the-
art research and state-of-the-art facilities. In this regard,
Dr. Lee encourages the continued support and the improvement of
the nation's experimental research program and laboratory
facilities. He stated that NSF has recognized this need and
undertaken a major effort to develop an action plan to upgrade
and modernize a network of national earthquake engineering
experimental facilities.
4.2(f)--Internet Domain Names, Parts I and II (Internet Domain Names,
Part I)
September 25, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-59
Background
On September 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held the first of two hearings entitled, ``Internet Domain
Names, Parts I and II.'' The purpose of this hearing was to
review the history and current status of the domain name
system, the relationship between the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and Network Solutions Incorporated (NSI),
NSF's role in the transition of the domain name system to
private sector control at the termination of the cooperative
agreement with NSI in 1998, alternative proposals on the
process for the DNS transition to the private sector, and role
of the Federal Government in the future of the Domain Name
System.
Witnesses include: Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy
Director, National Science Foundation; The Honorable Larry
Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information,
U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Jonathan Postel, Director,
Computer Networks Division; and Mr. Gabriel Battista, Chief
Executive Office, Network Solutions Incorporated.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Bordogna stated that the Internet is now the domain of
the venture capitalist, not the adventurous academic. He
testified that while NSF has determined that their oversight of
the Internet should be concluded, they are committed to helping
find solutions to the Internet's ``growing pains,'' by ensuring
that the Internet retain stability, is self supporting and
maintains American leadership.
Mr. Irving testified that the Clinton Administration
supports the continued privatization and commercialization of
the Internet and is committed to completing the transition to
private sector governance. They realize, however, that the
transition must be accomplished in a way that enhances the
stability of the Internet and ensures its continued smooth
operation.
Dr. Postel noted that although the agencies of the Federal
Government have supported the development of the Internet, it
is important to recognize at the outset that this Internet
Community was never brought under the control of any single
government or other organization. He stated that competition in
and expansion of the domain name registration system should be
encouraged. He said that conflicting domains, systems, and
registries should not be permitted to jeopardize the operation
of the Internet. He also said that competition should involve
not only the original choice of registrar, but also the
continuing use of a registrar.
Mr. Battista stated that NSI feels very strongly that there
is an appropriate and necessary role for the United States
Government in sponsoring a period of managed transition. He
also suggested that the administrative functions of the
Internet need to be managed by a body anchored in a legal
authority that can assure the stability of the Internet,
oversee policy regulations and reflect the concerns of a global
community of users.
4.2(g)--Internet Domain Names, Parts I and II (Internet Domain Names,
Part II)
September 30, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-59
Background
On September 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held the second of a two-part series of hearings, entitled
``Internet Domain Names, Parts I and II.'' The first hearing
was held on September 25, 1997. The purpose of this hearing was
the review the history and current status of Domain Name
Systems, the relationship between the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and Network Solutions Incorporated (NSI),
NSF's role in the transition of the Domain Name System to
private sector control at the termination of the cooperative
agreement with NSI in 1998, alternative proposals on the
process for the DNS transition to the private sector and the
role of the Federal Government in the future of the Domain Name
System.
Witnesses included: Mr. Donald M. Heath, President and CEO,
Internet Society; Mr. Anthony M. Rutkowski, Director, World
Internet Alliance; Mr. Andy Sernovitz, President, Association
for Interactive Media; Ms. Barbara A. Dooley, Executive
Director, Commercial Internet Exchange.
Summary of hearing
Donald Heath, President and CEO of the Internet Society,
opened his testimony by describing ISOC's involvement in the
creation of the International Ad Hoc Committee, known as the
IAHC. The IAHC was created to define, investigate and resolve
issues resulting from international debate over a proposal to
establish global registries and additional generic Top Level
Domains (gTLDs). Mr. Heath explained that registrations of
domain names were once free. In 1995, Network Solutions Inc.,
was authorized to charge fees for registrations. According to
Mr. Heath, the Internet community was outraged. A proposal to
break what many see as NSI's monopoly on registration was
produced and debated internationally. Under this proposal there
would be an unlimited number of domain name registrars, the
registrars would form a Council of Internet Registrars (CORE)
which would operate under a Memorandum of Understanding and
would be overseen by a Policy Oversight Committee (POC) made up
of individuals from the Internet community. Under this proposal
a limited number of new gTLDs would be created, all shared
among the registrants with CORE acting as the central data
repository for the system. This would assure a level of
competition among registrants. However, the fact that at this
time the U.S. Government's policy on this issue is still
unclear has made a number of would-be registrants hesitant to
get involved. Mr. Heath concluded his statement by saying that
the U.S. Government would help build confidence in this process
by endorsing the CORE proposal. He stated that this proposal
could be tested and implemented before the NSI agreement
expires and that the proposal, written by Internet
professionals, is a sound plan under which the Internet could
continue to flourish. He concluded by stating that the U.S.
Government should state its policy quickly and clearly, so that
this process may continue.
Anthony Rutkowski from the World Internet Working Alliance
opened his testimony by stating that the Internet's Domain Name
System is fairly simple. Namely it is basically a pyramid of
service franchises. The main issues concerning the DN, in turn,
are issues that deal with public models, antitrust and
governance. This hasn't been a problem because the government
was basically the one running the system. He argued that one of
the main flaws of the CORE proposal was that the plan was being
circulated under the auspices of the ITU. A second problem was
that the plan did not have the support of the main contractor,
the U.S. Government, and in fact, the proposal was strongly
opposed by the U.S Secretary of State. He also described CORE
as a Swiss-based cartel that has no external accountability.
This is why, he argued, so few company's and countries have
endorsed the CORE plan. Mr. Rutkowski argued the NSIUS
agreement should be extended to give the U.S. Government more
time to make sure that its policy is proper. He suggested that
the U.S. Government establish a private-sector driven
initiative to transfer the DNS, and stated that the U.S. has an
important role to ensure that no group or nation can unduly
assert its influence in this area.
Mr. Andrew Sernovitz from the Association for Interactive
Media opened his testimony by stating that the primary concern
of the entrepreneurs who have invested billions of dollars into
this system is the continuous stability of the Internet.
Secondly, he stated that the U.S. Government should stop the
CORE initiative because it is a threat to the stability of the
Internet. He argued that the CORE plan gives too much power to
Dr. Jon Postel and other CORE-affiliated individuals. Mr.
Sernovitz was concerned that Dr. Postel, the Director of the
IANA, which is a contractor of the U.S. Government, has been
participating in this process. He also stated that he had
concerns about the people that IANA and the CORE group has
associated themselves with; specifically, individuals who may
have done work with the Libyans and the Iraqis. In conclusion,
he stated IANA and CORE are attempting to take over the Domain
Name System. He called on the Committee to investigate these
activities.
Ms. Barbara Dooley, the President of the Commercial
Internet Exchange Association, opened her testimony by
explaining the role played by Internet Service Providers (ISP)
in registering domain names on the Internet. She stated that
ISP are primarily concerned about the stability of the Internet
and that many are concerned that the software needed to run a
shared registry system as outlined in the CORE proposal does
not yet exist. She also stated that the private sector must
take the lead in the process of transferring the DNS to the
private sector. She concluded her testimony by stating that one
of the goals of that process should be the institutionalizing
of IANA.
4.2(h)--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II (Domain Name Systems: Where
Do We Go From Here?)
March 31, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-78
Background
On March 31, 1998 the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
the first of two joint hearings with the Subcommittee on
Technology entitled, ``Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II.''
The focus of this hearing was an examination of the Clinton
Administration's ``Green Paper'' proposal concerning the
transition of the Internet's DNS system to private sector
control.
Today's Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. Government
investment in packet-switching technology and communications
networks carried out under agreements with the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF). As a legacy, major components of the
Internet's Domain Name System are still performed by or subject
to agreements with agencies of the U.S. government. Due to the
explosive commercial growth of the Internet, a consensus has
emerged that further government involvement with the day-to-day
operations of the Internet is inappropriate and that the DNS
should be transferred to the private sector. Adding urgency to
this situation is the fact that the two major government
agreements that are critical to the Internet are near
expiration. This hearing concerned the Administration's ``Green
Paper'' proposal to transfer the DNS to the private sector.
Witnesses included: Mr. Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to
the President for Policy Development, Department of Commerce;
Mr. Jim Courter, President, IDT Corporation and Spokesman for
the Internet Council of Registrars (CORE); Ms. Barbara Dooley,
Executive Director, Commercial Internet Exchange Association;
Dr. Robert E. Kahn, President and CEO, Corporation for National
Research Initiatives; and Professor David Farber, The Alfred
Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems, Director,
Distributed Computer Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President, opened his
testimony by stating that the Administration's proposal, known
as the Green Paper, is still a work in progress and is not a
final statement of official policy of the Administration or of
the Commerce Department. He described the Green Paper as a
``discussion draft'' that can be modified to address concerns
raised during the public comment period. Mr. Magaziner
described the goal of the Green Paper process as an attempt to
transfer the DNS to the private sector in a way that: (1)
ensures the stability of the Internet; (2) allows for market
mechanisms where appropriate; and (3) allows for private-
sector-led, bottom-up management of the Internet's DNS. He
stated that the Green Paper has already taken into account many
of the concerns raised in public comments about the transfer of
the DNS and also stated that the Administration would continue
to work with interested parties to generate a consensus. Mr.
Magaziner stated, however, that due to the nature of the
Internet, achieving 100 percent consensus will be extremely
difficult. He concluded his testimony by restating that the
goal of the Green Paper was to establish a new private sector
entity to manage the DNS and to do so in a timely fashion. By
moving to a private, more competitive, more international
organization the Internet will be improved.
Mr. Courter opened his testimony by stating that, in his
opinion, the Green Paper is a step backwards rather than a step
forward. He argued that the proposal written by the Internet
Council of Registrars (CORE) allows for open competition within
the DNS while the Green Paper does not. He argued that the
Green Paper's establishment of five new gTLD's, each managed by
an individual entity, in effect would create five new
monopolies. According to Mr. Courter, the CORE proposal favors
non-profit registries, while the Green Paper favors for-profit
registries. CORE supports a single dispute resolution process,
the Green Paper does not. Mr. Courter closed his testimony by
arguing that the Green Paper is anti-competitive, and by
comparing the Green Paper's proposed system to a phone system
in which if you wanted to change your telephone company, you
would have to change your phone-number as well. Mr. Courter
argued that the CORE proposal, which was written by a group of
Internet stakeholders, is a better proposal than one written by
government bureaucrats.
Ms. Dooley of the Commercial Internet Exchange Association
opened her testimony by stating that, on the whole, the Green
Paper is a fair, reasonable, practical and well-conceived
proposal. However, many details still need to be worked out.
She outlined her concerns with the Green Paper as follows: (1)
commercial users and service providers would be
underrepresented on the corporation's board of directors; (2)
should there be a need for an increase in gTLDs, the new
corporation must have a single, open, transparent and
accountable set of standards and processes for adding new
gTLDs; (3) the U.S. country code top level domain needs to be
reformed; (4) the root server must become professionally
managed; and (5) the transition team must have an international
participation and adequate resources. Lastly, Ms. Dooley warned
against allowing the Internet to be ``captured'' by one special
interest group. The strength of the Internet, according to Ms.
Dooley, has been its flexibility, diversity and grassroots
organization. Ms. Dooley closed her testimony by arguing that
the Internet would suffer if it lost these qualities.
Dr. Robert Khan from the Center for National Research
Initiatives opened his testimony by pointing out that the
Internet was not an overnight success and is not now in any
crisis. According to Dr. Kahn, the U.S. Government and Internet
activists should take as much time is necessary to do what is
right. He stated that in addition to ensuring the stability of
the Internet, the government must also ensure the integrity of
IP addresses, openness in the standards setting process and
competition among service providers. A community commitment to
the overall management of the Internet's infrastructure is also
required. Importantly, Dr. Kahn pointed out that the DNS is
merely the first addressing system used by the Internet. Over
the coming years, many new addressing technologies will emerge.
In transferring the DNS to the private sector, the government
and the Internet community must make sure that they do not lock
out future Internet addressing technologies. Dr. Kahn closed
his remarks by stating that the IP functions and the DNS
functions must be kept separate to ensure that the DNS
addressing technology does not become bureaucratically locked
into the Internet to the exclusion of newer technologies.
Lastly, he restated his opinion that the integrity of the IP
numbering system and the need for openness in the standards
setting process are critical to the success of the Internet.
Dr. David Farber of the University of Pennsylvania opened
his testimony by stating that the Internet no longer only
connects computers, but now connects people and cultures. As a
result, any attempt by one country to control the Internet will
be frowned upon internationally. Dr. Farber's testimony focused
on some of the social issues that need to be addressed. Dr.
Farber stated that the U.S. Government needs to address the
fears of non-American Internet users and needs to ensure that
representation on the new corporation's board of directors must
be international. In addition, the new corporation must ensure
basic human rights such as freedom of expression, free
association, due process, and nondiscriminatory administration.
He stated that the Internet is a public good and should not be
used exclusively for private gain, but rather should be managed
for the public benefit.
4.2(i)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Authorization Request: National Science
Foundation
April 22, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-54
Background
On April 22, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Authorization
Request: National Science Foundation.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to review the National Science Foundation's budget
request for Fiscal Year 1999. The Subcommittee heard testimony
from the National Science Foundation and the National Science
Board.
The NSF request for FY 1999 of $3.773 billion was $344
million, or 10.0 percent, above the FY 1998 Current Plan of
$3.429 billion. Of the five directorates, only Major Research
Equipment experienced a decrease from the FY 1998 level (-13.8
percent). In it's Views and Estimates submitted to the
Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Science supported
this request, citing the importance of basic research to U.S.
economic growth and to maintaining U.S. pre-eminence in
fundamental science.
Witnesses included: Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National
Science Foundation; and Dr. John E. Hopcroft, Joseph Silbert
Dean of Engineering and Professor of Computer Science at
Cornell University and Member and National Science Board.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Hopcroft testified that the National Science Board
exercises two roles: that of a national science policy body and
that of a governing body for NSF. He alluded to the Board's
recent publications on national science education and
government funding of scientific research. Concerning the
proposed NSF budget, he said that the Board fully supported the
10 percent increase in the NSF budget proposed by the
Administration. This commitment to our national science
infrastructure will enable NSF to maintain U.S. world
leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics, and
engineering. The NSF request would provide the means to fund
thousands of worthwhile projects and improve science and math
education. Dr. Hopcroft noted that NSF's Knowledge and
Distributed Intelligence (KDI) and other themes (e.g., Life and
Earth's Environment) are exciting initiatives that cut across
disciplines. NSF also maintains strong programs in the
traditional scientific disciplines, which will allow these
multidisciplinary themes to succeed. The NSF budget will allow
NSF to improve its core competency while providing the
flexibility to take advantage of new opportunities that may
arise. The Board also strongly endorses NSF efforts to promote
inquiry-based, hands-on learning to train the next generation
of scientists and engineers.
Dr. Lane testified that NSF's request of $3.773 billion
represents and investment in keeping U.S. science and
engineering at the leading edge of learning and discovery. Much
of his testimony focused on NSF's KDI theme. The KDI initiative
is designed to turn the flood of information into a
``wellspring of discovery, learning and progress.'' He stressed
that this initiative goes beyond hardware to include the
workings of the brain, how we learn and the nature of
intelligent behavior (i.e., research into the ``neck-top
computer''). Dr. Lane testified that another aspect of KDI is
NSF's support of faster experimental computer and
communications networks that will link researchers and
educators. He also pointed to NSF's work in support of
nanoscale science that has great potential. He credited much of
our advances in this area to the biosciences (through work on
DNA), noting how nanoscale science is a good example of the
integration of the physical and biological sciences. It is
these crosscutting aspects of the KDI and NSF's other two
themes--Life and Earth's Environments and Educating for the
Future--that will provide the foundation for NSF's investment
strategy. He also emphasized the Foundation's continued to
merit-based investments in learning and discovery that adhere
to the highest standards of peer review. Dr. Lane closed by
saying that the proposed budget is in keeping with the wealth
of opportunity that science and engineering afford the nation
and will help position America to retain its world leadership
in the information-driven economy of the 21st century.
4.2(j)--External Regulation Of DOE Labs: Status Of OSHA And NRC Pilot
Programs
May 21, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-65
Background
On May 21, 1998 the Subcommittee on Basic Research and the
Subcommittee on Energy & Environment held a joint hearing
entitled, ``External Regulation Of DOE Labs: Status Of OSHA And
NRC Pilot Programs.'' The focus of this hearing was to examine
DOE's pilot programs at its laboratories involving the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These two pilot programs
were designed to help determine the desirability of
establishing external oversight of worker safety and nuclear
safety at DOE's research and nuclear facilities.
The DOE is the only federal agency whose facilities are
essentially exempt from regulation by the NRC for nuclear
safety and by OSHA for worker protection. The Atomic Energy Act
of 1946 established these exemptions for the Atomic Energy
Commission, one of DOE's predecessor agencies, due to national
security concerns originating with the production of and
research on nuclear weapons and nuclear power. As a result, DOE
has been criticized over the years for lax enforcement of its
own worker and nuclear safety regulations, as well as for its
environmental management practices in general.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Elizabeth Moler, Deputy
Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; The Honorable
Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; The Honorable Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor; and Victor S. Rezendes, Director of
Energy, Natural Resources, and Science Issues Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division, U.S. General
Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
Deputy Secretary Moler testified that the Department of
Energy is pursuing the transition to external regulation and
objected to the conclusion of the General Accounting Office
that DOE has an unclear and inconsistent position on external
regulation. Instead, she explained an outline of the
Department's plan. Before conversion to external regulation
several issues will need to be resolved: (1) the individual
nature of DOE facilities which make them difficult to conform
to universal regulations; (2) the cost of the regulatory
transition; (3) DOE stewardship; (4) determination of each
licensee; (5) determination that enforceable requirements in
current compliance agreements are consistent with those
established by external regulating agencies; (6) the cost of
retrofitting requirements; and (7) the potential for multiple
and/or overlapping regulators. She testified that DOE has begun
a pilot program in order to work out these issues, and others
that may arise, before the transition. Finally, she stressed
the need for OSHA to be a partner in this effort.
The Honorable Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, opened her testimony with a
status report of the pilot program for the external regulation
of DOE facilities. She explained that the all of the current
activities the NRC is regulating at DOE facilities have been
developed individually, and the NRC has not evaluated the DOE
as a whole to identify all of the contributing factors prior to
assuming regulatory authority. Benefits realized through the
pilot program so far include more effective and consistent
safety management, enhanced competitiveness, a strengthened
partnership between the DOE and the laboratory contractor,
increased credibility and public confidence, and cost savings.
She reinforced the testimony of Deputy Secretary Moler that key
issues must be resolved before transition from self-regulation
to external regulation. She stated the need for adequate
congressional appropriation and a clear statutory delineation
of its authority as contingent factors for NRC oversight of DOE
facilities. She concluded by stating that, based on the results
of the pilot program, there are no insurmountable obstacles to
external regulation of DOE facilitates.
The Honorable Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health at the U.S. Department
of Labor, testified that the ability of OSHA to assume added
responsibilities of regulating DOE facilities is limited by
both legislation and resources, and could adversely affect the
Agency's ability to regulate the private sector currently under
its jurisdiction. OSHA has taken steps in order to be able to
assume such expanded responsibilities, including establishing
an internal transition working group and initiating a pilot
program at a DOE facility. Meanwhile, OSHA has been working
with DOE in the process of privatization of other facilities.
These efforts have given OSHA an understanding of some of the
problems that may be encountered due to the external regulation
of DOE facilities and OSHA is continuing to work to resolve
such issues.
Victor S. Rezendes, of the U.S. General Accounting Office,
testified that the actions taken by DOE in preparing for the
transition to external regulation have served to delay, rather
than move along, this conversion. He gave as an example of such
hesitation the pilot program undertaken by DOE. The pilot
program does not represent the size and complexity of the DOE
facility; therefore, it is unable to provide accurate
estimates. Mr. Rezendes added that, although DOE has endorsed
OSHA as its external regulator, OSHA is not involved in the DOE
pilot program with the NRC. He concluded by testifying that
DOE, NRC and OSHA have each created separate internal
preparation structures, which are proceeding on different
tracks and timetables toward external regulation without an
integration of positions or strategies.
4.2(k)--The National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic
Initiatives: Are SSI's The Best Way to Improve K-12 Math and Science
Education?
July 23, 1998
Hearing Volume 105-64
Background
On July 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
an oversight hearing entitled, ``The National Science
Foundation's (NSF) Systemic Initiatives: Are SSI's The Best Way
to Improve K-12 Math and Science Education?''. The purpose of
this hearing was to discuss the NSF's Systemic Initiatives, one
of the primary programs through which the Foundation hopes to
improve K-12 science and math education.
The NSF's Education and Human Resources directorate is
attempting to improve K-12 science and math education through
``education system reform.'' Educational system reform at NSF
involves catalyzing co-ordination with states, cities, rural
areas, school systems and other organizations involved in
education. The goal of the reform is to achieve a comprehensive
impact on curriculum, policy, professional development of
teachers, assessment or testing, resource allocation and
student performance. The programs through which this effort is
manifested are the Statewide, Urban, and Rural Systemic
Initiatives. NSF has requested over $117 million for these
programs in FY 1999 out of an overall education budget of $683
million.
Witnesses included: Dr. Daryl E. Chubin, Director, Division
of Research, Evaluation, and Communications, Directorate for
Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation; Dr.
Stan Metzenberg, Assistant Professor of Biology, California
State University Northridge; Dr. Mark St. John, Consultant for
the Inverness Research; and Mr. Thomas Baird, Director, Area
Centers for Educational Enhancement, Florida Department of
Education.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Daryl Chubin of the National Science Foundation opened
his testimony by stating that, on the whole, the NSF's
Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) have been successful in
stimulating comprehensive and associated systemic reform in the
districts participating in the programs. He briefly reviewed
the standards used for evaluating progress made by SSIs. Dr.
Chubin then delineated the key findings detected in the ongoing
process of assessing individual SSIs and the program in
general: One, systemic reform is arduous and requires more than
five years to accomplish. Two, various methods of achieving
higher performance standards can be successful. Three, an
accountability infrastructure is vital to incremental progress.
Four, scale-up of reform to new districts, schools and
classrooms is problematic yet crucial. Five, NSF and site-based
accountability requirements accelerate the pace of reform and
function as an incentive for performance improvement. Six,
aligned content instruction and assessment standards, against
which to measure student learning and teacher effectiveness,
are a central element in successful reform. He concluded by
emphasizing the value of NSF support to SSIs, but added that
the NSF should not indefinitely support steady state reform
efforts.
Dr. Stan Metzenberg testified that the endorsement by the
National Science Foundation of the National Science Education
Standards and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science Benchmarks for Science is a bad decision. He asserted
that both of these documents set standards for achievement that
are so low as to be ineffective. He stated that the standards
do not represent a consensus among scientists or educators nor
are they based upon scholarly research. As a result, use of
federal funding to promote such standards is an inefficient and
even destructive use of resources.
Dr. Mark St. John, who is a consultant for the Inverness
Research, which has evaluated several of the National Science
Foundation Systemic Initiatives, testified that the condition
upon which success of the Systemic Initiatives hinge is not
standards, but rather upon the professional development support
given to teachers. He stated that the potential impact made by
Systemic Initiatives may be their success in building capacity
among those involved in every aspect of educational systems by
connecting educators, legislators and professionals at various
levels with each other. In addition, he believes the Systemic
Initiatives have brought a systemic perspective--a way of
thinking about education as a system to those involved in
reform. Dr. St. John also pointed out the ability of the SSI's
to focus expertise and resources on areas that otherwise might
not have had access to them. He noted several issues critical
to success. These included the limits of the National Science
Foundation to provide expertise to individual school districts,
the necessity of accountability of federal funds used at state
or local levels and the recognition of the scale of each SSI.
Mr. Thomas Baird spoke to the issue of funding and
effectiveness of the Systemic Initiatives, based upon his
experience as Project Director and Co-Principal Investigator of
the Florida Statewide Systemic Initiative. He outlined several
beneficial changes which the SSI spurred in Florida:
coordination of funding groups, offices, divisions, and
bureaus; support for the development and dissemination of
higher student performance standards and curriculum frameworks;
increased cooperation between the Florida Department of
Education and the higher education community; and, development
of model schools and an education infrastructure, including
ongoing professional development. Mr. Baird also offered
several observations and suggestions for the NSF SSIs. First,
because the expectations of states are not commensurate with
funding, specific populations should be targeted or fewer
state-wide initiatives should be undertaken, thereby freeing up
resources to augment the funding levels of SSIs. Second, rather
than micromanaging the Systemic Initiatives, the NSF should
heed the advice and expertise of the practitioners directly
involved with the Initiative and use this knowledge to help
states devise strategies. Finally, the NSF must develop a
consistency in its expectations of the SSI's.
4.2(l)--GAO Report On DOE National Laboratory Management Reform
September 23, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-85
Background
On September 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a joint
hearing entitled, ``GAO Report On DOE National Laboratory
Management Reform.'' The focus of this hearing was DOE's
progress on management reform of the National Laboratories. A
General Accounting Office (GAO) report assessing the agency's
progress on management reform, Department of Energy: Uncertain
Progress in Implementing National Laboratory Reforms, was
released and discussed at the hearing.
DOE manages the largest laboratory system of its kind in
the world. Since the days of the World War II Manhattan
Project, the DOE laboratories have played a major role in
maintaining US leadership in research and development. With 23
laboratories in 14 states, a budget of over $6 billion a year,
and a scientific and technical staff of about 60,000, DOE has a
responsibility to ensure the laboratory system is managed in an
effective and efficient manner.
Witnesses included: Dr. Ernest Moniz, Under Secretary of
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Dr. John P. McTague,
Vice President for Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Company and
Member of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), and
Vice-Chairman, DOE Laboratory Operations Board; Dr. Charles V.
Shank, Director, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory; and Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, Director of Energy,
Natural Resources, and Science Issues Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO).
Summary of hearing
Dr. Moniz testified that he agreed with many of the
conclusions made in the GAO report on DOE laboratory reform in
accordance with the Galvin Report saying that while the
Department doesn't agree with every detailed recommendation,
there is notable merit in its general endorsements. Dr. Moniz
named three areas: establishing stronger business practices and
strategic planning, and governance of these programs. He
suggested that the Department has already begun to address many
of these issues and have even exceeded several of the
recommendations found in the report. He concluded that it is
his goal to institutionalize the improvements that have been
made in the labs throughout the Department, in conjunction with
the Laboratories Operations Board.
Dr. McTague testified that changes in the approach used to
govern the labs should take place to encourage output. He
stated that flexible approaches produce more efficient outputs
than prescriptive regulations. He went on to say that the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board felt encouraged that most
significant programs had one or more merit review process in
use, and that 85 percent of the research programs rated above
average or excellent. The suggestion of the Board is that the
DOE focus on the success when addressing and improving
procedures and structures. He stated that the labs to have
serious management problems on all levels, and that as the labs
went towards leaner management, that it must attract and train
better managers with a technical understanding of the labs. He
concluded that the largest problem facing the labs is a complex
management structure throughout, and that the implementation of
fundamental structure changes may require legislation.
Dr. Shank testified that the DOE, the SEAB and the
laboratories would restructure the labs to eliminate costly
administrative systems, unnecessary prescriptive oversight, and
diffuse responsibilities. He reported that significant progress
has been made in increasing productivity with restructuring.
This productivity, he said, was a direct effect of adhering to
new operating principles that were ``simply common sense''. Dr.
Shank cited changes that had reduced operational cost and
increased overall production. He discussed how these
improvements were being developed as institutions within the
lab system and that continuing this course would increase
efficiency and output.
Mr. Rezendes reported that while the national labs did
tremendous research, that often this research was unfocused,
micro-managed and incohesive with other research being done in
other national labs and at private facilities. He testified
that though DOE has suggested that they had begun to
restructure the laboratories, it still had not produced a
comprehensive road map by which changes to process structure
would be made. He testified that studies of the DOE labs each
noted the same outcome which is that the problems in
accountability that result in unclear chains of command and the
inability to manage as an integrated system affect the
efficiency and output of the labs. He concludes that though the
DOE has made some headway, many actions are still underway or
have unclear goals and that if reform is not produced within
the structure, legislation with consequences may ultimately be
needed.
4.2(m)--Remote Sensing
September 28, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-87
Background
On September 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held a hearing entitled, ``Remote Sensing.'' Specifically, the
focus of the hearing was to review steps which the research and
commercial communities are taking to apply remote sensing
technologies for the next century.
Witnesses included: Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National
Science Foundation (NSF); Dr. Thomas M. Lillesand, Director,
Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin;
Mr. Lawrie E. Jordan III, President, ERDAS, Inc.; and, Dr.
Scott Pace, Senior Policy Analysis, RAND Science and Technology
Policy Institute. Dr. David Brannon, Director of the Commercial
Remote Sensing Program at the Stennis Space Center, NASA was
invited to testify but was unable to attend due to Hurricane
Georges.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Colwell testified that she has seen the power of remote
sensing technology first hand. As an aquatic microbiologist,
she said she spent over 30 years studying the microbial
disease, cholera, with the use of remote sensing technologies.
Cholera is a disease caused by drinking water contaminated with
a bacterium known as vibrio cholerae. Cholera can cause sever
diarrhea and dehydration, and in some cases death. The key
breakthrough came when she discovered (with the assistance of
remote sensing) that the cholera bacterium lives in the gut of
microscopic aquatic animals, the zooplankton.
Dr. Colwell said the use of satellite data and remote
sensing technologies led to a greater understanding of how
global environmental change influences the spread of the
cholera disease. Through her research she found that cholera
epidemics can now be related to climate and climate events,
including ocean warming events such as El Nino. She felt that
further refinements of these studies with the use of remote
sensing technologies could allow the research to save thousands
of lives each year through effective monitoring and prediction
of conditions conducive to cholera epidemics.
Dr. Lillesand began his testimony by noting that several
interrelated factors are currently influencing the form and
significance of land remote sensing from space. Among these
factors are: a continued transition toward an information-based
society in general; a recognition of the interdependence
between environmental quality and sustainable economic
development; and, the continued maturation and application of
remote sensing, GIS, GPS and related technologies in the
context of an evolving national and international spatial data
infrastructure.
Dr. Lillesand also stated that remote sensing and its
kindred geospatial technologies are truly enabling
technologies. It is beginning to pervade the entire array of
disciplines where the spatial dimension of complex interrelated
phenomena is important--from geoscience to human epidemiology.
Geospatial analysis not only makes the asking of old scientific
questions more efficient, it is enabling the science community
to address a whole new series of questions over a range of
spatial and temporal scales. This is not only providing an
improved understanding of how the earth works as a system, it
is also providing a new paradigm for the management of natural
resources and the environment, as well as the conduct of
business.
Mr. Jordan testified that the Federal Government must find
a way to enable the commercial remote sensing industry to
compete without competing against the private sector. The first
step, he said, is to recognize that special algorithm
developments should not require the recreation of already
existing foundation technology. All government-developed remote
sensing software should be object oriented, based upon a
commercial off the shelf (COTS) foundation, with fully
documented APIs so it can be readily plugged into any
commercial software package. Through this ``adopt an
algorithm'' approach, government and academia-based technology
development will be commercially viable, thereby allowing mass
distribution and technical support.
Mr. Jordan also said that the Federal Government, as an
enabler, must not get too caught up with cost reimbursement for
the development of both algorithms and geospatial data. If
access to TIGER files allows UPS to run 20 percent fewer
trucks, the greater good of reducing road maintenance costs and
ozone pollutants far exceeds the buying fee of the data.
Finally, Mr. Jordan said the government must adopt data
format standards rather than create them. There is nothing
wrong with the government providing geospatial data in
commercial formats provided the format is open, documented and
royalty free. Unfortunately, as data standards proliferate
within the government, valuable resources in commercial
organizations are siphoned off simply to write I/O routines for
the next versions of awkward government specification such as
SDTS, NLAPS and others. Commercial data formats are proven, and
as most commercial companies share their formats with each
other, the appearance of endorsing a given commercial product
is negligible.
Dr. Pace said that as remote sensing technologies improved,
cost/benefit ratios increased the end users ability to lower
production costs, reduce planning schedules, provide rapid and
quantitative assessments of socio-economic and environmental
impacts, simulate and model end result opportunities, and allow
for a comparative analysis of alternative options.
Dr. Pace stated that remote sensing applications continue
to be applied in the field of agriculture and in government
research laboratories. The National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) have expressed interest in the use of remote sensing
technologies. Private industry, including the forestry,
fishery, insurance/disaster management, oil and gas and
transportation industries are also utilizing remote sensing
technologies.
Dr. Pace believes that cooperative work between the private
and public sectors has produced a marked improvement in the
ability to manage, transfer, manipulate and interpret large
data sets. The newer commercial and government satellite
systems in orbit, or about to be launched, have spectral
recognition capabilities that are more appropriate for
detecting information and developing models with ``ground truth
measurements.'' Currently, major studies are underway world
wide to evaluate the technology and test the data handling
system to see if the right remotes sensing products can be
delivered to the end user in a timely and dependable way.
4.2(n)--High Performance Computing
October 6, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-93
Background
On October 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
a hearing entitled, ``High Performance Computing.'' The hearing
focused on the President's Information Technology Advisory
Committee Interim Report to the President and the
Administration's and academic community's response to its
findings and recommendations. The Subcommittee also examined
the current state of high-performance computing throughout the
Federal Government, including funding, research needs and
priorities, and interagency coordination.
Witnesses included: Dr. Ken Kennedy, Co-Chair, President's
Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC); Dr. Neal
Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Policy and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation (NSF); Dr. Edward Lazowska, Professor and Chair,
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington; and
Dr. Joe Thompson, William L. Giles Distinguished Professor of
Aerospace Engineering at Mississippi State University.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Kennedy summarized the findings and recommendations of
PITAC's ``Interim Report''. He testified that the principal
finding of the report was that over the last decade there has
been a pronounced shift in federal funding away from long-term,
high-risk projects and toward short-term, applied research. The
majority of this funding is confined to mission agencies. He
noted that while there has been explosive growth in the size of
the information technology (IT) endeavor as a proportion of the
economy, federal funding has grown at about the rate of
inflation. In addition to its economic importance, IT is also
critical to solving problems in business, science, medicine and
education. It is PITAC's view that the shift away from
fundamental research needs to be reversed if we are to preserve
the Nation's economic leadership in the coming decade.
Dr. Kennedy said that reallocating existing resources,
while tempting, will not solve the problem and take away from
important national needs. Moreover, he noted how difficult it
is for start-up companies to find money for fundamental
research. To address this problem, PITAC proposes increasing
the IT budget to $2 billion over the next five years. The PITAC
``Interim Report'' summarizes a number of areas that would
benefit from this increased support. These include: secure,
robust, and reliable software; scaleable information
infrastructure; and high-end computing and communications. The
report also recommends funding for the sociological and
economic impacts and workforce impacts of IT and calls for a
new management structure and funding strategies to coordinate
current and new programs.
Dr. Kennedy also spoke to the growth in scaleable parallel
computation. He said that this strategy has many problems, and
that these problems cannot be solved simply by purchasing more
supercomputers. Although he would support a program to
replicate the Department of Energy's Advanced Strategic
Computing Initiative (ASCI) for use in civilian science, such
investments should be accompanied by greater investments in
software and architectures to make these machines usable across
a wide array of applications. He concluded his testimony by
emphasizing that PITAC believes that increasing investment in
IT R&D, with an emphasis on fundamental research, is the best
way to ensure that the benefits of the information revolution
will be enjoyed by the Nation in the decades to come.
Dr. Lane began his testimony by noting that the nation's
security, health care, education, and environment all depend on
our ability to master the power of IT. However, IT is an
industry that requires constant innovation. The rate of change
is linked to the ability of businesses to invest in new
products, and these innovations are tightly linked to IT
research begun decades earlier. In addressing the PITAC
``Interim Report'', Dr. Lane said that it concludes that we
need to increase overall federal support for IT and that we
need to manage the effort in a way to take advantage of
opportunities when they arise. He said that the Administration
agrees with many of PITAC's findings and is working to address
their recommendations. Under the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), an interagency team has been
assembled to respond to PITAC's advice. He noted that OSTP was
able to build on the foundation of interagency coordination
that began with the High-Performance Computing and
Communication Program. During the coming months, this group
would develop a plan that the President can bring forward with
his budget request. Dr. Lane said that the research problems
facing IT are unique and that the interagency group will draw
on its management experience in considering new approaches to
IT research.
Dr. Bordogna said that the U.S.'s commanding lead in IT was
the result of a partnership among government, industry, and
academia. Resting on our laurels, however, is not a viable
option. R&D conducted by private firms is almost entirely
focused on products and activities that yield short-term
payoffs. The PITAC report sets out a plan for more long-term
research and recommends that NSF play a lead coordinating role.
Dr. Bordogna said that NSF can and should play a strong role,
but contended that any IT partnership could only proceed
through consensus, trust, and close cooperation among
participating agencies. He outlines three priorities for NSF in
IT: (1) fundamental, high-risk research, including software,
scaleable infrastructure, and high-end computing; (2)
competitive access to high-end computing and networking; and
(3) education at all levels.
Dr. Lazowska testified that IT is more than high-
performance computing. He said that the Science Committee has
demonstrated an awareness of four things: (1) computing enables
all of science and engineering; (2) sustaining the Nation's
science effort requires more than just buying hardware and
cable--investment in computing and computational research is
needed; (3) there is more to IT than enabling other fields of
study--computing science and engineering are disciplines of
their own; and (4) a broad-based research program is required
to support these other goals. What the PITAC report says is
that to advance computer science, engineering, and
communications requires investment in research in those areas
closely coupled to the demands of applications. He said that
the PITAC has five bottom-line messages: (1) leadership in IT
is critical; (2) the return on past IT research has been
spectacular; (3) current Federal support for IT is inadequate;
(4) there is too much focus on short-term problems; and (5)
critical problems are going unsolved. Dr. Lazowska also
supports the report's proposals for a balanced research
program. He pointed to the importance of software research,
which featured in the PITAC report, and endorsed further
research in the other areas identified in the report: scaleable
information infrastructure; high-end computing; and socio-
economic and workforce impacts. He closed his testimony by
noting that the best in IT is yet to come and that, considering
the impact of IT on the economy and science, increased federal
funding is justified.
Dr. Thompson also endorsed the PITAC ``Interim Report'' and
made two general points: (1) we have neglected to fund software
research to the same degree as we fund hardware acquisitions;
and (2) we are reaping the fruits of last decade's research
while we have neglected research this decade. He noted that
high-end computing is not only being used by government and
academia; industry is now a big user, with 162 of the top 500
supercomputing sites now being at industrial locations. He
added that we cannot allow other nations to exceed our
capabilities and that more powerful machines do not increase
capability proportionally until software suitable to the
hardware is developed. Current software development models,
which are labor-intensive and prone to error, are no longer
adequate. PITAC describes software as the new physical
infrastructure of the information age, and Dr. Thompson said
that it is among the most complex of human engineered
structures.
Dr. Thompson also supported PITAC's suggestion that NSF
take a lead role in a multi-agency effort, but said that,
because of the multi-disciplinary nature of much of the
research, NSF may have to make adjustments. One suggestion he
offered was that NSF require individual investigators to
associate a proposed research project with a relevant research
center, similar to the associates research program of the
National Research Council. High-bandwidth connectivity of
universities, regardless of location, is also critical to the
national research effort and to match efforts overseas.
Increased funding for graduate assistantships in IT was also
proposed. In concluding, Dr. Thompson said that IT now
constitutes fundamental infrastructure, noting that, ``Never
has such a particular area of research been so critical to the
nation in such a fundamental and pervasive way.''
4.2(o)--Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II (Transferring the Domain
Name System to the Private Sector: Private Sector Implementation of the
Administration's Internet ``White Paper'')
October 7, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-78
Background
On October 7, 1998, the Subcommittee on Basic Research and
the Subcommittee on Technology held the second of two joint
hearings entitled, ``Domain Name Systems, Parts I and II,'' to
focus on the Administration's ``White Paper'' proposal and how
to transfer the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) from public
sector control to private sector control. Specifically, the
hearing focused on two issues: (1) an examination of the
National Science Foundation and the Commerce Department's
involvement in the transition process, and (2) an examination
of private sector initiatives to implement the details of the
White Paper by establishing a non-profit corporation that, if
found acceptable to the U.S. Government under guidelines
spelled out in the White Paper, would assume responsibility for
the management of the Internet's DNS system.
The National Science Foundation, which has managed part of
the DNS since its inception, and most recently through a
cooperative agreement with Network Solutions' Inc., is in the
process of transferring its authority over the DNS to the
Department of Commerce. According to NSF's interpretation of
the Administration's White Paper, the Commerce Department will
have full legal authority over the DNS throughout the proposed
two-year period during which the DNBS will be transferred to a
private sector nonprofit entity.
Witnesses included: The Honorable J. Beckwith Burr,
Associate Administrator, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, Office of International Affairs,
U.S. Department of Commerce; Gabriel Battista, CEO of Network
Solutions Inc.; Mr. Joe Sims, Representing Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority; and Dr. Tamar Frankel, Moderator,
International Forum on the White Paper and Professor of Law,
Boston University Law School.
Summary of hearing
Beckwith Burr from the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration opened her testimony by giving a
status report on the five tasks that the U.S. government has
undertaken to fulfill its obligations outlined in the
Administration's White Paper. First, the USG has started to
ramp down the cooperative agreement with Networks Solutions,
Inc. by signing a detailed agreement with NSI on October 6,
1998. Secondly, the US government has received from the private
sector, as required by the White Paper, a proposed charter and
by-laws of a non-profit corporation to accept responsibility
for managing the DNS. The new corporation is known as the
``Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers''
(ICANN). Third, the USG has asked the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) to develop recommendations
concerning the issues involving trademarks and the DNS. Fourth,
the USG will continue to meet with members of the Internet
community to discuss the evolution of the Internet. Fifth, the
USG has organized an executive branch group to discuss the
security issues concerning the Internet's root server system.
According to Ms. Burr, significant progress has been made over
the past few months, and NTIA is confident that shortly the USG
will be able to recognize the authority of a private sector
entity and transfer to it the responsibility of managing the
Internet's DNS.
Mr. Battista, the CEO of Network Solutions Inc. opened his
testimony by stating that the White Paper is a bold step
towards global corporate governance of the Internet. He added,
however, that the process is an experiment and should be
carefully overseen. Mr. Battista went on to outline NSI's
activities as part of the International Forum on the White
Paper, its negotiations with IANA and its activities with the
USG, specifically the Department of Commerce. Under the
agreement with the Commerce Department, the NSI cooperative
agreement would be extended for two more years and NSI would
allow for other companies to register. COM domain names
independent of NSI by June 1, 1999. In addition, the agreement
also stipulated that NSI will assist WIPO in creating a
database to assist the trademark community in domain name/
trademark searched and NSI would also continue to manage the
Internet's root server system. Finally, when it is established,
NSI will enter negotiations with ICANN. Mr. Battista closed his
testimony by stating that NSI is proud of its involvement with
the Internet and is committed to ensuring its stability.
Mr. Sims, representing John Postel of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA), opened his testimony by stating that,
as expected, the process up to this point has been somewhat
chaotic. He stated that the ICANN proposal that was filed with
the NTIA on October 2, 1998 is fully responsive to the
guidelines put forth in the White Paper. In support of that
premise, Mr. Sims argued that the proposed Board of Directors
for the corporation has international representation, the
corporation's by-laws allow for separate supporting
organizations to address issues of names, numbers and
protocols, and allow for a process for electing a permanent
board. In addition, Mr. Sims argued that the by-laws allow for
open and transparent decision-making process and also include
provisions prohibiting government representation on the board
of directors. He stated that this is a critical first step in
the process. Mr. Sims closed his testimony by recognizing the
leading role of Dr. Jon Postel, the Director of IANA, who could
not attend due to heart surgery.
Professor Frankel from Boston University School of Law, the
moderator of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP),
opened her testimony by stating that creating the ICANN
corporation has been difficult because the Internet community
is extremely diverse. She then described the International
Forum on the White Paper process. The IFWP held a series of
meetings throughout the summer to discuss the transfer of the
DNS to a private sector entity. Meetings were held in Virginia,
Geneva, Singapore and Argentina. These meetings produced
competing proposals, one of which is the ICANN proposal.
Professor Frankel stated that she has a few concerns about the
ICANN proposal. Her main concern was about accountability. As
presently written, ICANN is not a ``membership'' organization,
so the board of directors has no membership to be accountable
to, though it is accountable to the Attorney General of
California. She was also concerned about the decision to
incorporate the ICANN in California. She closed her testimony
by stating that the Internet community has demonstrated a
remarkable achievement, but that this is only a beginning and
that the ICANN will need to build public trust in order to
succeed.
4.3--subcommittee on energy and environment
4.3(a)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Department of
Energy--Office of Energy Research and DOE Management of Major System
Acquisitions
March 6, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-30
Background
On March 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE)--Office of
Energy Research and DOE Management of Major System
Acquisitions,'' to hear testimony on the justification of the
DOE's FY 1998 budget request. This hearing also reviewed the
management practices of DOE with regard to their major system
acquisitions and the status of these major system acquisitions.
Witnesses included: Dr. Martha A. Krebs, Director, Office
of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy; and Mr. Victor
S. Rezendes, Director, Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
Summary of hearing
Dr. Krebs testified on the DOE's FY 1998 Energy Research
(ER) budget request of $2,536,991,000--an increase of
$71,597,000, or 2.9 percent, above the FY 1997 comparable
appropriation of $2,465,394,000--for ER programs, including
Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences,
Basic Energy Sciences, Computational and Technology Research,
Energy Research Analysis, Energy Research-Energy Supply R&D
Program Direction, High Energy and Nuclear Physics, and General
Science Program Direction. Mr. Rezendes testified on the
results of a November 26, 1996 GAO report entitled ``Department
of Energy: Opportunity to Improve Management of Major System
Acquisitions'' (GAO/RCED-97-17, Nov. 26, 1996), which addressed
(1) DOE's performance in completing its major system
acquisitions; (2) the key factors that hinder the timely, cost-
effective, completion of the acquisitions; and (3) what is
being done to improve DOE's performance.
4.3(b)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Environmental
Protection Agency Research and Development
March 11, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-23
Background
On March 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency Research
and Development,'' to hear testimony providing justification
for EPA's Research and Development FY 1998 budget request. This
hearing also reviewed the peer review practices of EPA.
Portions of the EPA budget under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment include the Science
Advisory Board (in Environmental Programs and Management),
Science and Technology, Superfund R&D, Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) R&D, and Oil Spills Response R&D.
Witnesses included: Mr. Joseph K. Alexander, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Dr. Mark A. Harwell,
Chairman, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Mr. Stanley J. Czerwinski,
Associate Director, Resources, Community and Economic
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
Summary of hearing
Mr. Alexander testified on EPA's FY 1998 R&D budget request
of $658.2 million--an increase of $67 million, or 11.3 percent,
above the FY 1997 enacted level--and on the Agency's recently
implemented new peer-review procedures to ensure that peer
review becomes an integral part of EPA R&D. Dr. Harwell
testified on the activities of the SAB, and noted that while
the SAB does advise the EPA on the President's budget with
regard to the Office of Research and Development, it had not
yet studied the FY 1998 budget request. Mr. Czerwinski
discussed the EPA's implementation of their peer review policy,
and stated that the GAO found that EPA continued to implement
peer review unevenly.
4.3(c)--The Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III
March 12, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-21
Background
On March 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held the first in a series of three hearings
entitled, ``The Science Behind the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-
III'' to hear testimony on the scientific justification for
EPA's proposed standards for ozone and particulate matter
levels.
Witnesses included: Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, Chairman, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), Director of External
Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Dr. George T.
Wolff, CASAC, Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental
and Energy Staff; Dr. Morton Lippmann, CASAC, Professor of
Environmental Medicine, Institute of Environmental Medicine,
New York University Medical Center; and Mr. Daniel S.
Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute.
Summary of hearing
Drs. Mauderly, Wolff, and Lippmann, all members of CASAC,
supported the EPA's proposal to replace the current one-hour
ozone standard with an eight-hour standard. Dr. Mauderly stated
that this change is founded largely on information indicating
that multiple-hour exposures below the current standard can
affect lung function and symptoms in children and adults
exercising outdoors. Regarding particulate matter (PM), CASAC
strongly recommended that EPA immediately implement a targeted
research program to address any unanswered questions and
uncertainties with PM. The three witnesses agreed that a five-
year study on PM would be beneficial. Mr. Greenbaum, President
of the Health Effects Institute (HEI)--a non-profit corporation
whose mission is ``to provide public and private decision-
makers with high-quality, impartial, and relevant science on
the health effects of pollutants from motor vehicles and other
sources in the environment''--testified on the HEI Particle
Epidemiology Evaluation Project, which had reanalyzed key
epidemiological studies used as part of the scientific basis
for EPA's particulate matter standards.
4.3(d)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and H.R. 437, The Marine
Revitalization Act of 1997
March 13, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-18
Background
On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and H.R. 437, The Marine Revitalization
Act of 1997,'' to hear testimony on the justification of NOAA's
FY 1998 budget request and reauthorization of the Sea Grant
program.
Witnesses included: Panel 1--Dr. D. James Baker,
Administrator, NOAA, and Under Secretary, Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; and Panel 2--Mr. Frank
DeGeorge, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; and
Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information
Management Division, U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
Summary of hearing
Dr. Baker testified on NOAA's FY 1998 budget request of
$2,051.2 million--an increase of $78.5 million, or 4 percent,
above the FY 1997 level--for NOAA programs, including the
National Ocean Service, Ocean and Atmospheric Research Service,
National Weather Service, and National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service.
Mr. DeGeorge's testimony focused on the NOAA Fleet and
Corps, the Polar and Geostationary satellite programs, the
National Weather Service's modernization program, and the
proposed NOAA facility at Goddard Space Flight Center in
Greenbelt, Maryland.
Mr. Willemssen testified on the preliminary findings of the
ongoing GAO work relating to the National Weather Service's
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AIWPS), and
recent GAO reports concerning NOAA's Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES) system and the NOAA Commissioned
Corps.
4.3(e)--FY 1998 Budget Request: Department of Energy, Fossil Energy
R&D, Clean Coal Technology Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, and, H.R. 363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 to Extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public
Information Dissemination Program
March 19, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-72
Background
On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``FY 1998 Budget Request:
Department of Energy, Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal Technology
Program, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and, H.R.
363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to
extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public
Information Dissemination Program,'' to hear testimony on the
justification of DOE's FY 1998 budget requests and the
extension of the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research program.
Witnesses included: Panel 1--the Honorable Patricia Fry
Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department
of Energy; Panel 2--the Honorable Christine A. Ervin, Assistant
Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy; and Panel 3--Dr. Paul Gilman,
Executive Director, Commission on Life Sciences, National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, and Mr. Charles
J. Boeggeman, Senior Engineer, PECO Energy (representing Edison
Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and National Electrical
Manufacturers Association).
Summary of hearing
Ms. Godley testified on DOE's Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Fossil
Energy Research and Development budget request of $346.41
million--a decrease of $18.30 million, 5 percent, below the FY
1997 comparable appropriations--and on the Clean Coal
Technology Program, which has been appropriated at $2.425
billion as of FY 1997.
Ms. Ervin testified on DOE's FY 1998 Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy budget request of $774.627 million--an
increase of $155.605 million, or 25.1 percent, above the FY
1997 appropriated level of $619.022 million--which included the
Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies and Energy
Conservation Research and Development Programs.
Dr. Gilman and Mr. Boeggeman testified on the Electric and
Magnetic Fields (EMF) Research and Public Information
Dissemination Program. With regard to H.R. 363, Dr. Gilman
testified that the extension should continue until 1999, while
Mr. Boeggeman testified that an extension of one additional
year would be adequate.
4.3(f)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Department of
Energy (DOE)--Nuclear Energy; Environment, Safety and Health; and
Environment Restoration and Waste Management (Non-Defense)
March 20, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-61
Background
On March 20, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Nuclear Energy;
Environment, Safety and Health; and Environment Restoration and
Waste Management (Non-Defense),'' to hear testimony on the
justification of DOE's FY 1998 budget request.
Witnesses included: Dr. Terry R. Lash, Director, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of
Energy; Mr. Peter N. Brush, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department
of Energy; and, Mr. James M. Owendoff, Acting Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S.
Department of Energy.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Lash testified on DOE's FY 1998 Nuclear Energy budget
request of $330.667 million--an increase of $87.798 million, or
36.2 percent, above the FY 1997--for programs including Light
Water Reactor, Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Oak Ridge
Landlord, Test Reactor Area Landlord, Advanced Test Reactor
Fusion Irradiations, University Nuclear Science and Reactor
Support, Termination Costs, Uranium Programs, Isotope Support,
and Program Direction.
Mr. Brush testified on DOE's FY 1998 Environment, Safety
and Health (Non-Defense) budget request of $108.916 million--a
decrease of $937,000, or 0.9 percent, below the FY 97
comparable appropriation of $109.853 million--which included
funding for the Technical Assistance, Policy, National Energy
Policy Act, Health Studies and Management and Administration
programs, and a Program Direction decision unit for all ES&H
employees.
Mr. Owendoff testified on DOE's FY 1998 Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management (Non-Defense) budget request
of $684.684 million--an increase of $91.638 million, or 15.5
percent, above the FY 1997 comparable appropriation of $597.891
million--for the Environmental Restoration, Waste Management,
and Nuclear Materials and Facility Stabilization programs.
4.3(g)--Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Authorization Request: Department of
Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research &
Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
April 9, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-17
Background
On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy (DOE), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research and Development,
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' to hear
non-government testimony on the justification of all of these
FY 1998 budget requests.
Witnesses included: Panel 1--Mr. Fred L. Smith, Jr.,
President and Founder, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Ms.
Anna Aurilio, Staff Scientist, U.S. Public Interest Research
Group (U.S. PIRG); Dr. David Baldwin, Senior Vice President,
General Atomics; Mr. Ralph DeGennaro, Executive Director,
Taxpayers for Common $ense; Mr. Scott Sklar, Solar Unity
Network; and Mr. Aris Melissaratos, Vice President, Science,
Technology, and Quality Division Westinghouse Electric
Corporation; and Panel 2--Mr. Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural
Resource Studies Division. CATO Institute; Mr. Michael S.
Leavitt, Commercial Weather Services Association; Mr. David R.
Smith, Secretary-Treasurer, National Weather Service Employees
Organization; Dr. Christopher F. D'Elia, Director, Maryland Sea
Grant College Program, University of Maryland; and Dr. James J.
Sullivan, Director, California Sea Grant College System,
University of California.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1--Mr. Smith, Ms. Aurilio, Mr. DeGennaro and Mr.
Taylor stated their views on the government subsidization of
industries. Ms. Aurilio also testified against nuclear and
fossil energy R&D funding, and supported the EPA funding
request. Mr. DeGennaro added that the government should
eliminate all energy subsidies and the Department of Energy.
Dr. Baldwin testified that energy research and development
funding is needed on a broad front and that all types of
energies--renewable, nuclear, and fossil--will be utilized in
the future. Mr. Sklar recommended that in order for new
technology to succeed, the government should cost share with
the companies that have the new technology. Mr. Melissaratos
testified on behalf of DOE's Advanced Turbine System and the
Advanced Concept Tubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Programs, which
are intended to advance the state-of-the-art of fossil fuel
power generation.
Panel 2--Mr. Leavitt testified on the National Weather
Service (NWS), and stated that NWS's emphasis should be on
fulfilling its core mission of collecting and archiving raw
data and providing severe weather warnings. Mr. Smith stated
that the Administration's FY 1998 NWS budget request was
inadequate. And Drs. D'Elia and Sullivan both testified on
behalf of the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant College
Program.
4.3(h)--The Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Proposed Revisions To The National Ambient Air Quality
Standards For Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III
May 7, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-21
Background
On May 7, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held the second in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The
Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III'' to
hear testimony on the scientific justification of the EPA's
proposed standards for ozone and particulate matter levels and
EPA's PM and ozone research programs.
Witnesses included: Dr. Joseph M. Norbeck, Director of the
Bourns College of Engineering, University of California-
Riverside; Ms. Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive Officer,
California Air Resources Board; Mayor Carl E. Krentz, Mayor of
La Porte, IN; and Mr. Mark T. Maassel, Vice President of
Marketing and Sales, NIPSCO Industries.
Summary of hearing
All four witnesses expressed their belief that more study
is needed and that EPA's decision to establish new standards
was premature. Dr. Norbeck expressed his view that the science
on which the new standards are based is inconclusive and is not
adequate to proceed with promulgating the new standards, and
supported more study of fine particulate matter and ozone.
Ms. Terry voiced her concern about the addition of
PM2.5 monitoring stations around the nation and the
burden of funding for these new stations.
Mayor Krentz testified that with these new standards the
city of LaPorte, as well as other cities across the U.S., will
be in non-attainment, and could cause some cities to lose the
potential for economic growth.
Mr. Maassel noted that establishing these new standards
would create more non-attainment areas--thereby forcing
companies to locate to adjacent rural areas with resulting
urban sprawl--and could also jeopardize current voluntary
programs designed to meet and maintain attainment status.
4.3(i)--The Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Proposed Revisions To The National Ambient Air Quality
Standards For Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III
May 21, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-21
Background
On May 21, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held the last in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The
Science Behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter, Parts I-III'' to
focus on the science behind the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) recent proposals for new National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter
(PM). The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable Carol
Browner, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Summary of hearing
Ms. Browner testified that ``the standard-setting process
includes extensive scientific peer review from experts outside
of EPA and the Federal Government. Based on our reading of the
best available science, I have proposed new standards for
particulate matter and ozone that I believe are required to
protect the health of the American people.'' She also stated
that ``at this point we have only proposed revisions to the
standards for these two pollutants and we are reviewing
comments on them'' and that she did ``not intend to make a
final decision until comments on all of those alternative
options have been carefully considered.'' She also said that
``throughout the three-and-a-half year process of developing
our proposed standards, we have remained committed to analyzing
the science in an open public forum and ensuring broad public
input.''
4.3(j)--S. 417, To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act through September 30, 2002
July 31, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-44
Background
On July 31, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``S. 417, To extend energy
conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act through September 30, 2002.'' The hearing focused on
subsections 1(7), 1(8), 1(9), 1(11) and Section 3 of S. 417, as
passed by the Senate on June 27, 1997.
Witnesses included: Dr. Allan R. Hoffman, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Utility Technologies, U.S.
Department of Energy; Mr. William H. Peerenboom, Vice
President, ATA Foundation; and Mr. David Nemtzow, President,
Alliance to Save Energy.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Hoffman stated that the Administration strongly
supported reauthorization of the Committee on Renewable Energy
Commerce and Trade (CORECT) and the Committee on Energy
Efficiency Commerce and Trade (COEECT) programs.
Mr. Peerenboom expressed support for the Alternative Fuel
Truck Commercial Applications Program, and Mr. Nemtzow
addressed the Committee on Energy Efficiency Commerce and Trade
(COEECT) Program.
4.3(k)--Preparing for El Nino
September 11, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-29
Background
On September 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Preparing for El Nino.''
The hearing focused on the state of the science regarding the
forecasting of El Nino, the potential U.S. impacts of this most
recent El Nino event--expected to be the most severe since the
El Nino of 1982-1983, and ways in which federal and state
agencies are preparing to reduce these impacts.
Witnesses included: Panel 1--Dr. J. Michael Hall, Director,
Office of Global Programs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); Dr. Tim Barnett, Research Marine
Physicist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and Dr. Andrew
R. Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute; and Panel 2--Mr. Michael Armstrong,
Associate Director, Office of Mitigation, Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA); Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez, Under
Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA); and Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler,
Secretary for Resources, State of California.
Summary of hearing
Panel 1--Dr. Hall of NOAA testified on NOAA's climate and
El Nino-related research programs. Dr. Barnett testified on the
economic analyses and recent experience with prolonged weather-
related extremes which, he said, demonstrated the significant
social and economic benefits associated with the development
and application of new capabilities to forecast climate
conditions up to a year in advance. Dr. Solow estimated the
value of the El Nino prediction to U.S. agriculture to be $300-
$400 million per year.
Panel 2--Mr. Armstrong testified on the readiness of FEMA
and the Federal Government to combat the impacts of El Nino.
Dr. Gonzalez testified about U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) collaboration with NOAA and how the USDA was attempting
to provide improved El Nino forecasts to its customers for
better decision-making. Mr. Wheeler testified about the State
of California's preparations for El Nino, which included
improving emergency response coordination and operation, and
improving and expanding existing flood data.
4.3(l)--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III (Countdown to Kyoto, Part I:
The Science of the Global Climate Change Agreement)
October 7, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-46 (Vol. I and II)
Background
On October 7, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held the first in a series of three hearings
entitled, ``Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III,'' to hear
testimony on the state of understanding of the science of
global climate change and the ability to predict the impacts of
various climate change policies on the global climate, the
uncertainties inherent in such predictions, and further
research efforts required to reduce these uncertainties. A
particular focus of the hearing was on potential global climate
agreements that may be considered at the meeting of the Third
Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention Climate Change to be held in Kyoto, Japan, December
1-10, 1997.
Witnesses included: Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Senior Scientist
for Climate Studies, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center; Dr.
Alan Robock, Professor, Department of Meteorology, University
of Maryland; Dr. Aristides A. Patrinos, Associate Director of
Energy Research and Director, Office of Biological and
Environmental Research; and Dr. Ronald G. Prinn, TEPCO
Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Director, Center for
Global Change Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Spencer testified on the uncertainties of current
climate models and their predictions of global warming. Dr.
Robock stated his support for the conclusions of the 1995
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group
I report that ``the balance of evidence suggests that there is
a discernible human influence on global climate,'' and
recommended that the current response to the threat of global
warming be one of adaptation, improved knowledge, and
mitigation. Dr. Patrinos testified on the science of climate
change, and, in particular, the current status of large-scale
climate models. Dr. Prinn testified that current climate models
cannot realistically simulate natural climate changes; that
small-scale features like clouds are not individually resolved
in these models because the computational demands involved in
these simulations already tax the capabilities of the world's
largest computers; and that our knowledge about the relevant
physical, chemical, or biological processes is incomplete.
4.3(m)--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III
October 9, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-46 (Vol. I and II)
Background
On October 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held the second in a series of three hearings
entitled, ``Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III,'' to hear
testimony on the state of understanding of the economics of
global climate change and the ability to predict the impacts of
various climate change policies on the U.S. economy, the
uncertainties inherent in such predictions and further research
efforts required to reduce these uncertainties. A particular
focus of the hearing was on potential global climate agreements
that may be considered at the meeting of the Third Conference
of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention Climate
Change to be held in Kyoto, Japan, December 1-10, 1997.
Witnesses included: Dr. W. David Montgomery, Vice
President, Charles River Associates; Mr. Marc W. Chupka, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Energy; Dr. Joseph J. Romm, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy; Mr. Michael Buckner, Research Director,
United Mine Workers of America; and Dr. Stephen J. DeCanio,
Professor of Economics, University of California-Santa Barbara.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Montgomery testified that the proposals currently being
discussed in the climate negotiations could have major negative
economic impacts on the countries of the world, including the
United States, and that non-participating countries could gain
a competitive advantage. Mr. Chupka and Dr. Romm discussed two
recent climate change reports sponsored by the Department of
Energy (``Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential
Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond and The
Impact of High Energy Price Scenarios on Energy-Intensive
Sectors: Perspectives from Industry Workshops''). Mr. Buckner
testified on the results of a DRI/McGraw Hill economic forecast
that projected severe economic consequences for the U.S. if
greenhouse gas emissions were reduced to 1990 levels by 2010.
And, Dr. DeCanio testified on the problems of climate change,
and its science and economics.
4.3(n)--Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III
November 6, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-46 (Vol. I and II)
Background
On November 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held the last in a series of three hearings
entitled, ``Countdown to Kyoto, Parts I-III,'' to hear
testimony to examine the President's proposed negotiating
stance-including scientific, economic, and policy
considerations-for the upcoming meeting of the Third Conference
of Parties'' (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change to be held in Kyoto, Japan, December 1-10,
1997.
Witnesses included: Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT); Mr.
Marc W. Chupka, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant, Secretary
for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of
Energy; Mr. Fred L. Smith, Jr., President and Founder,
Competitive Enterprise Institute; Dr. Robert T. Watson,
Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and Dr.
Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia.
Summary of hearing
Senator Lieberman testified that--in his opinion--global
warming is not a myth, and supported President Clinton's
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide through a
balanced and enforceable global treaty. Mr. Chupka described
the President's climate change proposal to reduce greenhouse
emissions to 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period. Mr.
Smith reviewed the science of global warming, its economic
impacts and politics, and challenged the Administration's plan.
Dr. Watson testified that human-induced climate change is
inevitable, and that unless action is taken, such change could
result in an increase of vector-borne diseases, a sea level
rise of approximately one meter, and a significant disruption
to ecological systems. Dr. Michaels testified on the climatic
affects of the President's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels, and said that if the entire world
accepted the President's program, the amount of saved warming
over the next 50 years would be 0.13 degrees Celsius--an amount
so small that it could not be measured by surface thermometers.
4.3(o)--DOE FY 99 Budget Authorization Request; H.R. 1806, To Provide
For The Consolidation Of The DOE Offices Of Fossil Energy, Renewable
Energy, And Energy Efficiency; S. 965, To Amend Title II Of The
Hydrogen Future Act of 1996
February 25, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-52 (Vol. I and II)
Background
On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``DOE FY 99 Budget
Authorization Request; H.R. 1806, To Provide For The
Consolidation Of The DOE Offices Of Fossil Energy, Renewable
Energy, And Energy Efficiency; S. 965, To Amend Title II Of The
Hydrogen Future Act of 1996'' to focus on the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 budget authorization
request for the DOE programs under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science. In addition, the Subcommittee received
testimony on H.R. 1806 and S. 965.
Witnesses included: Dr. Martha A. Krebs, Director, Office
of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy; Ms. Patricia Fry
Godley, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department
of Energy; Mr. Dan W. Reicher, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr.
William D. Magwood, Associate Director, Policy and Analysis,
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S.
Department of Energy; Mr. Peter N. Brush, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, U.S. Department
of Energy; and Mr. James M. Owendoff, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of
Energy.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Krebs testified that the DOE FY 1999 Budget Request is
about $2.7 billion, $246 million above the 1998 appropriations,
and that it includes initiation of the construction of the
$1.3-billion Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Ms. Godley testified that the major
portion of the increase in the FY 1999 Budget for Fossil Energy
is a project called Vision 21-- a venture to develop a future
energy concept that continues to use coal. Mr. Reicher
presented the DOE's FY 1999 Budget for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) totaling about $1.2
billion. Mr. Magwood described the $325.8 million FY 1999
budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science &
Technology. Mr. Brush spoke to the $150 million FY 1999 budget
request for the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health to
be, a 6% reduction from the level of funding appropriated in FY
1998. Mr. Owendoff described the $462 million FY 1999 budget
request for the Non-Defense Environmental Management
appropriation. In addition, Ms. Godley and Mr. Reicher spoke in
opposition to H.R. 1806; and Mr. Reicher stated the DOE
endorsed the concept of reauthorizing title II of the Hydrogen
Future Act of 1996, as included in S. 965, but recommended
inclusion of additional hydrogen production technologies such
as wind, solar thermal, hydropower and land-fill gases as other
potentially cost-effective approaches to be considered.
4.3(p)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request: NOAA
March 4, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-77
Background
On March 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration'' to hear testimony on the Administration's
fiscal year (FY) 1999 request for programs of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. This hearing also
reviewed the findings of a new GAO report covering the National
Weather Service (NWS) ``shortfall'' during FY 1998 and an
update on the NWS's modernization program.
Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
and Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information
Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Baker testified that the total FY 1999 budget request
for NOAA was $2.116 billion, a net increase of $123 million
from FY 1998. Mr. Willemssen testified on the GAO's work
regarding updates on AWIPS problems and related Year 2000
computing concerns; on a report GAO issued last year on Weather
Service coverage in the Erie, Pennsylvania area; and on the
confusion on key events surrounding the Fiscal Year 1997
Weather Service budgets.
4.3(q)--Fiscal Year 1999 EPA R&D Budget Authorization
March 11, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-48 (Vol. I and II)
Background
On March 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 EPA R&D
Budget Authorization'' to focus on the Administration's fiscal
year (FY) 1999 request for Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) research and development (R&D) programs.
Witnesses included: Mr. Henry Longest, II, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development, Office of Research
and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Dr. Ishwar Murarka, Vice-Chairman, Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC), EPA Science Advisory Board; Dr. Philip Hopke,
Member, Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), EPA
Science Advisory Board; Dr. Costel Denson, Chairman of the
Executive Committee, EPA Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC);
and Dr. Charles E. Kolb, Member, Committee on Research
Opportunities and Priorities for the EPA, National Research
Council.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Longest testified that the Agency's total FY 1999
request in the Science and Technology (S&T) appropriation
account was $633.5 million and 2,428 total work years, an
increase of $2.5 million and 68.6 work years over FY 1998. Dr.
Murarka testified on the RSAC review of the FY 1999 Budget
Request for the EPA's Office of Research and Development, which
found that the ORD funding level had decreased dramatically in
the last ten years as a fraction of the overall EPA budget. Dr.
Hopke reported on CASAC's review of the EPA's particulate
matter (PM) research program needs and strategies. Dr. Denson
provided testimony on two major reviews conducted by the EPA's
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). And Dr. Kolb, testifying
as a member of the National Research Council's Committee on
Research Opportunities and Priorities for the EPA, advised the
EPA to adopt a strategy wherein a large portion of its research
budget is devoted to a core environmental research and
development agenda.
4.3(r)--Diesel Technology for the 21st Century
March 18, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-56
Background
On March 18, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Diesel Technology for
the 21st Century,'' to explore the state of diesel technology
today, where we should be ten years from now and how research
and development by government and industry over the next decade
can help truck owners meet environmental mandates.
Witnesses included: Mr. Dan W. Reicher, Assistant
Secretary, Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy (accompanied by Mr. James J. Eberhardt,
Director, Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department
of Energy); Dr. John C. Wall, Vice President, Research and
Development, Cummins Engine Company, Inc.; Mr. Ronald Robinson,
President, Technology Division, Texaco, Inc.; and Mr. Robert J.
Crites, Chairman and CEO, Condor Freight Lines.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Reicher testified that the DOE was working to make
diesel engines for heavy and medium trucks more fuel efficient
and less polluting and was also working on the design of low-
emission diesel engines that can replace gasoline engines in
light trucks. Dr. Wall stated that the developing diesel
technologies will reduce NOx and particulate matter
emissions, and will provide clean diesels. Mr. Robinson
testified that the largest advances in diesel technology
include engine improvements and after-treatment devices, and
that Texaco was continuing to evaluate and develop several gas-
to-liquids technologies using advances in catalyst
technologies, reactor design, and process control. Mr. Crites
testified on the importance of the diesel engine to Condor
Freight Lines and the trucking industry as a whole, and
suggested that a more innovative and reward-based approach was
needed for the trucking industry to meet Clean Air Act goals.
4.3(s)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Authorization Request for the
Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency Research &
Development, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
March 25, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-63
Background
On March 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Authorization Request for the Department of Energy,
Environmental Protection Agency Research & Development, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,'' to hear
testimony from non-Federal witnesses on Fiscal Year 1999 budget
authorization requests for the DOE, EPA and NOAA.
Witnesses included: Dr. Joel N. Myers, President,
AccuWeather, Inc.; Mr. Joe F. Colvin, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. Scott Sklar,
Executive Director, Solar Unity Network; Dr. Donald L. Klass,
President, Biomass Energy Research Association; and Mr. Fred L.
Smith, Jr., President and Founder, Competitive Enterprise
Institute.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Myers testified that a strong commercial weather
industry was the key to both the future downsizing of the
National Weather Service and improvements in their severe
weather warnings capability. Mr. Colvin testified that there is
a vital link between nuclear energy and the environment. Mr.
Sklar testified on the importance of continued research in
renewable energy programs. Dr. Klass described the importance
of biomass energy consumption and summarized BERA's
recommendations regarding DOE's FY 1999 budget for mission-
oriented biomass research. Mr. Smith testified to the validity
of Federal funding of R&D in DOE, EPA and NOAA.
4.3(t)--Electric Utility Deregulation: Implications for Research and
Development
March 31, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-43
Background
On March 31, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Electric Utility
Deregulation: Implications for Research and Development,'' to
examine the effects of electric utility deregulation on
electricity research and development. This hearing focused on
the changes in R&D funding by the utility industry, by utility
industry consortia and government/private sector partnerships,
by electricity generation equipment manufacturers, and by high-
tech companies. In addition, witnesses provided their
perspectives on the continuing role of the federal government
in funding electricity R&D.
Witnesses included: Mr. Victor S. Rezendes, Director,
Energy Resources & Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO); Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Executive Advisor to the
President of Advanced Power Technologies, Inc.; Mr. Kurt E.
Yeager, President and CEO, Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI); Mr. David Rohy, Vice Chair, California Energy
Commission (CEC); and Dr. Robert Shaw, Jr., President, Arete
Incorporated.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Rezendes summarized the 1996 GAO report, ``Federal
Research: Changes in Electricity-Related R&D Funding,'' and
presented an updated analysis of changes in the DOE's
electricity R&D appropriation using more recent data, including
DOE's 1999 budget request. Dr. Hirsch testified to changes in
the electric power industry and related R&D impacts, trends in
electricity related to R&D, the future of electricity R&D, and
the public sector role. Mr. Yeager testified on R&D
collaboration among private and public institutions, and on the
importance of R&D investment incentives. Mr. Rohy testified on
the implications for R&D and the renewable energy industry from
electric industry restructuring, including collaborative
efforts among states, the DOE, EPRI, GRI and other parts of the
industrial community; and on renewable energy in California.
Dr. Shaw testified on the financial investment and regulatory
environment of the utility industry, and discussed the impact
of restructuring and the move toward micro-generation
technologies.
4.3(u)--EPA's Rule On Paints And Coatings: Has EPA Met The Research
Requirements Of The Clean Air Act?
May 20, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-51
Background
On May 20, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing entitled, ``EPA's Rule On Paints And Coatings:
Has EPA Met The Research Requirements Of The Clean Air Act?,''
to examine the science behind the EPA's proposed new rule to
control volatile organic compounds in Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) paints and coatings. This hearing
focused the status of the scientific study mandated in Section
183(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, and on
EPA's contention that while a complete scientific study of
VOC's has not been done, the hazards posed by VOC's are
nevertheless compelling enough to proceed with the new rules.
Witnesses included: Mr. Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. C. Boyden Gray,
Former White House Counsel; Dr. William L. Chameides,
Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia
Institute of Technology; and Mr. Dennis Fitz, Manager,
Atmospheric Processes Research, Center for Environmental
Research and Technology, University of California-Riverside.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Brenner discussed the science issues associated with
EPA's study of emissions from consumer and commercial products
and the proposed rule to reduce emissions of VOCs from
architectural coatings. Mr. Gray testified on the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments that include provisions regulating the
content of volatile organic compounds (``VOCs'') in paint and
other ``consumer and commercial products.'' Dr. Chameides
testified on the impacts of VOCs and how they are produced. Dr.
Fitz testified on instrumentation to measure gaseous and
particulate pollutants and the management of environmental
chamber laboratories.
4.3(v)--The Human Genome Project: How Private Sector Developments
Affect the Government Program
June 17, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-66
Background
On June 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``The Human Genome
Project: How Private Sector Developments Affect the Government
Program,'' to focus on a recent announcement of the formation
of a new private-sector genomics company that would complete
the entire sequencing of the human genome within three years at
a fraction of the cost of the 15-year government program. This
hearing explored changes that should be made to the government
program in light of this development.
Witnesses included: Dr. Aristides A. Patrinos, Associate
Director of Energy Research for Health and Environmental
Research, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. Craig Venter, The
Institute for Genomic Research; Dr. Francis Collins, Director,
National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes
of Health; Dr. David Galas, President and Chief Scientific
Officer, CHIRO Science R and D, Inc.; and Dr. Maynard Olson,
Professor of Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, University
of Washington.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Patrinos testified on the future of the Federal Human
Genome Project (HGP) and how the new private sector venture
would help that effort. Mr. Collins testified on the progress
of genetics and encouraged a partnership with the private
sector on the HGP. Dr. Venter testified on the impacts of the
Institute for Genomic Research's new developments on the
federally-funded human genome effort. Dr. Galas stated that he
did not believe that it was sensible for the federally
supported project either to continue unchanged with the
strategy currently in effect, or to reduce the level of effort;
and supported a partnership between the public and private
sectors. Dr. Olson suggested that the public effort on the HGP
be maintained to preserve a high scientific standard.
4.3(w)--The Science of Risk Assessment: Implications for Federal
Regulation
July 15, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-62
Background
On July 15, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``The Science of Risk
Assessment: Implications for Federal Regulation,'' to examine
the state of risk assessment in the Federal Government and how
it might be modified to better protect public health and
safety. Legislation before both houses of Congress have
proposed to change the way the government evaluates risks and
then creates and enforces regulations to protect the
environment, and public health and safety based on those risks.
Witnesses included: Dr. Gil Omenn, Chairman, the
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and
Risk Management and Executive Vice President of Medical
Affairs, University of Michigan; Dr. George Carlo, Chairman,
the Science and Public Policy Institute, George Washington
University; Dr. George Gray, Deputy Director, Center for Risk
Analysis, School of Public Health, Harvard University; and Dr.
Lois Gold, Director, the Carcinogenic Potency Project, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Center for
Environmental Health Sciences, University of California,
Berkeley, and Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Omenn explained that risks cannot be measured and
described the risk management framework devised by the
Presidential/Congressional Risk Commission. Dr. Carlo testified
on the trends in both environmental and public health
legislation and the ability of those legislative actions to
protect public health. Dr. Gray testified that risk assessment
is a tool for considering scientific information in important
social decisions; however, risk characterization needs to be
improved for a better appreciation of the strengths and
limitations of risk assessment for informing risk comparisons.
Dr. Gold stated concerns about regulatory policy from her
experience in cancer risk assessment.
4.3(x)--S. 1418, Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1998
September 15, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-84
Background
On September 15, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``S. 1418: Methane Hydrate
Research and Development Act of 1998.'' S. 1418, which passed
the Senate on July 17, 1998, and on July 20 was referred to the
Science Committee with a subsequent referral to the Resources
Committee, would direct the Secretary of Energy to coordinate
an interagency research and development program to develop
methane hydrate resources.
Witnesses included: Mr. Robert Kripowicz, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr.
William P. Dillon, Research Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey;
and Mr. Arthur Johnson, Senior Staff Geologist, Chevron USA
Production Company.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Kripowicz described the Department's new effort in
hydrates based on prior research on their location and
thermodynamic properties, and endorsed S. 1418. Dr. Dillon
described methane hydrates, its environment, potential uses and
the need to learn more about the processes that influence gas
hydrates. And Mr. Johnson offered some industry perspectives on
S. 1418.
4.3(y)--Here Comes La Nina: What To Expect From the Weather in the
Winter of 1998-1999
October 2, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-91
Background
On October 2, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Here Comes La Nina: What
To Expect From the Weather in the Winter of 1998-99,'' to focus
on an announcement by NOAA scientists that conditions in the
equatorial Pacific point to a strong ``La Nina'' event and what
this means for weather across the United States during the
winter of 1998-99, including agricultural impacts. The
Subcommittee also looked at lessons learned from El Nino in
climate research and inter-agency coordination in preparing for
its impacts.
Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Charles F. Kennel, Director,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez,
Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Mr. Al Peterlin,
Chief Meteorologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Baker testified on NOAA's forecast of La Nina. Dr.
Kennel testified on Scripp's efforts to support NOAA by
providing models of experimental forecasts and perceived
impacts of the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon to prepare
communities. And Dr. Gonzalez described the effects of weather
and climate fluctuations on the agricultural industry.
4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
4.4(a)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI. (NASA Posture
Hearing--FY 1998 NASA Authorization)
March 4, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-7
Background
On March 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held the first in a series of six hearings entitled, ``Fiscal
Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created in 1958
(PL 85-568), largely in response to the Soviet Union's launch
of Sputnik 1 in 1957. 1997 marks the 40th anniversary of this
historic launch. The objectives of the agency as laid out by
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 include:
expansion of human knowledge, improvement of aeronautical and
space vehicles, development of vehicles to travel through
space, sharing of knowledge between military and civilian space
communities, international cooperation, and preservation of the
United States' role as a leader in aeronautics, space science,
and technology.
The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee is responsible for
overseeing and authorizing appropriations for all the
activities within NASA as well as the commercial space
activities within the Department of Commerce (Office of Space
Commerce) and the Department of Transportation (Office of
Commercial Space Transportation). The NASA budget is divided
into four appropriations lines: Human Space Flight (HSF);
Science, Aeronautics and Technology (SAT); Mission Support
(MS); and Inspector General (IG). Human Space Flight contains
the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle. Science,
Aeronautics and Technology funds the research and development
activities including science, global monitoring, aeronautics,
education programs, mission communication services and direct
program support. Mission Support includes the civil service
workforce, space communication services, safety and quality
assurance activities, and maintenance activities for the NASA
facilities.
Witnesses included: Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Daniel S. Goldin testified that the President's fiscal
year 1998 budget request of $13.5 billion, and the funding plan
for the outyears will give America a robust space and
aeronautics program. He noted that NASA is spending more on
research and development and less on overhead. In 1992, NASA
spent only 31 percent of its budget on science, aeronautics,
and space technology. For fiscal year 1998, Mr. Goldin reported
that 44 percent of the budget will now be devoted to those same
areas. He reviewed delays currently facing the construction of
the International Space Station, but insisted that NASA wanted
to continue to work with the Russian government in completing
this ``most complex mission.'' In closing, Mr. Goldin stated
that the future of NASA is about making airlines safer,
exploring the solar system, and building the International
Space Station.
4.4(b)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (NASA's Office
of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology)
March 12, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-7
Background
On March 12, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the second in a series of six hearings
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.''
The Office of Aeronautics has been redesignated this year as
the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology
to reflect the inclusion of Space Transportation and Commercial
Technology programs. These two programs were transferred as a
result of the dissolution of the Office of Space Access &
Technology (Code X). Specifically, the Space Transportation
Division (headed by retired Air Force colonel Gary Payton) and
the Commercial Development & Technology Transfer Division
(headed by Dr. Bob Norwood) of Code X were added to the Office
of Aeronautics (Code R, headed by Dr. Robert Whitehead), to
create the new office.
The rationale for merging aeronautics and space
transportation was that in the future, many of the technologies
required for advanced aeronautical systems and next generation
space vehicles will overlap, and that considerable synergy will
be possible by integrating the efforts. Commercial technology
was added because of the Office of Aeronautics' demonstrated
success with technology transfer to the commercial aviation
industry.
The new office is, therefore, responsible for carrying out
three areas of activity: (1) aeronautics and aviation safety
research and development; (2) experimental reusable launch
vehicle (X-33 and X-34) demonstration, and advanced space
transportation technology programs; and, (3) technology
transfer and Small Business Innovation Research programs.
Witnesses included: Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, Associate
Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology, NASA; and, Gary E. Payton, Deputy Associate
Administrator (Space Transportation Technology), and Director,
Space Transportation Division, NASA.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, NASA's Associate Administrator for
the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology,
noted that NASA combined the Aeronautics and Space
Transportation Technology enterprises in 1996. He stated that
the current enterprise is shaped around three technology
pillars for success: (1) global civil aviation, (2)
revolutionary technology leaps, and (3) access to space.
Mr. Gary E. Payton, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator
for Space Transportation Technology and Director of the Space
Transportation Division, discussed the accomplishments of the
DC-XA program and the selection of the designs for the X-33 and
X-34 vehicles.
4.4(c)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY 1998 NASA
Authorization: Space Shuttle Program)
March 13, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-7
Background
On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the third in a series of six hearings
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.''
The Space Shuttle program was the principal development program
undertaken by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
during the 1970's. This space transportation system would use,
to the maximum extent possible, a reusable components systems
approach in order to reduce the cost per pound to orbit. The
design authorized was a reusable orbiter which would be
propelled into low-earth orbit (LEO) by two solid rocket
boosters (SRBs) augmented by the Orbiter's main engine, all of
which were mounted on an expendable external fuel tank. Once
aloft, the SRBs would be jettisoned and recovered at sea, while
the Orbiter would complete its mission and return to either an
east coast or west coast recovery site. At this site, it would
land much like a conventional aircraft and then be reprocessed
and returned to the launch site for its next mission. The first
launch of the Space Shuttle took place in April 1981.
Several successful missions were flown with the system
during the next 4\1/2\ years, though the projected cost savings
and annual launch rate were never realized. Instead of becoming
a routine space transportation system, the Shuttle program was
still an inherently high-risk operation and remained in a
quasi-developmental stage. The public, however, was becoming
accustomed to watching the Shuttle missions on television and
in the collective mind of the American people the event had
become routine.
The Challenger accident in the winter of 1986 was a
devastating blow to NASA and the nation. A faulty O-ring in one
of Challenger's two solid rocket boosters failed leading to the
catastrophic destruction of the entire vehicle and the loss of
the crew. Following the tragedy, the Rogers Commission was
formed to examine causal factors of the accident and to
recommend changes or improvements to the NASA Administrator.
Among these recommendations were: eliminate the isolation of
program managers from the engineers, increase the flow of
information between the Shuttle workforce and the various
program managers and properly staff and support a more robust
safety organization within the program.
When the program resumed operations following a lengthy
standdown, it did so under the guidelines of a completely
restructured safety program. NASA fostered an environment more
conducive to open communications among the workforce and moved
astronauts into program management. The restructured safety
program was accompanied by a vastly increased Safety,
Reliability and Quality Assurance (SR&QA) element. Later
reports would put the size of this expanded program at some
4,000 individuals at a cost approaching $400 million annually.
Though there is no doubt that the safety of the program has
improved, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the
cumbersome safety review process and the failure of the program
to achieve a certain level of cost-effectiveness and
responsiveness to the launch customer remains. Prior to
Challenger, the Shuttle had not matured from a developmental
program. Since the accident, the program has moved even further
away from the goal of routine operations.
Declining NASA budgets have forced the agency into major
restructuring efforts in order to continue programs while at
the same time avoiding the closure of NASA centers.
Accomplishing this goal requires an overall reduction in agency
personnel, which in the case of human space flight programs,
has led to questions about the impact this reduction will have
on safety. Over the past couple of years, the Agency
commissioned a series of reviews of both internal and
independent teams to provide recommendations for reaching the
requisite budget goals while avoiding any compromise to program
safety. One of these studies, the Shuttle Workforce Review
(completed in 1995) recommended that 3,200 government and
contractor jobs could be eliminated from the nearly 30,000
member Shuttle workforce without jeopardizing safety of flight.
These cuts would be in addition to ongoing reductions.
The Space Shuttle Management Independent Review Team was
formed by the NASA Administrator in November 1994 and chaired
by Dr. Christopher Kraft to provide independent recommendations
to supplement internal reviews. The study, now referred to as
the Kraft report, sought to evaluate the current process and
procedures for conducting Space Shuttle operations at the NASA
space centers and associated contractor facilities in order to
provide recommendations to the Administrator to establish a
more efficient operational structure.
The Kraft report made a series of recommendations on
efficiency, cost savings, and improved service to customers
without jeopardizing safe operation of the Shuttle. The most
significant recommendations were to relinquish the operational
responsibility of the program to a prime contractor, reducing
NASA's involvement in daily operations of the Shuttle, and
minimizing modifications to the Shuttle fleet to only those
which would improve safety or otherwise reduce operating costs
In response to the recommendations of the Kraft report,
NASA commissioned a study by Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) to perform a risk-assessment study of the
entire Shuttle mission profile in order to assess where
concentrated efforts would reduce operating costs without
compromising flight safety. The study looked at all the
potential events which could lead to a critical failure with
the goal of producing a more focused risk reduction effort.
Though this process would reduce the potential for a mishap,
the inherent risks associated with such a complex program
cannot be eliminated. An illustration of this is the report's
conclusion that the ``median estimate of failure'' for a given
mission has been reduced to one in 248 launches from one in 78
at the time of the Challenger accident.
Oversight by Congress led to ongoing studies of the
restructuring of NASA in general and its effects on the Shuttle
program. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reviewed the
findings of the Rogers Commission and applied them to the
current restructuring plans of NASA. GAO has identified a few
key principles which it believes should remain as guideposts
during the transition of the Shuttle program: open
communication of safety concerns; sufficient parallel safety
reviews and communications channels; accessible management
information systems that provide complete and accurate data in
a timely manner; and, program priorities that place safety
ahead of schedule or cost.
In following the recommendations of the Kraft report, NASA
is in the process of consolidating contracts for the operations
of the Space Shuttle Program into a ``single prime'' contract.
This ``single prime'' concept, which was first used by the
Space Station program, is intended to collapse the fee
structure (profits paid to contractors) while rewarding the
single prime contractor with additional fee incentives for
achieving cost reduction goals. Many observers recognize the
transition from today's multiple prime contracts to a single
prime as the first step in the broad policy goal of privatizing
the Space Shuttle program. Under this single prime contract,
the firm chosen will obtain general control over the day-to-day
operations of the Space Shuttle program, while ultimate
authority to certify and fly the system will continue to be
held by the Federal Government. Privatization would likely
transfer this ultimate authority to the private firm, while
NASA's role would be reduced to that of being a ``customer'' of
the privatized system.
On August 21, 1995, NASA held an industry briefing to lay
the groundwork for the consolidation of some 85 separate
contracts under a single prime contractor. Initial letters of
intent, due to the Agency by September 14, 1995, were submitted
by Boeing; McDonnell Douglas; BAMSI Corporation; and United
States Space Alliance (USA), a Lockheed Martin and Rockwell
joint venture. It was NASA's intention to award the contract in
October 1996.
NASA abruptly terminated the competition in the spring of
1996 and announced that a sole source contract would be awarded
to USA. The consolidation will occur over the course of one to
three years, though there will be some contracts of shorter
duration which will be exempt and other contracts involving
developmental work which will remain under the auspices of NASA
managers.
Witnesses included: Mr. Steve Oswald, Deputy Associate
Administrator (Space Shuttle), NASA; Mr. Paul M. Johnstone,
Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; and, Mr. Kent Black,
Chief Executive Officer for United Space Alliance.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Steve Oswald, NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for
the Space Shuttle program, testified that NASA is flying the
Space Shuttle more safely and accomplishing more on orbit than
ever before. He maintained that NASA's Space Shuttle program is
living up to the promises that were made to Congress and the
American people by meeting the commitment of flying safely for
less money.
Mr. Paul M. Johnstone, Chairman of the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel, noted that relations between NASA and United
Space Alliance, the Shuttle's single prime contractor, seem
excellent. He said that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel
believes that the transition to a single prime contract has not
changed flight or ground risks of the program. However, Mr.
Johnstone pointed out that there is a clear need on the part of
both NASA and United Space Alliance to take steps to ensure the
availability of a skilled and experienced work force in
sufficient numbers to meet ongoing safety needs of the Shuttle
program.
Mr. Kent Black, Chief Executive Officer of United Space
Alliance, testified that one of the objectives of the Space
Flight Operations Contract (SFOC) is to reduce the cost of
flying payloads on the Shuttle by adding new customers to
reduce the costs. Mr. Black mentioned the Department of Defense
(DOD) and commercial customers as potential resources to help
defray the costs of operating the Shuttle.
4.4(d)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY 1998 NASA
Authorization: Mission To Planet Earth)
March 19, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-7
Background
On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the fourth in a series of six hearings
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.''
President Bush initiated Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) in 1990
to study the earth's environment, in particular its climate
system. At the time, the expectation was that NASA's budget
would grow by 10% per year--peaking at about $20 billion by
fiscal year 2000--to accommodate this new initiative. NASA's
budget, however, has consistently fallen since fiscal year
1993. The fiscal year 1998 request for NASA is $13.5 billion
including $1.42 billion for MTPE. MTPE is the largest component
of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
which exists to study the earth's environmental system.
Concern has been expressed by General Accounting Office
witnesses at Science Committee hearings that Mission to Planet
Earth is too heavily weighted in its spending on hardware to
collect data, as opposed to paying scientists to analyze
existing and new data. Ideally, the program would prioritize
scientific research over data collection. For example, at a
March 1996 hearing, it was revealed that the USGCRP hopes to
spend approximately 30% of its budget on ``process studies,''
as opposed to data collection hardware. MTPE's budget for
``process studies,'' however, was only 9% of its total. Dr.
Robert Watson, Associate Director for the Environment at the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, confirmed
that this was not the ideal balance between hardware and
science. (Committee on Science, Hearing: U.S. Global Change
Research Programs: Data Collection and Scientific Priorities,
No. 49, March 6, 1996, pp. 354-355).
The hearing helped Members focus on Mission to Planet
Earth, its accomplishments, its goals, its strengths, and its
weaknesses during the budget process for fiscal year 1998.
Witnesses included: Mr. William F. Townsend, Associate
Administrator for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA;
Mr. Sam Venneri, Chief Technologist, NASA; Dr. Steven C. Wofsy,
Gordon McKay Professor of Atmospheric and Environmental
Sciences, Harvard University; and, Dr. Stamatios Krimigis, Head
of the Space Department at the Applied Physics Laboratory,
Johns Hopkins University.
Summary of hearing
Mr. William F. Townsend, NASA's Associate Administrator for
the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, provided an overview of
MTPE noting that program runout costs for the second series
have been reduced by 30 percent due to planned technology
infusion; Earth Observing System (EOS) spacecraft are smaller,
cost less and have shorter development times; and that the
commercial strategy for the program includes partnerships with
industry including science data purchase and commercial remote
sensing.
Mr. Sam Venneri, NASA's Chief Technologist, discussed the
findings and recommendations of the Reshape Implementation
Options Study which examined ways MTPE could use advanced
technology to design a complete space-to-ground system.
Dr. Steven C. Wofsy, Gordon McKay Professor of Atmospheric
and Environmental Sciences at Harvard University, discussed
recommendations for the program from Earth Systems Science
Applications Advisory Committee (ESSAAC), which he chaired. He
noted that ESSAAC was concerned with the balance of funding
between space hardware and data analysis in the program.
Dr. Stamatios Krimigis, Head of the Space Department at the
Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, discussed
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) Midcourse
Space Experiment (MSX) and its potential applications to MTPE.
Dr. Ed Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies at the CATO
Institute, conveyed the CATO Institute position that MTPE
should not be reauthorized this year because government
involvement in the program discourages private sector
development of space infrastructure.
4.4(e)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY 1998 NASA
Authorization: International Space Station)
April 9, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-7
Background
On April 9, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held the fifth in a series of six hearings entitled, ``Fiscal
Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' The International
Space Station is a multinational effort to create an advanced
life and microgravity sciences research laboratory using the
unique environment of space. In 1993, the Clinton
Administration ordered a redesign that led to a station
configuration known as Alpha. Shortly thereafter, the
Administration invited the Russians to participate in the
program in the interest of promoting international cooperation
in space. By 1994, NASA settled on a design that included the
Russians, who were supposed to build about half of the
facility's pressurized space. They joined the United States and
its other international partners, Canada, Japan, and the
European Space Agency. The new design was expected to cost
$17.4 billion between 1994 and completion in 2002, after which
it was to operate for ten years. Additionally, the
Administration placed an annual $2.1 billion spending cap on
the International Space Station in order to impose fiscal
restraint on the program. During the 104th Congress, there was
strong bipartisan support for the International Space Station
and amendments to terminate it were defeated by margins of over
100 votes.
The program is divided into three phases. Phase I involves
a series of cooperative flights by the U.S. Space Shuttle to
the Russian space station, Mir. NASA is paying the Russian
Government approximately $472 million for this Phase, which
includes long-duration stays on Mir by U.S. astronauts and
logistics provided by the Space Shuttle. Phase I is well
underway and there have been six Shuttle flights to the Mir (1
rendezvous and 5 docking). No funds were requested for U.S.-
Russian cooperation in the FY1998 budget request, but not all
funds appropriated in the past have been expended.
Phase II constitutes the first stage of construction, in
which the United States and Russia launch sufficient elements
of their total contributions to enable the Space Station to
accommodate a permanent human presence. Phase II was scheduled
to begin in November 1997, with the launch of the Functional
Cargo Block (FGB) and end in April 1999. However, NASA is now
considering delaying launch of the FGB due to Russia's problems
in funding development of the Service Module. NASA paid the
Russians approximately $190 million for the FGB through a
contract with the Space Station's U.S. prime contractor,
Boeing.
Phase III begins with the contributions of our other
partners, namely Japan and the European Space Agency.
Technically, Phase III ends in the middle of FY2002, before the
European Space Agency's Columbus Orbital Facility (COF) is
actually delivered to the Station. The Europeans have requested
the delay in the launch of COF.
To date, the development program is slightly over 56%
complete and NASA's contractors have built over 162,000 pounds
of flight hardware. Problems with the U.S.-built Nodes
experienced last year have been resolved and NASA is working to
meet its Node delivery schedule. Node 2 is already fabricated
in the United States. However, NASA recently announced an
agreement with Italy in which Italy will provide Node 2 and
possibly a third Node not currently baselined in the design.
NASA is still working towards a 2002 completion date and has
planned for accumulated reserves of about $2 billion between
now and assembly complete. The annual reserves in FY1997 and
FY1998, however, are very small.
Witnesses included: Mr. Rick N. Tumlinson, President, Space
Frontier Foundation; Dr. Robert Park, Professor of Physics,
University of Maryland at College Park; Dr. Larry DeLucas,
Director, Center for Macromolecular Crystallography, University
of Alabama, Birmingham; and, Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's
Associate Administrator, Office of Human Space Flight.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's Associate Administrator for the
Office of Space Flight, informed the Subcommittee that NASA is
rescheduling the first element launch for the International
Space Station for no later than October 1998. Mr. Trafton
reviewed NASA's current contingency plans in light of the
impending delay of Russian contributions to the International
Space Station including: (1) modifying the FGB to enhance its
attitude control capabilities and to make it refuelable; and
(2) pursuing development of an existing, proven system built by
the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory as an Interim Control Module
(ICM). He indicated that a decision must be made by early May
1997 to baseline into the budget either the Russian Service
Module or an ICM for launch in December 1998. Finally, Mr.
Trafton advised the Subcommittee that these contingency plans
will require resources outside of the planned International
Space Station program. Specifically, NASA will submit a revised
operating plan for fiscal year 1997 that will reallocate $200
million from the Shuttle program to the U.S./Russian
Cooperation funding line (designated U.S./Russian cooperation
and program assurance); and will request a similar funding line
with a placeholder amount of $100 million for fiscal year 1998.
Dr. Robert Park, Professor of Physics at the University of
Maryland, College Park, argued that the International Space
Station is yesterday's technology and its stated scientific
objectives are yesterday's science. He maintained that the
International Space Station stands as the greatest single
obstacle to continued exploration of space. In closing, Dr.
Park noted that during the recent trend of cuts to the NASA
budget, the Station remains a fixed cost, exempted from these
budget cuts. Additionally, cost overruns in construction have
been accommodated by postponing what little science is planned
for the Station.
Dr. Larry DeLucas, Director of the Center for
Macromolecular Crystallography at the University of Alabama,
Birmingham, noted that scientific microgravity experiments
should be conducted over long periods of time as opposed to
current experiments on the Space Shuttle with durations of one
to two weeks. He maintained that carrying discoveries through
to fruition where research can be used for practical benefit,
must be done as an ongoing process. Dr. DeLucas endorsed the
International Space Station because it will allow scientists to
have a laboratory where research can be conducted 365 days a
year.
Mr. Rick N. Tumlinson, President of the Space Frontier
Foundation, recommended having a facility in space in which
Americans can conduct experimentation on new products, new
services and new ideas. He advocated turning the International
Space Station over to private interests to begin operating it
in the same way that industry operate buildings, ships, ports,
and airports. In closing, Mr. Tumlinson maintained that a
successful Space Station will use a partnership between
government and the private sector.
4.4(f)--Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI (FY98 NASA
Authorization: Science Programs)
April 10, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-7
Background
On April 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the last in a series of six hearings entitled,
``Fiscal Year 1998 NASA Authorization, Parts I-VI.'' The Office
of Space Science is responsible for planetary exploration as
well as physics and astronomy missions. The Mission Operations
and Data Analysis (MO&DA) account is separated into two parts,
Mission Operations and Data Analysis. Mission Operations
provides funding for ground networks; monitoring the health of
spacecraft; and mission data processing, analysis, and
archiving. Data Analysis provides funding for individual
investigators, interdisciplinary scientists, and researchers.
Three-quarters of the Data Analysis funds are spent at hundreds
of universities nationwide in the form of grants.
The Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and
Applications is responsible for aerospace medicine, chemical
research, and the physical effects of microgravity on the human
body. NASA's Life Sciences program sponsors basic and applied
research in biomedicine, biology, and environmental sciences.
The program's goals are to: (1) use gravity, microgravity and
other characteristics of the space environment to conduct
research; (2) develop scientific and technological foundations
for safe and productive human presence in space; and (3) apply
knowledge and technology gained to improve our life on Earth.
The Microgravity Science Research and Analysis program supports
ground-based research and definition studies for flight
experiments. The goal of the microgravity research program is
to advance fundamental scientific knowledge in physical,
chemical and biological processes and to enhance the quality of
life on Earth by conducting experiments in the low-gravity
environment of space.
Witnesses included: Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., Associate
Administrator, Office of Space Science, NASA; Dr. Arnauld E.
Nicogossian, Associate Administrator, Office of Life and
Microgravity Sciences and Applications, NASA; Dr. Neal Pellis,
Head of the Biotechnology Program, Johnson Space Center, NASA;
Dr. Claude R. Canizares, Chair, Space Studies Board, National
Research Council and, Director, Center for Space Research,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. Eugene Shoemaker,
Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey; and, Dr. V. Reggie
Edgerton, Vice Chair, Physiological Science Department,
University of California Los Angeles.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., NASA's Associate Administrator
for the Office of Space Science, discussed five near-term
objectives for NASA's science initiatives. First, to open up a
new area in exploring the surfaces of planetary bodies such as
Mars, comets, and asteroids. Second, conduct extensive
investigations of the surface of Mars. Third, to complete the
initial reconnaissance of our solar system with a mission to
Pluto. Fourth, to invest in the technologies required to
develop a successor to the Hubble space telescope. Fifth, to
invest in technologies required to develop new techniques that
we will need in order to search for Earth-like planets around
other stars.
Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, NASA's Associate Administrator
for the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and
Applications, mentioned that because of the delay in the
assembly sequence of the International Space Station, NASA has
started studying remedial actions which include the use of
Shuttle flights during the early years of Station assembly.
These flights would provide the research community with
continued access to space until transition to the Space Station
is possible.
Dr. Claude R. Canizares, Chair of the Space Studies Board
at the National Research Council and Director of the Center for
Space Research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
reiterated the need for additional Shuttle flight research
opportunities because of developing problems with the
International Space Station. He insisted that space research
provides innumerable benefits that enhance the quality and
character of life for the American public.
Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, Scientist Emeritus at the U.S.
Geological Survey, discussed near-Earth asteroids and research
that NASA is supporting at three separate institutions that
survey Earth-crossing asteroids. During his testimony, Dr.
Shoemaker argued for the necessity of asteroid research and
maintained that a 40 percent budget increase could reduce by as
much as two thirds, the time required to discover 90 percent of
the Earth-crossing asteroids larger than one kilometer in
diameter. Dr. Neal Pellis, Head of the Biotechnology Program at
NASA's Johnson Space Center, discussed the benefits of
biotechnology and NASA's goal of engineering human tissue,
starting from individual cells, using the microgravity
environment and advanced technology such as the bioreactor.
Dr. V. Reggie Edgerton, Vice Chair of the Physiological
Science Department at the University of California Los Angeles,
discussed different strategies for researching the field of
neural repair. He argued that continued investment in this type
of research is critical to efforts to optimize the recovery of
elderly individuals who suffered neural dysfunctions and neural
trauma patients.
4.4(g)--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III (The Commercial
Space Act of 1997: Commercial Remote Sensing, Part I)
May 21, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-16
Background
On May 21, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held the first in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The
Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III.'' In 1992, Congress
passed the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-
555). The law established mechanisms by which private entities
may obtain licenses to operate commercial remote sensing
satellites to image the Earth in a variety of spectral bands.
In 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision
Directive (PDD) 23 and announced publicly his policy that U.S.
commercial remote sensing companies would be allowed to collect
space-based, high-resolution images. Currently, remote sensing
imagery collected from government spacecraft and private-sector
aircraft is applied to improve life on Earth in a variety of
situations, including disaster relief, land use, resource
planning, urban development, and precision agriculture. Since
the announcement of the 1994 White House policy, the Federal
Government has issued seven licenses to U.S. companies to
operate remote sensing satellites. Experience with the legal
and regulatory environment since 1992 has revealed several
possibilities for improving the business environment of remote
sensing.
Historically, designing, building, launching, and operating
an Earth-observing satellite has been an extremely expensive
proposition. Until recently, governments have been the only
entities capable of raising the capital required to image the
Earth from space. For national security purposes, the U.S.
intelligence community has been taking pictures of the planet
from low-Earth orbit for decades. During the 1970s, NASA
developed and launched the Landsat spacecraft to study the
Earth's environment. Landsat 4 and 5 are still in operation
today. Landsat 7 is scheduled for launch next year as part of
NASA's Mission to Planet Earth program.
In recent years the pace of technological change has
dramatically reduced the cost and technical challenge
associated with Earth observation from space. Whereas the
United States and Soviet Union were the principal owners and
operators of Earth observation satellites during the Cold War,
several countries currently operate or plan to operate their
own remote sensing system. Many of these nations are in the
Third World. Canada, China, Brazil, the European Space Agency,
France, India, Israel, Japan, and South Africa sponsor remote
sensing programs in their respective countries. Other countries
that have expressed an interest in purchasing or developing
their own remote sensing satellites include South Korea, Spain,
and the United Arab Emirates. The current commercial market in
remote sensing is estimated to be about $350 million annually,
with expectations that the market could reach $2 billion by the
year 2000. This does not include the value-added industry,
which interprets the data and generated $275 million in revenue
during 1994.
The reasons for the explosive growth in the industry are
two-fold. First, the aforementioned drop in the price of
technology has reduced the cost of designing, constructing,
launching, and operating commercial remote sensing satellites.
Second, during the course of government Earth observation
programs, the user community has developed a wide range of
applications for remotely-sensed data that directly benefit
people on Earth. This has created a demand pull for the
technology and images. Remote sensing technology and images are
being used in mineral and oil exploration to focus the work of
ground-survey teams and reduce the costs of exploration. Images
are also being used for agricultural assessment and precision
farming, so that agricultural yields are maximized with greater
efficiency, requiring less fertilizer. Remote sensing images
are also being used to monitor the environment and assess the
environmental damage associated with clear-cut logging in the
rain forest. Images have been used to predict, monitor, and
assess major flood damage and are proving valuable in policing
ocean use. In general, Earth remote sensing is increasingly
being used to manage resources more efficiently.
Witnesses included: Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director of
the Office of Air and Space Commercialization, Department of
Commerce; Dr. Susan Moran, Physical Scientist for the Southwest
Watershed Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr.
Molly Macauley, Senior Fellow for Resources for the Future; Dr.
John Townshend, Professor at the University of Maryland; and,
Mr. Jeff Harris, President of Space Imaging Incorporated.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director of the Office of Air
and Space Commercialization at the Department of Commerce,
discussed a new era that he termed ``new space.'' He maintained
that new space differs dramatically from the previous era of
traditional aerospace in three significant ways: (1) it is
privately funded; (2) it is international; and (3) it will be
Earth's new economic frontier. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor also noted
that the U.S. government is beginning, and must continue, to
treat new space as an industry segment where data is tracked
and analyzed in much the same way as commodities futures or
crop reports are, so that businesses can intelligently
anticipate the future of the aerospace industry.
Mr. Jeff Harris, President of Space Imaging Incorporated,
discussed opportunities that commercial remote sensing can
offer the U.S. He also explained the reasons for expanding
interest in commercial remote sensing, including: (1) adequate
technology is available; (2) commercial remote sensing has
become more cost-effective; (3) international clientele
opportunities; and (4) a U.S. aerospace industry that is poised
and ready to further develop this emerging industry.
Dr. Susan Moran, Physical Scientist for the Southwest
Watershed Research Center at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, testified regarding applications of remote sensing
imagery that help to improve life on Earth and discussed the
value of commercial remote sensing to precision farming. Dr.
John Townshend, Professor at the University of Maryland, said
that to assist development of the commercial remote sensing
industry, we (government and industry) should: (1) ensure that
the scientific community plays a major role in planning the
acquisition of remote sensing data; (2) provide reliable
information on the availability of remote sensing data to the
scientific user; (3) involve the scientific community in
validation and quality assessment of products derived from
remote sensing; and (4) assure that remote sensing products are
delivered in a timely fashion.
Dr. Molly Macauley, Senior Fellow for Resources for the
Future, noted that the profitability of the commercial remote
sensing market is going to depend on continued technological
improvements and cost reductions in spacecraft and
instrumentation. She also suggested that government agencies
could ``auction'' research spacecraft after their original
missions were complete. This would help commercial providers by
eliminating expensive research and development costs.
4.4(h)--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III (The Commercial
Space Act of 1997: Space Transportation)
May 22, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-16
Background
On May 22, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held the second in a series of three hearings entitled, ``The
Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III.'' In the early
1980's, various U.S. private companies (including government
contractors and entrepreneurial firms) began to develop
expendable launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services
to private and public customers here and abroad. The U.S.
industry did not grow quickly, however, due to regulatory
burdens and competition from NASA's Space Shuttle. The
regulatory problems faced by these companies led to Congress
passing the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, which created
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the Department
of Transportation. This office has the responsibility of
regulating and licensing commercial space launches. Two years
later, after the Challenger disaster, the Reagan Administration
directed that commercial satellites would no longer be launched
by the Space Shuttle, and the three primary Air Force
expendable launch vehicle contractors (McDonnell Douglas,
General Dynamics, and Martin Marietta) began offering
commercial launches using updated versions of vehicles which
were derived from Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).
In the decade since, the commercial space transportation
industry has grown both domestically and internationally.
Technology has progressed to the point where commercial reentry
vehicles are now feasible. In the near future, it is expected
that private firms will develop their own (multi-stage)
reusable launch vehicles. Internationally, the European
industry consortium, Arianespace, continues to dominate the
world market, launching roughly 70% of the world's commercial
communications satellites to geosynchronous (GEO) orbit. Many
other nations have entered the launch market, including China,
Russia, Ukraine, and Japan. The market for space transportation
has also grown beyond GEO-based communications satellites to
include low Earth orbit-based communications, navigation, and
remote sensing satellites.
Witnesses included: Mr. Edward A. Frankle, General Counsel
for NASA; Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator
(Acting) for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA); Mr. Edward Brady, Managing Partner,
Strategic Perspectives Incorporated; and, Mr. Michael S. Kelly,
President & CEO, Kelly Space & Technology Incorporated.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Edward A. Frankle, General Counsel for NASA, noted that
policy makers need to review several areas before making a
decision to regulate in-space transportation. These areas
include: international obligations of the U.S.; pubic health
and safety; safety of property; and national security and
foreign policy interests of the U.S. However, Mr. Frankle
stated that he did not believe that there is any logical basis
for regulating in-space transportation at this time.
Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator (Acting) for
Commercial Space Transportation at FAA, testified it was
essential that Congress pass authorizing legislation granting
FAA the authority to license reentries. Further, she maintained
that without such authority, the government would not be able
to provide for public safety or ensure adequate oversight of
commercial space transportation activities involving reentry or
reusable vehicles.
Mr. Edward Brady, Managing Partner for Strategic
Perspectives Incorporated, focused on the necessity to
establish international standards for commercial space
operations. He maintained that commercial space activities
cannot be implemented in a cost-effective manner without
standards that are nationally and internationally recognized
and used.
Mr. Michael S. Kelly, President & CEO of Kelly Space &
Technology Incorporated, said that he believed that authority
to license reentry should be granted to the FAA and that the
government should not continue the practice of financing
commercial launch service providers with taxpayer money.
4.4(i)--The Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III (The Commercial
Space Act of 1997: Commercial Remote Sensing, Part II)
June 4, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-16
Background
On June 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held the last in a series of hearings entitled, ``The
Commercial Space Act of 1997, Parts I-III.'' In 1992 Congress
passed, and President Bush signed, the Land Remote Sensing
Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555), which made it possible for
the U.S. commercial sector to design, build, launch, and
operate commercial remote sensing satellites to image the Earth
from space. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act charges the
Secretary of Commerce with carrying out its provisions and
establishing a process for licensing these remote sensing
satellites. In order to ensure that U.S. national security
concerns and international obligations are taken into
consideration during the licensing process, the law directs the
Secretary of Commerce to consult with the Secretaries of
Defense and State prior to issuing any license. The State and
Defense Secretaries are then charged with recommending to the
Secretary of Commerce any conditions that should be placed on
the license to make it consistent with U.S. national security
and international obligations. The Commerce Department has 120
days from the time a license application is submitted to work
its way through this interagency process and make a ruling on
the license application. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is the agency within the Commerce
Department that carries out the Department's responsibilities
under the law.
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a system of orbiting
satellites that transmit precise information about their
location over the Earth. Using a small receiver, an individual
on the ground can determine his or her precise position (within
a few feet) on Earth in three dimensions. While GPS is
primarily a military system, it provides a slightly less
accurate signal to civilian users for various non-military
applications. An entire industry that uses the GPS signal has
developed as a result and the applications have multiplied well
beyond precise navigation. These applications currently include
farming, surveying, recreation, and vehicle fleet management.
The National Academy of Public Administration estimated that
annual revenues from this civil industry were about $2 billion
in 1995 and could grow to $31 billion by the year 2000.
Witnesses included: Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; Ms. Cheryl
Roby, Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence, Department of
Defense; and, Mr. Mike Sweik, Executive Director, GPS Industry
Council.
While drafting H.R. 1702, the Commercial Space Act of 1997,
the Committee on Science attempted to seek input from various
agencies and businesses in an effort to make the bill as
favorable, for both the Congress and the Administration, as
possible. Therefore, the Department of State was invited to
participate in this hearing, but unfortunately, a witness was
not sent despite the Committee's attempts over several weeks to
obtain a representative who could provide input from the
Department. The Committee sought input from the Department of
State because the Department makes recommendations, based on
U.S. international obligations, to the Secretary of Commerce
regarding licenses for commercial remote sensing. Subsequent to
the hearing, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman
and Ranking Member each received a position paper from the
Department of State regarding H.R. 1702. While the Committee
appreciates the input from the Department, such input is
valuable legislatively only to the extent that members have the
opportunity to ask questions and explore issues on the record.
The Department's failure to appear before the Committee and
offer its comments in a public forum limit the value or import
that can be given to the Department's concerns, many of which
appear to be inconsistent with existing law in the Land Remote
Sensing Policy Act of 1992 and the President's publicly
released statements of policy on remote sensing.
Summary of hearing
Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere at the U.S. Department of Commerce, testified that
it is the goal of the Department of Commerce, and the
Administration, to provide a policy and regulatory regime which
nurtures and fosters the development of commercial remote
sensing, so that the U.S. does not squander the lead and allow
other countries to gain competitive advantage in this high-
skill, high-wage industry. Dr. Baker noted industry concerns
about the vagueness of the standard for determining when
imaging must be restricted. Therefore, he reported that the
Department of Commerce is developing regulations which will
achieve a better balance between the burdens on a licensed
operator and national security requirements and international
obligations of the U.S. regarding remote sensing practices.
Ms. Cheryl Roby, Principal Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence at the Department of Defense, testified that the
recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review commits the
Department to maximize the use of emerging commercial remote
sensing capabilities. She maintained that for reasons of
national security, the Defense Department is convinced that
provisions allowing for shutter control in emergency situations
should continue. However, Ms. Roby noted that the Defense
Department did not anticipate that shutter control would occur
often or over significant periods of time.
Mr. Mike Swiek, Executive Director for the Global
Positioning System Industry Council, testified that the Global
Positioning System (GPS) has become one of the greatest success
stories of government and industry cooperation. He noted that
proposed language in the Commercial Space Act of 1997
reiterates the need to establish a clear, high-level commitment
to a stable policy environment for the development of
international standards facilitating both private and public
sector investments in GPS. In closing, Mr. Swiek argued that
the most important near-term initiative that the government can
take to promote long-term GPS growth is through passage of
language that supports current efforts to secure international
agreements with our allies to establish GPS and its
augmentations as an accepted international standard.
4.4(j)--Space Shuttle Safety
October 1, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-24
Background
On October 1, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Space Shuttle Safety.''
The hearing focused on the current status of the Space Shuttle
program. Specifically, the hearing examined the overall program
safety and how improvements instituted since the Challenger
tragedy will be maintained during the ongoing consolidation of
the program under a single prime contractor. Of particular
interest to the Committee was the recent reallocation of $190
million from the Shuttle program's uncosted carryover funds in
FY1997 to the International Space Station (ISS) program. In
addition, the Subcommittee was interested in receiving
testimony about NASA's future upgrade and maintenance plans for
its Orbiter fleet for operations through the next decade, as
well as hearing the agency's proposals for the privatization of
the Shuttle program.
Witnesses included: Mr. Wilbur Trafton, Associated
Administrator, Office of Human Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Paul M.
Johnstone, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Mr. Allen
Li, United States General Accounting Office; and, Mr. Jim
Adamson, Chief Operating Officer, United Space Alliance.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Wilbur Trafton, Associate Administrator for the Office
of Human Space Flight, NASA, testified that the transfer of
$190 million in fiscal year 1997 from the Space Shuttle program
to the International Space Station program was generated
primarily from prior year operational efficiencies and program
restructuring. The savings realized from the Shuttle program
restructuring process, started in FY1993, were transferred into
reserve accounts. Mr. Trafton stated that these accounts were
then used to mitigate the impact of the significant reductions
in new obligation authority during fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
He also emphasized that Space Shuttle safety, NASA's number one
priority, has not been jeopardized by the transfer of funds.
Mr. Trafton detailed the near perfect safety record of Shuttle
flights in recent years. Mr. Trafton testified that any
significant interruption in the International Space Station
assembly would drive the Shuttle well below the five to six
year minimum rate recommended to maintain a safe schedule. In
conclusion, Mr. Trafton believed that transferring the $190
million was the right thing to do and stated that NASA planned
to follow the same strategy in fiscal year 1998.
Paul M. Johnstone, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel, testified that the panel he chairs does not review
budgetary matters and relies upon the affected programs to
provide assessments of the consequences of funding changes on
operations. Mr. Johnstone then stated that the Space Shuttle
program had not informed the panel of any functional changes as
a result of this uncosted carryover funds transfer. Mr.
Johnstone noted that the panel does not have any indication
that the transfer of funds will have any impact on the ongoing
efforts to reduce risk. Mr. Johnstone also applauded NASA's
utilization of the delay in the ISS assembly schedule to
perform integrated testing of components on the ground prior to
launch. He did indicate, however, that this delay could promote
potential strain on Space Shuttle personnel resources. He
concluded by stating that despite all of the changes NASA is
undergoing, in his panel's estimation, safety remains the
number one tenet.
Mr. Allen Li, United States General Accounting Office,
testified on the upgrade activities and carryover balances of
the Space Shuttle program. Mr. Li stated that upgrade
activities are necessary not only to improve safety and
reliability, but are also essential to overcome component
obsolescence, enhance Shuttle performance, and reduce operating
costs. Mr. Li detailed three points about the funding transfer:
(1) the $190 million transfer did not adversely impact current
upgrade projects; (2) the money was available because of the
large amount of carryover within the Shuttle program; and (3)
depending on the upgrades selected, future costs could range
from hundreds of millions to several billions of dollars. The
questions surrounding funding, in Mr. Li's estimation, will
provide the key parameters that will help shape future policy
decisions.
Mr. Jim Adamson, Chairman, United Space Alliance, testified
that the United Space Alliance has felt no pressure to reduce
costs or accelerate production at the expense of savings. Mr.
Adamson reported that the Shuttle Flight Operations Contract
(SFOC) is on track and proceeding well. In conclusion, Mr.
Adamson stated that, in his opinion, after one full year under
the SFOC, the safety of the Space Shuttle program has never
been better.
4.4(k)--NASA's Study of Space Solar Power (Space Solar Power: A Fresh
Look)
October 24, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-37
Background
On October 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``NASA's Study of Space
Solar Power'' to discuss recent developments relating to the
concept of space-based collection of solar energy for use on
Earth. In particular the hearing focused on a recently-
completed NASA study on ``Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look''.
Testimony before the Subcommittee addressed three main topics:
(1) the approach and results of NASA's ``Fresh Look'' study;
(2) the potential direct and indirect economic, environmental,
and space exploration benefits of space solar power; (3) what
role NASA can and should play in pursuing the opportunities of
space solar power, including carrying out the technology risk
reduction roadmap suggested by the Fresh Look study.
Witnesses included: Mr. John Mankins, Manager, Advanced
Concepts Studies, Office of Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Greg
Maryniak, President, Sunset Energy Council, and Senior
Scientist, Futron Corporation; and, Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of
Aerospace and Science Policy, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics.
In 1968 a Czech-American engineer at Arthur D. Little, Dr.
Peter Glaser, first conceived of a satellite which could
collect solar energy in space and beam it down to the Earth
using microwaves or lasers. Stationed 22,000 miles above a
ground receiving antenna in ``geosynchronous'' orbit, the Solar
Power Satellite (SPS) would use photovoltaic cells to convert
the direct, unfiltered sunlight which is available 24 hours a
day in space into electrical energy before transmission to the
surface.
The energy crises of the 1970's stimulated both government
and private sector interest in the SPS concept, leading to a
Department of Energy-led study (with significant NASA
participation) which determined the concept was feasible and in
line with forecasts of early 21st century fossil and nuclear
sources. An oversight study by the National Academy of Sciences
released in late 1981, however, declared that the costs and
technical risks made SPS unfeasible. In particular, the costs
of launching and assembling huge satellites in orbit, the long
period of time from initial investment until power could
actually be generated (and hence the payback begin), and the
risks of pursuing a system which required several new and
unproven technologies, all militated against proceeding with
full-scale development in the 1980's timeframe. There were also
concerns about the environmental impacts of microwave power-
beaming from space to the Earth's surface.
At the request of the House Committee on Science and
Technology, the former Office of Technology Assessment issued
its own report in 1981, which indicated that ``too little is
currently known about the technical, economic, and
environmental aspects of SPS to make a sound decision whether
to proceed''. It therefore suggested that an ``SPS research
program could ultimately assure an adequate information base
for these decisions.''
However, neither the Department of Energy (DOE) nor NASA
pursued the SPS concept further for 15 years, apparently
believing the idea was politically, as well as economically and
technically, unfeasible. Meanwhile, private organizations such
as the Space Studies Institute, the Sunsat Energy Council, and
the California Space Institute all pursued research into a
variety of concepts and technologies for what became the more
generic and accepted term of ``Space Solar Power.''
Still other Space Solar Power advocates, including Dr.
Glaser, studied the possibility of shorter-term applications
for the basic technologies of ``wireless power transmission''
(i.e. the means of sending the energy from the satellite to the
Earth). Glaser proposed that there were economically viable
interim steps along the way to full-scale SPS development which
could be pursued earlier, making it possible to reduce the risk
and cost of SPS by inventing it piecemeal. Despite the U.S.
government's lack of interest during the 1980's, other nations,
particularly Japan and France, began hosting conferences and
sponsoring preliminary research efforts regarding SPS.
In 1995, after the establishment of the Office of Space
Access and Technology within NASA and its subsidiary Office of
Advanced Concepts, NASA initiated its first significant look at
Space Solar Power since the DOE study. The team included NASA
employees from NASA Headquarters, the Marshall and Lewis
Research Centers, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as well as
experts from the electric power and aerospace industry. The
study took account of significant advances in automation and
robotics, space launch, small satellites, and photovoltaics in
the past 15 years, as well as changes in the world energy
forecast, particularly in the developing world.
Starting with a mandate of economic feasibility, rather
than a more typical engineering focus, the study identified
several potential systems concepts--two of which were
determined to be promising--and laid out a measured technology
risk reduction strategy. Because of high costs for existing,
let alone additional, power capacity in the developing world,
the study determined that Space Solar Power would be an
important energy option for the 21st century, and
could begin meeting peak power demands economically in as few
as 15-20 years. The study also found that there were
significant benefits to other space activities, including in-
space transportation and space-based power needs.
In mid-study (late 1996) NASA reorganized its space
technology activities, and the Office of Advanced Concepts was
abolished. The study activity continued, however, and the final
report was issued early in the summer of 1997.
Summary of hearing
Mr. John Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies,
Office of Space Flight, NASA, initiated his testimony by
stating that NASA is not the lead in the Federal Government for
power systems technology development for earth applications,
and that commercial Space Solar Power is not a priority within
NASA's current strategic plan. He noted that funding for any
focused NASA effort in support of solar power technology is
neither included in NASA's existing budget, nor contemplated at
this time for future NASA budgets. He indicated that past solar
power satellite efforts were deemed too expensive and immense
to undertake. However, Mr. Mankins then detailed the latest
effort to explore this topic, NASA's Fresh Look Study.
According to Mr. Mankins, the study determined that the older
modules of a solar power satellite system would cost between $1
billion and $10 billion to start commercial operations and
would have to produce power at 1 to 10 cents a kilowatt per
hour in order to compete commercially. The study, according to
Mr. Mankins, also detailed two new concepts: the SunTower and
the Solar Disk. These concepts both address a global energy
market and are largely self-assembling and self managing. Mr.
Mankins also stated that these new systems would cost less to
assemble and have a diverse range of commercial space
applications. Mr. Mankins concluded by stating that aggressive
technology development would be needed to realize the potential
of these new space solar power concepts. Based on the
conclusions of the Fresh Look Study, the time has come for a
reconsideration of power from space as a potential global
energy option.
Mr. Greg Maryniak, President, Sunset Energy Council and
Senior Scientist, Futron Corporation, testified that
terrestrial solar power is critically important throughout the
world, especially in residential areas where density is fairly
small. Cities and industries, however, require an energy
density that exceeds what can be collected in a local area. In
Mr. Maryniak's opinion, Space Solar Power solves that problem
by collecting the energy and transmitting it to earth. Mr.
Maryniak stated that Space Solar Power would also have
immediate benefits for wireless power technology, the
International Space Station, and future space transportation.
Mr. Maryniak believes that NASA's mission in this area should
be to improve the technologies and reduce the risk for
commercial players. In his opinion, NASA has been reluctant to
pursue this strategy because of the intense interest and
investment in a manned mission to Mars. In conclusion, Mr.
Maryniak believes that research and funds should be balanced to
include this potentially important technology.
Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of Aerospace and Science Policy at
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
testified that in creating the Human Exploration and
Development of Space division (HEDS), NASA chose to include two
oftentimes very different goals into the same enterprise;
exploration and development. Dr. Grey concluded that the
mission-oriented hardware needed for a Mars mission are
generally not consistent with the equally important
developmental goals that are achieved through the use of space
technologies. He then noted that these two enterprises could
eventually be reconciled because key technologies are shared in
both endeavors. To do this, however, NASA must recognize that
the development of space by humans for economic return and
public access is at least as important as traveling to Mars. In
conclusion, Dr. Grey stated that because the technological
programs are widely dispersed throughout the agency's various
enterprises, NASA's technology advancement programs need to be
coordinated by a single office whose responsibility is very
specific: planning for and building the capability for both
exploration and development of space by humans.
4.4(l)--Indemnification and Cross Waiver Authority
October 30, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-36
Background
On October 30, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Indemnification and
Cross Waiver Authority'' to discuss two different kinds of
legal authority being sought by NASA from Congress: (1)
indemnify experimental aerospace vehicle (eg, X-33 and X-34)
developers against third-party liability claims; and (2) sign
mutual waivers of liability with domestic contractors and other
entities. The hearing addressed the Clinton Administration's
proposed legislative language to provide these authorities and
the Senate's alternative approach, as included in S. 1250, the
FY1998-99 NASA Authorization bill.
Witnesses included: Ms. June Edwards, Associate General
Counsel, NASA; Mr. Jerry Rising, Vice President, Reusable
Launch Vehicles, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Sector; and, Dr.
Robert Lindberg, Vice President, X-34 Program, Orbital Sciences
Corporation.
Background (indemnification)
NASA's X-33 and X-34 experimental reusable launch vehicle
projects are leading examples of the space agency's ``new ways
of doing business.'' In the case of the X-33, a ``cooperative
agreement'' was signed between Lockheed Martin and NASA which
calls for the company to build and flight test the X-33 as an
``industry-led'' project. Because Lockheed Martin owns the X-33
vehicle itself, it would presumably be liable for any damages
caused to third parties during the flight test program. A real-
world example would be windows broken in someone's house due to
the ``hypersonic boom.''
But because this flight test program is being conducted for
the public good as part of an experimental technology
demonstration effort, the Administration and many outside
experts believe this liability risk is an unfair expense for
the company to bear. NASA, therefore, proposes to amend the
National Aeronautics and Space Act (P.L. 85-568, as amended) so
they can indemnify or ``protect against or keep free from loss
or damage'' [Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College
Edition, 1988] the developers and operators of experimental
vehicles such as Lockheed Martin for the X-33. Likewise, NASA
would be able to indemnify Orbital Sciences Corporation, the
developer of the X-34.
Background (cross-waiver)
In order to maximize resources available to space research
(by minimizing that spent on legal issues), NASA has
historically signed mutual waivers of liability with its
research partners, whether they are domestic or foreign
contractors, universities, individuals or government agencies.
By agreeing to be responsible for one's own hardware and any
damages it suffers, both NASA and the other entity can avoid
spending resources protecting themselves against the greatest
source of litigation: damages to directly-involved parties.
For example, if a university wishes to fly a payload on the
Space Shuttle, the cost of obtaining insurance against the
potential damage to the Shuttle orbiter if something went wrong
with the payload could well exceed the total cost of the
payload and the launch. Because it is in the public interest to
encourage the greatest efficiency in use of research funding,
NASA and the university would sign a ``cross-waiver'' of
liability claims. If the university was working with several
scientists, each of whom contributed part of the payload, the
university could extend this cross-waiver to cover them as
well.
While NASA has historically claimed the authority to sign
these cross-waivers with both domestic and international
partners, the Department of Justice has raised questions about
this authority vis-a-vis domestic waivers. (The President
clearly can delegate his constitutional foreign affairs
authority to NASA to reciprocally waive liability rights with
international partners.) NASA is therefore seeking the explicit
authority to sign such waivers with all domestic partners,
again as a permanent amendment to the NASA Act (P.L. 85-568, as
amended).
NASA's proposed legislation and S. 1250
As stated earlier, NASA is proposing that it be granted
indemnification and cross-waiver authority through permanent
amendments to the NASA Act of 1958 (as amended). In keeping
with the broadly empowering nature of the Act itself, the
Administration's proposed legislative language gives NASA broad
and permanent authority which includes not only coverage of X-
33 and X-34 but also the International Space Station and
operators of a privatized Space Shuttle.
Senator Frist's and Rockefeller's staff on the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on
Science, Technology, and Space have, after extensive
discussions with NASA, experimental vehicle developers Lockheed
Martin and Orbital Sciences Corporation, and their own
legislative counsel, produced significantly different language
which Senator Frist has included in S. 1250. Senator
Rockefeller is a co-sponsor of the bill.
S. 1250's language provides much narrower powers, limiting
both indemnification and cross-waiver authority to just the X-
33 and X-34 programs. Instead of permanently amending the NASA
Act (P.L. 85-568, as amended), S. 1250 provides a temporary,
stand-alone provision which sunsets in either 2002 or, at the
discretion of the Administrator, in 2005.
Summary of hearing
Ms. June Edwards, Associate General Counsel, NASA,
testified regarding the cross-waiver and indemnification
concepts located in section 308 of the National Aeronautics and
Space Act as contained in NASA's Fiscal Year 1998 Authorization
Bill. Ms. Edwards described cross-waivers as first or second-
party liability where each party agrees to bear its own risk of
participation in a joint space activity and is thus freed from
the concern that it may be liable for other parties'
contributions. She noted that cross-waivers save money and also
encourage space activity by reducing uncertainty and risk,
especially in the commercial context. Ms. Edwards stated that
NASA was seeking an explicit statement of ability to waive
claims of the United States Government in its domestic cross-
waiver. Without the amendment, Ms. Edwards stated, the
commercial aerospace industry supporting NASA's aerospace
activities could be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-
vis their international partners and their contractors. She
noted that under a presidential delegation, NASA can waive
these claims in international agreements but may not be able to
provide the same level of insurance in domestic activities. Ms.
Edwards also testified that new indemnification approaches are
needed to meet the new and emerging commercial space
initiatives. In conclusion, Ms. Edwards stated that the
proposed legislation, which she feels addresses a fair and
equitable allocation of risk, would provide a significant
benefit to the United States' space program.
Mr. Jerry Rising, Vice President, Reusable Launch Vehicles,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Sector, testified regarding the X-
33 program and the importance for providing for a financial
responsibility and risk allocation regime comparable to other
current aerospace activities. Mr. Rising testified that in
regard to the X-33 program, NASA agreed to fund the high-risk
advanced technologies to a level that will most likely include
private capital investment for the full-scale operational
vehicle. He noted that the X-33 program is being carried out
under a cooperative agreement, rather than under a conventional
NASA contract. While this agreement has many advantages in
terms of flexibility and responsibility of government and
industry, it has become evident that there are limits to NASA's
authority in the context of this new legal mechanism. Mr.
Rising then explained that the NASA X-33 Industry Cooperative
Agreement has placed the X-33 flight test program in a gap
wherein traditional government coverage for a third-party
liability is unavailable. Therefore, in Mr. Rising's opinion,
the launch insurance and the indemnification regime provided by
the proposed NASA legislation is essential for the continuation
of the X-33 program. Mr. Rising testified that Lockheed Martin
would like to see the Congress give NASA clear authority to
provide for insurance and indemnification for loss in excess of
what NASA determines to be reasonable and affordable insurance
for the contractor to provide on experimental programs. In
conclusion, Mr. Rising stated that the support of experimental
programs, like the X-33 and eventually the VentureStar Reusable
Launch Vehicle, is essential for affordable space launch
capabilities in the future.
Dr. Robert Lindberg, Vice President, X-34 Program, Orbital
Sciences Corporation, testified on the impact that
indemnification has on the X-34 program. Dr. Lindberg explained
that the X-34 is an experimental, air-launched hypersonic
rocket-powered vehicle, that will demonstrate new approaches
that will dramatically reduce the time and the number of people
that are required to process and launch a future reusable
launch system. Before even one flight is conducted, Dr.
Lindberg testified, it is necessary to have in place the means
of protection against damage, loss or injury that might result
for the operation of our experimental vehicle for the benefit
of NASA. Dr. Lindberg then explained that the risks involved in
the operation of the X-34 exceed the indemnification limits
associated with the general risk of hazardous operations within
the industry of the United States. Expendable launch vehicle
operations conducted for NASA are indemnified by NASA through
authority granted in the Space Act. The Space Act, Dr. Lindberg
noted, does not extend that authority to a non-commercial but
non-government owned reusable launch system such as the X-33 or
X-34. Dr. Lindberg testified that if the United States is to
develop low-cost access to space in the foreseeable future, the
Federal Government must indemnify and provide provisions of
cross-waiver of liability for flight programs with experimental
technologies. Dr. Lindberg stated that Orbital Science
Corporation supports NASA's initiative to seek authority to
indemnify these new reusable launch programs, consistent with
their authority to indemnify expendable launch vehicles through
the Space Act.
4.4(m)--Status and Cost Overruns of the International Space Station
Program
November 5, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-28
Background
On November 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Status and Cost Overruns
of the International Space Station Program.''
Testimony before the Committee focused on: (1) the cost and
schedule performance of the International Space Station program
to date; (2) the projected fiscal status of the International
Space Station program, including cost increases resulting from
design changes, contractor performance, and schedule variance;
(3) past, current, and projected Russian performance on its
commitments to the International Space Station; (4) the reasons
the program is experiencing cost growth; (5) the current
financial status of Boeing's contract with NASA on the
International Space Station; (6) Boeing's plans for containing
cost growth in the future; (7) GAO's judgment about NASA and
contractor plans to contain cost growth and maintain schedule
on the International Space Station in the future; and (8) the
issue areas surrounding the International Space Station that
may require Congressional action.
Witnesses included: Wilbur C. Trafton, Associate
Administrator, Human Space Flight, NASA; Douglas C. Stone, Vice
President and Program Manager, International Space Station, The
Boeing Company; and, Alan Li, Associate Director, National
Security and International Affairs Division, General Accounting
Office.
In late 1993, the Clinton Administration initiated a
redesign of the Space Station Freedom. Canada, the European
Space Agency, and Japan were international partners of the
United States at the time. The design that the Administration
and NASA settled on was dubbed ``Alpha.'' Just as the redesign
was completed in 1994, the Administration invited the Russian
Government to join the program as an international partner. The
station was again redesigned to include Russian participation.
The first element of the newly redesigned Space Station with
Russian participation, now known as the International Space
Station (ISS), was to be launched in 1997 with a completion
date in June 2002. According to the Administration, bringing
the Russians into the redesigned space station would save the
American taxpayer $2 billion and expedite launch of the
station's first elements by two years. The total U.S. cost of
the program with the Russians was set at $17.4 billion between
FY94 and FY02, with a self-imposed annual spending cap of $2.1
billion. Additionally, ISS was to have early science
capabilities.
The Administration established the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission (GCC), in which Vice President Gore routinely meets
with the Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, to resolve
issues that arise during the course of U.S.-Russian scientific
cooperation. Since then, Vice President Gore has been the
Administration's ``point man'' in dealing with Russia on ISS
issues.
Russia's role
At the time of the redesign, Congress was concerned that
the Russian Government would not be a reliable partner in ISS
for several reasons. First, members were concerned about
Russia's political stability as the former Soviet republics
worked out their relations as independent states. The
possibility that an ultra-nationalist, such as Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, would become President of Russia and pull it out
of the ISS program was particularly worrisome. Second, members
were concerned about Russia's economic situation, which was
chaotic in 1993 and was expected to have an impact on Russia's
ability to actually build the hardware it pledged to build.
Members also recommended keeping Russia out of the critical
path for completing ISS, meaning they wanted Russia to play an
enhancing role, not an enabling role. None of the other
international partners were in the critical path. Consequently,
they would not hold up the space station if they failed to
produce their promised hardware.
As the Committee has conducted repeated oversight hearings
of this program since 1993, it has become clear that Russia's
economic situation is having an adverse impact on the country's
ability to meet its ISS commitments, contributing to a seven-
month delay in the launch of the first element (from November
1997 to June 1998) and nearly a year and a half schedule slip
in the scheduled final launch (from June 2002 to December
2003). Furthermore, it is also clear that the Russians are in
the ISS critical path and that the highly-capable station that
NASA promised to build for $17.4 billion cannot be built
without the Russians, who are to provide: (1) command, control,
living quarters, and reboost capabilities with the Service
Module; (2) early space-based power and roll control in the
Science Power Platform; (3) crew rescue capabilities in the
Soyuz spacecraft; and (4) logistics and resupply through
launches of unmanned Progress spacecraft.
In late 1995, the Russian Space Agency (RSA) informed NASA
that it was unable to honor its commitments to the
International Space Station due to a lack of funding from the
Russian Government. At that point, RSA proposed attaching the
U.S., European, Canadian and Japanese components of ISS to
Russia's aging Mir space station, which was already in orbit.
NASA rejected this option, but revised its relations with RSA
by extending its existing $400 million Shuttle-Mir contract and
adding another $72 million in scheduled payments from the
United States to Russia and by agreeing to alter the assembly
sequence and provide additional support to Russia's ISS
hardware needs. With these new American commitments, Russia
renewed its promise to honor its commitments to the ISS.
Unfortunately, throughout 1996, RSA and its contractors
continued to receive inadequate funding and Russia fell further
behind in its work on ISS components.
The Russian fiscal year begins on January 1. Although the
Russian Government's budget for RSA and its commitments to the
International Space Station totaled 1.8 trillion rubles in
1997, RSA and its contractors did not receive their funding
during the first three months of 1997. In February 1997, at the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission, the Russian Government promised to provide 800
billion rubles to RSA by the end of May. It did not.
Consequently, RSA and its contractors continued to fall behind
the schedule for building their portions of ISS. During the
second quarter of 1997, the Russian government made several
promises to provide RSA with its entire budget for the year in
cash. It did not keep these promises. In April 1997, NASA
announced the first major delay in the construction schedule
for ISS partly as a result of Russia's failure to fund its
contractors. At that point, the Russian government arranged to
borrow funds from private Russian banks to finance some of its
space activities. According to a recent NASA briefing, RSA and
its contractors have received about 1 trillion of the 1.8
trillion rubles promised this spring, while a decree by Yeltsin
has been issued promising another 530 billion rubles for RSA
during the last three months of 1997. This would still leave
RSA and its contractors 270 billion rubles short of their
promised budget. Nevertheless, according to NASA, RSA and its
contractors are at work on the near-term Russian contributions
to the ISS: Service Module, Science Power Platform, Soyuz, and
Progress spacecraft. The Service Module is approximately two
months behind schedule in preparing for a December 1998 launch.
Problems with the U.S. portions of the program
Most of the attention focused on ISS to date has been on
the Russians, largely due to their repeated failures to honor
their commitments. In the United States, however, serious
programmatic problems have also developed. In this case, they
have nothing to do with the government's inability to provide
funding, since the Congress has given NASA full funding of the
amounts requested in the President's budget as well as another
$100 million that was not requested in FY1998.
Significant cost growth has occurred in the program, but it
is not clear how much money is involved or the reasons that
NASA is unable to live within its self-imposed $2.1 billion
annual spending cap. One reason for the ambiguity in cost
growth is that NASA has deferred work from year to year while
insisting that development costs would not grow in the
outyears. For example, in the latest revision of the ISS
assembly sequence, NASA delayed the launch of the U.S.
habitation module by 22 months, from its original launch in
February 2002 to a new launch date in December 2003. Even as it
adopted this delay, NASA initiated studies to determine if the
habitation module could be replaced with an Italian-built Node
3 not contained in the original ISS design or with something
called ``Trans-hab'' which could serve as a technology test bed
for sending people to Mars. Such design changes so late in the
program make it difficult to estimate the cost impact of
changes to the program until they are finalized and their
impact assessed. Nevertheless, changes that have been finalized
can be determined. NASA Administrator Goldin testified before
the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space on September 18, 1997, that ``Authorized
program changes alone count for application of over $1 billion
in reserves.''
It is clear, however, that NASA has required considerably
more resources for construction of the ISS than laid out in the
program's original budget. One manner NASA has used to acquire
additional funds without asking Congress for additional budget
authority has been to transfer funds budgeted for early science
missions aboard ISS into ISS construction accounts. The
following chart summarizes these past, current, and planned
transfers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original science budget FY96.... 250.8 308.4 400.5 434.5 454.0 314.3 260.7 2423.2
Transfer to construction........ -50.0 -177.0 -235.0 -70.0 -- +190.0 +165.0 2246.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funds transferred from science to construction total
$532 million between FY96 and FY99. NASA currently plans to
transfer $355 million back to science in F01 and FY02, leaving
a $177 million shortfall in science funding.
In addition to transferring funds from science to ISS
construction, NASA also transferred funds from the Space
Shuttle budget. On April 9, 1997, NASA announced in testimony
before the Subcommittee that it wanted to transfer $200 million
in FY97 funding from the Space Shuttle to ISS construction. In
the end, it transferred $190 million from the Space Shuttle and
$10 million from payload and utilization into ISS construction.
On September 18, 1997, NASA wrote Chairman Jerry Lewis of
the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and
informed him that NASA required $430 million in FY98 funding
over and above the President's request of $2,121.3 million for
ISS development. In the letter, NASA identified a $100 million
increase in ISS funding provided by House appropriators and the
authority to transfer an additional $150 million from Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology into ISS development. NASA did not
identify which programs it planned to cut in transferring $150
million from other programs or where it would obtain the
remaining $180 million shortfall.
House and Senate authorizers asked for similar notice,
which NASA did not provide until October 10, 1997 when the
agency sent Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Minority Member
Brown a letter summarizing those actions taken by the
appropriations conference. Briefly, the appropriators: (1)
increased NASA's total funding by $148 million, $100 million of
which went for ISS; (2) redirected funding totaling $50 million
within Human Spaceflight to ISS construction; and (3)
transferred $80 million from Mission Support to ISS
construction. The October 10 letter also did not identify which
program NASA intended to cut to come up with the $430 million
it claimed to need. Instead, it indicated that the agency would
determine what the impact of a $230 million increase in ISS
construction would be as opposed to a $430 million increase.
In addition to these funding transfers, NASA has spent a
considerable portion of its budgeted reserves on ISS
development, even before the first element is launched. In
conjunction with a March 28, 1996 hearing on the International
Space Station NASA Administrator Dan Goldin confirmed in
writing that the ISS program was two weeks behind schedule,
that NASA estimated a $44 million cost overrun because of
contract performance, and that the program had $3 billion in
reserves available. At a hearing before the Subcommittee on
April 9, 1997, Mr. Wilbur Trafton, NASA's Associate
Administrator for Human Spaceflight, testified that the program
had $2 billion in reserves remaining, indicating that
approximately $1 billion must have been spent since Mr.
Goldin's March 28, 1996 testimony. Mr. Trafton pointed out in
his testimony that most of those reserves were not available
until after FY99. This raises the natural question of how NASA
managed to spend $1 billion in reserves that it did not have
budgeted between March 28, 1996 and April 9, 1997.
Much has been reported about Boeing's estimate that it will
overrun its prime contract on the ISS by $600 million at
completion. An internal Boeing study over the summer estimated
that Boeing's cost overrun as a result of inadequate
performance on the contract could reach $800 million, but the
company believes that its aggressive destaffing plans could
hold the increase down to $600 million. On October 16, 1997,
NASA briefed the Committee staff that it estimated Boeing's
overrun at completion would be $817 million. Both agree that
approximately $400 million of this overrun will have already
accrued and been paid for by the end of calendar 1997.
It is important to remember in assessing this overrun that
the cost growth in the program is not limited to Boeing's
performance. In addition, NASA has incurred new costs as it
sought to develop options to accommodate Russia's inability to
meet its commitments. For example, NASA is funding an Interim
Control Module which could perform some functions of the
Russian Service Module. This will cost approximately $114
million more than NASA planned when it established its program
cost of $17.4 billion. Besides those additions that result from
Russian problems, NASA has made design changes to the ISS while
it is under development. These also result in programmatic cost
growth. The $72 million extension of the contract between NASA
and RSA in early 1996 also came out of the ISS budget. NASA
estimates unofficially that it had incurred $1.4 billion in new
costs that were not covered in the original estimate of $17.4
billion to complete ISS.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Wilbur Trafton, Associate Administrator, Human Space
Flight, NASA, testified that despite the many variables that
increase the likelihood of cost growth, the Space Station
developing program has largely been managed within budget for
the last four years. Mr. Trafton indicated that as NASA
experiences the peak period of development activity, they are
without sufficient reserves in Fiscal Year 1998 to address
development challenges and potential contractor performance
problems. Mr. Trafton testified that NASA has estimated an
additional $430 million will be required above the President's
request. He explained that the $430 million additional funding
requirements includes conservative estimates of prime
contractor cost growth, adjustments for sustaining engineering,
spares, and required changes, additional funds for Russian-
driven changes, and adequate reserves to cover the
unforeseeable problems likely to be incurred in Fiscal Year
1998. Mr. Trafton detailed two options under consideration if
the requisite FY98 funding is not received: (1) Defer work
either in the baseline program or in the research program; or,
(2) terminate the Russian contingency activity, the interim
control module. Mr. Trafton testified that he finds these
options place the program at risk to: one, deal with the
technological development challenges; two, continue to mitigate
the risks of Russian Government problems; and three, maintain
an adequate level of research activity as early as possible.
Mr. Trafton stated that he is convinced that maintaining the
baseline technology and schedule for the Space Station in FY98
is essential to control total costs. In conclusion, Mr. Trafton
asked for continued support from the Committee for the
International Space Station.
Doug C. Stone, Vice President and Program Manager,
International Space Station, The Boeing Company, testified that
by the end of FY98, Boeing will be more than 80 percent
complete with their portion of the program. He reported that
technical issues encountered during the ongoing development
phase of the program have created management challenges in both
schedule and cost performance which have placed the program
approximately five weeks behind schedule. While The Boeing
Company has reported cost growth, Mr. Stone testified that the
Company has committed to improve performance in six specific
areas: (1) a reinforced Space Station management team and
structure; (2) improved subcontractor performance; (3) a
commitment to meet schedule milestones on time; (4) the
creation of special incentives to acquire and retain key
software engineers and managers; (5) a $30 million commitment
of capital funds to build a software integration facility; and
(6) an addition of more senior management involvement and
visibility on the Space Station program. Mr. Stone concluded by
stating that with continued support from the Administration and
Congress, NASA and Boeing will deliver on the promise to start
launching the International Space Station in 1998.
Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director, National Security and
International Affairs Division, General Accounting Office,
testified in regard to three main issues: cost growth under the
prime contract; the impact on NASA of the Russian's performance
problems; and, Congressional review of the program and setting
realistic funding limitations. In response to the total cost
growth at contract completion, Mr. Li reported that Boeing more
than doubled its estimate from $278 million to $600 million and
subsequently NASA increased its estimate to $817 million. Mr.
Li stated that both parties recognize the seriousness of the
cost growth issue and have taken actions to address the
problem. NASA reduced Boeing's award fees because of poor
performance and Boeing responded by implementing a corrective
action plan. In Mr. Li's opinion, these responses will
eventually slow the cost deterioration. In regard to Russia's
performance problems, Mr. Li reported that Russia's inability
to furnish the service module on time increased NASA's costs by
over $300 million. He also testified that should the Russians
not meet the revised partnership commitments, the program's
costs could increase by billions of dollars. He stated that
NASA is monitoring the situation and believes that the
projected December 1998 launch date for the service module can
still be met. Finally, Mr. Li testified that the Space Station
program is limited to $2.1 billion annually and $17.4 billion
through the completion of Station assembly. He reported that
the reduced reserves and the recent and prospective cost
increases have put additional focus on this administratively
imposed funding limitation. Mr. Li testified that the General
Accounting Office recommended in their September report that
the use of this financial cap should be discontinued. Mr. Li
also stated that if Congress decides that a legislative cap is
warranted, it should consider establishing one after reviewing
the entire program to determine its future scope and cost
level.
4.4(n)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Parts I-IV (NASA Posture)
February 5, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-67
Background
On February 5, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
Request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Parts I-IV.'' The hearing focused on the Administration's
budget submittal for FY1999 for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). The Administration requested
$13.465 billion for NASA in FY1999. The FY1998 appropriated
level was $13.648 billion and the FY 1999 appropriated level
was $13.665 billion. The FY1999 budget request and runout are
higher than previous budget requests. The FY1998 budget
requested estimated a level of $13.410 billion for FY1999 and
the FY1997 budget request estimated a level of $12.363 billion
for FY1999.
Following are the FY1999 budget requests for some of the
major programs within NASA: Space Station--$2.27 billion; Space
Shuttle--$3.059 billion; Space Science--$2.058 billion; Life
and Microgravity Sciences and Applications--$242 million; Earth
Science--$1.372 billion; Aeronautics & Space Transportation
Technology--$1.305 billion; Mission Communications Services--
$380 million; Academic Programs--$100 million; Space
Communications Services--$177 million; and Research and Program
Management--$2.099 billion.
Witness included: Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator.
Summary of hearing
Daniel S. Goldin, the Administrator of NASA, testified that
the hardware for the first two Space Station launches would be
ready in June and July of 1998. Mr. Goldin also reviewed
ongoing activities in planetary exploration, aeronautics, and
earth science. He testified about the goals of the Reusable
Launch Vehicle program and that NASA's intent is to support the
development of next-generation systems with appropriate
technologies and utilization of NASA facilities, not the
operational phase after development. Mr. Goldin testified that
the FY1999 budget has funding for Pathfinders, about every 18
months for approximately $100 million. Funding for Trailblazers
is not in the budget. He testified that NASA is currently at a
level of 19,200 employees and by the year 2000, the agency has
to get down to a level of about 17,800. Mr. Goldin testified
that NASA has no plans for a human mission to Mars in 2011.
He stated that eight Shuttle missions are currently planned
for FY1999. Further, Joseph Rothenberg, the Associate
Administrator of Human Space Flight, is to undertake a study to
see if the agency can have rapid-response payloads available to
do science or commercial missions if there is a schedule slip
in assembly of the International Space Station. Mr. Rothenberg
is also working on a Station commercialization plan that will
be completed by August 1998. Mr. Goldin testified that NASA is
willing to commit up to 30% initially, of the Station resources
for commercialization and if it is possible to get to 50%, then
that will be pursued.
He stated that there will be almost no NASA funding going
to Russia from FY1999 on. In discussing whether or not the
Service Module would be launched on time in December 1998, a
question was raised about the timeframe for a decision on
launching the Interim Control Module as a temporary
replacement. Mr. Goldin stated that the decision on the Interim
Control Module would have to be made in March 1998. He
testified on an inflatable structure know as a Transhab. The
Transhab could potentially replace the current habitation
module design. Mr. Goldin stated the agency is reviewing the
Transhab and a decision will be made before the end of 1998,
but Congress will be notified before NASA makes the decision.
He stated there is a potential to save up to $100 million using
the Transhab design rather than the current habitation module
design.
In questioning about apparent Russian violations of the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Mr. Goldin stated
that he looks for the foreign policy establishment to give NASA
guidance on whether the Russians have violated the MTCR and the
agency intends to proceed forward with the partnership in the
Space Station until it receives such guidance.
4.4(o)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Parts I-IV (Aeronautics and Space
Transportation Technology)
February 12, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-67
Background
On February 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the second in a series of four hearings
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Parts I-IV.'' Testimony
before the Committee focused on: (1) the Aeronautics and Space
Transportation Enterprise with respect to its strategic plan;
(2) NASA's role in the Administration's Aviation Safety
Initiative; (3) the agency's role in the Next Generation
Internet program; (4) the status of NASA's High Speed Research
program; (5) the status of and plans for NASA's advanced space
transportation technology programs; (6) NASA's proposal to
study its ``Future Space Launch Architecture'' and set aside
funds in the outyears for procuring a next-generation,
operational space launch system; and (7) the emergence of
several commercial initiatives to develop reusable space
transportation systems and their role in meeting NASA's future
space transportation needs.
Witnesses included: Mr. Richard S. Christiansen, Acting
Associate Administrator, Aeronautics and Advanced Space
Transportation Technology; Mr. Gary E. Payton, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Space Transportation Technology; and, Mr. Gary
C. Hudson, Chief Executive Officer, Rotary Rocket Company.
Summary of hearing
The Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology performs three distinct but related missions for
NASA: aeronautics and aviation safety research and development;
advanced space transportation technology development,
demonstration, and planning; technology transfer; and Small
Business Innovation Research programs. These three functions
were grouped together in this strategic enterprise as part of a
late-1996 reorganization because of the technical overlaps
between advanced aeronautics and space transportation R&D and
the commercialization orientation of both the aeronautics and
the RLV program activities.
Aeronautics
NASA's Aeronautics program primarily consists of the
Research and Technology Base and three focused programs of
diverse technology initiatives. These include: High Speed
Research, Advanced Subsonic Technology, and High Performance
Computing and Communications (HPCC). In the FY1999 Budget
briefings conducted with NASA, there are plans to create a
fourth focused plan beginning in FY2000, Aviation Safety
Technology. According to the FY1999 budget, NASA is now
proposing that a Phase IIA be funded through FY2007 in order to
build a prototype of the engine, thereby reducing technological
risks to industry.
On July 25, 1996, the President established the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security and assigned it
three specific mandates: to assess the future threat to
security; to provide a framework for regulation of the aviation
industry of the future; and to assess advances in technology
and how they can best be utilized. The principle recommendation
of the Commission was that the focus of government and industry
should be to reduce the rate of accidents by a factor of five
within the next decade, and that a national air traffic control
system capable of facilitating this be operational by 2005. The
agencies which will be involved in this initiative are
principally the FAA, DOD, and NASA. NASA's role in this effort
will be primarily in the area of human factors research in that
the predominance of aviation accidents involve human error.
NASA's proposed share of this initiative is $500 million over
the period of FY1998-2002:
Advanced space transportation technology
NASA's Space Transportation Technology function includes
one major program (Reusable Launch Vehicles consisting of X-33
and X-34), two smaller projects (Bantamlifter/Low Cost Upper
Stages and Advanced Space Transportation Technology), and a new
Future Space Launch planning activity. In FY1999, NASA is
beginning a series of future experimental RLVs called ``Future
X.'' NASA intends to begin at least two small ($100 million
cost, 18-24 months for development and flight demonstrations)
``Pathfinder'' vehicle efforts in FY1999, and perhaps one large
X-33-class ($500 million cost, 3 years for development and
flight demonstrations) ``Trailblazer'' effort sometime in the
next decade. In FY1999 and FY2000 NASA is allocating $20
million each year for Future Space Launch studies.
Commercial technology programs
NASA's Commercial Technology Programs function involves
three areas of activity: (1) Internally, NASA has pursued an
``Agenda for Change'' since 1994 to carry out commercial
technology transfer as a fundamental NASA mission; (2)
Externally, NASA funds a National Technology Transfer Center
(NTTC) and various other institutions which serve as ``agents''
in promoting the transfer of NASA technology to the commercial
sector for both aerospace and non-aerospace application; and
(3) The Small Business Innovative Research Program is designed
to ensure that NASA research contracts are awarded not only to
large firms, but also to the small business community, and also
to facilitate the commercialization of the results of this
research.
Mr. Richard S. Christiansen Acting Associate Administrator
for Aeronautics & Advanced Space Transportation Technology
testified that NASA has stepped up its reprogramming of $500
million of their budget runout for the Aviation Safety
Initiative, and that the FAA is indeed the lead agency for this
program. He also testified that, within the High Speed research
program, the proper next step was to augment Phase II at an
additional cost of a little over $800 million and bring the
component pieces that they have been developing and put a full-
scale demonstrator engine together. He also confirmed the NASA
Administrator's testimony that he does not expect to see an
operational High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) until around the
year 2020.
Mr. Gary E. Payton, Deputy Associate Administrator (Space
Transportation Technology) offered testimony updating the
Subcommittee on the progress of the X-33 program, specifically
with respect to the environmental impact studies and vehicle
technologies. Additionally, he produced a sample of new thermal
protection technology for the inspection of the Subcommittee
Members, among other examples of new technologies developed by
the program. He testified that the NASA Administrator was
adamant about the need for competition for any Future-X
funding, and that third-party indemnification and cross-waiver
authority were crucial to the X-33 flight test program.
Mr. Gary C. Hudson is the Chief Executive Officer of Rotary
Rocket Company. He testified that there are at least four
privately owned corporations which are putting hundreds of
millions of dollars at risk in a quest for private space
transportation. Speaking for the other private companies, he
expressed his belief that Boeing and Lockheed Martin should be
required to spend their own money if they wanted to be a part
of the 21st century in space. Further, he criticized the FAA's
regulatory approach to their industry and threatened that
relocation of the industry may be the only solution unless the
process is reformed.
4.4(p)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Parts I-IV. (FY99 Budget Request: The
Sciences at NASA)
February 25, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-67
Background
On February 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the third in a series of four hearings
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Part I-IV.'' The hearing
focused on: (1) the current and outyear funding profiles for
the science programs at NASA and how they have changed over the
last three years; (2) the science program's accomplishments in
FY1997 and thus far in FY1998; (3) the programs experiencing
developmental problems and NASA's plans for addressing those
problems; (4) the new initiatives for science programs in the
FY1999 budget request; (5) the consolidation of space
technology efforts within Code S; (6) the consequences of
funding transfers from life and microgravity research to
International Space Station construction; (7) the experiments
planned for life and microgravity research during FY99 and
aboard the International Space Station during its assembly; (8)
NASA's plans for increasing flight opportunities for life and
microgravity research given the competing interests of
assembling, maintaining, and operating the International Space
Station; (9) the transition of the International Space Station
from a design being constructed on the ground to an active
research platform in space during its assembly; (10) the
integration of the Human Exploration and Development of Space
(HEDS) strategic enterprise with NASA's other efforts to
explore and understand the universe; (11) the current and
historic funding levels for Research and Analysis within the
Earth Science budget; (12) the development status for the Earth
Observation System Data Information System (EOSDIS); and a
specific discussion of how the commercial acquisition of data
will be incorporated into the Earth Science program.
Witnesses included: Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Associate
Administrator for Space Science, NASA; Dr. Ghassem Asrar,
Associate Administrator for Earth Science, NASA; Dr. Arnauld E.
Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity
Sciences and Applications, NASA; and, Mr. Joseph Rothenberg,
Associate Administrator for Human Space Flight, NASA.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Associate Administrator for Space
Science, began his testimony by thanking the Committee for its
long-standing, unwavering support of the Space Science
Enterprise. He described the Enterprise's accomplishments in
1997, which featured the July landing of Pathfinder on the
surface of Mars, and the subsequent exploration of the surface
by the robotic rover Sojourner. Other missions experienced
significant accomplishments, such as the Mars Global Surveyor,
which arrived into Mars orbit in September; Galileo, which
continues to return science data from Jupiter; and continued
discoveries by the Hubble Space Telescope. Dr. Huntress then
discussed missions planned for 1998, and the Space Science
budget for FY1999 and beyond. Budget levels for this Enterprise
have increased for both FY1999 and the outyears compared to
last year's budget submission. Dr. Huntress expressed his
appreciation to the Committee for its support which made these
budget levels possible.
Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth
Science, described the Earth Science Enterprise as an
organization focused around six major functions: (1) teams of
scientists who will analyze earth science data; (2) a series of
small and medium-sized satellites to acquire the data; (3) a
comprehensive information storage and processing system; (4) a
technology development program to enable advanced space-based
observational capabilities; (5) applications research and a
commercial partnership program; and (6) an education program to
train the next generation of earth scientists. Dr. Asrar then
presented specific science findings from the Earth Science
Enterprise, and discussed planned activity for 1998. The long-
range plans, he indicated, would focus on smaller, flexible
satellite platforms with an increased focus on international
partnerships and commercial data purchases.
Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, highlighted
two major accomplishments of 1997: (1) the reflight of the
Microgravity Science Laboratory only 5 months after the prior
flight had been cut short; and (2) continued science conducted
aboard Russia's Mir space station. He described numerous other
science achievements in 1997, and discussed upcoming plans for
1998. He testified that long-term research opportunities of
particular interest would be conducted on Spacehab, the Space
Shuttle, and the International Space Station.
Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, Associate Administrator for Human
Space Flight, testified with an emphasis on the scientific
aspects of the International Space Station (ISS). He indicated
that ISS construction was moving forward, but that the early
science research during the construction phase would be very
constrained. He testified, however, that the first stages of
research would be supported by ISS in the year 2000. Mr.
Rothenberg then discussed the formulation of the ISS research
strategy, and its incorporation of the interests of a broad
constituency of the science community.
4.4(q)--Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Parts I-IV. (FY99 Budget Request: Human Space
Flight)
March 19, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-67
Background
On March 19, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held the last in a series of four hearings
entitled, ``Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Parts I-IV.'' Testimony
before the Committee focused on (1) funding requirements for
the International Space Station (ISS) in FY1998 and beyond; (2)
management challenges in terms of Russia's continuing failures
to honor its obligations to the ISS partnership; (3) lessons
learned from Phase I of the program and how they are being
applied to Phase II; and (4) the steps NASA is taking to ensure
that life and microgravity science opportunities are maximized
during Station assembly; (5) development status of the
International Space Station (ISS); (6) technical challenges to
the program for the remainder of FY1998 and FY1999; (7)
prospects for additional changes to the design of ISS through
the end of the program; and (8) the design implications of
Russian failure to provide any elements of the ISS or
logistical support after the Service Module becomes available.
With regards to the Shuttle program, the focus of testimony
was: (1) status and progress of Shuttle upgrade efforts; (2)
overall progress in the Space Flight Operations Contract
transition; (3) changes in the Shuttle workforce composition,
including past and any anticipated workforce reductions; (4)
the impact on the Shuttle launch schedule of any additional
delays in or changes to the International Space Station (ISS)
assembly sequence; and (5) the status of phase 4 upgrades to
the Space Shuttle with particular attention to the liquid
flyback booster.
Witnesses included: Mr. Rothenberg, NASA Associate
Administrator, Office of Space Flight; BGEN (select) Kevin
Chilton, NASA Deputy Program Manager, International Space
Station; and, Mr. Tommy Holloway, NASA Program Manager, Space
Shuttle.
Summary of hearing
The International Space Station
When the Clinton Administration redesigned the
International Space Station in 1993, it invited Russia to
participate in the program, noting that Russia's contributions
(the Service Module, the Science Power Platform, three research
laboratories, the crew return vehicles, and logistics support)
would save the United States $2 billion and enable NASA to
launch the first element fifteen months earlier. The resulting
design was supposed to cost $17.4 billion to develop and
assemble in space between FY1994 and FY2002. Funding in any
single year was not to exceed $2.1 billion. The International
Space Station was then predicted to operate for 10 years
(through 2012) at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $1.3
billion per year. As recently as March 4, 1997, NASA
Administrator Dan Goldin testified before the Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics that, ``the program continues to perform
within the annual funding cap of $2.1 billion and the $17.4
billion completion estimate.''
During 1997, a series of events have demonstrated that the
program is no longer on budget or schedule. In April 1997, NASA
announced that it could not continue with the self-imposed
annual spending cap of $2.1 billion and that it would shift
$200 million in FY1997 Space Shuttle funds to the development
and construction of the International Space Station. In FY1998,
NASA expressed a desire for Congress to add $100 million to the
agency's International Space Station budget over and above the
budget request for FY1998. NASA also announced that the Service
Module would be delayed from an April 1998 launch to a December
1998 launch. During the summer of 1997, NASA amended its
position and indicated that the International Space Station
required $430 million more in FY1998 than was contained in the
President's budget request. Congress obliged the agency by
providing ISS with $230 million in additional funds; $100
million above the President's total request for NASA and $130
million from other NASA programs. NASA continues to indicate
that it requires $200 million more for ISS in FY1998, and the
President's request for supplemental appropriations includes a
request for Congress to authorize $173 million in transfers
from other NASA programs into ISS construction during FY1998.
(The additional $27 million would be reallocated from within
the Human Space Flight account.)
The Space Shuttle Program
Of primary interest to the Subcommittee is the safety of
the Shuttle program. NASA's overall personnel reductions, the
relocation of Code M (NASA's Office of Human Space Flight) from
NASA Headquarters to the Johnson Space Center in Houston,
Texas, and the transition to the Shuttle Flight Operations
Contract are all occurring at the same time. The Aerospace
Safety and Advisory Panel (ASAP) has recognized this confluence
of major changes as having the potential to affect the morale
and efficiency of the Shuttle workforce, and that particular
attention should be made by the agency to proceed with such
changes cautiously and provide increased communication
vertically and laterally to reduce uncertainty among the
workforce.
The progress of the Shuttle Flight Operations Contract
(SFOC) transition--particularly with respect to personnel
reductions within the Shuttle program--has been closely
monitored by the Subcommittee since it went into effect on
October 1, 1996. Of particular concern is the retention of
technicians and engineers with critical skills and experience
levels necessary to ensure the safe operation of all elements
of the Shuttle system. The attainment of cost-savings goals
through the contract consolidation is the measure of success of
this transition, and will provide considerable data to Congress
on the feasibility of moving towards privatization of the
program in the future.
NASA's plan for Safety and Performance Upgrades to the
Shuttle program is also a subject of continuing interest to the
Subcommittee. At the present time, NASA is planning to operate
the Shuttle well through the next decade. Currently, the near-
term upgrade programs (Phase I and II) are being funded. The
Phase III and IV upgrades were moved under the Space
Transportation Technology program within the Aeronautics
Enterprise to take advantage of the research and development
efforts in reusable launch vehicle (RLV) technology. The most
ambitious of the upgrade programs, the Liquid Flyback Booster,
is under the Phase IV upgrade program. NASA has not, to date,
defined a requirement for the Liquid Flyback Booster.
The Subcommittee is also interested in is the Shuttle's
annual flight rate. NASA's budget submissions generally reflect
an annual launch rate of 7 to 8 launches. Due to several
factors, the FY1998 launch rate will drop to only 5.
Significant fluctuations in the number of launches may run
counter to Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommendations for
less turmoil for the Shuttle workforce.
Mr. Rothenberg is the newly appointed Associate
Administrator for the Office of Space Flight in NASA
Headquarters. He testified that the Russian FGB module would be
ready for a June 1998 launch, and that the U.S.-built Node-1
module would be ready for a July 1998 launch. Additionally, he
stated that the U.S. laboratory would be ready for a May 1999
launch. With respect to the Shuttle program, Mr. Rothenberg
testified that the program is flying safely more flights at
less cost than ever before in the history of the program, and
that the upgrade program has decreased risk while increasing
payload and efficiency.
BGEN (select) Kevin Chilton is NASA's International Space
Station deputy program manager, and did not present testimony.
Mr. Tommy Holloway is NASA's Space Shuttle program manager.
He did not present testimony, but responded to several
questions posed by members. He stated that the Shuttle program
is a stronger, more resilient, and responsive program than it
was five years ago, and that the program is increasing its
capability and doing a much better job for a lot less
resources. He set a floor of $100 million annually as a
requirement for investment in upgrades. With respect to Shuttle
program flight rate, he testified that it currently is capable
of a 10 to 11 annual rate which may evolve to a higher number
over time. Mr Holloway also testified that the program could
begin flying commercial payloads in 2001 or 2002.
4.4(r)--Asteroids: Perils and Opportunities
May 21, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-71
Background
On May 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
held a hearing entitled, ``Asteroids: Perils and
Opportunities.'' The hearing focused on: (1) the consequences
of an asteroid impacting the Earth; (2) the Shoemaker Near-
Earth Objects Survey Working Group findings; (3) the adequacy
of the current Near-Earth Object Survey effort; (4) the
commercial opportunities of exploiting the minerals in
asteroids; (5) the feasibility of launching a mission to one of
these objects for commercial applications; (6) the upcoming
Leonid micrometeoroid shower and the technical conference held
in April 1998 on this subject; (7) the threat posed to
satellites in Earth orbit due to this shower; (8) appropriate
safety measures that can be taken to minimize satellite damage
from this shower; (9) NASA's contribution to the interagency
effort to survey and catalog near-Earth objects; (10) the
current pace of this effort and the estimated time until
completion; (11) the total funding spent on this effort, and a
comparison to levels suggested by the Shoemaker Group report;
(12) an overview of the interagency effort to survey and
catalog near-Earth objects; (13) the current pace of this
effort and the estimated time until completion; and (14) the
total funding spent on this effort, and a comparison to levels
suggested by the Shoemaker Group report.
Witnesses included: Dr. Clark R. Chapman, Institute
Scientist at the Space Studies Department of the Southwest
Research Institute; Dr. John Lewis, Professor of Planetary
Sciences at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary
Laboratory; Dr. William H. Ailor, Director of the Center for
Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies at The Aerospace
Corporation; Dr. Carl Pilcher, Science Director of Solar System
Exploration within NASA's Office of Space Science; and, Dr.
Gregory Canavan, Senior Scientist at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Clark R. Chapman, Institute Scientist at the Space
Studies Department of the Southwest Research Institute,
testified on the likelihood and the outcome of an asteroid
impacting the Earth. He described the threat of such a
collision as a highly unlikely, yet highly catastrophic event.
Because the loss of life would be so great under such
circumstances, Dr. Chapman testified that the odds of an
individual person being killed as the result of an asteroid are
greater than his/her odds of being killed in an airplane crash.
Further testimony discussed the global aftermath of a collision
with near-Earth objects of varying size. Dr. Chapman also
discussed current efforts to find and catalog these objects,
such activities as ``meager'' and ``ineffective.''
Dr. Carl Pilcher, Science Director of Solar System
Exploration within NASA's Office of Space Science, discussed
efforts at NASA to find and catalog near-Earth asteroids. He
described the three parts of this effort: (1) Spacewatch, a
program at the University of Arizona; (2) Near-Earth Asteroid
and Tracking (NEAT), a program at Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
and (3) Lowell Observatory Near-Earth Object Survey (LONEOS) in
Flagstaff, Arizona. Dr. Pilcher reiterated NASA's commitment to
find and catalog 90% of near-Earth objects larger than 1
kilometer in the next ten years. Dr. Gregory Canavan, Senior
Scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified on
possible responses should an Earth-impacting object be
discovered. The fundamental reaction calls for the interception
and deflection of an inbound object. Additional testimony added
to Dr. Chapman's overview of the implications of a collision
with such an object.
Dr. John Lewis, Professor of Planetary Sciences at the
University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary, described some of
the possible benefits of intercepting such object and utilizing
the natural resources found therein. He described the relative
ease of intercepting these near-Earth objects compared to
interplanetary missions. The resources to be found in the near-
Earth asteroid population, he testified, could support a human
population of about one million times the population of Earth
indefinitely. The availability of supplies to be found in this
population of asteroids is unimaginably vast. For example,
enough steel can be obtained there to build a building frame
8,000 stories tall covering all the land area of Earth.
Dr. William H. Ailor, Director of the Center for Orbital
and Reentry Debris Studies at The Aerospace Corporation,
described the upcoming Leonid micrometeoroid storm, its effect
on satellites, and recommended steps to avoid satellite damage.
During November 1998 and 1999, this cloud of debris which
follows the Temple-Tuttle comet will intersect the Earth's
orbit. As a result, meteors will enter the Earth's atmosphere
at a rate of 200 to 5000 meteors per hour, considerably more
than the 10 to 15 meteors per hour seen under normal
circumstances. These particles--tiny grains of sand traveling
at over 155,000 miles per hour-burn up in the atmosphere
without even getting near the surface of the Earth. Because
satellites orbit outside the atmosphere, however, they can
experience damage from these particles. Dr. Ailor recommended
specific actions to minimize satellite risk from this
micrometeoroid storm.
4.4(s)--Delays in NASA's Earth Science Enterprise
September 10, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-83
Background
On September 10, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics held a hearing entitled, ``Delays in NASA's Earth
Science Enterprise.'' Testimony before the Subcommittee focused
on: (1) the status and schedule for major elements of the Earth
Science Enterprise including, but not limited to, AM-1, Earth
Observing System Data Information System (EOSDIS), and Landsat
7 including explanations for the delays experienced to date;
(2) a specific discussion of EOSDIS development including the
planned availability date for full, simultaneous analysis
capability of all captured data; (3) uncosted carryover
levels--assessing the level of uncosted and unobligated
carryover expected at the end of FY 1998 and comparing this
level to previous commitments; (4) a detailed discussion
explaining how NASA will incorporate data purchases into a
routine way of doing business at NASA; (5) NOAA's role in the
Earth Science Enterprise, specifically in EOSDIS; (6) NOAA's
responsibilities in the archive storage and retrieval of this
data; (7) significant schedule milestones that face NOAA in the
performance of these roles; (8) any challenges currently facing
NOAA in the long-term storage and retrieval of existing
archived data; (9) an overview of the commercial remote sensing
industry, including both an assessment of current capabilities
and an outlook on these capabilities in the near future; (10) a
description of the demand side of the equation--scientific
investigations at NASA being supported by commercial data
products, and additional science demands within government that
would be met by commercial data products; (11) strengths and
weaknesses of NASA's current procurement infrastructure as it
relates to their ability to regularly purchase remote sensing
products; (12) industry recommendations on future actions
within any branch of government which would help better utilize
this expanding capability; (13) a specific discussion of
Raytheon's plans to overcome EOSDIS problems including the
planned availability date for full, simultaneous analysis
capability of all captured data; and (14) significant schedule
milestones that face Raytheon in the execution of these plans.
Witnesses included: Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate
Administrator, Earth Science, NASA; Mr. Robert S. Winokur,
Assistant Administrator, Satellite and Information Services,
NOAA; Dr. Patrick M. O'Connell, Vice President and General
Manager, Raytheon Enterprise Management Systems; and, Mr.
Courtney Stadd, President, PixSell Data Brokers, Inc.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth
Science, began his testimony with a description of recent
scientific accomplishments of the Earth Science Enterprise.
These include predicting the recent El Nino event, mapping the
Antarctic surface, and cloud mapping of Hurricane Bonnie. Dr.
Asrar continued his testimony with a description of the
challenges and delays facing the deployment of the major
components of the Earth Science program. These include delays
in the Earth Observing System Data Information System
(EOSDIS)--the computer software which obtains, analyzes, and
stores science data; launch delays in the AM-1 spacecraft; and
launch delays in the Landsat 7 spacecraft. Further testimony
described the other major Earth Science satellites in various
stages of development. Dr. Asrar also discussed predicted
levels of uncosted carryover, and described recent progress in
the implementation of science data purchases.
Mr. Robert S. Winokur, Assistant Administrator for NOAA's
Satellite and Information Services, testified on NOAA's
contributions to the study of the Earth's environment.
Contributions made to the Earth Science effort in the form of
data storage responsibilities were detailed. One particular
program described, the Environmental Data Rescue Program, is
racing the clock to save old environmental data stored on paper
and magnetic tape before it degrades beyond usability. Mr.
Winokur further described additional cooperative efforts with
NASA to study the environment.
Dr. Patrick M. O'Connell, Vice President and General
Manager of Raytheon Enterprise Management Systems, focused his
testimony on EOSDIS, the aforementioned computer software.
Raytheon has recently obtained development responsibilities for
EOSDIS with its acquisition of several companies from Hughes
Electronics. Raytheon is now struggling to restructure the
program and deliver a usable version to NASA. Dr. O'Connell's
testimony described the current EOSDIS configuration, Raytheon
efforts to deliver a working version of the software, and
particular challenges which make this task difficult.
Mr. Courtney Stadd, President of PixSell Data Brokers,
Inc., testified on matters related to the commercial purchase
of remotely-sensed science data. Mr. Stadd discussed the health
of the commercial remote sensing industry and its likelihood of
increasing contributions to NASA scientists. Further testimony
described a Rand study which has identified broad-based demand
for remotely sensed data throughout the government beyond NASA.
Finally, Mr. Stadd described procurement barriers at NASA which
make it difficult for commercial data providers to consider
bidding on opportunities to provide such commercially obtained
science data.
4.4(t)--U.S. Spacepower in the 21st Century
September 29, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-88
Background
On September 29, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space &
Aeronautics held a joint hearing with the Subcommittees on
Military Research & Development and Military Procurement of the
Committee on National Security, entitled, ``U.S. Spacepower in
the 21st Century.'' Testimony before the Subcommittees
addressed the interrelationship of national security, civilian/
scientific, and commercial space activities and technologies,
and focused particularly on the opportunities and challenges
created by rapid growth in the commercial space sector for U.S.
national security in the post-Cold War era.
Witnesses included: Mr. Keith Hall, the Assistant Secretary
for Space, U.S. Air Force and Director, National Reconnaissance
Office; Mr. Daniel Mulville, Chief Engineer, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; Mr. Robert Butterworth,
President of Aries Analytics; and, Mr. David Swain, Vice
President and General Manager, Phantom Works, Boeing
Corporation.
In recent years space activities (and requisite
technologies) for national security, civilian government, and
commercial space purposes have become more and more
interconnected. This is partially caused by the growth of the
commercial space sector, which provides cost savings to and
causes organizational upheaval in the government space sectors.
But it is also a result of continuing budgetary pressures and a
lack of clear mandates following the end of the Cold War.
U.S. institutions and policies have been slow to adapt to
both these root causes and the resulting overlap in space
sectors, with negative impacts on national security, economic
competitiveness, and scientific progress. In particular,
governmental space sectors are being challenged to focus their
investments on revolutionary new capabilities which address
their needs, rather than simply building on (or replicating)
existing private investments.
Summary of hearing
There was considerable discussion of the need to increase
coordination, both within the Executive and Legislative
branches, among those entities responsible for civil,
commercial, and military space activities. Some witnesses
argued for recreation of the National Space Council, while
others suggested that it either could not address important
coordination challenges like budgets or was obviated by
recently-established NASA-Air Force cooperation efforts.
There was broad agreement on the importance of increasing
federal investments in space technology, although there was
concern that such investments should focus on unique federal
requirements, instead of seeking to influence private space
activities.
Technology transfer, particularly the risks associated with
U.S. companies ``needing'' to buy foreign launch services, was
brought up by several Members and witnesses, although witnesses
differed on how well current approaches are working, and one
suggested that the best remedy is simply to increase R&D
investments so that technology is perpetually ``obsoleted.''
Mr. Keith Hall, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
testified that increasing economic as well as military reliance
on space assets makes them attractive as a target for military
threats. At the same time, he pointed out that Air Force
investments in space control are in competition with other
modernization efforts, as well as increased pressure on
readiness and tempo (frequency of military operations). He also
commented that the Air Force needs to undergo a cultural change
so that the airplane and space responsibilities are merged.
Finally, he emphasized the need to better coordinate federal
R&D investments, and called for greater coordination among
different Congressional committees with funding and oversight
responsibilities for federal space activities.
Mr. Robert Butterworth, President of Aries Analytics,
asserted that Federal Government dependence on commercial space
goods and services may bias federal technology investments in
ways which do not serve federal requirements and distort
private markets.
Mr. Daniel Mulville, NASA's Chief Engineer, argued that
NASA needs to invest in technologies both to meet NASA's unique
needs and to assist industry to provide better commercial space
goods and services back to the government. He also testified
that NASA and DOD have improved their cooperation in recent
years, although there are still difficulties in the funding of
cooperative programs and the pruning of overlapping facilities.
Mr. David Swain, Vice President and General Manager of
Boeing's Phantomworks, a cross-corporation R&D enterprise,
noted that more nations are becoming involved in space, this
not only challenges U.S. economic leadership, but proliferates
space-based threats to U.S. national security. Commercial space
activities are not only growing but increasingly important to
the U.S. economy as a whole, and limiting these activities out
of concern for national security may actually harm national
security in the long run.
4.4(u)--NASA at 40: What Kind of Space Program Does America Need for
the 21st Century?
October 1, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-90
Background
On October 1, 1998, the Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics
held a hearing entitled, ``NASA at 40: What Kind of Space
Program Does America Need for the 21st Century?.'' Testimony
before the Subcommittee examined the future of America's space
program and its civil space agency in the context of the 40th
anniversary of its establishment. In particular, witnesses
addressed four questions: (1) What are the United States'
strategic goals in space for the next 40 years? (2) What are
the lessons learned from the last 40 years that can help us
achieve these goals? (3) Given how the world has changed since
NASA's establishment, and will continue to change, what
institutional changes should we make in our space program to
help us achieve these goals? (4) What policies and budget
priorities should Congress and the Administration put in place
in the near term to help us achieve these goals?
Witnesses included: The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Dr. Howard McCurdy, Professor of Public Administration at
American University; Dr. Eilene Galloway, Honorary Director,
International Institute for Space Law; Mr. Rick Norman
Tumlinson, President, Space Frontier Foundation; and Mr.
Charles ``Pete'' Conrad, Chairman, Universal Space Lines. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created by
Public Law 85-568 on October 1, 1958, out of the pre-existing
civilian National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics and various
other civilian and military rocketry and aerospace project
offices. At the start, the U.S. space program was largely a
response to the Soviet Union's aggressive space efforts,
starting with the launch of Sputnik, the first artificial
satellite, and later of Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space
and the first to orbit the Earth.
After Apollo XI successfully landed two Americans on the
Moon on July 20, 1969, political support for space projects
waned, and the end of the Cold War further undercut this
support. In recent years several commissions and studies have
looked at the goals and organization of America's civilian
space program, generally embracing a ``return to R&D'' and an
increased role for the private sector.
Summary of hearing
All of the witnesses agreed that while NASA has been
generally successful during its first 40 years, it needs to
address different goals and priorities for the future, most
notably a different relationship with the private sector
regarding both civil and commercial space goals. Witnesses
differed somewhat in how much NASA needs to change to address
these topics, and in how much progress NASA has already made in
this transition. Several witnesses stressed the importance of
privatizing NASA's operational activities so that the space
agency can focus on scientific research and technology
development. Several witnesses also addressed a potential need
to assist the private sector--through some form of investment
incentives--in assuming some of the responsibilities currently
held by NASA.
Daniel S. Goldin, NASA's Administrator, laid out an
extensive vision of the achievements and benefits he believes
the space agency can deliver for the American taxpayer over the
next 40 years. In particular he focused on the central role
that new technologies and approaches for space transportation
will play in enabling many of these scientific and economic
space goals. Goldin pointed out NASA is consolidating its
Shuttle and unmanned operations contracts as a step towards
privatization. He also stressed that industry needs government
help to take on greater leadership in space operations, and
specified four methods: technology development and
demonstration, loan guarantees, purchase of services, and tax
incentives.
Howard McCurdy, Professor of Public Administration at
American University, suggested that in the future multiple
``space agencies'' will perform different functions: policy
coordination, federal financing of space endeavors, and
infrastructure development, as well as R&D (i.e. NASA). In the
meantime, we will see a transition as NASA moves from being a
``multi-mission agency'' to one more focused on R&D. He
stressed that NASA will need to regain the in-house technical
talent and management processes which made Project Apollo
successful. He also called for ``lump sum'' appropriations for
NASA projects as a way to encourage flexibility and
accountability in project management.
Dr. Eilene Galloway celebrated the success of the
architects of NASA in attaining ``four decades of peace in
outer space and freedom from space wars,'' an achievement she
says is due to the practical benefits of space which make it
too valuable to sacrifice in pursuit of aggression. She also
noted the increasing role of the commercial space sector, and
suggested that the NASA Act of 1958 (and other policies) may
need to be updated to deal with new relationships between the
government and the private sector. She cautioned that
regulation plays an important role in creating a stable
framework within which private industry can plan its
investments and activities.
Rick Tumlinson, President of the Space Frontier Foundation,
suggested that a lack of vision since Apollo has forced NASA to
pull back from pioneering the space frontier. Stressing the
need for a clarification of responsibilities between the
government and the private sector, he declared that ``NASA's
job is to explore; the people's job is to settle.''
Specifically, Tumlinson called for early privatization of the
Space Shuttle fleet, International Space Station, and many of
NASA's field centers, increased investment in experimental
technology demonstrations, policies to support entrepreneurial
space firms, and a reallocation of resources towards more
visionary projects such as exploration and development of the
moon.
Pete Conrad, Chairman of Universal Space Lines, argued that
the growth of commercial space activities is central to
America's future in space, and that government must be careful
in ``helping'' space commercialization. He stressed the
importance of NASA focusing on R&D and ``getting out of the
operations end of businesses.'' Regarding investment
incentives, he warned against the problematic nature of loan
guarantees, and argued instead for tax mechanisms.
4.5--subcommittee on technology
4.5(a)--Secure Communications
February 11, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-1
Background
On February 11, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
briefing entitled, ``Secure Communications'' to receive
testimony regarding the need to protect the confidential nature
of private communications and to ensure that stored proprietary
data remains uncompromised.
Witnesses included: Dr. Daniel Geer, Director of
Engineering, Open Market, Inc.; Mr. Daniel Lynch, Chairman,
CyberCash; Mr. Tsutomu Shimomura, Senior Fellow, San Diego
Supercomputer Center; Mr. Geoff Mulligan, Senior Staff
Engineer, Security Products Group, SunSoft; Mr. Daniel Farmer,
Independent Security Consultant; Dr. Eugene Spafford, Associate
Professor of Computer Sciences, Purdue University.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Daniel Geer, testifying as Director of Engineering,
Open Market, Inc., testified that the biggest risk to computer
systems is from within because the attacker knows what to look
for, has motive, and opportunity. He stated that Congress needs
to set standards regarding the degree to which every
organization has responsibility for protecting information that
is entrusted to them, and clarifying the liability rules. He
stated that most corporations are aware of the security risks,
but they do not want to make the information public.
Mr. Daniel Lynch, testifying as Chairman, CyberCash, Inc.,
attested that the Internet can be used for both good and bad
purposes. Like a global village, the Internet thrives on other
people adding their ideas, values, and hopes. He stated that if
we had strong cryptography everywhere, individuals would need
to buy keys to unlock it. While it would not be the perfect
solution, it would prevent children from viewing inappropriate
data, since parents usually control a child's money.
Mr. Tsutomu Shimomura, testifying as Senior Fellow, San
Diego Supercomputer Center, stated that people are afraid of
computer technology since they do not understand it. He
testified that many ``mechanisms are insecure but we try to use
them as if they were secure because we want them to be
secure.'' One way to correct this problem is by increasing
education and research in this area. He also stated that by
increasing education we will increase ethical standards.
Mr. Geoff Mulligan, testifying as Senior Staff Engineer,
Security Products Group, Sunsoft, indicated that it is
important to educate the parents of children so they can
monitor what sites their children visit and stop them from
viewing inappropriate sites. Also, he stated that individuals
``can easily make much more money attacking computer systems
because people just do not understand systems today.'' In his
view, people tend to accept the new technologies without
completely understanding the security implications.
Mr. Daniel Farmer, testifying as an independent security
consultant, testified that additional education is needed. He
stated that ``a lot of the problems arise from the fact that we
do not put security in the infrastructure, in the products, or
in the curriculum. So people view it as something that is
alien, difficult, and just not necessary for action.'' The real
problems that we are facing, he said, are not technical, but
social problems. The challenge is not defending and protecting
a system, but providing resources and funding education.
Dr. Eugene Spafford, testifying as Associate Professor of
Computer Sciences, Purdue University, stated that there is a
need to better integrate computer security material into the
typical computer science curriculum. The problem with those
individuals who are self-taught computer experts is that they
are never taught how to responsibly use computers or the
effects of hacking. In order to raise awareness of the problem
we must increase education. Encouragement is needed in the
private sector he said, since it is where products will be
marketed and graduates will be employed.
4.5(b)--Surface Transportation Research Needs for the Next Century,
Parts 1-2
February 27, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-9
Background
On February 27, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held
the first of two hearings entitled, ``Surface Transportation
Research Needs for the Next Century, Parts 1 and 2.''
Witnesses included: Mr. Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy
Secretary, Department of Transportation; The Honorable David L.
Winstead, Secretary, State of Maryland, Department of
Transportation; Mr. Robert J. Skinner, Jr., Executive Director,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
Authorizing legislation for federal surface transportation
programs expires at the end of fiscal year 1997. The existing
federal framework was created by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). During the 102nd
Congress, the House Committee on Science introduced and passed
the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of
1991. Several provisions from the legislation were incorporated
into ISTEA.
ISTEA increased annual funding for surface transportation
research and development and created new research initiatives
including the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program.
The legislation also established a framework for cooperation
among the federal government, industry, and universities on
surface transportation research. Finally, the Act established
that the federal role in surface transportation research and
development should be to sponsor and coordinate research and
development on new technologies that seek to provide safer,
more affordable transportation systems for the future.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Mortimer Downey, testifying as Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Transportation, testified that science and
technology are key solutions to many of the challenges in
environment, congestion and safety that we face in the twenty-
first century. He stated that a one percent improvement in
transportation efficiency could save the economy $100 billion
over a decade and make our economy more competitive. The role
at the federal level is critical because neither other sectors
of government nor industry, which consists of many small
providers, have the resources for intensive research.
Mr. David L. Winstead, Secretary, State of Maryland,
Department of Transportation, stated that states take the
benefits of federal research, apply it to their needs, but also
integrate local universities in that effort to make sure that
resources and universities are being fully utilized. He
testified that last year Maryland had the lowest level of
fatalities on their highway system since 1968. Part of the
reduction can be attributed to benefits of federal safety
programs. He stressed that it is important for the federal
government to provide the seed money for research since there
is little incentive for industry or state and local governments
to make that kind of investment in transportation research and
development.
Mr. Robert J. Skinner, Jr., testifying as Executive
Director, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, emphasized that the Transportation Research Board's
mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation
through research. Even though highway research programs are
decentralized and the overall highway research program is
difficult to understand, it does provide a solid foundation for
highway innovation given the structure of the industry it
serves. He stated that research programs need to be less
conservative and more comprehensive.
4.5(c)--Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning: How Far Should We Go?
March 5, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-3
Background
On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Biotechnology and the Ethics of Cloning:
How Far Should We Go?'' to receive testimony to review the
breakthrough technology which created the recent cloning of the
first adult mammal, and to see how cloning technologies are
being used presently, and how they will be used in the future
for positive scientific advancement.
Witnesses included Dr. Harold E. Varmus, Director, National
Institutes of Health; Dr. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., Supervisory
Research Physiologist, Agriculture Research Service, United
States Department of Agriculture; Dr. M. Susan Smith, Director,
Oregon Regional Primate Research Center; Dr. Thomas H. Murray,
Chairman, Genetics Testing Subcommittee, National Bioethics
Advisory Commission, and Professor and Director, Center for
Biomedical Ethics, Case Western University, School of Medicine;
Mr. James Geraghty, President and CEO, Genzyme Transgenics
Corporation.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Harold E. Varmus, testifying as Director, National
Institutes of Health, addressed the scientific foundations that
allowed the cloning experiment to occur and the future
applications of the breakthrough. He also spoke about the steps
the Administration had taken in light of the recent discovery.
He stated that it is not scientifically necessary to make human
clones since we already have spontaneously occurring identical
twins. He applauded the President's decision to refer the
issues of human cloning to the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission.
Dr. Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., testifying as Supervisory
Research Physiologist, Agriculture Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, testified with regards to the
technical and scientific aspects of cloning in farm animals,
specifically at the United States Department of Agriculture. He
stated that his department has been involved in biotechnology
research with farm animals to improve animal health, production
efficiency, food safety, human nutrition, etc. He stated that
until researchers can successfully do genetic engineering in
the lab, more research needs to be done. Once this ability is
mastered, a very useful tool will be available to help improve
animal productivity and yield significant benefits to
customers.
Dr. M. Susan Smith, testifying as Director, Oregon Primate
Research Center, stated that genetically identical monkeys
would provide a powerful resource for biomedical research since
it would eliminate genetic variation from research studies. For
now the Oregon Center will focus on the use of embryonic cells
to produce genetically identical offspring (known as twinning)
since there is currently no rationale for cloning adult
monkeys. The Center is still working on producing genetically
identical monkeys since it would revolutionize the use of non-
human primates in biomedical research. Not only would fewer
animals be required in research studies, but these techniques
could be used to preserve the gene pool of non-human primate
species in danger of extinction.
Dr. Thomas H. Murray, testifying as Chairman, Genetics
Testing Subcommittee, National Bioethics Advisory Commission,
noted that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC)
had called upon leaders of the major religious traditions in
the United States to present their views about the ethical
issues raised by the prospect of cloning human beings, and they
have time set aside for public discussion. He pointed out that
a clone would be very different from the original. He would
have different parents and friends, as well as a lifetime of
different experiences to shape his character. Our public policy
response to research on cloning of animals, he said, should not
be swept along by our concern to prevent what we will judge to
be the ethical dangers of human cloning.
Mr. James Geraghty, President and CEO, Genzyme Transgenics
Corporation, discussed the transgenic technology with regards
to the potential impact the recent cloning would have on the
development of therapeutic products. Transgenic technology
involves the transfer of genetic material from one species to
another. Currently the technology is used to develop
therapeutic proteins in the milk of dairy animals. He stated
that with very complex proteins, transgenic technology
represents the only technically feasible way in which the
product can be manufactured. He encouraged Members not to rush
to judgment in such a complex area as the ethics of cloning or
it may lead to bad policy.
4.5(d)--Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and
Development Authorization
March 13, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-6
Background
On March 13, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Federal Aviation Administration Research,
Engineering and Development Authorization'' to review the
President's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research,
Engineering, and Development (R,E&D) budget request for Fiscal
Year 1998 and beyond. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget
request for FAA R,E&D is $200 million, $8.4 million less than
the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. According to the budget
request, the funding is needed to conduct research,
engineering, and development programs that improve the national
air traffic control system by increasing its safety, security,
capacity, and productivity to meet the unexpected air traffic
demands of the future.
Witnesses included: Dr. George L. Donohue, Associate
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation
Administration and Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, Chair-FAA R,E&D
Advisory Committee.
Summary of hearing
Dr. George L. Donohue, testifying as Associate
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation
Administration, testified that the FAA, as directed by the 1996
Reauthorization Act, has made sure that the R&D Advisory
Committee is more involved in assessing FAA priorities. For FY
1999 programs, the FAA plans to increase the Advisory
Committee's role by using six standing subcommittees, and
regularly scheduled meetings of those subcommittees with FAA
staff. He stated that the new acquisition management system,
which took effect April 1, 1996, provides a simplified and more
flexible way to meet the FAA's acquisition needs. The White
House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (also known as
the Gore Commission) recently issued its final report which
included several recommendations that will involve RE&D
programs. He testified that the FAA is now working to develop
pertinent cost and resource information, as well as schedules
and priorities, to determine how to best achieve the needed
results.
Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, testifying as Chair, Federal Aviation
Administration Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee, stated that the National Airspace System (NAS)
modernization must be sped-up. However, with the current
architectural plan and the current level of funding it will be
difficult to reach the year 2005 goal as established by the
Gore Commission. He also emphasized that prototypes are crucial
to rapid implementation. One of the critical components
necessary for injecting new technology into a market is the
ability to prototype and test those components. As an example,
he cited the FLIGHT 2000 demonstration program in Alaska and
Hawaii which effects just one percent of the airplanes in NAS,
but provides much needed answers to implementation and
operation questions.
4.5(e)--Funding Needs for the Technology Administration and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Parts I-II
March 19, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-12
Background
On March 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the
first of two hearings entitled, ``Funding Needs for the
Technology Administration and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), Parts I and II,'' to assess
the funding requirements for the Department of Commerce
Technology Administration in Fiscal Year 1998 and beyond, as
well as review the effectiveness of programs under the
Technology Administration. Also, an assessment on the needed
legislative changes to statutes authorizing programs under the
Technology Administration was completed.
Witness included: Dr. Mary L. Good, Undersecretary for
Technology, Department of Commerce.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Mary L. Good, testifying as Undersecretary for
Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, testified that NTIS is
a fee-funded agency, but that its authorizing legislative
language needs to be changed so the agency may operate in a
more flexible manner. She stated that the NIST laboratory
budget has increased by about 40 percent in four year's time.
She stated that NIST laboratories are the ``Crown Jewel'' of
the Technology Administration. She noted that the U.S.
government does not set standards since we have voluntary,
private-sector, standards setting organizations. She said that
any of the NIST buildings, since they were all built about the
same time, she said, are in need of major repair and
refurbishing. She also addressed the need for the Advanced
Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and
the Malcom Baldrige Award program. Since the Office of
Technology Assessment was closed, the Technology Administration
is the only group doing domestic and international technology
assessments. The Technology Administration, she stated, has
been streamlined to be more efficient.
4.5(f)--Year 2000 Risks: What Are the Consequences Of Information
Technology Failure? (Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight)
March 20, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-5
Background
On March 20, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
joint hearing with Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information
and Technology entitled, ``Year 2000 Risks: What Are the
Consequences Of Information Technology Failure?,'' to explore
non-software problems associated with the Year 2000 computer
problem. Testimony was received regarding potential Year 2000
impacts and the legal actions that would occur after the start
of the Year 2000.
Witnesses included: Mr. Bruce Hall, Research Director,
Gartner Group; Ms. Ann Coffou, Managing Director--Year 2000
Relevance Service, Giga Information Group; Mr. Vito C. Peraino,
Attorney, Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft; Mr. Harris Miller,
President, Information Technology Association of America.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Bruce Hall, testifying as Research Director, Gartner
Group, testified that approximately 80 percent of the computer
code to be remedied for the Year 2000 problem is on large
mainframe systems. There is no time to retire or replace a
significant number of mainframe systems, so a massive repair
effort will be consuming key information technology resources
over the next three years. He stated that in 1995 more than
three billion micro-controller chips were shipped and are used
in telephone systems, bar cod readers, bank machines, civilian
and military avionics. Many of these microchips may be subject
to Year 2000 failure. Organizations cannot afford to ignore
these systems whose failures may have a dire impact on society.
Ms. Anne Coffou, testifying as Managing Director, Year 2000
Relevance Service, Giga Information Group, stated that the
current challenge is to deal with embedded microchips in very
simple products like VCR's, fax machines, elevators as well as
very complex products like devices that control traffic lights,
power generation, and water and sewer systems. This chip
failure will have results ranging from annoying to life
threatening. The solution, she said, will be to test every
device with an embedded microchip. Manufactures, she said, will
be assumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Mr. Vito C. Peraino, testifying as Attorney, Hancock
Rothert & Bunshoft, testified the Year 2000 problem is a
litigation catastrophe waiting to happen, and most companies
and lawyers are currently unaware of the potential problem. He
stated that at the most basic level, the Year 2000 problem
threatens the integrity of financial information because so
much of that information is date-dependent. He outlined five
points associated with the legal aspect of the Year 2000 bug
and suggestions to help limit the potential litigation
catastrophe. He also recommended that Congress mandate that all
sizable companies disclose publicly their Year 2000 problem and
their plan to fix it. This action will bring public pressure on
companies to address the problem, and it will give Congress a
tool to gain a better sense of how critical sectors of our
economy are addressing the problem.
Mr. Harris Miller, testifying as President, Information
Technology Association of America, stated that the Office of
Management and Budget's recent estimate of $2.3 billion for a
federal-wide Year 2000 fix is a clear signal that our
government has not made this a top priority issue. He insisted
the figure is much higher than $2.3 billion. He also testified
about ITAA's Year 2000 certification process called ITAA 2000.
The program was designed to give the marketplace a mechanism to
identify the companies which are addressing the Year 2000
issues. Currently 11 organizations have received certification
and 18 more are undergoing technical evaluation.
4.5(g)--Funding Needs for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Parts I and II
April 10, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-12
Background
On April 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the
last of two hearings entitled, ``Funding Needs for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Parts I and II,'' to
receive testimony from outside witnesses on the funding
requirements for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and to review the Administration's fiscal
year 1998 budget request and out-year budget projections
through fiscal year 2002. The discussion focused on the
effectiveness of NIST programs such as the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program (MEP).
Witnesses included: Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for
Energy, Resource and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting
Office; Mr. Claude Barfield, Director, Science and Technology
Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. W.C. Dyer,
Director, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; Professor
Michael Borrus, Co-Director of BRIE, University of California
at Berkeley; Dr. Michael Gough, Director of Science and Risk
Studies, CATO.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director for Energy, Resources and
Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, stated that GAO
was releasing a report entitled Performance Measurement:
Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators (GAO/RCED-97-
91). This report highlights the difficulty in measuring the
impact of technology programs like ATP and MEP. GAO's research
shows that ATP has funded research projects that would have
been funded by the private sector as well as those that would
not. The report released on performance measurement shows that
there is no single indicator or evaluation that adequately
captures the results of R&D.
Mr. Claude Barfield, Director, Science and Technology
Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute, addressed the
place of the ATP program in relation to overall U.S. technology
policy, the role of government in constructing a technology
policy for the United States and the wisdom of linking the ATP
program with the traditional NIST laboratory role. He stated
that while calling for the ATP budget to double between 1998
and 2002 the Administration will allow the budget of the labs
to decline substantially in real terms over that same period.
Given the more important contribution of the labs to long-term
productivity and competitiveness of U.S. industry, it seems to
be a mistake to give higher priority to more politically
popular grant programs.
Mr. W.C. Dyer, Director, Michigan Manufacturing Technology
Center, testified with regards to the Michigan Manufacturing
Technology Center (MMTC) and the MEP program. He stated that
without the services provided by MMTC, many small firms would
find it difficult to modernize. If his center loses federal
support they will have to charge higher fees for services and
therefore many small businesses will not be able to afford
their services. The MEP program emphasizes practical, cost-
effective solutions to the needs of smaller manufactures.
Professor Michael Borrus, Co-Director, BRIE, University of
California at Berkeley, stated that continued U.S. leadership
in technological progress is essential for the long-term growth
of the domestic economy, for rising standards of living and for
continued competitive success of the U.S. industry.
International developments make continued support especially
urgent. Interventionist governments abroad and growing foreign
public commitments to technology spending threaten to cut into
the U.S.'s technology development lead and transplant long-term
technical progress abroad.
Dr. Michael Gough, Director, Science and Risk Studies, CATO
Institute, advocated the abolishment of the ATP program. He
testified that ATP could be eliminated with no damage done to
the economy of the country, with tax savings, and with the
potential for more private investment in R&D.
4.5(h)--Surface Transportation Research Needs for the Next Century,
Parts I-II
April 23, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-9
Background
On April 23, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held the
last of two hearings entitled, ``Surface Transportation
Research Needs for the Next Century, Parts I-II.'' This was the
second in a series of hearings on surface transportation
research. Following the first Subcommittee on Technology
transportation hearing in February, Subcommittee Chairwoman
Constance Morella and Full Committee Ranking Member George E.
Brown, Jr. introduced H.R. 860, the Surface Transportation
Research and Development Act of 1997. The legislation
authorizes appropriations for the Department of Transportation
to carry-out surface transportation R&D programs, including the
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) program, for Fiscal
Years 1998-2003. This hearing reviewed the private sector views
on the effectiveness of the federal government's current role
in surface transportation R&D. It also identified ways to
encourage increased private sector surface transportation R&D.
The hearing also determined the appropriate prioritization of
funding for surface transportation R&D through fiscal year
2003.
Witnesses included: Mr. Noah Rifkin, Senior Program
Manager, Transportation Group, Calspan SRL; Mr. Richard Braun,
Treasurer, Board of Directors, Intelligent Transportation
Society of America; Mr. Hank Dittmar, Executive Director,
Surface Transportation Policy Project; Dr. C. Michael Walton,
P.E., Chair--Transportation Policy Board, American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Noah Rifkin, testifying as Senior Program Manager,
Transportation Group, Calspan SRL discussed his support for the
current version of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in particular the R&D segments of the
bill, and provided some thoughts on how the Administration's
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act
(NEXTEA) may be strengthened even further. Mr. Rifkin said he
supports a larger percentage of investment of federal dollars
for the nation's transportation enterprise. He summarized
saying he supports ISTEA and suggests that Congress reassess
its priorities, tune its focus, and reaffirm its national
commitment to assure the success of NEXTEA.
Mr. Richard Braun, testifying as Treasurer, Board of
Directors, Intelligent Transportation Society of America stated
that the ITS initiative is vital. He gave several examples
where technology can meet the nation's growing traffic needs.
Mr. Braun highlighted many technologies already in place in
several major cities. He also suggested several ITS components
for inclusion in NEXTEA.
Mr. Hank Dittmar, testifying as Executive Director, Surface
Transportation Policy Project expressed his support for surface
transportation research and development. He also suggested that
the R&D program be guided by an overall strategic agenda that
reflects the goals contained in ISTEA and cited several
elements for inclusion in the federal surface transportation
research program. Mr. Dittmar recommended expanding current
surface transportation R&D technology programs to include more
policy research. He emphasized the important role of the
Federal Government in research and technology development
activities.
Dr. C. Michael Walton, testifying as Chair, Transportation
Policy Board, American Society of Civil Engineers, discussed
his support for ISTEA and the benefits it offers, such as
increased partnership opportunities among government, the
private sector and universities. He expressed continued support
of NEXTEA. He stressed the importance of developing another
strategic plan for NEXTEA and offered several suggestions to be
included in that plan, particularly continued research and
development of ITS.
4.5(i)--Technology in the Classroom: Panacea or Pandora's
May 6, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-13
Background
On May 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Technology in the Classroom: Panacea or
Pandora's.'' The hearing explored the appropriate role of
technology in K-12 education. The hearing addressed the role of
state, local and Federal Government programs; the cost
associated with the use of technology; barriers to replicate
successful programs; and how the private sector can be
harnessed to assist both urban and rural schools in bringing
technology into the classroom.
To date, the Federal Government has played a substantial
role in providing technology in the classroom. A recent RAND
survey estimated that, in 1994, $850 million in federal funding
went to K-12 technologies, about 30% of the total national
investment. Last year, Congress passed, and the President
signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Among its
provisions, the legislation requires telecommunications
carriers, if requested, to provide elementary and secondary
schools with telecommunications services at reduced rates.
Witnesses included, Mr. Paul Reese, Computer and Technology
Coordinator, Community School District Five, New York, NY; Mr.
Joseph Hofmeister, Director, Technology Integration, Cincinnati
Country Day School, Cincinnati, OH; Mr. Kalani Smith,
Instructional Specialist, Office of Global Access Technology,
Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, MD; Ms. Kathleen
Fulton, Associate Director, Center for Learning and Educational
Technologies, College of Education, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD; Mr. Tip Kilby, Executive Director, Computers
for the Classrooms, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Paul Reese testified on behalf of the Consortium for
School Networking and Community School District Five in New
York City. Mr. Reese asserted that technology has contributed
immensely to the success of the students and teachers at Ralph
Bunche School. This technology includes: access to both local
area networks (LAN) and wide area networks (WAN) through an
Internet server, e-mail accounts for students and teachers,
newsgroups set up in collaboration with other schools, a web
server and, an electronic portfolio whereby students can save
word processing, graphic and other files. This access to
information has challenged students and teachers to develop new
projects and find new ways of acquiring, as well as
constructing, knowledge. Mr. Reese believes that we must assure
that all students have access to the Internet, and that
teachers receive the necessary training in order to assure
success.
Ms. Kathleen Fulton testified on behalf of the Center for
Learning and Educational Technology at the University of
Maryland. She believes that new understandings of educational
technologies can change how we think about education. Ms.
Fulton views new technologies for students as a ``pencil for
the mind,'' and encourages Congress to continue to support the
creation and availability of educational technologies for the
benefit of our nation's schoolchildren.
Additionally, Ms Fulton testified that federal investments
made in educational technology over the past decade have been
substantial, but cautioned that these monies will continue to
present budgetary challenges. She noted that while federal
dollars provide approximately 6 percent of K-12 education
expenditures, federal funding has supplied 25 percent of the
share for technology. Ms. Fulton also testified that there is a
steadily growing body of research that supports technology's
positive impact on student learning. However, there is no
guarantee that favorable results will be achieved by just
having the technology in the classroom
Mr. Joseph Hofmeister Testified on behalf of Cincinnati
Country Day School (CCDS), a preK-12, private, independent,
college preparatory school in Cincinnati, OH. Mr. Hofmeister
believes that CCDS's experience with computers in schools over
the last 25 years has given them a distinct and unique
perspective on the use of educational technology. Additionally,
Mr. Hofmeister asserted that computers can be a catalyst for
developing a new paradigm for learning in schools. When
students become more active and constructive in dealing with
information, rather than being passive recipients, many things
are learned and understood better, developing independent,
problem solving learners who achieve more personal satisfaction
in the process. He believes that students must be encouraged,
and maybe required, to use technology to enhance, expand and
serve their learning experiences.
Mr. Tip Kilby, testified on behalf of Computers for the
Classrooms, Inc. (CCI). CCI is dedicated to enhancing education
through better use of technology. They achieve this by
providing teachers with a computer for their own personal use,
outfitting the computer with relevant, useful software, and
training the teachers through a series of classes. Mr. Kilby
believes that in order to reach our goal of fully integrated
educational technologies we need to focus more on training
teachers in this area. A part of this educating teachers is
giving teachers access to their own computers at all times
where they can spend time learning how to properly use them.
Mr. Kilby also stated that two ways to expedite our goal is
to tap into the abundant technological resources of companies
and individuals, and tap into their vast human resources.
Utilizing volunteers who know how to use technology, and use it
everyday as part of their work.
Mr. Kalani Smith testified on behalf of the Montgomery
County Education Association's Office of Global Access
Technology. Mr. Smith stated that technology available to
teachers is increasing at a rapid rate. He cautioned that this
technology is not an end in itself, but a tool which a teacher
can use to enhance their methods of instruction. The
difficulty, as he sees it, is in training the teachers to
utilize these available technologies. And to help them see
technology as a powerful tool to deliver even better
instruction of their curriculum. Additionally, Mr. Smith
asserted that teacher training in the instructional use of
technology is, and needs to be, a priority so that our children
can take advantage of the wealth of knowledge this period in
earth's history has to provide.
4.5(j)--Review of the President's Commission's Recommendations on
Cloning
June 12, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-19
Background
On June 12, 1997 the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing to review and discuss the report, ``Review of the
President's Commission's Recommendations on Cloning,''
submitted to the President on June 9, 1997, by the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). The President had
requested the NBAC perform a ninety day study to examine the
scientific, ethical and legal aspects of the cloning issue. The
hearing, entitled ``Review of the Recommendations on Cloning by
the President's Commission,'' provided the first Congressional
forum for discussion on the findings of the Commission. The
hearing also considered the NBAC recommendations on the legal
and ethical issues associated with the use of cloning
technology.
Witnesses included: Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Harold T. Shapiro, Ph.D.,
Chairman, National Bioethics Advisory Commission; Thomas
Murray, Ph.D., Chairman, Genetics Subcommittee, National
Bioethics Advisory Commission; David R. Cox, M.D., Ph.D.,
Professor of Genetics and Pediatrics, Department of Genetics,
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Harold Varmus testifying as Chairman of the National
Institutes of Health, briefly summarized the legislative
activity (the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on
Technology legislative hearing on March 5, 1997 and the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Public
Health and Safety hearing on March 12, 1997) that had
transpired to that date.
Dr. Harold T. Shapiro testifying as Chairman of the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, broadly summarized some
of the major conclusions of the NBAC. He began by presenting
some of the scientific uncertainties and impediments that exist
that currently obstruct the successful cloning of a human
being, and thus, the successful scripting of public policy
analysis in this area. He provided that the Commission's report
cited deficient technology, at present, for the safe cloning of
a human, and that the current state would expose the fetus and
developing child to unacceptable risks. This deficiency was
coupled with far-reaching concern over societal concerns about
the ethics of allowing human cloning.
Dr. Shapiro concluded by suggesting that a specific period
of time be set aside, during which no attempts at human somatic
cell nuclear transfer would be attempted, and that the debate
be revisited after scientific, moral, and ethical data can be
further collected and better evaluated.
Dr. Thomas M. Murray testifying as Chairman of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission's Genetic Testing Subcommittee,
Dr. Murray testified to the religious and ethical issues
analyzed by the Commission. After outlining the process taken
by the NBAC, he presented the major findings in regard to
ethical and religious debate. Many raised the issue of the
responsible dominion over nature by humankind. From a family/
religious perspective, also acceptable procreation was analyzed
in an effort to better understand the differences between
begetting and making. The Commission looked at human cloning
from a number of perspectives. He stated that the potential
cloning of humans could disrupt the relationship among
generations. From a religious perspective, the Commission
focused on concerns over hubris, domination and oppression of
made people, and concern over objectification. The Commission
also stated that extreme caution must be exhibited whenever
humans are used as the subject of scientific experimentation.
But most of all, at this time, there is sufficient cause to
warrant legislation to bar cloning based on the fact that a
developing child would be subject to undue harm as a result of
the current ``unscientifically plausible technology.''
Dr. David R. Cox testifying as a Member of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission, spoke of the remarkable nature
of the scientific discovery and the opportunity for great
advancements in basic science. Dr. Cox also was careful to
mention the scope of the NBAC study. He explained that the
cloning technique in question, somatic cell nuclear transfer,
cannot be done without the transfer of genetic information to
an egg. When division of the egg takes place, by definition, an
embryo is produced. He insisted that it was not in the scope of
the study to revisit the embryonic debate, nor assess the
current annual ban on federal funding of human embryo research.
He concluded with a justification as to why the scientists on
the Commission would recommend legislation aimed at controlling
science, in light of the fact that above all, ``scientists
value scientific freedom.''
4.5(k)--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997: To Amend The
National Institute Of Standards and Technology Act to Enhance The
Ability Of The National Institute of Standards And Technology To
Improve Computer Security, And For Other Purposes
June 19, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-20
Background
On June 19, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997:
To Amend The National Institute Of Standards and Technology Act
to Enhance The Ability Of The National Institute of Standards
And Technology To Improve Computer Security, And For Other
Purposes.'' The hearing focused on the provisions of the
Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997. The bill amends the
Computer Security Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-235). P.L. 100-235 gave
NIST the lead responsibility for computer security for federal
civilian agencies. The Act required NIST to develop standards
and guidelines needed to ensure cost-effective security and
privacy of sensitive information in federal computer systems.
The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997, updates the
decades-old act while giving NIST the tools it requires to
ensure that appropriate attention and effort is concentrated on
securing our federal information technology infrastructure.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Gary Bachula, Acting
Under Secretary for Technology, Technology Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce; Dr. Whitfield Diffie, Distinguished
Engineer, Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, CA; Mr. Stephen T.
Walker, President and CEO, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.,
Glenwood, MD; Mr. D. James Bidzos, President and CEO, RSA Data
Security, Redwood City, CA; Marc Rotenberg, Esq., Director,
Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Gary Bachula described an electronic world of
the future, whereby one keystroke, performed by a consumer,
would initiate an elaborate, electronically controlled process,
resulting in the delivery of a custom good to the end user.
This would require a ``reliable, secure and trustworthy
environment. * * * We need to have access to public information
but also assurance that the wrong people will not have access
to classified or private information.'' In addressing the
sections of the bill, Mr. Bachula, speaking on behalf of the
Administration, strongly supported portions of the bill that
augment NIST's role in assisting the establishment of non-
federal public key management infrastructures, as well as
providing guidance and assistance to federal agencies. Support
of Section 5 was also given. The intent of Section 6 and
Section 8 was supported, yet Mr. Bachula suggested that the
language needed to be improved. Mr. Bachula indicated that the
Administration opposed Section 7, which gives NIST a role in
the assessment of the strength of foreign encryption
technologies thereby providing guidance to DoC in granting
export licenses for domestic encryption products.
Dr. Whitfield Diffie testified on the historical
development of the government's role in computer security. In
tracing the development of the interaction between National
Security Agency (NSA) and NIST, Mr. Diffie spoke very highly of
the intent of the Computer Security Act of 1987; however, he
noted that the provision which called for NIST to consult with
NSA, later modified by an inter-agency Memorandum of
Understanding, resulted in a separation of authority (NIST) and
funding (NSA). Mr. Diffie highlighted the problems caused by
the NIST/NSA interaction, and contended that NIST autonomy
would eliminate this predicament. Citing its timeliness, Mr.
Diffie strongly supported H.R. 1903, which he stated would
bring back the spirit of the Computer Security Act of 1987.
Mr. Stephen T. Walker also testified in support of H.R.
1903. He strongly supported the provisions that strengthened
and augmented the role of the Computer System Security and
Privacy Advisory Board (CSSPAB), which was created by the 1987
Act. He pointed out the public good that was done by CSSPAB
allowing public debate on the widely criticized Clipper
initiative and defended H.R. 1903's enhancement of the board's
interaction with NIST. Mr. Walker, though, was opposed to the
portions of the bill that direct NIST to conduct evaluations of
encryption technology, both domestically (Section 4, paragraph
6) and internationally (Section 7). He questioned the ability
of NIST to conduct such evaluations, not because of
inadequacies of NIST, rather, the fact that ``no one in
government or industry has been able to perform effectively at
this point'' such an evaluation.
Mr. D. James Bidzos refuted Mr. Walker's contention
regarding evaluation of encryption technologies. He stated that
the provisions of section 7 were both doable and needed. Also,
Mr. Bidzos praised the bill's provisions that increased the
private sector's role in establishing computer security for
civilian government agencies. While implementation of the 1987
Act missed the opportunity for NIST to work closely with
industry, ``we have an opportunity now to correct it. And, I
think that's what [H.R.] 1903 does.'' Concluding, Mr. Bidzos
found no shortcomings with the bill, and strongly supported its
contents and timing.
Mr. Marc Rotenberg concluded oral testimony with an overall
appraisal of H.R. 1903. Citing the merits of the 1987 Act, Mr.
Rotenberg supported the bill as powerful and timely legislation
that furthers the intent of its predecessor, while eliminating
the inefficacy induced by NIST's Memorandum of Understanding
with NSA for consultation on computer security matters under
the Act.
4.5(l)--The Role of Research & Development In Improving Civilian Air
Traffic Management
June 24, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-22
Background
On June 24, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``The Role of Research & Development In
Improving Civilian Air Traffic Management.'' The hearing was
held to review the current state of air traffic control (ATC)
modernization, identify what improvements to the system are
necessary; and determine the proper role R&D should play in ATC
modernization.
Currently, our nation's air traffic system is aging.
Failures of critical technological components that support
aviation safety are on the increase. Projections call for a 5%
increase in air traffic volume for the next ten to fifteen
years. Without significant modifications, the system will not
be able to cope with the future demand while maintaining the
current level of aviation safety.
Witnesses included: Mr. Steven B. Zaidman, Director, Office
of System Architecture and Investment Analysis, Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC; Dr. Henry McDonald,
Director, Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Moffett Field, CA; Ms. Margaret Jenny, RTCA
Government/Industry Free Flight Steering Committee, Director of
Operations Research, U.S. Airways, Arlington, VA; Ms. Nancy
Price, Chair, Air Traffic Services Subcommittee, Research,
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Steven B. Zaidman testifying on behalf of the Office of
System Architecture and Investment Analysis, spoke of the
Federal Aviation Administration's activities in introducing new
technologies into the air traffic management system. He
additionally highlighted concerns and difficulties in the
present system of air traffic management. Mr. Zaidman asserted
that the greatest limitation of the air traffic management
technology being used today is its inability to support the
continued growth of air travel in our country. Mr. Zaidman
commended two allies that have helped the agency better focus
R,E&D investments. First, the Congress, for their
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act.
Second, Mr. Zaidman applauded the R,E&D Advisory Committee.
Their collaboration has been instrumental in finalizing the
Agencies budget.
Ms. Nancy Price, testifying on behalf of the National
Airspace System (NAS) Air Traffic Management (ATM) Panel of the
FAA R,E&D Advisory Committee, spoke to the charter that the NAS
ATM Panel set for themselves in order to review the FAA R&D
program. The panel made 20 recommendations on various subjects
critical to the future of FAA R&D. These recommendations
included: Management recommendations, Advanced ATM
recommendations, Software recommendations, Weather
recommendations and, leveraging recommendations. As stated by
Mr. Zaidman, the FAA sees the Advisory Committee as a
collaborative partner and incorporates many of their
recommendations into existing FAA priorities.
Ms. Margaret Jenny, testifying as Co-Chair of the FAA's
R,E&D Advisory Committee RTCA Free Flight Select Committee,
spoke to the need of the entire air management system to
modernize in order to meet growing consumer demand. The RTCA
Free Flight Select Committee has determined that ``free
flight'' is a bold innovation which could significantly improve
air traffic management to the benefit of all involved. In the
RTCA Free Flight plan, safety decisions would be made by the
FAA, but economic decisions (routes, direct, indirect, etc.)
would be made by the users (airlines). Additionally, Ms. Jenny
highlighted the importance of the RTCA's evolution to the free
flight roadmap. She also urged the Science Committee to resolve
the FAA research agenda, ``The aviation community looks to . .
. your Committee to insure not only that appropriate research
is conducted, but also that promising products of previous
research will be expedited to the field . . .''
Dr. Henry McDonald, testifying as Director of the Ames
Research Center, NASA, briefly spoke to the new strategic
framework for the NASA Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology Enterprise. This endeavor has three national goals
which describe the vision and goals for future federal
investments in aeronautics and aviation. Additionally, Dr.
McDonald explained the cooperative efforts underway with the
FAA and expressed his determination for NASA to continue to
work closely with the FAA.
4.5(m)--Will Federal Government Computers Be Ready For the Year 2000?
(Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight)
July 10, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-35
Background
On July 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight) entitled, ``Will Federal Government Computers Be
Ready For The Year 2000?'' The hearing was held to review the
status of current Federal Government efforts to correct the
Year 2000 problem; to discuss the viability of Federal
Government agency timetables and milestones in addressing the
Year 2000 problem for mission-critical programs; and to assess
whether there are sufficient management processes and
structures in place to monitor Federal Government Year 2000
efforts.
Recognizing the need to take immediate federal action on
this issue, the 104th Congress required all federal agencies to
develop by February 1997, a federal strategy and a cost-
estimate to correct the Year 2000 problem. This requirement was
inserted into the Treasury Postal Fiscal Year 1997,
Appropriations Act. The language required the Federal
Government, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
to create: (1) a detailed plan; (2) a cost-estimate; and (3) a
time table to implement the plan.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Sally Katzen,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC; Mr. Joel
Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information Management
Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC; Mr.
Alvin Pesachowitz, Vice Chair, Chief Information Officers
Council, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC;
Ms. Katherine Adams, Chair, Interagency Year 2000 Subcommittee
of the Chief Information Officers Council, Assistant Deputy
Commissioner for Systems, Social Security Administration,
Baltimore, MD; Mr. Joe Thompson, Chief Information Officer,
U.S. General Services Administration, Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Sally Katzen, testifying as Administrator,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, reported on the status of the Federal
Government's progress in assuring federal computer systems are
ready for the Year 2000. In May, OMB informed agencies that
they would be required to report quarterly on their Year 2000
progress. Ms. Katzen characterized the first reports (received
by OMB on May 15, 1997) as showing that agencies have made a
good start in addressing the year 2000 problem. She also
indicated that the government-wide cost estimate had increased
from $2.3 billion to $2.8 billion. Ms. Katzen concluded by
stating that while OMB is concerned with the amount of work
that remains to be done, they are confident the Year 2000
computer problem will be a non-event with regard to the Federal
Government computer systems.
Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, testifying as Director, Information
Resources Management, Accounting and Information Management
Division, General Accounting Office, described the Federal
Government's strategy for addressing the Year 2000 problem, and
agencies' reported status in resolving the issue. In addition,
Mr. Willemssen provided observations on federal efforts to date
based on work GAO has completed at certain agencies and on
their review of OMB's implementation of the federal strategy,
including year 2000 reports submitted by 24 federal agencies.
Mr. Willemssen insisted that the pace of current date change
work needs to be accelerated if widespread system problems are
to be avoided. In conclusion, he feels that preparing for the
Year 2000 is much more of a management challenge than a
technical one.
Mr. Alvin Pesachowitz, testifying as Vice-Chairman, Federal
Chief Information Officers Council, discussed the role of the
Federal CIO Council in dealing with the Year 2000 problem. He
asserted that the CIO council believes there is no higher
priority for them than the proper operation of the information
systems the Federal Government relies on to serve the American
public. To that end, the CIO Council has worked closely with
OMB and the private sector in formulating Year 2000 policies.
Mr. Pesachowitz believes that the collaborative efforts by OMB
and the CIO Council has had a positive impact on the pace of
the Federal Government's response to the Year 2000 problem.
Ms. Kathleen Adams, testifying as Chairperson, Chief
Information Officers Council Subcommittee on Year 2000,
described what the Subcommittee has done and is doing to help
federal agencies address the Year 2000 problem. The primary
functions of the Year 2000 Subcommittee are; to raise awareness
of the problem; assess facets of the issue that cut across
government; seek mutual solutions; and share the best
practices. To facilitate these functions the Subcommittee has
sponsored two conferences to increase awareness, developed a
Best Practices guide to provide a framework for each agency and
department and, worked with OMB to develop the quarterly status
report each agency must submit to OMB. Ms. Adams also spoke of
the future activities of the Subcommittee. Specifically, they
are developing a database of commercial off the shelf software
and how it will function when handling dates beyond 1999;
focusing on data exchanges where multiple agencies are involved
to minimize the impact on state and local governments.
Mr. Joe M. Thompson, testifying as Chief Information
Officer, General Accounting Office, spoke to GSA's progress and
government-wide leadership in resolving the Year 2000 computer
dilemma. GSA's primary approach, in resolving the issue within
their agency, has been to upgrade all their systems to Year
2000 compliance in order to improve the overall function of
their system's. Outside GSA, Mr. Thompson testified that GSA
has notified manufacturers, service and equipment providers
that all products sold to the government must be year 2000
compliant and developed an Office of Government-wide policy
directory that has become a one-stop shopping source for
information on Year 2000 issues. Mr. Thompson cautioned that
many state and local government's are not moving rapidly or
aggressively enough to assure they will be ready on time.
However, the continued attention that Congress is showing the
matter will assist in both raising awareness and stimulating
solutions.
4.5(n)--Meeting The Needs Of People With Disabilities Through Federal
Technology Transfer
July 15, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-26
Background
On July 15, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Meeting The Needs Of People With
Disabilities Through Federal Technology Transfer.'' This
hearing was held to discuss the effectiveness of our federal
technology transfer laws and methods in which they may be
improved, focusing on assistive technologies for our nation's
disabled citizens. Assistive technologies are being used to
increase, maintain, and improve the functional capabilities of
citizens with disabilities. For the 49 million people in the
United States who have disabilities, our nation's federal
laboratories have yielded a tremendous number of quality of
life enhancements.
Witnesses included: Dr. Katherine Seelman, Director,
National Institute of Rehabilitation and Research, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, DC; Mr. C. Dan Brand,
Chairman, Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology
Transfer, Jefferson, AR; Dr. Bruce Webbon, Chief, Commercial
Technology, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA; Steve
Jacobs, Executive Assistant to the President, NCR Corporation,
Dayton, OH; David H. Hershberger, Vice President of Product
Development, Prentke Romich Company, Wooster, MA; Mr. Joe
Lahoud, President, LC Technologies, Fairfax, VA.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Katherine Seelman, testifying as Director, National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR),
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education. NIDRR is the lead federal agency in
research, development and deployment of assistive technologies.
Dr. Seelman stated that currently, an estimated 15.6 million
people in the U.S. either use some type of specialized
assistive technology or have reported they would benefit if
they did use an assistive technology. She also asserted that
there are numerous prospects for potential collaboration
between NIDRR and the federal laboratories in the area of
assistive technologies. A working model for future successful
collaboration should include; continuing to work on information
exchange; providing additional resources to seek out potential
technology for transfer; conducting pilot projects or
reciprocal exchange between NIDRR and the federal laboratories;
and involving individuals with disabilities in technology
transfer research. Dr. Seelman concluded that through continued
leadership of the Congress new ways will be found to transfer
technology into the area of assistive technology.
Mr. C. Dan Brand, Testifying as Chair, Federal Laboratory
Consortium, spoke to the important role played by the Federal
Laboratory Consortium (FLC) in the transfer of technology from
federal laboratories to the marketplace. Mr. Brand stated that
the FLC is committed to enhancing the partnership opportunities
between the federal laboratories and the assistive technology
community. He cited four things the FLC can begin implementing
to assist NIDRR in their mission; promote awareness and
benefits of assistive technology; identify the technical needs
of the NIDRR laboratories and match them with a federal
laboratory; exploit and adapt the mechanisms provided through
key legislation; and convey to the laboratory leadership the
importance of considering assistive technology design and
development. Mr. Brand further stated that the FLC has a clear
mandate to work with the assistive technology community and
they welcome the opportunities and challenges ahead.
Dr. Bruce Webbon, Testifying as Chief, Commercial
Technology Office, NASA-Ames Research Center, indicated that
large private companies are often reluctant to develop needed
assistive technology devices due to the small return on
investment. Additionally, smaller companies do not have the
resources to do so. Dr. Webbon feels that the federal
laboratories are uniquely able to bridge this gap since they
are not in the business of selling commercial products, and
they have, in collaboration with agencies, the needed technical
expertise. Dr. Webbon spoke of NASA's long history of applying
aerospace research, developed to accomplish its tasks in space,
to help solve problems on earth. He gave specific examples of
Ames research being successfully applied to the assistive
technology community.
Mr. Steven I. Jacobs, Testifying as a Senior Technology
Consultant, NCR Corporation, stated ``Developing products that
are accessible, usable and useful by people with disabilities
brings more benefits to mainstream business than may be obvious
to the casual observer.'' He gave numerous examples of
technology being developed to facilitate various job
performances and their rather easy application to the assistive
technology community. Mr. Jacobs further asserted that
strengthening the ability to meet the needs of people with
disabilities through federal technology transfer will bring
with it many benefits. Additionally, he believes that
supporting programs which proactively encourage collaboration
between rehabilitation engineering centers and federal
laboratories increase the quality and speed of products
currently under development.
Mr. David Hershberger, Testifying as Vice President,
Product Development, Prentke Romich Company, stated that his
company was founded in 1966 for the sole purpose of providing
technology for people with disabilities. This has remained the
company's one and only activity. Prentke Romich's primary
products are speech generation devices. The computer revolution
has benefited the production of these. This revolution has also
had a profound impact on people with disabilities in two
important ways. Firstly, many of the new products developed are
much easier to use, or at least modify, for use by people with
disabilities. Secondly, the accompanying advancement in
components required to make computers also can be used for
assistive technologies. For example, components used to make
faster computers are also used to make more sophisticated
wheelchair controls.
Mr. Joseph A. Lahoud, testifying as President, LC
Technologies, Inc., spoke as a representative of an emerging
assistive technology industry in the United States. Mr Lahoud
asserted that LC Technologies, Inc. is a working model of a
successful collaborative arrangement between a small company
and the federal laboratory system. LC Technologies Eyegaze
technology is a computer/communication system for people with
physical disabilities who cannot use traditional technologies.
This technology has the ability to improve and enhance not only
present communication for those with disabilities, but also
many future applications. Mr. Lahoud asserted that his company
has benefited from opportunities presented by the Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business
Technology Transfer (STTR) grants as well as collaborative
agreements with Federal Government laboratories. However, he
further stated that these funds represent only a small
percentage of the funds needed to address the R&D needs of the
community of people with disabilities.
4.5(o)--The Prohibition of Federal Funding of Human Cloning Research
July 22, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-32
Background
On July 22, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``The Prohibition of Federal Funding of Human
Cloning Research.'' The hearing discussed the parameters
governing federal funding for human cloning research and,
reviewed H.R. 922, ``The Human Cloning Research Prohibition
Act,'' introduced by Congressman Vern Ehlers of Michigan, which
prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to conduct or
support research on the cloning of humans.
Advances in cloning technology offer great potential in
such areas as medical research and agriculture. Experiments
involving cloned animals could greatly enhance the basic
understanding of aging and may provide a window into the
development of diseases, such as cancer. However, these
advances also raise serious ethical questions, particularly
with respect to the possible use of the technology to clone
human embryos. This has opened up a world-wide debate on the
legal and ethical issues associated with cloning technology.
Witnesses included: Dr. Hessel Bouma III, Professor of
Biology, Calvin College Biology Department, Grand Rapids, MI;
Professor Kevin Wildes, Associate Director, Kennedy Institute
of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Arthur F.
Haney, MD, President-elect, American Society for Reproductive
Medicine, Director, Department of Endocrinology & Infertility,
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Dr. Alison Tauton-
Rigby, President & CEO, Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, Worcester,
MA; Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Vice Chairman, National Association
for Biomedical Research , Director, Center for Food and
Nutrition Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Hessel Bouma III, testifying as Professor of Biology,
Calvin College Biology Department, stated that ethical decision
about human cloning should not be left solely to the medical
community. In order to safeguard the public welfare, we need to
institute government restrictions on human cloning. H.R. 922 is
one effective means of restricting human cloning. Although
warranted, this federal funding ban is insufficient as it
provides restrictions only to federal research. If we agree
that human cloning should not be done, then government
restrictions are warranted on the private sector as well as the
public.
Professor Kevin Wildes, testifying as Associate Director,
Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, spoke as a
philosopher with a specialty in bioethics and health policy. He
felt that federal legislation to prohibit human cloning should
be enacted and that any legislation must seek to be as clear
and precise as possible in its language and definitions.
Arthur F. Haney, MD, testifying as President-elect,
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Director,
Department of Endocrinology & Infertility, Duke University
Medical Center. ASRM opposes any attempt at cloning an existing
human being. Although they are generally reluctant to support
any legislative efforts to curtail scientific inquiry, at this
time cloning merits such a prohibition. ASRM feels that the
best way to proceed is for legislation that would prohibit this
practice more generally, not just for federally funded
researchers. ASRM supports legislation which prohibits cloning
existing human beings using somatic cell nuclear transfer. They
request that any legislation include: (1) a sunset provision;
(2) a preemption clause to ensure that individual state
legislatures do not overrule federal law; and (3) the Committee
lift the existing prohibitions on the use of federal funds for
blastocyte or preembryo research (i.e., the current federal ban
on embryo research).
Dr. Lester Crawford, testifying as Vice Chairman, National
Association for Biomedical Research, stated that NABR, is
dedicated exclusively to advocating sound public policy
regarding the humane and necessary use of animals in biomedical
research, education and testing. NABR represents over 360
member institutions including the nation's largest university,
the majority of US medical and veterinary schools, academic and
professional societies, voluntary health organizations as well
as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. NABR agrees with
and support the conclusions and recommendations made by the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, but does not support
the NBAC proposed legislation or H.R. 922. NABR recommendations
are: (1) science will not pursue research results which society
is morally and ethically unwilling to accept; (2) safeguards
are in place to protect humans and animals in experimentation;
and (3) existing laws and regulations are being followed, and
can be periodically reviewed to keep pace with new
technologies.
Dr. Alison Taunton-Rigby, testifying as President and CEO,
Aquila Biopharmaceuticals, and on behalf of the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, representing 730 biotechnology companies
and others engaged in biotechnology research on medicines and
diagnostics, agriculture, pollution control, and industrial
applications. BIO agrees with the conclusions of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission, but BIO believes that
legislation on the subject of cloning human beings is not
needed. In lieu of legislation, BIO recommends that the current
moratorium on human cloning be continued indefinitely. If
legislation must be enacted, BIO recommends: (1) it should
focus only on research funded by the Federal Government, (2) it
should include a sunset provision, (3) a preemption provision,
(4) a findings section, (5) a section defining protected
research, (6) a prohibition on private rights of action, and
(7) an effective date.
4.5(p)--Reauthorization of the Small Business Technology Transfer
Program (STTR)
September 4, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-39
Background
On September 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Reauthorization of the Small Business
Technology Transfer Program (STTR).'' The Small Business
Innovation Development Act (P.L. 97-219) created the Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program in 1982. In 1992
the program was reauthorized by P.L. 102-564 (15 U.S. 638). The
reauthorization created a three year pilot program called the
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program.
STTR is intended to facilitate the commercialization of
university, non-profit, and federal laboratory research and
development by small businesses. STTR provides funding for
research proposals which are developed and executed
cooperatively between small firms and scientists/professors in
research organizations. Currently, the Department of Energy
(DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services
(HHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
and National Science Foundation (NSF) all contribute to the
program. The STTR set-aside was last reauthorized as part of
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996. That
authorization expired on September 30, 1997.
Witnesses included: Mr. Daniel Hill, Assistant
Administrator for Technology, U.S. Small Business
Administration, Washington, DC; Ms. Susan Kladiva, Acting
Associate Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office, Dr. Wendy Baldwin, Deputy Director
for Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD; Mr. Scott Wallsten, Economist, Department of
Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Ms. Ann Eskesen,
President, Innovation Development Institute, Swampscott, MA.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Daniel Hill, testifying as Assistant Administrator for
Technology, U.S. Small Business Administration, indicated the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) strong support for
extending the STTR program through the year 2000 at its current
level. He also stated that, while small businesses produce
twice as many innovations per employee as large firms, they
receive a very low percentage of federal research and
development funds. He indicated that the STTR, established as a
pilot program during the 1992 reauthorization of the Small
Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), has begun to
bridge this gap. According to SBA, the program, in only its
third year of existence, has received high praise from both the
General Accounting Office (GAO), as well as the Department of
Defense (DOD) for its success in bringing technology to the
market quickly. Mr. Hill testified that both STTR and SBIR
programs are vital to the nation's research agenda and small
business community.
Ms. Susan Kladiva, testifying as Acting Associate Director,
Energy, Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO), spoke of the agency-by-agency review conducted by
GAO of the first year implementation of STTR. She stated that
while agency officials offered differing views on the effect
of, and the need for, the STTR program, all officials felt the
program was not competing for quality proposals with the SBIR
program or reducing the quality of the participating agencies'
R&D programs. Additionally, some agency officials noted
potentially beneficial effects, such as greater collaboration
between small business and research institutions in the SBIR
program. Ms. Kladiva also discussed GAO's work on small
businesses which receive multiple awards. From fiscal year 1990
through fiscal year 1996, approximately 6,500 companies have
received STTR and/or SBIR awards from the five agencies that
participate in both programs.
Dr. Wendy Baldwin, testifying as Deputy Director for
Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, stated that
the National Institute of Health (NIH) is the only principal
operating component within the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) that participates in the STTR program. She
further acknowledged that HHS is very pleased with their
involvement in the program. Dr. Baldwin fully expects HHS
results, with regard to STTR, to mirror those of its SBIR
program. A recent report from GAO and SBA indicates that HHS
has experienced the highest success rate among all federal
agencies in commercializing the results of research conducted
under SBIR. A further benefit of the two programs at NIH has
been in contributing to the development of products and methods
useful in other research efforts. These products and processes
have succeeded in increasing the productivity of other
researchers and decreasing the cost of other areas of research.
Mr. Scott Wallsten, testifying as a Ph.D. candidate at
Stanford University. Mr. Wallsten asserts that he has been
studying the SBIR program for several years and feels that his
conclusion that SBIR cannot meet its legislative goal of
increasing innovation and commercialization is equally
applicable to STTR, as it is not only similar to the SBIR in
many ways, but also because many firms participate in both
programs. Mr. Wallsten believes that STTR funds will go to
research that is likely to lead to a commercialized product.
However, this same research would proceed even in the absence
of federal funds. A government grant is much cheaper than a
loan, so it stands to reason that any rational firm will look
to this source of funding first.
Ms. Ann Eskesen, testifying as President, Innovation
Development Institute, asserted that, as one of the original
people who helped draft and implement the SBIR program in 1982,
she possesses the necessary ``corporate memory'' of the path,
intentions and future direction of the SBIR. Ms. Eskesen
testified that since its inception, 40,000, projects have been
selected for SBIR awards. These projects have included nearly
9,000 small businesses representing every state in the union.
She noted the diversity of emphasis and breadth of talent which
currently makes up the SBIR program. She stated that SBIR and
STTR represents an extraordinary pool of validated competence
and talent and, within the SBIR, every conceivable area of
scientific and technological investigation is represented. In
conclusion, Ms. Eskesen suggested perhaps including in the
reauthorization a provision for program managers at each agency
to designate a percentage of their awards each year toward
long-term higher risk projects.
4.5(q)--Promoting Technology Transfer by Facilitating Licenses to
Federally-Owned Inventions
September 25, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-27
Background
On September 25, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held
a hearing entitled, ``Promoting Technology Transfer by
Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned Inventions.'' The
hearing was held to discuss the effectiveness of our federal
technology transfer laws and methods in which they may be
improved, and to review H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act of 1997, which seeks to promote
technology transfer by facilitating licenses to federally-owned
inventions.
Each day research and development programs at 700 United
States federal Laboratories produce new knowledge, processes,
and products. Often, technologies and techniques generated in
these federal laboratories have commercial applications if
further developed by the industrial community.
As a result, federal laboratories work closely with United
States industries, universities, and state and local
governments, helping them to apply these new capabilities to
their own particular needs. Through this technology transfer
process, the laboratories share the benefits of national
investments in scientific progress with all segments of
society. In this way, the results of the federal R&D enterprise
are used to meet other national needs including the economic
growth that flows from new commercialization in the private
sector.
Witnesses included: Mr. Joe Allen, Vice President, Market
and Technology Assessment, National Technology Transfer Center,
Wheeling, WV; Mr. C. Dan Brand, Chair, Federal Laboratory
Consortium, Jefferson, AR; Mr. Dan Passeri, Vice President,
Business Development and Intellectual Property, Gene Logic,
Inc., Columbia, MD; Mr. John G. Mannix, Associate General
Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Joe Allen, testifying as Vice President, Market and
Technology Assessment, National Technology Transfer Center,
stated that linking federal laboratories and universities with
American Industry holds great promise for our future economic
prosperity. Mr. Allen asserted that the passage of the Bayh-
Dole Act in 1980, initially considered a bold and radical idea,
is now a model that our economic competitors are emulating.
This legislation holds the same promise. However, Mr. Allen
believes that in order to license government-owned inventions,
the Congress must ease the current complex system which a
company must go through. For example, a company must publish in
the Federal Register their intention to pursue a federally-
owned license. Companies, however, are reluctant to do this as
it effectively gives away their marketing strategy. In
conclusion, Mr. Allen recommended taking a well thought out
incremental approach, such as H.R. 2544, that simplifies
current procedures while retaining important safeguards.
Mr. Daniel R. Passeri, testifying as Vice President, Gene
Logic, Inc., spoke of the importance for the Federal Government
to streamline the procedures and remove the uncertainty
associated with the licensing determination process. In doing
so, the Federal Government will foster an attractive
environment for corporate investment and partnering efforts.
Mr. Passeri believes that under the current system there is a
tension between the needs of industry to rapidly respond to
market demands and opportunities, and the procedural
requirements of federal agencies in regards to the exclusive
licensing of high risk, early stage technology. He stated that
these procedural barriers create increased transaction costs,
delays in obtaining the license, as well as the uncertainty of
actually being granted the license. The barriers, however, do
not exist in university technology transfer. In conclusion, Mr.
Passeri welcomed H.R. 2544's proposed improvements to the
current law and indicated that in their current form they will
address the frustrations of industry.
Mr. C. Dan Brand, testifying as Chair, Federal Laboratory
Consortium, spoke of the Federal Laboratory Consortium's (FLC)
importance as the nationwide network of federal laboratories
who provide a forum to develop strategies and opportunities for
linking government technology to the marketplace. Mr. Brand
stated that in advance of this hearing, the FLC solicited and
received comments from a number of their member departments and
agencies on removing legal obstacles to effectively license
federally-owned inventions. He cautioned that these are not an
``official'' department or agency position, but rather an
initial assessment. Mr. Brand stated the FLC's belief, as well
as those comments received from departments and agencies, is
that the amendments to the Bayh-Dole Act will serve to speed
transfer and commercialization of technologies to industry,
while maintaining a fair and open competitive environment. Mr.
Brand further cautioned that while the initial input from
member laboratories was largely positive, the Subcommittee
should also consider the views of the FLC Legal Issues
Committee and the National Institutes of Health.
Mr. John G. Mannix, testifying as Associate General
Counsel, Intellectual Property, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, began by stating that neither NASA nor the
Administration had an opportunity to completely review the
proposed legislation so neither has had an opportunity to
formulate a detailed position. However, Mr. Mannix asserted
that having learned many lessons over the years in this regard,
he would hope NASA's position would be considered before any
changes in the law were made. Mr. Mannix highlighted the two
major improvements to the licensing process that he has seen
during his career. First, he cited the increased personal
involvement of technical experts, and individuals with
marketing, negotiation, and business experience in the
licensing process. Second, he emphasized the importance of the
statutory authority given to NASA negotiators to require
written commercialization plans and yearly status reports
describing progress toward commercialization. Additionally, Mr.
Mannix emphasized the importance of providing some form of
notice of the availability of federally owned licenses. Without
such a notice, Mr. Mannix maintained, we will always be subject
to claims of favoritism.
4.5(r)--Technology to Reduce Aircraft Noise
October 21, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-38
Background
On October 21, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Technology to Reduce Aircraft Noise,'' to
review Federal research and technology development activities
in the area of aviation noise reduction.
Aircraft noise continues to be a persistent concern to
communities located around commercial airports. According to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), about 3.5 million
citizens reside in areas where aircraft noise exceeds the level
at which noise is defined to constitute a sustained
interference with routine daily activities. As large as this
number may appear, it represents a major reduction from the
estimated 7 million citizens similarly impacted in 1974.
Witnesses included: Mr. James Erickson, Director, Office of
Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC; Dr. Robert E. Whitehead, Associate
Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, DC; Dr. Wesley L. Harris, Federal Aviation
Administration, Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee, Washington, DC; Mr. Don MacGlashan, Member, Board of
Directors, Citizens for the Abatement of Airport Noise, Chevy
Chase, MD; Mr. Robert Robeson, Vice President, Civil Aviation,
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., Washington,
DC.
Summary of hearing
Mr. James Erickson, testifying as Director, Office of
Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, spoke
to the cooperative effort between the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) on noise research and specifically, the
Subsonic Noise Reduction Technology program. Mr. Erickson
stated that in recent years FAA has made significant progress
in reducing noise impacted areas through the elimination of
Stage 2 aircraft. This progress has come amidst significant
increases in passenger travel. Mr. Erickson also applauded the
efforts of NASA and FAA in their current research effort, the
Advanced Subsonic Technology program (AST). Their mission is to
develop high-payoff technologies to enable safe, highly
productive global air travel. Under this program FAA & NASA
have met all mid-term objectives for each of the 5 program
areas under this program and Mr. Erickson anticipates that they
will ultimately meet all performance objectives. In conclusion,
he stated that the cooperative research between NASA and FAA is
a model for other agencies. And as a result, they will achieve
significant reduction in aircraft noise.
Mr. Robert E. Whitehead, testifying as Associate
Administrator for Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
spoke also of the cooperative research between NASA and FAA. He
also discussed the role of NASA in civilian aviation research,
and aviation noise reduction research. FAA and NASA have a long
history of cooperative research to reduce aircraft noise.
Having worked together through the 60's and 70's on programs
like the Quiet Nacelle Program, the JT8D Refan program and the
Quiet Engine program. Collectively, these programs have made
significant contributions to reducing aircraft noise. The
current Advanced Subsonic Technology program (AST) is yet
another important effort on their parts. The 5 sub-elements of
the AST program are a coordination among government, industry
and academia to further resolve the ``quality of life'' issue
of aircraft noise. Additionally, Mr. Whitehead reiterated Mr.
Erickson's statement. That to date all major milestones of the
AST program have been achieved and there is every reason to
believe that this progress will continue. Mr. Whitehead
concluded by stating that a major pillar of NASA's future
vision is to reduce perceived future aircraft noise levels by a
factor of four within twenty years.
Dr. Wesley Harris, testifying as Professor of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
welcomed this opportunity to evaluate the progress of FAA and
NASA programs to reduce aircraft noise. Dr. Harris commended
NASA and FAA for their successful efforts thus far in this
area. Specifically, he cited them for their acoustic nacelle
design technology, their modified fan technology, their
integrated jet engine design and their reduced noise and fuel
efficient ducted and unducted propulsors. He also recognized
NASA and FAA for the steady progress of the AST program. Dr.
Harris also highlighted areas in which these two agencies need
to improve. He stated that FAA and NASA should: greatly
increase their R&D budget allocations related to aviation noise
reduction; FAA should be the primary interface with end users,
and NASA should develop and validate negative environmental
impact reduction technology, and; cooperatively develop an
aviation driven environmental impact technology roadmap beyond
the year 2001.
Mr. Donald W. MacGlashan, Member, Citizens for the
Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., commended the Subcommittee
for holding this hearing. Mr. MacGlashan used Washington, DC as
an example in highlighting the widespread problem of aircraft
noise, but also stated that DC is not unique. This problem
occurs in nearly every major airport around the country. Mr.
MacGlashan stated that the current metric for determining
aircraft noise (65 dB) is averaged over the course of a 24 hour
period and therefore, does not take into account the single
noise event which is what can be detrimental to the health and
welfare of many living near airports. He also indicated that
another source of aviation noise which is detrimental is
helicopter noise. Currently, there are no noise standards for
helicopters. Mr. MacGlashan's organization, he stated, has no
faith that the FAA can resolve the problem as their primary
mission is to promote the aviation industry. Mr. MacGlashan
conclude by stating that aircraft noise is a much more serious
and complex problem with far more health consequences than
previously recognized. He pointed out that the health of people
should always come first.
Mr. Robert E. Robeson, testifying as Vice President, Civil
Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association, stated that AIA
fully supports the combined efforts of NASA and the FAA in
addressing this important issue. Mr. Robeson cautioned that the
application of technologies is a long term process and the
Congress should not jump to conclusions to establish premature
or inappropriate regulations. The ultimate answers in
minimizing environmental impacts of aviation will come from the
governments' and the manufacturers' investments in advancing
technologies. Mr. Robeson also emphasized the importance of an
international standard for reducing aircraft noise and AIA
supports the development of an international consensus on
aircraft noise through the U.N. International Civil Aviation
Organization. Mr. Robeson concluded by emphasizing a three-
legged approach to aircraft noise reduction: technical goals,
land use planning and operational procedures. The combination
of these three will help augment the long term goals in
aircraft noise reduction.
4.5(s)--Do You Know Who You Are Doing Business With? Signatures in a
Digital Age
October 28, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-25
Background
On October 28, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Do You Know Who You Are Doing Business
With? Signatures in a Digital Age.'' The hearing explored the
impact of domestic and international regulations on the
development of standards for digital signatures on electronic
commerce; allowed Members of the Committee as well as the
public to learn about the varying concerns of those who create,
those who verify, and those who use digital signatures; and
allowed for a discussion of the different standards being set
in the United States and abroad.
Efforts are underway both in the United States and
internationally to bring interested parties to the table to
discuss voluntary standards. A committee of the American Bar
Association designed a comprehensive model law to deal with all
the new legal issues arising from digital signatures.
Simultaneously, the state of Utah enacted a variant of the ABA
draft. Within the last three years, more than forty state
legislatures have contemplated digital signature laws. Germany,
Malaysia, and Italy already have their own laws, and many other
countries are considering new regulations. Such conflicts make
it difficult for Certification Authorities (CA's) to operate
efficiently, which in turn will slow the development of
electronic commerce.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Andrew J. Pincus, General
Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC; Stewart
Baker, Esq., Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC; Mr. D.
James Bidzos, President and CEO, RSA Data Security, Redwood
City, CA; Mr. Kenneth Lieberman, Senior Vice President,
Corporate Risk Management, Visa U.S.A., Foster City, CA; Mr.
Charles S. Walton, Jr., Chief Operations Officer, CertCo, New
York, NY.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Andrew J. Pincus, testifying as General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Commerce, suggested it is too early for the
Federal Government to support a particular legislative
approach. He encourages exploring the various approaches that
others have taken so the government keeps from rushing into the
issue resulting in poor and ineffective legislation. Mr. Pincus
praised the possibilities of Internet/electronic commerce, but
cautioned that uncertainty regarding authentication could
hinder the expansion of this medium. Additionally, Mr. Pincus
praised the Administration's ``Framework for Global Electronic
Commerce,'' which sets forth general principles to guide the
Federal Government's relationship with electronic commerce. In
conclusion, Mr. Pincus offered observations based on his
initial information gathering efforts. First, it is unlikely
that the market will settle on one universal authentication
mechanism. Second, technologies and means for authentication
are developing rapidly. To legislate unnecessarily would
provide a disincentive to the continued growth of electronic
commerce. Third, cross-border and multi-jurisdictional
interoperability is crucial. The government must find a way to
foster interoperability.
Mr. Stewart A. Baker, testifying as Partner, Steptoe &
Johnson, expressed his belief that this issue will not just go
away on its own. The Federal Government needs to show
leadership in this area by engaging the conflicting rules and
realizing that a top down policy may not be widely accepted.
Mr. Baker indicated two ways digital signatures are being
implemented today. First, low-grade certificates, which are
liability free or offer a limited warranty are already in
circulation. Second, some companies or groups of companies,
have begun creating closed system certificates. These
certificates are effectively a contract for their users.
Additionally, he emphasized digital signatures need three
things from the law: a keyholder who is identified and controls
the key; a certifying authority, who vouches for public keys:
and a relying party who decides upon certificate trust. He
recommended the continued discussion of the issue to bring
about solutions.
Mr. D. James Bidzos, testifying as President, RSA Data
Security, expressed the misfortune that the subject of digital
signature's became overshadowed by the on-going encryption
debate. He stated that digital signatures have the potential
for achieving very significant savings in government and
corporate operations, as well as enabling the use of Internet
as a trusted means of delivering goods and services. Mr. Bidzos
cited six barriers to the effective use of digital signatures:
Separate digital signatures policy debate from key recover
debate; define the legal status of digital signatures; address
the discriminatory federal standards environment; address
incremental digital signature legislation at State level;
address liability; the need for accreditation of certificate
authorities. In conclusion, Mr. Bidzos emphasized his desire to
work with the Committee in addressing the digital signatures
issue.
Mr. Ken Lieberman, testifying as Senior Vice President for
Corporate Risk Management, Visa USA, recommended that
governments be on guard against premature or excessive
regulations in the digital signature arena. Mr. Bidzos
recommended the Committee play a significant role in this area
by developing legislation that: allows and protects the use of
digital signatures in situations where all the parties to the
transaction are governed by their own agreements--so called
private or closed systems; create a ``safe harbor'' for these
private systems so that digital signature laws do not add undue
burdens on these systems: and reduce the risk of inconsistent
international treatment by promoting agreements with our major
trading partners. Mr. Lieberman used the Secure Electronic
Transaction (SET) protocol developed jointly by Visa and
Mastercard as an example of a successful private system. SET
has been endorsed by the financial industry and the payment
card industry as the standard for payment transactions on the
Internet. Mr. Lieberman concluded by emphasizing the importance
of allowing existing regulatory structures to be leveraged to
address the adoption of new technology by banking institutions
in their private arrangements.
Mr. Charles S. Walton, Jr., testifying as Chief Operations
Officer, CertCo, spoke of the many challenges that are to be
faced in the transition to a virtual way of conducting
business. Additionally, Mr. Walton made five recommendations
for sound digital signature policy. First, let the market lead.
Many entities have a vested interest in creating security
infrastructure solutions. Supporting the private sectors
development is an ideal way to ensure successful and secure
development of this infrastructure. Second, look to existing
trust institutions. The collective experience of these
institutions should not be ignored. Legislative solutions
should draw upon this experience and knowledge. Third, promote
contractual based models by emphasizing the traditionally
defined principles of contract formation. Fourth, support
government pilot applications and standards. There is a clear
need for the Federal Government to finance and enable, and not
inhibit, pilot applications. Finally, provide forums for
continued discussion.
4.5(t)--The Global Dimensions of the Millennium Bug
November 4, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-34
Background
On November 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``The Global Dimensions of the Millennium
Bug.'' The hearing was held to examine the global economic
impact of the Year 2000 computer problem; the international
implications of the problem on United States industry; and the
steps that are being undertaken to correct the Year 2000
problem in other nations.
The Technology Subcommittee has been actively engaged in
reviewing the Year 2000 computer problem. Through a series of
oversight hearings and legislative initiatives, the Technology
Subcommittee has raised awareness of the Year 2000 problem and
pushed both the public and private sectors in the United States
to act expeditiously to correct the problem in a timely manner.
There is concern, however, that in an increasingly global
marketplace with a growing reliance on electronic commerce, the
Federal Government and U.S. industry must play a stronger role
in ensuring that their foreign counterparts are effectively
addressing the Year 2000 computer problem. Unless the problem
is corrected globally, international commerce could be
dramatically affected. Ultimately, it may be of little
consequence that Federal Government and U.S. industry are able
to become fully Year 2000 computer compliant if inter-
operability problems exist with their non-Year 2000 compliant
global partners.
Witnesses included: His Excellency Ahmad Kamal, Chairman,
United Nations Working Group on Informatics, New York, NY; Mr.
Harris Miller, President, Information Technology Association of
America, Arlington, VA; Mr. Richard M. Kearney, Principal, KPMG
Peat Marwick, LLP, Partner-in-Charge, Global Year 2000
Practice, Boston, MA; Mr. James L. Cassell, Group Vice
President, Director of Research, Gartner Group, Inc., Tampa,
FL; Mr. Tony Keyes, President, The Y2K Investor, Sandy Spring,
MD.
Summary of hearing
His Excellency Ahmad Kamal, testifying as Chairman, United
Nations Working Group on Informatics, spoke to the role of the
United Nations in addressing the international aspects of the
Year 2000 problem. The United Nations has initiated a serious
effort to remedy this problem in a satisfactory and cost
effective manner. Ambassador Kamal, however, emphasized that
the success of these efforts depends on the will of the Member
States to focus on the ways and means to avert this crisis.
Additionally, the United Nations has issued the following five
point plan to address this problem: (1) Governments and
international organizations should announce their commitment to
solving the Year 2000 problem, thereby calling attention to its
importance; (2) each government should allocate financial and
human resources to fix the most essential Year 2000 problems
for their own governments; (3) each government should adjust
government practices to ensure procurement of Year 2000
compliant systems; (4) each government should take appropriate
action to make the non-governmental sector aware of the need to
re-assess priorities to address the Year 2000 problem; and (5)
each government should identify systems of national importance
and ensure there are plans for them to be fixed on time.
Ambassador Kamal concluded by expressing his willingness to
work with others involved in remedying the Year 2000 problem.
Mr. Harris N. Miller, testifying as President, Information
Technology Association of America, emphasized the importance of
the U.S. Government playing a much larger international
leadership role in resolving this problem. He stated that the
U.S., as the world leader in information technology, appears
blind to the global implications of this unprecedented
situation. Mr. Miller professed concern that many leading
international organizations are just starting their Year 2000
programs. The largest barrier to resolving the global aspect is
that the Year 2000 problem is not viewed as a ``presidential''
size problem. As evidenced by the G-7 (now G-8) summit in which
Ministers chose not to address the issue and have no plans to
do so in the future. Mr. Miller urged the Committee and others
in Congress to consider an international Year 2000 program.
This program would become a top priority for compliance by
major multinational organizations, beginning with the G-7
summit. He also suggested Congress undertake a study to explore
the trade and trans-border implications of the present
situation.
Mr. Richard M. Kearney, testifying as Partner in Charge,
Global Year 2000 Consulting Practice, KPMG Peat Marwick,
emphasized that the Year 2000 problem is the most pressing
business issue of the day. This problem is an unprecedented
challenge not only because it reaches around the globe, but
more so because it affects everyone simultaneously. However,
many companies and governments outside the U.S. are still
unaware of the implications and immense problems that could
arise if this issue is not addressed. Mr. Kearney further
suggested ideas for action that could be taken by the
Subcommittee on Technology to assist with resolving the
international situation. First, sponsor a summit meeting of
business leaders focusing on mitigating the risks surrounding
cross border movement of information and money. Second, Mr.
Kearney suggested opening a dialogue with other nations'
Ministers of Finance and/or Treasuries to discuss Year 2000
issues. Third, encourage business regulators to communicate
with their counterparts around the world to focus on Year 2000
compliance as a priority. Last, encourage Year 2000 discussions
at diplomatic and economic forums throughout the world. Mr.
Kearney concluded by emphasizing the importance of getting many
more people involved in dealing with the issue.
Mr. James L. Cassell, testifying as Group Vice President
and Director of Research, Gartner Group, focused his testimony
on three areas of the Year 2000 crisis as it relates to
international commerce and security. First, the state of
readiness around the world. Gartner Group conducted three
surveys of more than 1,100 companies worldwide. The results of
these surveys, Mr. Cassell stated, were very disconcerting.
According to the surveys, a significant number of companies
believe themselves to be well into their Year 2000 efforts.
However, independent research by the Gartner Group indicates
that this is not so. Mr. Cassell also emphasized the critical
nature of many embedded non-IT systems. He stated that the Year
2000 crisis is likely to have a far greater impact on the
global environment than first imagined due to the fact that
many non-IT assets such as navigation equipment, cars and
elevators have not been investigated as part of the Year 2000
project. In some cases failure may have far reaching business
consequences. Finally, Mr. Cassell spoke of the risk to the
Year 2000 projects worldwide from an inability to train and
retain staff. Gartner Group research indicates that nearly 85%
of the worlds enterprises will begin executing this IT project
at the same time. This simultaneous work will drain an already
insufficient pool of human resources. Additionally, enterprises
with lower paid Year 2000 staff will see an exodus to higher
paying companies. In conclusion, Mr. Cassell likened the Year
2000 crisis to a war. And noted that we have only two years to
get to a point where we can sustain our security and
international commerce.
Mr. Tony Keyes, President, Y2K Investor, Author, ``The Year
2000 Computer Crisis, An Investors Survival Guide,'' stated
that with less than 26 months until the beginning of the next
millennium it is in the U.S.'s own best interest to demonstrate
aggressive leadership on the Year 2000 problem. Mr. Keyes used
as an example the recent break in the Hong Kong market, and the
resulting worldwide stock drop, as an indicator of how tightly
woven the fabric of our international commerce has become. The
Year 2000 crisis, he implored, must be solved globally. He
respectfully suggested the President of the United States
appoint a U.S. Year 2000 czar, as well as forming an
international panel which could: reach an agreement on
interfacing standards, interoperability and schedule; work to
ensure our global telecommunications network continues to
operate without failure; ensure that our international maritime
fleet continues to operate at full capacity; cooperate on
converting international banking and finance networks;
cooperate on utilization of human resources; and cooperate on
implementation of Year 2000 firewalls.
4.5(u)--The Role of Computer Security in Protecting U.S.
Infrastructures
November 6, 1997
Hearing Volume No. 105-33
Background
On November 6, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``The Global Dimensions of the Millennium
Bug.'' The hearing explored the appropriate role of government
and of the private sector in securing the backbone of this
country's information and telecommunications infrastructures.
The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure
Protection (PCCIP) was created on July 5, 1996 by Executive
Order 13010. The stated reason for the order was the need to
assure the uninterrupted operation of critical infrastructure.
The President in that Order stated ``Certain national
infrastructures are so vital that their incapacity or
destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or
economic security of the United States.''
The purpose of the panel was to identify and coordinate
existing expertise, inside and out of the Federal Government to
look at the infrastructures of telecommunications, electrical
power systems, gas and oil storage and transportation, banking
and finance, transportation, water supply systems, emergency
services (including medical, police, fire and rescue), and
government operations. The Executive Order stated that threats
to these critical infrastructures fall into two categories:
physical threats or computer-based attacks on the information
or communications components that control critical
infrastructures (``cyber threats'').
Since most of the critical infrastructures are privately
owned, the Executive Order emphasized the need for close
cooperation between the government and the private sector. The
Commission was chaired by Robert Marsh (appointed by the
President) and had representatives from both the government and
the private sector.
Witnesses included: Mr. Robert T. Marsh, Chairman,
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection,
Washington, DC; Russell B. Stevenson, Jr., Esq., Mr. Stephen R.
Katz, Chief Information Security Officer, Citibank, New York,
NY; Mr. Glenn Davidson, Executive Vice President, Computer &
Communication Industry Association, Washington, DC; Dr. Peter
G. Neumann, Principal Scientist, Computer Science Laboratory,
SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Robert T. Marsh, testifying as Chairman, President's
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP),
discussed the work, outline, principal findings and
recommendations contained in their report to the President,
``Critical Foundations.'' Mr. Marsh stated that the Commission
was charged with developing a national policy and
implementation strategy for protecting critical U.S.
infrastructures from physical and cyber threats. The latter
being of critical importance as Mr. Marsh stated, ``While we
have long understood the physical threat, the fast pace of
technology poses us with a continually evolving cyber threat.''
The Commissions guiding principles recognized that most of the
infrastructures operate within an existing framework of
government policy and regulation, but they are also privately
owned competitive enterprises. Key findings of the Commission,
Mr. Marsh testified, included: the importance of information
sharing, shared responsibility among owners, operators and the
government, a focal point for infrastructures protection, a
need to adapt to a changing culture, the important role to be
played by the Federal Government, and the necessity for the
legal system to better deal with technology law. Mr. Marsh
concluded by emphasizing the fundamental conclusion of the
Commission, ``Waiting for a disaster is a dangerous strategy.
Now is the time to act to protect our future.''
Mr. Stephen R. Katz, testifying as Chief Information
Security Officer, Citibank, welcomed this opportunity to share
Citibank's views on the appropriate role of the government and
the private sector in securing the country's information and
telecommunications infrastructure. Mr. Katz's remarks focused
on four principles: the framework of information security; the
state of information security in the banking sector;
vulnerabilities, risks and risk assessment, and;
recommendations on the government and private sector's role.
Mr. Katz further stated that in the coming years a virtual
explosion of Internet based commerce will occur. To accommodate
this mass migration security and confidentiality of information
transmitted between banks and their customers must be
facilitated. Furthermore, a lack of security will significantly
impede this process. Mr. Katz concluded by emphasizing that
another effort needs to be aimed at business and government to
help them understand their information security risks and
responsibilities in addressing those risks.
Mr. Glenn K. Davidson, testifying as Executive Vice
President, Computer and Communications Industry Association,
testified that while CCIA agrees that there is a need to guard
against any attacks capable of disabling the nation's first
rate infrastructure, it needs to be addressed at a slower more
reasoned pace. Mr. Davidson expressed concern with the
Commission's report being classified. He stated that the
Commission must come forward with its threat assessment so it
may be discussed, debated and understood by the public. Mr.
Davidson also expressed concern with the cost burden and who
will bear the cost of updating our nation's infrastructures. He
believes, based on statements by the Commission, that these
costs will ultimately fall to business. This would place an
excessive financial burden that would blunt the competitive
edge of American industry. Mr. Davidson concluded by
emphasizing that it is possible to protect the complex
infrastructures in the U.S. without imposing debilitating
strictures on American corporations.
Dr. Peter G. Neumann, testifying as Principal Scientist,
Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, commended the
Commission for their recognition that all of the critical
infrastructures are closely interdependent and they all depend
on an underlying computer communication information
infrastructure. Dr. Neumann emphasized that his job, as well as
that of others scientists' in the R&D community, is to: find
ways to avoid many of the risks our current infrastructures
posses; minimize the consequences of the exploitation or
accidental triggering of those that cannot be avoided; and to
provide well founded assurances that systems and networks are
likely to be able to satisfy their critical requirements. He
also commended the Commission for their massive undertaking in
putting together this report. However, Dr. Neumann also states
that the Commission has identified only the tip of a very large
iceberg, and there is much more work to be done. He was also
concerned that the Commission had largely ducked the issue of
cryptography. The Commission recommended, he feels, the
adoption of key recovery techniques without having analyzed the
risks and other implications. Dr. Neumann concluded by stating
that there is an enormous need for open discussions of these
issues and commended the Subcommittee for continuing the
dialogue.
Mr. Russell B. Stevenson, testifying as General Counsel,
CyberCash, Inc., suggested that in considering to take on the
recommendations of the Commission, Congress should limit the
role of government to: research and education aimed at enabling
private actors to protect their interests more effectively; and
identifying and addressing those weaknesses in the electronic
infrastructure as a whole that cannot be effectively dealt with
by the efforts of the private sector. He also spoke of the need
for Congress to move slowly in adopting regulatory measures and
stay keenly aware of the law of unintended consequences in
formulating policy. He suggests allowing market forces to move
first with the government limiting its actions to areas where
it can clearly produce a better outcome than the private
sector. Mr. Stevenson concluded by suggesting Congress should
pay particular attention to the importance of encryption to
security and not expose the electronic infrastructure to
attacks by terrorists and criminals.
4.5(v)--FAA at Risk: Year 2000 Impact on the Air Traffic Control System
(Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Government Management, Information
and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight)
February 4, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-49
Background
On February 4, 1997, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight entitled, ``FAA at Risk: Year 2000 Impact on the Air
Traffic Control System.''
The hearing examined several issues related to the risks
of, and consequences for, organizations that do not effectively
address the century date problem. Technology forms an amazingly
intricate web not only within large organizations like the
Federal Government, but between organizations and individuals
around the globe. A tremendous number of our social,
governmental, and commercial relationships depend on this web.
The failure of any of these systems, therefore, will not be
isolated. The risks and consequences are of immediate and
overwhelming concern to everyone, including the Federal
Government.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Jane Garvey,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; The Honorable
Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation; Mr. Stanley Graham, Senior Management
Consultant, Tech-Beamers, Inc.; Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director,
Civil Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting
Office
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Jane F. Garvey, Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration testified to the status of the FAA
efforts in addressing the mission-critical systems in the
National Airspace System (NAS), and the agencies overall Y2K
effort. Administrator Garvey stated that the FAA had set up a
``war room'' staffed with technical experts from across the
country to tackle its Y2K problem, and that as of January 31,
1998, 125 of its 209 mission-critical systems in the NAS had
been certified as Y2K compliant She went on to discuss the Y2K
effort for the rest of the FAA, where the assessments for 216
of the 221 mission-critical systems had been completed. To head
up the agency wide effort, Director Garvey stated that she had
appointed Ray Long as the FAA Y2K program manager. In
conclusion, she made it clear that all FAA executives
understood their obligation to the flying public, and that she
had the utmost confidence in the agency's ability to overcome
this problem.
The Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation testified that the FAA got a very
late start on fixing Y2K computer problems and is behind
schedule on assessing which of its systems have Y2K problems.
Mr. Mead identified actions the FAA must take to effectively
solve its Y2K problem. They include the need to (1) take prompt
action to make necessary fixes, (2) expeditiously appoint a
person with strong technical and leadership abilities to manage
the Y2K effort, (3) make a prompt decision on the Host computer
fixes, (4) develop a suitable contingency plan for the Host
computer, (5) have an independent review of plans to fix and
certify the existing Host computer, (6) develop a master
schedule for fixing and testing all mission-critical systems,
(7) promptly identify and secure resources needed to get the
job done, and (8) report monthly to the Secretary and Congress
on the progress made toward fixing the Y2K problems. In
conclusion, Mr. Mead stated that funding requirements must be
determined by FAA, and urged that FAA move up the
implementation date to have all systems Y2K compliant, tested,
and operational no later than June 1999.
Mr. Stanley Graham, Senior Management Consultant Tech-
Beamers, Inc. testified that the FAA would not be able to meet
its Y2K deadlines. Mr. Graham agreed with the GAO that the
problem at the FAA is a project management one with technical
complications. Furthermore, he stated that the FAA does not
have an objective methodology for planning and tracking its Y2K
project schedules. Using Beta Curves to evaluate the schedule
performance of large software projects, Mr. Graham estimated
that the FAA would miss their schedule by anywhere from 7
months to 9 \1/2\ years. Furthermore, in order to reduce the
risk to the integrity of the FAA flight control system Mr.
Graham suggested the establishment of a pilot project on a
cluster of ``Year 2000 Time Machines.'' He believes that this
proposal could be an inexpensive and practical short term fix
for the FAA Y2K problem, because it would allow them to
maintain their vital services.
Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information
Systems Accounting and Information Management Division
testified that FAA's progress in making its systems ready for
the year 2000 has been too slow, and that its current pace, it
will not make it in time. Mr. Willemssen also stated that the
FAA does not know the extent of its Y2K problem because it has
not yet completed its assessments. These delays leave the FAA
little time for critical renovation, validation, and
implementation activities. Mr. Willemssen recommends that
urgent action is imperative to improve the management
effectiveness of FAA's Y2K program. He suggests that the FAA
Administrator should: (1) finalize an agency wide plan which
provides the Y2K program manager the authority to enforce Year
2000 policies; (2) assess how its major business lines and
aviation industry would be affected if the Y2K problem were not
corrected in time, and use these results to help rank the
agency's Y2K activities; (3) complete inventories of all
information systems by January 30, 1998; (4) finish assessments
of all systems to determine each one's criticality by January
30, 1998; (5) determine priorities for system conversion and
replacement; (6) establish plans for addressing identified date
dependencies; (7) develop validation and test plans for all
converted or replaced systems; (8) craft Y2K contingency plans;
and (9) finally make a reliable cost estimate.
4.5(w)--Review of the Fiscal Year 1999 Administration Request for the
Technology Administration and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology
February 26, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-45
Background
On February 26, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held
an oversight hearing entitled, ``Review of the Fiscal Year 1999
Administration Request for the Technology Administration and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,'' to review
the Administration's funding request for fiscal year 1999 for
the Technology Administration (TA) and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Witnesses included: The Honorable Gary Bachula, Acting
Undersecretary for Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; The
Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute of
Standards and Technology; The Honorable Johnnie E. Frazier,
Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; The
Honorable Susan Kladiva, Associate Director, Energy, Resources
and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Gary Bachula, Acting Undersecretary for
Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce testified that all of the policies, programs, and
other activities of the Technology Administration are united
under a single theme: technology is the engine of economic
growth. Of the drivers of growth, technology is the single most
important determinant. He recognized the pivotal role that
federal investments in science and technology have played in
securing global leadership in key industries, such as in
agriculture, computing, communications, aerospace,
pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology and, in turn, the economic
growth and high wage jobs that these investments have produced
for the United States. Additionally, Acting Undersecretary
Bachula highlighted the Research Fund for America, the
centerpiece of the Administrations research and development
budget, which supports civilian research investments such as:
biomedical research, space science, energy research, climate
change research and technology, and university-based research.
The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute
of Standards and Technology testified that he sees five
challenges for NIST in the coming millennium: Ensuring world
leadership by NIST's Measurement and Standards Laboratories;
ensuring that measurement capabilities and standards are in
place to support full U.S. participation in global markets;
building greater consensus on the value of the Advanced
Technology Programs (ATP); expanding access to Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) services for more small and medium-
sized companies and continuing federal support for MEP centers
after their sixth year; and promoting performance excellence in
healthcare and education, particularly among non-profit
organizations, through the Baldrige National Quality Program.
He further testified that the Administrations' fiscal year 1999
budget request for NIST of $715 million reflects its approach
to those challenges. Each of these areas is linked closely with
the Commerce Department's and NIST's strategic and performance
plans, and NIST has worked hard on meaningful evaluation
metrics to chart progress in meeting these challenges.
The Honorable Johnnie Frazier, Acting Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Commerce testified that his appearance at
the hearing was to discuss some of the Office of Inspector
Generals recent audit and inspection work at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), two of the agencies that
constitute the Department of Commerce's Technology
Administration. With regard to NIST, Acting Inspector General
Frazier highlighted some areas of concern. He recommended that
NIST work with the Department of Commerce, OMB, and the
Congress to find a funding strategy that would allow for
unified construction of the Advanced Metrology Laboratory, a
primary source of concern within NIST's Capital Facilities
Improvement Program (CIFP). In addition, he emphasized to NIST
and the Department the importance of having the most accurate,
defensible, and fiscally responsible CIFP possible. He
indicated that NIST generally agreed with these conclusions and
that they should reevaluate their facilities needs and revise
their plan. Regarding NTIS, Acting Inspector General Frazier
expressed concerns that the agency was undertaking activities
based on a very broad interpretation of its mission and
authority. He expressed his concern about NTIS's lack of a
clearly defined mission and its ability to generate sufficient
revenues to remain financially self-supporting. For these
reasons, he recommended that the Department put any legislation
on hold until an appropriate mission for the agency has been
clearly defined.
The Honorable Susan Kladiva, Associate Director, Energy
Resources and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
discussed the ATP, which is administered by the NIST within the
Department of Commerce. ATP is a competitive, cost-sharing
program designed for the Federal Government to work in
partnership with industry to foster the development and broad
dissemination of challenging, high-risk technologies that offer
the potential for significant, broad-based economic benefits
for the nation. She indicated that ATP funding reached it's
highest level in 1995, but has since declined due to a more
stringent application requirement process. The current
Administration request of $269 million reflects this effort.
Associate Director Kladiva further indicated that program
review, or peer review, would allow the program to operate in a
much more efficient manner.
4.5(x)--Review of H.R. 3007, The Advancement of Women in Science,
Engineering, and Technology Development Act (Joint Hearing with the
Subcommittee on Basic Research)
March 10, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-53
Background
On March 10, 1998, The Subcommittees on the Technology and
Basic Research held a joint hearing on ``A Review of H.R. 3007,
The Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering, and
Technology Development Act.''
Witnesses included: Ms. Belkis Leong-Hong, President-elect,
Women in Technology (WIT); Ms. Catherine Didion, Executive
Director, Association for Women in Science; Monica Moman-
Saunders, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, representing the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; and Professor Ann M.
Quade, Department of Computer Science, Mankato State
University.
Summary of hearing
Ms. Belkis Leong-Hong, testifying as President-elect, Women
in Technology, Fairfax, Virginia, emphasized the need to
provide young women the support necessary to pursue an
education and career in science, engineering, and technology
development. As an example of the lack of encouragement for
young women to excel in these areas, she stated that nearly
one-third of all girls in our high schools report that they
were advised away from taking advanced mathematics courses. To
overcome the lack of support for young women in all areas of
science, the need exists for a systematic mentoring process.
Women in Technology (WIT) has addressed this problem by
establishing a formal mentoring program in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area.
Ms. Catherine Didion, testifying as Executive Director,
Association for Women in Science, stated that there needs to be
a major change in the way society portrays women in science,
engineering, and technology development. In particular, she
stated that many young women have a difficult time reconciling
the perceived incongruity between being a women and being a
scientist. She stated that in a recent study by the National
Science Teachers Association, 99 percent of the boys and nearly
90 percent of the girls who were asked to draw a picture of a
scientists drew a white male scientist. To reinforce this
point, she recalled the account of one female scientist who was
advised not to wear fingernail polish or makeup if she hoped to
be taken seriously. After informally polling the 76 AWIS
chapters and asking what was the most compelling issue facing
women in science, Ms. Didion said she received numerous answers
but that almost all of them contained two important
recommendations. First, that there is a need to promote an
effective mentoring system with adequate reward structures for
women in science. In addition, flexibility in the workforce is
a key contributor to whether women succeed in careers in
science. She said many women fear it is unrealistic to both
pursue a career in science and also maintain a solid family
structure.
Professor Ann Quade, testifying as Associate Professor,
Department of Computer Science, Mankato State University,
expressed her concern about the decline in the number of women
pursuing degrees in computer sciences. She cited data
indicating a 50% decrease in the number of women pursuing a
computer science degree between the years 1986 and 1994.
Professor Quade referenced other previously male dominated
fields where women have made progress such as medicine, law,
and business, and said that the same skills necessary to
succeed in these areas are essentially the same skills
necessary to succeed in computer sciences. She stated that in
her experience as an educator, many young women did not have an
adequate understanding of what was involved in the computer
science field. She indicated that those involved in the
profession had not done a very good job of explaining what they
do for a living and potential job opportunities for computer
science graduates. She supported the idea of a strong mentoring
system to achieve this goal.
Ms. Monica Moman-Saunders, testifying on behalf of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, cited a number of
statistics which indicate that women are making progress in the
areas of science, engineering, and technology development.
However, she also indicated that not enough was being done to
recruit, retain, and advance women in these areas. Ms. Moman-
Saunders emphasized the need for the Commission established by
H.R. 3007 to draw upon the resources of other groups and
coordinate its efforts with those that are ongoing in order to
keep duplicative research from occurring. ASME, for example,
recently completed a similar study aimed at determining whether
real or perceived barriers exist that inhibit the participation
of women and minorities in their societies. This information
should be shared and incorporated within the Commission's
study. Ms. Moman-Saunders, echoed the statements of the other
witnesses that mentoring programs are critically important in
not only recruitment of women in science, engineering, and
technology, but also their retention of women. In conclusion,
Ms. Moman-Saunders stated that women constitute nearly half of
the Nation's labor force; thus, it is crucial to the Nation's
economy that the under-representation of women in science,
engineering and technology be rectified.
4.5(y)--Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Fiscal Year
1999 Research and Development Budget Request, Including the Flight 2000
Program
March 12, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-47
Background
On March 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Review of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Research and Development
Budget Request, Including the Flight 2000 Program.''
The Science Committee authorizes appropriations and
provides program guidance for activities under FAA's Research,
Engineering and Development account. The Science Committee's
FY1999 authorization for the account was signed into law on
February 11, 1998 as P.L. 105-155. The legislation authorizes
$229.6 million for the FAA to conduct RE&D projects and
activities in FY1999. However, the legislation does not include
authorization of the Flight 2000 demonstration program as
requested in the FY1999 budget request.
The $90 million in FY99 for the Flight 2000 demonstration
program is intended for the FAA to accelerate the
implementation of Free Flight concepts and harmonize the global
air transportation system, providing increased safety for the
flying public and efficiency benefits for system users.
Witnesses included: Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation
Administration; Dr. John Fearnsides, Director, Center for
Advanced Aviation System Development and Facilitator, National
Airspace Modernization Task Force; Mr. Jack Ryan, Vice
President, Air Traffic Management, Air Transportation
Association of America; Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, Chairman, FAA
RE&D Advisory Committee; and Mr. Mike McNally, President,
National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate Administrator for
Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) testified that the FAA has a solid research program
covering a variety of critical areas--from explosive/weapons
detection, to weather, aircraft structures, noise mitigation
and satellite navigation. Their fiscal year 1999 RE&D budget
request of $290 million allows them to build on the previous
successes of the Agency in these areas, and continue the
critical research to support the national airspace system for
the next century. Mr. DeGaetano testified at length about the
FAA's Flight 2000 program which accounts for nearly the entire
increase in their funding request. Mr. DeGaetano indicated that
the modernization of the National Airspace System (NAS) will be
demonstrated through the Flight 2000 program which is based on
the premise that, with new technologies and innovative
procedures, FAA can remove many of the restrictions of today's
air traffic control system, and make the system more flexible
for users. Flight 2000 will provide a limited, real-world,
operational evaluation of the procedures, technologies, and
human factors involved in Free Flight. Mr. DeGaetano indicated
that the potential benefits of Free Flight, which include fuel
and time savings and a more efficient use of airspace, are a
necessary step in streamlining the efficiency of air travel
through the next millennium.
Dr. John Fearnsides, testifying as Facilitator, National
Airspace Modernization Task Force, spoke to the challenge
presented to the FAA by the White House Commission on Aviation
Safety and Security that they accelerate their modernization
program to achieve full operational capability by the year
2005. To address this challenge Administrator Garvey met with a
group of senior representatives from the FAA and the aviation
community to discuss the FAA's plans for modernization of the
NAS. Members of this Task Force included representatives from
all sectors of the aviation community and was tasked with
reviewing the current FAA draft modernization architecture
plan. Dr. Fearnsides indicated that a very important concern of
many in the aviation community, including the Science
Committee, is the problem of moving research and development
from the laboratory into the field. Part of what has stymied
modernization efforts thus far has been attempting to do too
much at one time. The revised approach in the modernization
framework will help address many of the difficulties the FAA
has encountered in the past.
Mr. Jack Ryan, Vice President, Air Traffic Management, Air
Transportation Association of America, testified that the Air
Transportation Association of America (ATAA) is excited about
Administrator Garvey's initiative to pursue a NAS modernization
program that will provide the airspace users with proven
technologies and systems capable of meeting immediate
operational requirements without compromising safety. Further,
ATAA strongly believes that several of the systems contained in
the NAS modernization plan will enhance overall system safety
and efficiencies. The reason these systems have matured to the
point to where they are capable of enhancing overall system
safety and efficiencies is because the Science Committee has
wisely supported previous FAA R&D budgets. Mr. Ryan further
spoke of the ATAA's member airline primary concern with the GPS
and the ability of that system to provide safety critical sole-
means services. ATAA feels that exclusive reliance on GPS and
its augmentations, combined with other complex
interdependencies raises the potential for single--point
failure and cascading effects and should be addressed as part
of the modernization plan.
Mr. Ralph Eschenbach, Chairman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee testified that during the last several years, the
RE&D Advisory Committee has been reviewing the FAA RE&D program
through the work of six standing subcommittees. Mr. Eschenbach
testified exclusively, due to time constraints, to the issue of
the FAA's Flight 2000 program. He indicated that the FAA RE&D
Advisory Committee strongly endorses the basic concept and
structure of Flight 2000. However, they believe that more
emphasis should be given to testing these technologies in the
high-density airspace environment in which air traffic control
performance is most critical and most in need of improvement.
Mr. Eschenbach also noted that the FAA RE&D recommendation is
consistent with subsequent recommendations regarding Flight
2000 made by the FAA Administrator's Task Force on NAS
Modernization. Lastly, Mr. Eschenbach stated the 6
recommendations made by the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee to the
FAA. Those recommendations are: Give greater priority to the
critical issues of increasing capacity, reducing delay, and
improving safety, with emphasis on total system integration;
develop a Flight 2000 Baseline Plan that clearly identifies
goals and objectives that are structured to support the 2005
Operational Concept and Free Flight Action Plan, in the context
of the NAS Architecture; include mechanisms in the Program Plan
to quantify the anticipated benefits of Flight 2000
technologies; increase the priority for deploying ground
systems which transmit weather information to the cockpit;
encourage the development of affordable avionics for the
display in the cockpit of traffic, weather, and hazardous
terrain; and ensure that funding needed for Flight 2000 is not
at the expense of the current FAA RE&D efforts.
Mr. Mike McNally, President, National Air Traffic
Controllers Association testified that the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA) does support, in concept, the
effort to modernize the NAS for the next millennium. However,
NATCA believes it should be taken one step at a time and that
all proposals for new technology, additional controllers,
appropriate training and procedural changes must be fully
debated by all parties before being adopted. Mr. McNally
cautioned that each phase will require a transition period and
hasty changes are not acceptable. Done carefully, Flight 2000--
a transition to a mature air traffic system with greater
flexibility--will become a reality. Mr. McNally concluded by
saying that NATCA is, as has been for many years, concerned
about the impact if new technology air traffic controller
staffing. He believes that without careful integration of new
technologies, two systems would have to be operated, calling
for shadow mode operations and redundancy.
4.5(z)--Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned Inventions: A
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2544, Technology Transfer Commercialization
Act
March 17, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-42
Background
On March 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing on ``Facilitating Licenses to Federally-Owned
Inventions: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2544, Technology
Transfer Commercialization Act.'' The hearing was held to
review H.R. 2544, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act
of 1997, which seeks to promote technology transfer by
facilitating licenses to Federally-owned inventions.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD; Mr. Randolph J. Guschl, Director of Technology
Acquisitions, Central Research and Development, DuPont Chemical
Company, Wilmington, DE; Ms. Elizabeth Kraftician, Chief
Executive Officer, Touchstone Research Laboratory, Tridelphia,
WV.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Ray Kammer, testifying as Director, National
Institute of Standards and Technology told of the development
of a newly reconstituted Interagency Committee on Technology
Transfer and the consensus support of this Committee for H.R.
2544. Specifically, Mr. Kammer emphasized paying closer
attention to the output side of R&D spending. While a greater
pecuniary commitment to R&D spending is laudable, the end
result is equally important. Those end results making their way
to the marketplace are equally important, as they can have
important societal benefits. He also spoke of the Interagency
Committee's concern about specific aspects of the legislation.
For example, licensing as part of a pre-existing CRADA, and
eliminating current requirements for licensees to submit
development or marketing plans. Mr. Kammer emphasized the
importance of utilizing those plans as an objective basis for
deciding whether the proposer is likely to quickly bring the
innovation to market. ``Bundling'' innovations is also not
addressed in the legislation and Mr. Kammer spoke of the
improved ability to streamline and allow licensees to derive
maximum commercial benefit from inventions by ``bundling''
similar innovations together. In conclusion, he indicated that
industry and the government are still leaning how to better
work together in commercializing the American people's
investment in R&D.
Mr. Randolph J. Guschl, testifying as Director, Technology
Acquisitions, Central Research and Development, DuPont,
Wilmington, DE, expressed support for the legislation and
highlighted the fact that H.R. 2544 puts the discoveries of
government-owned, government-operated (GO-GO) laboratories on
terms equal to those of government-owned, contractor operated
(GO-CO) laboratories. However, Mr. Guschl indicated he had a
couple ideas regarding the legislation. First, revise the
wording regarding U.S. manufacture. Better language would
require earliest possible deployment of technologies in the
U.S., but not require it to be substantially manufactured in
the U.S. This would allow the U.S. businesses to compete
globally, thereby strengthening the U.S. portions of the
companies. Second, keep the exclusivity recognition portion of
the law. This provision has been used in GO-CO labs and should
also be used in GO-GO labs. Third, keep the shift from 90 + 60
day notification process to a 30 day notification process.
Fourth, retain requiring submission of a business and marketing
plans. This allows agency to determine the commitment of
prospective licensee. Lastly, consider empowering the
technology transfer directors to make quick and final decisions
for their labs, but also allow there to be a quick appeals
process. In conclusion, Mr. Guschl suggested support for the
legislation and commended its improvement of the technology
transfer process.
Ms. Elizabeth Kraftician, Chief Executive Officer,
Touchstone Research Laboratory, offered her strong support for
H.R. 2544. Ms. Kraftician believes this legislation will have a
significant impact in moving federal technologies to the
marketplace. Additionally, Ms. Kraftician expressed support for
this legislation as a way to benefit small businesses in this
technology transfer process. Small businesses have
traditionally been locked out of the technology transfer arena
by the slow, cumbersome, bureaucratic and oftentimes anti-small
business process by which the Federal Government has
traditionally transferred technology to the marketplace. Ms.
Kraftician applauded H.R. 2544's leveling of the notification
playing field by allowing advertisement in an appropriate place
which gives the Federal laboratory greater flexibility, so that
small business need not rely exclusively on the Federal
Register. In conclusion, Ms. Kraftician emphasized that in
order for this legislation to work, public institutions must be
held accountable for how they wield the authorities they are
given and they must be willing to make decisions and take
risks.
4.5(aa)--Year 2000 (Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight)
March 18, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-55
Background
On March 18, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight entitled, `` Year 2000,'' to discuss Government Wide
Year 2000 issues as well as the status of the Department of
Treasury's progress with regard to financial services.
The hearing was the first Congressional appearance by Mr.
John Koskinen, who began his official duties on March 9, 1998
as the Chairman of the Presidentially-created Year 2000
Conversion Council. This was the first opportunity for Mr.
Koskinen to reveal the plans and strategy of the Year 2000
Conversion Council. The recently completed GAO government-wide
study of Year 2000 issues and its accompanying recommendations
for government-wide solutions were also discussed at the
hearing.
In addition to Mr. Koskinen's appearance, the hearing
examined the Department of Treasury. In all, Treasury has 327
mission-critical systems. As of February 15, 1998, only 22% of
these mission-critical systems were finished. At its current
rate of progress, Treasury will finish only 38% more of its
mission-critical systems before the deadline. That will leave
130 mission-critical systems at risk of failure on January 1,
2000. This is unacceptable for any federal department and
especially for Treasury, which plays such a critical role in
federal finance. Within Treasury, the hearing included a
detailed examination of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
the Financial Management Service (FMS).
Witnesses included: Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman President's
Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, Mr. Gene Dodaro, Assistant
Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting Office, Michael P.
Harden Ph.D., President, Century Technology Service, Inc., Ms.
Constance E. Craig, Assistant Commissioner, Information
Resources, Financial Management Services, U.S. Department of
the Treasury, Mr. Jim Flyzik, Acting Chief Information Officer,
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Mr. Arthur A. Gross, Associate
Commissioner for Modernization and Chief Information Officer,
Internal Revenue Service, Dennis Schindel, Deputy Assistant
Inspector General for Audit, Department of the Treasury.
Summary of hearing
Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman of the President's Council on
the Year 2000 Conversion, testified as to the nature of the
President's Year 2000 Council. Mr. Koskinen sees the Council on
the Year 2000 conversion as a catalyst that will ensure that
individuals in the public and private sectors are aware of the
problem and doing all they can to fix it. Additionally, he sees
the Council as a facilitator and coordinator that will promote
the fruitful exchange of ideas and ensure that resources are
being used effectively.
Gene L. Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, U.S. General
Accounting Office testified that while some progress has been
made in addressing the Federal Government's Year 2000
readiness, serious vulnerabilities remain. Many agencies are
behind schedule, and at the current pace it is clear that not
all mission critical systems will be fixed in time. Much more
action is needed to ensure that federal agencies satisfactorily
mitigate Y2K risks to avoid debilitating consequences. Vital
economic sectors of the nation are also vulnerable. These
include state and local governments; telecommunications;
banking and finance; health, safety, and emergency services;
transportation; utilities; and manufacturing and small
business. Mr. Dodaro stated that many organizational and
managerial models exist that the Conversion Council could use
to build effective partnerships to solve the nation's Y2K
problem. Furthermore, due to the urgency of the situation one
viable alternative would be to consider using the sector-based
approach recommended by the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection. Mr. Dodaro concluded by stating that
continued Congressional oversight through hearings in both the
House and the Senate could help ensure that the Y2K problem is
given the appropriate amount of attention.
Michael P. Harden, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer of Century Technology Services, INC., testified to the
possible inability of the Federal Government to provide,
acquire, or maintain sufficient programming resources to tackle
the Y2K Problem in the short time remaining before January 1,
2000. Dr. Harden stated that since there simply aren't enough
programmers available to fix every system affected by Y2K, the
law of supply and demand takes over. Programmers are now able
to consistently demand salaries in the six figure range. As we
get closer to the millennium demand for their services will
increase even more. The result will be that by not applying
sufficient resources today far more will be required later to
accomplish the fix in time.
Constance Craig, Assistant Commissioner for Information
Resources of the Financial Management Service, U.S. Department
of the Treasury, testified in order to discuss the Financial
Management Service's (FMS) progress in meeting the challenges
posed by the Y2K computer problem. Ms. Craig stated that the
highest priority of the FMS is to adapt its mission critical
computer systems to the century date change. Additionally she
stated that this is imperative, because FMS is one of the two
or three Federal agencies that absolutely must meet the Y2K
deadline. Ms. Craig then concluded by summarizing what FMS had
done to avert catastrophe. (1) FMS has carefully identified and
assessed its mission critical systems. (2) The agency is well
underway making the necessary changes to its software code. (3)
Implementation of Y2K compliant payment and collection systems
are scheduled for completion by the end of 1998. (4) Renovation
of other systems will be complete by 1998, except for a portion
of the Government On-line Accounting Link System (GOALS). (5)
And finally, by the summer of 1998, validation testing will be
well underway internally and also with FMS's customers.
James Flyzik, Acting Chief Information Officer, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, testified that the Y2K computer
problem is his highest priority. Mr. Flyzik stated that 97.1%
of Treasury's mission critical IT systems had been assessed,
and 51.4% of the mission critical systems have been renovated.
Additionally, he stated that the Department has made
significantly more progress than had been indicated by the
figures present at the hearing. As for mission critical
systems, Mr. Flyzik stated that Treasury is on schedule to meet
the implementation milestone date of December 1998 with the
exception of the IRS phase 5 system applications and Financial
Management Services Government On Line Accounting Link System
(GOALS).
Arthur A. Gross, Associate Commissioner for Modernization
and Chief Information Officer, Internal Revenue Service,
testified that the IRS's ability to carry out its mission could
be jeopardized if the Century Date program is not completed
timely. Mr. Gross discussed the uniqueness of the IRS situation
in that the agency's Y2K problem is compounded by the
legislatively mandated systems changes that require extensive
reprogramming each filing season. Due to this incredible
challenge, he stated that the IRS's potential for success is
largely dependent on its ability to corporately manage, monitor
and accurately evaluate adherence with the program's schedule,
budget, and deliverables plans. Mr. Gross mentioned that the
IRS has identified 126 mission critical applications systems.
Of these, 73 have been renovated, 60 have been tested and
implemented, and all are on schedule to be converted by January
1999.
Dennis Schindel, Assistant Inspector General for Audit,
Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury,
testified in order to describe the Office of Inspector
General's oversight of Treasury's Y2K conversion effort. Mr.
Schindel stated that the OIG has found that the Department is
meeting OMB's quarterly reporting requirements and that the
quarterly reports show the Department as a whole is meeting
OMB's milestones. However, Mr. Schindel warned that these
accomplishments must be qualified in two respects. First, the
results are based primarily on the quarterly status reports
provided to OMB, and have not been independently verified.
Second, the milestone dates met thus far do not cover the real
meat of the Y2K conversion process.
4.5(bb)--Educating Our Children With Technology Skills To Compete In
the Next Millennium (Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Youth Government Management, Information and Technology,
Committee on Education and The Workforce)
March 24, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-50
Background
On March 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth
Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on
Education and The Workforce entitled, ``Educating our Children
with Technology Skills to Compete in the Next Millennium.''
The Department of Commerce has reported that industries
using advanced technologies are more productive and profitable,
pay higher wages, and increase employment more rapidly than
firms that do not. In that review, the Commerce Department
noted that employment at plants using eight or more advanced
technologies grew 14.4 percent more than plants using no
advanced technologies, and production workers' wages were more
than 14 percent higher. Nevertheless, despite the attractive
nature of high-technology jobs, it appears our nation is facing
a technology workforce shortage.
This hearing examined the effectiveness of our current
educational system in strengthening and developing the
workforce necessary to maintain our nation's global
competitiveness in the new millennium.
Witnesses included: Dr. Graham B. Spanier, President, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; Ms. Dyan
Brasington, President, High Technology Council of Maryland,
Rockville, MD; Dr. John Reinert, President, United States
Activities Board, Institute of Electronics and Electrical
Engineering, Washington, DC; Dr. Stuart A. Rosenfield,
President, Regional Technology Strategies, Chapel Hill, NC; Dr.
Robert Sweeney, Executive Director, Applied Information
Management Institute, Omaha, NE.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Graham B. Spanier, President, The Pennsylvania
University, University Park, PA, testified that from
education's perspective, technology education is one of the
highest priorities for universities and colleges nationwide and
integral to their educational mission. He further stated that
technology education in universities will proceed best in a
technology-rich environment that capitalizes on the latest
applications and tools in all areas of teaching and learning as
well as simultaneously providing widespread access to the vast
information resources available today. This environment is
essential to support special initiatives to meet information
technology workforce needs as well as to promote the technology
skills of all students. Dr. Spanier feels strongly that if we
expand infrastructure, advance networking capabilities, and
pursue policy initiatives that enable the integration of
information technologies into every aspect of work, we also are
making contributions that are vital to reaping the many
economic and educational benefits of these powerful tools
throughout our society. Penn State, for example, is pursuing
the creation of a new School of Information Science and
Technology. This will allow students to merge their current
disciplines with this new program, fostering a growth potential
in knowledge and its distribution.
Ms. Dyan Brasington, President, High Technology Council of
Maryland, testified that the High Technology Council (HTC) of
Maryland is an industry consortium of approximately 600
companies, federal labs and educational institutions involved
in high technology throughout the state of Maryland. HTC is the
principal advocate for technology issues in Maryland, and
workforce development has become the number one issue for HTC
Council members. The HTC recognizes the need to link not just
with higher education, but also with the spectrum of
educational institutions from K-12 education through lifelong
learning. The HTC has had great results from two programs they
have run in recent years to link their idea of life-long
learning with workforce technological development. These
programs are high school and community college students
internship programs at information technology companies; and a
teacher training program linking teachers with industry
employees facilitating a transfer of knowledge to those who
teach. She also discussed a problem that could be easily
remedied by the Committee. Many information technology
companies in the DC metropolitan area are contractors to the
Federal Government. These Federal Government contracts
stipulate certain criteria each contractor must meet, however,
if a company were to take on an intern in their company the
company would not be able to meet contracting criteria such as
educational level. This prohibits the contractor from taking on
an intern.
Dr. John Reinert, President, United States Activities
Board, Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineering
testified on behalf of IEEE and its more than 300,000 members
worldwide. IEEE believes that improved education, training and
lifelong learning--from grade school to graduate school and
beyond--is absolutely imperative if the United States is to
maintain its economic and technological competitiveness in the
21st Century. To do this, Dr. Reinert stated, means investments
in people--developing an educated and technologically literate
workforce and encouraging workers to continually acquire
additional knowledge and skills. People are at least as
important as capital investments in today's increasingly
competitive, information-based, global economy. Continuing
advances in electronic and computer-based technologies
necessitate rapid changes in the production and delivery of
goods and services as well as the organization of work and the
workforce. And in order for the United States to stay
competitive, it is imperative we acknowledge this fundamental
shift. Dr. Reinert commended the Committee for beginning to
address this problem by passing H.R. 3007, the Commission on
the Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology
Advancement Act.
Dr. Stuart A. Rosenfeld, President, Regional Technology
Strategies testified on behalf of the Consortium for
Manufacturing Competitiveness (CMC) and the Trans-Atlantic
Technology and Training Alliance (TATTA), groups of innovative
technical colleges in the South and Europe. Dr. Rosenfeld spoke
of a new computer-based approach that explicitly spurs economic
development and which creates a learning community among
students in rural areas and small companies. This application
is called Asynchronous Learning Networks or (ALNs) and is
becoming widely accepted. An ALN is not solely a means of
delivering content, but an alternative for classroom and
student-instructor interaction. It allows a class to learn from
each other and carry out team projects using the Internet, but
without being connected, or ``logged on,'' at the same time.
Dr. Rosenfeld believes ALNs will remove place and time from the
learning equation. Asynchronous Learning Networks were
developed to deliver technical education and upgrade the skills
of part-time students and employees of small and mid-sized
companies who for various reasons are unable to attend
regularly scheduled classes. Dr. Rosenfeld believes that while
many claims of technologies changing the ways we educate have
been made but never substantiated, this interactive form of
computer-based learning may be the tool that finally works.
Dr. Robert Sweeney, Executive Director, Applied Information
Management Institute testified on behalf of AIM, a membership
organization supporting and promoting Omaha and Nebraska
business growth related to Information Technology. AIM was
created in 1992 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Dr.
Sweeney noted that, as a society we are moving into an
interesting and challenging new era from an industrial economy
to an information economy. The rules are changing for business,
education, law, social institutions, etc. The primary worker of
the information economy will be a knowledge worker--one that
takes information and adds value through analysis,
interpretation, summarization, coordinating, manipulating,
screening, selecting, etc. New skill sets are required,
different attributes will be rewarded. Old models are being
replaced and this necessitates new ways to educate our
workforce. AIM is attempting to participate in this transition
by working with area businesses to provide student internships,
mentoring, field trips, IT academies and teacher professional
development. Additionally, Dr. Sweeney feels that business and
educational institutions need to work more closely to address
the apparent disparity between what the schools are teaching
and what the businesses need. AIM seeks to facilitate this
collaboration by bringing business leaders and educators
together to discuss curriculum and internships.
4.5(cc)--International Standards, Parts I and II. (International
Standards: Technical Barriers to Free Trade)
April 28, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-58
Background
On April 28, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held one
of two oversight hearings entitled, ``International Standards,
Parts I and II.''
The hearing was held to explore the impact of the
international standard setting process on the ability of U.S.
companies to engage in free and fair trade with leading U.S.
trading partners in Europe and around the world. Additionally,
the hearing gave witnesses from industries who have recently
participated, or are currently participating, in the
international standard setting process the opportunity to voice
their concerns about the current International Standards
Organization (ISO) process.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Ray Kammer, Director,
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg,
MD; Mr. Samuel Tyson, Independent Consultant, Silver Spring,
MD; Mr. Michael L. Turnbow, Former Chairman, American Society
of Nondestructive Testing, Soddydaisy, TN; Mr. Charles Ford,
Vice President, Quality, Babcock and Wilcox Power Generation
Group; and Mr. Stacy Brovitz, Chief Executive Officer, Dormnot
Manufacturing, Export, PA.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute
of Standards and Technology commended the Subcommittee on
Technology for bringing attention to this issue through this
hearing. Director Kammer believes that standards and the
methods used to assess conformity to standards are absolutely
critical for U.S. industry and our economy at large. He further
expressed his eagerness for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) to help increase the visibility and level
of U.S. activity in the area of standards setting to ensure
U.S. industry success in the international marketplace in the
years ahead. To that end, he determined the following steps
need to be taken: NIST, other agencies, and the private sector
must work together to remove unnecessary national, regional and
international differences in testing and certification
requirements which pose obstacles to U.S. industry, cooperate
in the development of a sound U.S. policy for using standards
to support global trade, agree on goals, work with our trading
partners in advance of meetings to further our mutual technical
interests; and commit to participate on a regular basis in the
activities of technical committees. Additionally, Director
Kammer emphasized that we need to ensure that the process
serves U.S. industry's needs. To do this, we must commit to
work effectively and efficiently--to match the standards
development process to the cycle time of products, and to use
it strategically to support our very real industrial and
technical needs. In short, he feels that the entire standards
community must work together more closely to develop and
implement unified U.S. positions on technical and standards
policy issues at the domestic and international levels.
Mr. Samuel E. Tyson, Independent Consultant testified to
his experiences with the ISO standardization process in
connection with steel and nickel alloy industrial products such
as plate, sheet, bar and wire. In other technologies such as
information, safety, environment, and especially quality
systems, ISO standards have been used by all nations including
USA with great success by companies, but the same cannot be
said for steel product standards. The disparity between the
U.S. and the international standards setting process has put
the U.S. steel industry at a serious disadvantage in attempting
to compete in international markets. Mr. Tyson concluded by
recognizing that there is no simple path to international
standardization. All the obstacles must be recognized and
overcome and it is important that U.S. participation and focus
be maintained in ISO to assure continued support of our
domestic practices.
Mr. Michael L. Turnbow, former Chairman, American Society
of Nondestructive Testing indicated that he recognizes the
growing impact of standards on global commerce and the
potential for standards to either facilitate or impede
international trade. He has also come to realize that unless
standards development activities are conducted in a manner that
results in a mutual benefit to all concerned, trade will
suffer. National, regional and international standards are the
most potent method for imposing real trade policy. As the
product of consensus organizations, they reflect the needs and
interests of the people and institutions that participated in
their drafting, and by virtue of the fact that they may become
convention in a country, region or around the world, they will
exert more influence over trade than will a great many
negotiated agreements and treaties. Additionally, Mr. Turnbow
feels strongly that in order for international standards to
facilitate international trade, several conditions must be
satisfied: First, the scope and content of the standard must
adequately address a defined need. Second, it must be based on
sound science and use technology that has been tested and
gained acceptance by industry. Third, the procedures used in
the development of standards must foster consensus among all
stakeholders. Mr. Turnbow suggested that the Congress direct
the Departments of State and Commerce to begin to monitor and
report on cases of U.S. industry exclusion, and working with
European governments, to voice US government objections to
efforts by their national standards organizations to usurp
international standards development activities by working
through CEN to invoke provisions of the Vienna Agreement.
Mr. Charles Ford, Vice President--Quality, Babcock & Wilcox
Power Generation Group testified that industry, the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the Federal
Government can work together to extend the use and application
of American Codes (standards) such as the ASME standards and
the continued acceptance of these standards by changing the
fact that development and maintenance of U.S. standards are
absorbed by the private sector; which is not the case in
foreign Code development. In many other countries, these
standards are a government function. Mr. Ford revealed that his
company is trying to level the playing field in their area of
trade by opening strategic joint ventures around the world to
service markets and provide some immunity to the barriers they
would face if trying to supply the world from the United
States. The barriers that Ford sees are local content
requirements on foreign contracts as well as enforcement of
non-technical Code requirements, certification and
accreditation. Mr. Ford cautioned that if European Union
countries vote en bloc, they could dominate world standards
which would cause domestic U.S. manufacturers to re-engineer
and re-tool their processes in order to compete
internationally. Thereby placing U.S. manufacturers at a
significant financial disadvantage.
Mr. Stacy Brovitz, Chief Executive Officer, Dormont
Manufacturing Company, testified about his experiences on the
international market. He stated that Dormont is a small company
with limited resources who makes a safe, high quality product
that has 20 years of proven field experience. He stated that
acquiring access to each national market through individual
approvals which would include the design of individual
connectors for each market, would be cost prohibitive. The Gas
Appliance Directive appeared to be the proper way for them to
enter the European market so they spent the money to have their
products tested by a European testing agency despite full
approvals from U.S. standards organizations. He stated: ``We
spent the money to acquire ISO 9000 certification from three
separate entities, a requirement not made of local
manufacturers. We hired a representative--a European with gas
industry experience--to help us understand the European
marketplace who spent two years in a fruitless effort to allow
our product access to the market. We attempted to do everything
correctly, according to the rules they laid out . . .'' and yet
we still cannot sell our gas connectors in the European market.
Brovitz suggested that Congress help companies like his gain
approvals to sell their products in Europe by actively lobbying
the European Union (EU) to accept gas connectors under the
scope of the gas Appliance Directive. Additionally, Mr. Brovitz
offered to assist the Congress in working to remove unfair
design restrictions from the gas connector standards of the
various EU member states and see that their products are
granted mutual recognition in all member states.
4.5(dd)--Aviation Manufacturing and The Fastener Quality Act
May 7, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-57
Background
On May 7, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Aviation Manufacturing and the Fastener
Quality Act.'' The hearing was held to review the FQA and
determine if Congress should recognize the FAA as the quality
authority for proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Don Fuqua, President,
Aerospace Industries Association, Washington, DC; The Honorable
Ray Kammer, Director, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD; Mr. Thomas
McSweeney, Director, Aircraft Certification, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington, DC; Mr. Ed Bolen, President,
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable Don Fuqua, testifying as President of the
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), commented on the fact
that under NIST's FQA rule, airplane parts, including
fasteners, currently regulated by the FAA still fall under the
FQA. This places an onerous and perhaps dangerous burden on
aircraft manufacturers but does not add any value to aviation
safety. Most importantly, the testing requirements for FQA are
redundant as FAA already has in place its own stringent
requirements for testing of aircraft parts. These requirements
equal or exceed that of the FQA. Additionally, Mr. Fuqua
asserted that there are insufficient accredited laboratories to
serve the needs of the aerospace industry in conforming to the
FQA. Mr. Fuqua stated that AIA believes that dual regulation of
the aerospace manufacturing process, which includes fasteners,
is unnecessary.
The Honorable Ray Kammer, testifying as Director of NIST,
explained that the intention of the FQA is to improve fastener
quality and reduce the danger of fastener failure.
Additionally, the Act serves to protect public safety by
requiring fasteners to conform to uniform specifications and be
tested by accredited laboratories. Mr. Kammer further
emphasized that NIST worked closely with affected industries to
develop the necessary testing procedures, while attempting to
reduce the cost of compliance. He testified that the original
law would have had a $1 billion impact on industry, but NIST
has streamlined the procedures so that the impact will be
minimal. Mr. Kammer stated that with regard to aircraft
manufacturing, NIST agrees that civil aviation manufacturers
should not be bound by FQA, since the FAA currently assures
quality and suitability for proprietary aircraft fasteners. Mr.
Kammer, under questioning by the Subcommittee Membership,
suggested that passage of the FQA may have occurred because of
emotional, but inaccurate, reports about fastener failures. He
additionally suggested that the FQA may no longer be needed.
Mr. Thomas E. McSweeney, testifying as Director of the
Aircraft Certification Service of the FAA, spoke to the process
by which the FAA assures the quality of all aviation parts,
including fasteners: First, the FAA, after approval of a design
for an aircraft part, requires the manufacturer to establish
and maintain a production and quality control system that
ensures the production of conforming duplicates. Second, the
FAA monitors manufacturers continuing production of aircraft
parts through regular surveillance and periodic (every 18-24
months) formal audits. Mr. McSweeney emphasized that this
process assures fastener safety at a level necessary for their
use in state-of-the-art airplanes and engines. The FQA, on the
other hand, is intended to apply to a much wider variety of
fasteners. He stated that while different, the FAA system
clearly meets or exceeds the safety standards generated by the
FQA and that subjecting the aviation industry to the FQA would
place significant time and financial costs on the industry
without any added safety benefits.
Mr. Edward Bolen, testifying as President of the General
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), stated that the
General Aviation (GA) manufacturing industry is seriously
threatened by NIST's implementing regulations for the FQA.
Complying with FQA would force production lines to stop and
safety to be compromised. Mr. Bolen emphasized that subjecting
the aviation manufacturers to the requirements of the FQA is
unnecessary because the fasteners are already subject to the
stringent quality program of the FAA. FAA's oversight has
clearly worked and should be continued. Mr. Bolen also stated
that requiring GA compliance with FQA may actually undermine
safety as the FQA and FAA approaches differ greatly and cannot
necessarily be reconciled. A further concern with compliance,
according to Mr. Bolen, is that neither FQA nor the
implementing regulations define the key terms ``nut'',
``bolt'', ``stud'' or ``screw.'' This forces companies to
develop their own definitions causing widely disparate
definitions and little conformity. In conclusion, Mr. Bolen
articulated GAMA's position that proprietary fasteners of
aviation manufacturers should continue to be regulated solely
by the FAA.
4.5(ee)--Y2K Effect on Energy Utilities
May 14, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-80
Background
On May 14, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held an
oversight hearing entitled, ``The Y2K Effect on Energy
Utilities.''
The Year 2000 problem has the potential to severely disrupt
our nation's ability to deliver energy to the American public,
which is a vital industry necessary to maintaining our personal
and economic quality of life. In the February 4, 1998 Executive
Order issued by the President, the newly created Year 2000
Conversion Council identified the electric power generation
system, as a critical national and local priority.
Witnesses included: Hugh Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive
Director for Regulatory Programs, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; Ms. Kathleen M. Hirning, Chief Information Officer,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; John L. Laakso, Executive
Director, Texas Public Utilities Commission; Kenneth P. Cohn,
Manager, Computer Services, Potomac Electric Power Company;
Richard Cowles, Director, Year 2000 Industry Solutions, TAVA/
R.W. Beck, L.L.C.
Summary of hearing
Hugh Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for
Regulatory Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, testified
that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responding
to the Year 2000 computer problem for operating nuclear power
plants. Mr. Thompson stated that the NRC is currently upgrading
its Emergency Response Data System (ERDS), which is responsible
for performing the communication and data transmission
functions to NRC incident response personnel during declared
emergencies. Mr. Thompson also indicated that the upgrade is on
schedule to be completed, tested and implemented by March 4,
1999. Mr. Thompson moved on to discuss the NRC's requirement
that all operating nuclear power plants submit a written
response stating how they plan to address the Y2K problem. In
addition to the written responses, the NRC plans to conduct
inspections, on a sampling basis, to assess licensee
preparedness for the Year 2000. Mr. Thompson concluded by
noting that to date the NRC had not received notification from
licensees or vendors that a Year 2000 problem exists with
safety-related initiation and actuation systems. Furthermore,
Mr. Thompson believes that the NRC has established a framework
that appropriately assures them that the Year 2000 problem will
not have an adverse impact on the ability of a nuclear power
plant to safely operate or shut down.
Ms. Kathleen M. Hirning, Chief Information Officer, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, testified that the consequences
of not fully understanding the seriousness of the Y2K problem
as it relates to utilities is the problem. She stated that
cooperative communication is necessary in order to quantify the
nature of this problem, and furthermore, to ascertain the
completion of development and testing of solutions, and promote
operational contingency plans in a timely manner to avoid any
loss in power. Ms. Hirning discussed the interconnectedness of
the multiple power grids within the United States, and
mentioned that problems resulting from Y2K in just a few of
these could have a ripple effect throughout the network. For
Ms. Hirning, this situation highlights the necessity of having
a Y2K compliant energy system. Ms. Hirning sees the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's role is to encourage regulated
companies to take responsible action to ensure that their
energy systems are compliant. Ms. Hirning concluded by stating
that through sharing of Y2K information within the industry,
its companies, suppliers, consultants, and state and local
experts, we will be able to help alleviate this potential
threat to the reliability of our energy systems.
John L. Laakso, Executive Director, Texas Public Utilities
Commission (PUC), testified that generally Texas' utilities
seem well aware of the Y2K problem. He mentioned that the
larger utilities have active programs in place to deal with
potential Y2K problems, and many smaller utilities could be
assisted by access to more information. Mr. Laakso, indicated
that the PUC intends to continue to have a staff group monitor
on Y2K issues, and will establish a site on the PUC homepage
for exchanging information on Y2K solutions and issues. Mr.
Laakso stated that the Commissions staff will continue to work
with industry groups to reach the smaller utilities and raise
awareness of Y2K issues. Mr. Laakso concluded by stating that
the PUC would continue to provide information on Y2K issues
affecting service to electric and telephone service consumers
through the PUC web page and other valuable media.
Kenneth P. Cohn, Manager, Computer Services, Potomac
Electric Power Company, testified that PEPCO began its formal
Year 2000 effort in 1995. By 1996, Mr. Cohn stated that PEPCO
had completed pilot projects on several of its systems, and
began estimating its ability to accurately determine the scope
and cost of system conversions. PEPCO's general approach to Y2K
issues has been to: (1) identify all operations and systems
affected; (2) inventory all affected systems and determine the
appropriate response for each system; (3) implement these
responses in an organized and cost-effective way; (4) test
responses with sufficient lead time before January 1, 2000, so
as to allow time for adjustments and fixes; and, (5) develop
contingency plans for possible problems at the operational
level. Moving on, Mr. Cohn estimated that conversion plans and
cost estimates for embedded systems would be completed within
the ensuing weeks. Finally, Mr. Cohn summarized by stating that
the costs of PEPCO's Y2K problem was approximately $10 million,
and that he anticipated changes in these estimates as he went
along.
Rick Cowles, Director of Year 2000 Industry Solutions,
TAVA/R.W. Beck, L.L.C., testified regarding Year 2000 computer
issues and their affect on the electric utility business. Mr.
Cowles stated the importance of establishing a boundary around
the scope of the problem. He indicated that all three sectors
of the electric utility industry must work together to counter
the Y2K problem. Additionally, Mr. Cowles emphasized his
belief, based on surveys taken from all levels of the industry,
that for the most part, the electric utility business is not
fully aware of the magnitude of the Y2K issue, and hopes that
there is enough time to meet the challenges of the problem.
4.5(ff)--International Standards, Parts I and II (International
Standards: Technical Barriers to Free Trade)
June 4, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-58
Background
On June 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held the
last of two oversight hearings entitled, ``International
Standards, Parts I and II.''
This hearing addressed electronic and digital standards
which are set through the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) and the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC).
The hearing further explored how the international
standards system has been working with respect to U.S. users
and manufacturers of electronics and reviewed in detail the
specific case of the ongoing debate surrounding efforts to
create a single global wireless telecommunications standard
commonly referred to as the Third Generation Wireless Standard
(3G). 3G has become one of the more interesting and important
international standards currently being developed.
Witnesses included: Mr. Oliver Smoot, Executive Vice
President, Information Technology Industry Council, Washington,
DC; Mr. John Major, Executive Vice President, QUALCOMM, San
Diego, CA; Mr. Jesse Russell, Chairman, Wireless Communication
Division, Telecommunications Industry Association, Washington,
DC; Mr. Bo Piekarski, Vice President, Business Development and
Strategic Marketing, Ericsson, Inc., Richardson, TX.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Oliver Smoot, Executive Vice President, Information
Technology Industry Council emphasized ITI is a national trade
association whose members consist of leading producers of
information technology products and services. Mr. Smoot stated
that ITIC participation in the international standardization
process is decentralized, private sector led, and for the most
part highly successful. He indicated that succeeding at
international standardization requires: Having a strategy
giving the effort priority, providing the resources, sticking
with it for the long term, and working at both the management
and technical levels. He feels that U.S. participants,
utilizing the advantages of our diversified, cooperative and
competitive, market focused standards system can and have
succeeded. Additionally, ITI believes that with regard to the
third generation wireless standards backward compatibility and
interoperability with today's wireless networks is more
important for next generation systems than achieving a single
global standard. If the international standardization process
would embrace multiple standards, it would ensure that today's
IT equipment can be used on tomorrow's networks, and would
protect the investment in time, resources and money that have
already been expended in the development of second generation
systems, as well as, ensuring that no technology is stranded as
new technologies evolve now and in the future. Most
importantly, however, it ensures that the evolution of the
technology is guided by the market, not by government mandate.
Mr. John Major, Executive Vice President, QUALCOMM
testified on behalf of QUALCOMM, a San Diego based developer,
manufacturer, marketer and operator of advanced communications
systems and products based on proprietary digital wireless
technologies. One of these technologies, Code Division Multiple
Access or CDMA, is now marketed around the world under the
trade name cdmaOne. CdmaOne, stated Mr. Major, is an American
invention, and the fastest growing digital wireless standard in
the world. Less than three years after its first commercial
deployment in Hong Kong, cdmaOne has become the dominant
digital technology in the United States, Korea and Mexico, and
has been deployed throughout Asia, Latin America, Africa,
Russia and Eastern Europe, with commercial launches in Japan
and Australia later this year. QUALCOMM, along with other CDMA
equipment manufacturers, has worked with the CDMA Development
Group, a trade industry organization representing 91 CDMA
operators and manufacturers, on a third-generation version of
cdmaOne that will be known as Wideband cdmaOne. Wideband
cdmaOne has been submitted to various standards bodies around
the world for consideration and eventual standardization.
Wideband cdmaOne will allow consumers to send and receive more
than 2 Mbps of data and access the Internet, while continuing
to enjoy the best voice quality of any digital wireless
technology. Mr. Major indicated that QUALCOMM believes in four
unifying principles regarding the process of setting a third-
generation standard: they believe that the world's standards
bodies, under the auspices of the ITU, need to ensure backwards
compatibility with existing systems, and allow for world-wide
roaming; that the third-generation standards process should
recognize and respect the intellectual property rights of
patent holders; that markets, rather than governments, should
guide the timing and deployment of third-generation services;
and finally that standards and technology decisions should be
made based on what is best for wireless customers and
operators, not what is best for wireless manufacturers or
governments. Mr. Major emphasized that QUALCOMM believe in full
and fair competition among technologies and is adamantly
opposed to protectionism or an industrial policy that places
manufacturers ahead of consumers. Finally, Mr. Major indicated
that QUALCOMM is not alone in espousing these principles.
Mr. Jesse E. Russell, Chairman, Wireless Communication
Division, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
testified on Behalf of TIA. TIA is a full-service national
trade organization with membership of 900 large and small
companies that provide communications and information
technology products, materials, systems, distribution services
and professional services in the United States and around the
world. The association's member companies manufacture or supply
virtually all of the products used in global communications
networks. TIA is accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) to develop American National Standards in its
areas of expertise. Mr. Russell indicated that TIA supports the
International Telecommunications Union's (ITU) efforts toward
harmonization and will continue to work toward achieving the
global standardization of 3G wireless systems. From TIA's
perspective, the goals of the 3G process are network-to-network
interoperability, feature/service transparency, maximum
harmonization within key technologies, global roaming among all
networks, and as much backward compatibility with existing
networks as possible. TIA has been working hand-in-hand to help
develop what should be the final U.S. position through a
consensus with all involved parties. In conclusion, Mr. Russell
indicated that only IME will tell whether a single 3G standard
will evolve or whether there may be several standards under the
ITU's ``family of systems'' concept, but this process should
and must evolve from the private sector.
Mr. Bo Piekarski, Vice President, Business Development and
Strategic Marketing, Ericsson, Inc., addressed the role of
industry standards, in particular the North American and
international wireless standards process, as well as ongoing
industry-led efforts to create further harmonization of various
global wireless telecommunication standards. Ericsson's views
on standards echo the words of Ronald Grawert, Chairman of the
TIA Board. ``Standards are vital to many industries, where
equipment and systems must interconnect and interoperate, but
in the telecommunications equipment area, we cannot exist
without standards.'' The philosophy and practice of Ericsson
has always been to respect market forces, in particular the
mobile operators within a respective country and/or region, in
determining which technologies will operate in their respective
markets. Mr. Piekarski emphasized that Ericsson supports only
those standardization processes that are: industry led; allow
for licensing on reasonable terms of any company's proprietary
intellectual property rights; open to all qualified
participants: operators and manufacturers; fair in terms of not
favoring one company, region, or technology; and customer
driven in terms of serving customer needs for ease of
deployment, including global compatibility with other
technologies, cost efficiency, and high-quality, feature-rich
services. Mr. Piekarski also cautioned that the ITU should not
be in the business of selecting and imposing a single
technology for worldwide deployment. Rather, the ITU should
continue to function as the ``international good housekeeping
seal of technical approval.'' The rigorous scrutiny inherent in
the ITU process provides member nations, private operators,
government regulators, and manufacturer's confidence that they
can rely on an agreed upon technology to meet or exceed ITU
minimum performance capabilities.
4.5(gg)--Community Colleges in the 21st Century: Tackling Technology
July 21, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-82
Background
On July 21, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Community Colleges in the 21st Century:
Tackling Technology.'' The hearing examined how community
colleges can overcome the technological barriers associated
with maintaining a high-tech teaching environment.
There are currently approximately 1,300 community colleges
nationwide serving more than 5.5 million credit-earning
students. By nature of their mission, community colleges work
closely with area businesses and industries and customize their
academic and occupational programs to reflect local economic
and workforce development needs. As U.S. businesses seek to
remain competitive in the information age, many are turning to
community colleges to ensure their workers have the skills
necessary to keep up with the rapid pace of technological
advancement.
This hearing was held to examine the use of technology in
the teaching and learning process to prepare students for the
rapidly changing workforce; to examine how community colleges
address the challenge of investing in technology which might be
rendered obsolete in a short period of time; and to determine
the benefits associated with promoting partnerships between
community colleges and businesses to ensure that students have
the most up-to-date technology needed to effectively train them
to succeed in the real world.
Witnesses included: Dr. Steven Lee Johnson, Provost,
Clearwater Campus, St. Petersburg Junior College District, Dr.
Mark D. Milliron, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
League for Innovation in the Community College, Dr. Allen
Arnold, President, Mott Community College, Dr. Robert E.
Parilla, President, Montgomery College, Dr. Diana Oblinger,
Manager, Academic Programs and Strategy, IBM Global Education
Industry.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Steven Lee Johnson, Provost, Clearwater Campus St.
Petersburg Junior College District, testified to the nature of
the changes occurring on the community college campus,
especially in regard to technology. Specifically, he stated
that in this new climate professors and faculty must now not
only be content experts, but also must be able to respond to
and connect with students who have a variety of learning needs.
According to Dr. Johnson, technology will help faculty respond
to the changing needs of their students and ultimately will
become a very viable alternative to the basic lecture model of
college instruction. In conclusion, Dr. Johnson reiterated his
support for the technology assisted educational experience, and
justified his claim by stating that in the future 80% of the
jobs available will require fairly high levels of technical
skills.
Dr. Mark Milliron, Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, League for Innovation in the Community College,
testified that the key challenges for community colleges in the
next century will be to develop and adopt the cutting-edge
technologies, foster and assess student learning, and insure
that our colleges bring communities together. Building on the
previous statement, Dr. Milliron stated that the following
challenge would be to better channel our collective energies,
by working more closely with the federal government and
corporations. As he sees it the result will be to create
systems for curriculum transfer, educational and policy reform,
public and private partnerships, and pilot programs. Dr.
Milliron concludes by advocating the creation of a National
Information Technology Curriculum Consortium, that would allow
corporations, higher education, and government to pool
resources and share information with the student quickly and
easily.
Dr. Allan Arnold, President, Mott Community College (MCC),
testified that if MCC is to play a viable role in keeping the
Flint Michigan work force strong and prosperous, it must
address the needs of the areas displaced workers. Additionally,
Dr. Arnold stated that MCC must also provide training for
workers attempting to meet new skill requirements to maintain
their existing jobs, and for citizens aspiring to join the
workforce for the first time to earn a wage that will support a
family. If MCC is to attain this, Dr. Arnold stated, that it
must have strong computer based programs for its students. Dr.
Arnold concluded by stating that a national initiative that
provides incentives to encourage businesses to work with
community colleges would be a tremendously important tool for
them as they accept the challenges of developing the Nation's
workforce.
Dr. Robert E. Parilla, President, Montgomery College,
testified that Montgomery College, like many community colleges
across the country, has chosen to ``tackle technology'' head-
on. Although, Dr. Parilla did qualify by stating that the
college had no intention of becoming a strictly on-line school,
he did recognize the importance of utilizing technology to
enhance students educational experiences. Dr. Parilla noted
that it is an imperative that community colleges be responsive
to private sector needs, and therefore involve themselves with
a number of major business groups. Dr. Parilla stated that in
order to achieve this at Montgomery College, faculty have begun
meeting with employers to develop curricula and internship/co-
op opportunities for qualified students. Dr. Parilla mentioned
that these public-private/education-vendor partnerships are the
trend for the future, and that all will benefit in the
production of a well-trained technologically adept workforce.
Dr. Diana Oblinger, Manager, Academic Programs and
Strategy, IBM Global Education Industry, testified that
community colleges will play an increasingly important role in
education. Ms. Oblinger stated that due to the speed at which
technology is changing it will be necessary to get educated
more than once. Therefore, it is incumbent upon community
colleges to tackle technology, and help ensure that society
will have a strong lifelong learning system that is capable of
sustaining economic competitiveness. Additionally, Dr. Oblinger
discussed the necessity of a close linkage existing between
business and community colleges, that ensures up to date and
relevant curricula. Through these partnerships, Dr. Oblinger
testified that local businesses benefit in that they are able
to retrain their work forces and hire more qualified workers.
She concluded by stating that community colleges must do more
than just tackle technology. Additionally, they must learn to
partner creatively, and rethink how one effectively educates in
this new medium.
4.5(hh)--Developing Partnerships for Assistive and Universally Designed
Technologies for Persons with Disabilities
August 4, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-68
Background
On August 4, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Developing Partnerships for Assistive and
Universally Designed Technologies for Persons with
Disabilities,'' to discuss the creation, implementation, and
commercialization of assistive technologies.
An assistive technology can be a device, whether acquired
commercially, off-the-shelf, modified, or customized that is
used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional
capabilities of individuals with disabilities. A 1993 National
Council on Disability study indicated that assistive
technologies had a significant impact on many aspects of the
lives of people with disabilities. For example, through
assistive technologies, nearly 75% of school age children with
disabilities were able to remain in a regular classroom.
While assistive technology's importance spans age and
disability classifications, it has been argued that assistive
technologies do not gain the recognition in the Federal
Government necessary to provide important assistance in
research and development programs for technologies which might
help the disabled. The private sector generally lacks adequate
incentives to produce assistive technologies and end-users lack
adequate resources to acquire assistive technology.
Witnesses included: John Lancaster, Executive Director of
the President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities, James Fruchterman, President Arkenstone, Inc.,
Gary Moulton, Ph.D. and David Bolnick, Accessibility Product
Managers Microsoft Corporation, Mark Lohman Ph.D., President
and Co-Founder Bartimaeus Group, John Fales, Jr., President
Blinded American Veterans Foundation (BAVF) and Columnist, The
Washington Times.
Summary of hearing
John Lancaster, Executive Director of the President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, testified
in order to discuss a new public-private sector initiative of
the President's Committee, which is convening a Technology Task
Force. The Task Force is composed of companies, including AT&T,
interested in working together to develop standards for digital
multimedia applications to enable access to information
technologies by people with disabilities. He stated that the
result will be greater employment of persons with disabilities,
who currently face barriers as most technologies are not
designed with their needs in mind. Additionally, Mr. Lancaster
stated that due to the changing nature of the economy, the high
rate of unemployment in the disabled community, and the
shortage of workers in the information technology sector, there
is an opportunity for people with disabilities to secure and
maintain employment in this field.
James R. Fruchterman, President of Arkenstone, Inc.,
testified before the Subcommittee in order to express the need
for developing partnerships for assistive and universally
designed technology for persons with disabilities. Mr.
Fruchterman discussed the devices his company has invented to
help disabled people, including those with learning
disabilities. Mr. Fruchterman noted that the majority of
disabled people are unemployed, and therefore economically
disadvantaged. He asserted that he is financing adaptive
technology development as a solution to help the disabled help
themselves. Mr. Fruchterman stated that he encouraged the
concept of universal design and his long term goal is for
adaptive technology to become futile because it will no longer
be necessary.
Gary M. Moulton, Ph.D., accessibility product manager of
the Microsoft Corporation, testified in order to express
Microsoft's commitments: being an industry model for
accessibility products; helping drive the industry towards
universal, accessible design; and raising awareness of the
possibilities available with assistive technology. He
highlighted accessibility aids that are already available on
Microsoft software and their Internet browser. Dr. Moulton
stated that persons with disabilities need to be aware of the
existence of these features so that they may develop
competitive academic and workplace skills. Dr. Moulton also
stated that Microsoft Corporation will form a Disability
Advisory Council composed of individuals with disabilities to
keep their efforts on track in the further development of
assistive technologies.
Mark Lohman, President and co-founder Bartimaeus Group,
testified before the Subcommittee to state his opinion
regarding a government funded research and private enterprise
partnership in the field of assistive technology. Mr. Lohman is
the President and co-founder of the Bartimaeus Group, which
focuses on providing access solutions to individuals who are
blind or visually impaired. Mr. Lohman noted the progress his
company has made, specifically in regards to computer product
development. However, Mr. Lohman stressed that the group is in
a difficult position, because they cannot afford to develop all
of their technologies. This situation would be alleviated if
the government supported a program to assist companies like the
Bartimaeus Group.
John Fales, Jr., President Blinded American Veterans
Foundation (BAVF) and Columnist, The Washington Times,
testified to the importance of integrating assistive
technologies into computer systems, specifically Microsoft's
suite of computer operating systems. Mr. Fales recommended that
Microsoft continue to develop and upgrade assistive
technologies, and that they continue to implement these
technologies in the future. Mr. Fales discussed the dire
situation that many disabled people face in regards to
employment, and suggested that much of this could be alleviated
in the future if assistive technologies continue to be
developed.
4.5(ii)--Technology Development at the Federal Aviation Administration:
Computer and Information Technology Challenges of the 21st Century
August 6, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-70
Background
On August 6, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Technology Development at the Federal
Aviation Administration: Computer and Information Technology
Challenges of the 21st Century,'' to review the effectiveness
of the FAA's Year 2000 compliance efforts and to determine
whether the FAA is implementing the appropriate and necessary
security measures as it modernizes its air traffic control
infrastructure.
The FAA is in the process of modernizing its air traffic
control system. Since 1995, FAA has been developing a
comprehensive architecture for the National Airspace System
(NAS) infrastructure that will support all air operations
within the U.S. and certain oceanic areas. As the FAA
modernizes the aging air traffic control equipment with an open
architecture complex of interconnected network systems, the NAS
becomes even more vulnerable to cyber attacks. The General
Accounting Office recently issued a report critical of FAA's
efforts to ensure its modernized system is secure.
Witnesses included: Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC; Mr. John Meche, Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Finance, Economic and
Information Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC; Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil
Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Dennis DeGaetano, Deputy Associate Administrator for
Research and Acquisitions, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
addressed information security and Year 2000 issues in relation
to the National Airspace System (NAS). Mr. DeGaetano was also
accompanied by Mr. Ray Long, the Director of the Agency's Year
2000 Program. Mr. DeGaetano testified that the FAA has had
information security efforts under way for several years, and
they have made significant progress in ensuring that new
systems coming on-line in the NAS have the appropriate level of
information security safeguarding. However, the General
Accounting Office's (GAO) recent audit has been helpful to FAA
by highlighting several areas in our information security
framework that can be improved. Mr. DeGaetano indicated that
the FAA has already taken actions that are responsive to
several of the GAO's recommendations, and are in the process of
determining a course of action with regard to the remaining
issues. GAO's most significant recommendations urges the FAA to
take a more coordinated management approach to information
security, a responsibility which is currently shared by several
FAA lines of business, and to develop a means of ensuring that
information security policy is always followed. The GAO also
reiterated a previous recommendation that the FAA should have a
Chief Information Officer (CIO) that reports directly to the
Administrator. Mr. DeGaetano stated that in response to these
suggestions Administrator Garvey has agreed that a CIO
reporting directly to her is appropriate. The Administrator is
talking to candidates now, and it is clear that she wants to
make a selection as soon as possible. While the details of the
final management structure need to be worked out, the CIO will
be responsible for information security at the FAA.
Additionally, FAA recognizes the importance of ensuring that
new NAS systems being brought on line are safeguarded from
unauthorized access. To address this issue the FAA has
vulnerability assessments, threat assessments, security plans,
certifications and accreditations currently being evaluated for
new systems being integrated into the NAS and administrative
infrastructure of FAA. Mr. DeGaetano indicated that as
assessments of new systems are completed, the civil aviation
security office will certify the security of the system, or
require that appropriate countermeasures, if necessary, be
taken. Mr. DeGaetano concluded by emphasizing that FAA is in
general agreement that information security efforts can be more
efficiently managed and enforced, and that there are several
finite improvements that can be made to specific procedures.
They are in the process of evaluating how to accomplish several
of the GAO's recommendations, and are taking steps to appoint a
CIO who reports to the Administrator and will have the
authority to determine how clear information security policies
will be disseminated--and most importantly--enforced.
Additionally, FAA continues work to ensure that new NAS systems
are appropriately secure, and are prioritizing assessments and
countermeasures, as necessary, for NAS legacy systems. Their
work on Y2K continues to make quick and steady progress, and
they will keep the Committee closely informed of their efforts.
Mr. John Meche, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
Finance, Economic and Information Technology, U.S. Department
of Transportation addressed progress FAA has made on its Year-
2000 efforts since his testimony before the Subcommittee on
February 4, 1998; the status of the Year-2000 program and
computer network security; the challenges ahead for the Year
2000 and telecommunications networks; and the actions FAA and
DOT should undertake to solve their Year-2000 and computer
security problems. Mr. Meche stated that FAA is reporting to
him they are on schedule to achieve the next major OMB
milestone--fixing all known Year-2000 problems by September 30,
1998. However, there are three areas where FAA needs more
attention. First, FAA needs better documentation to support the
completeness of the renovation work, especially with
replacement parts and system interfaces. Second, FAA needs to
determine whether six of the new systems under development are
Year-2000 compliant. And third, FAA needs to begin testing the
systems. In addressing the computer security challenges for
FAA, Mr. Meche emphasized that FAA, as part of its NAS
modernization, plans to use a common network to support both
administrative and NAS operational needs, which could lead to
additional exposure for the NAS. For example, during a review
of FAA computer security, the DOT IG's office found that the
primary and backup Host computers are located in the same room.
A single event within the computer room, such as fire, could
render both computers inoperable. Mr. Meche identified actions
FAA and DOT need to take to gain the confidence that there will
be no significant Year 2000 and computer security issues. They
include the need to: complete Year 2000 assessments of the six
systems being developed, and ensure repair work is completed
for all required elements including code modification, system
replacement, and interfaces; reevaluate the FAA master schedule
and make a concerted effort to accelerate the implementation
schedule for all systems to March 31, 1999, or as soon
thereafter as possible; and enhance departmental computer
security by (1) ensuring back door users are in compliance with
DOT security requirements; (2) developing schedules to certify
systems and install network security evaluation tools; and (3)
providing for physical separation of primary and backup Host
replacement computers. Taking steps to remedy these and other
concerns will ensure that NAS modernization also provides a
much higher level of security and stability within the FAA's
electronic information system.
Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information
Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office testified on the
significant information technology challenges confronting the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)--challenges that affect
the level of risk facing the agency and the flying public. Mr.
Willemssen determined that while the FAA has made progress in
managing its Year 2000 problem and has completed critical steps
in defining which systems need to be fixed and how to fix them,
it is doubtful that FAA can adequately do all of this in the
time remaining. Accordingly, they must determine how to ensure
continuity of critical operations in the likely event of some
systems' failures. With regard to computer security, Mr.
Willemssen believes that FAA cannot provide assurances that the
air traffic control systems on which it depends are
sufficiently resistant to intrusion. FAA's weak computer
security practices were detailed in the classified version of a
report made available by GAO in May to key Congressional
Committees and appropriate agency officials. In short, Mr.
Willemssen is concerned that FAA faces significant challenges--
both in addressing the Year 2000 problem and correcting its
computer security weaknesses and that failure to address either
of these issues effectively could prove devastating. FAA needs
to pay careful attention to security issues, especially during
the next 17 months as FAA makes a tremendous number of Year
2000-related changes to its mission-critical systems. If
insufficient attention is paid to computer security during this
time, existing vulnerabilities will be compounded. GAO observed
that strong leadership and rigorous process discipline are
needed if FAA is to successfully and safely navigate into the
next century.
4.5(jj)--Industrial Biotechnology: A Solution for the Future?
September 17, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-69
Background
On September 17, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology
convened a hearing entitled, ``Industrial Biotechnology: A
Solution for the Future?,'' to review on-going private sector
research and development in the field of industrial
biotechnology and the potential benefits associated with this
research, and also to examine how to safeguard the United
States competitive advantage in industrial biotechnology.
The hearing focused on the ongoing research and development
in the industrial biotechnology field and how such research may
yield significant benefits in the fields of health care,
products manufacturing, food production, and environmental
technology. The hearing also provided a forum to discuss the
risks, both real and perceived, associated with biotechnology.
Witnesses included: Robert Dorsch, Ph.D., Director,
Biotechnology Development, DuPont Life Sciences, Wilmington,
DE; Karl Sanford, Ph.D., Vice President, Technology, Genecor
International, Palo Alto, CA; Edward Eisenstein, Ph.D.,
Associate Director, Center for Advanced Research in
Biotechnology, Rockville, MD.
Summary of hearing
Robert Dorsch, Ph.D., Director, Biotechnology Development,
DuPont Life Sciences, testified that during his tenure at
DuPont, he has conducted and led engineering research,
biotechnology scale-up, and new business start-ups. During the
last five years, he has been responsible for biotechnology
strategy development and is currently working on a portfolio of
industrial biotechnology development projects. Dr. Dorsch
believes that the Federal Government is playing a catalytic
role in many areas of technology development. Government
involvement takes many different forms, ranging from practical
work to demonstrate low-cost ethanol fermentations from waste
biomass, to the more intricate work on the thermodynamics of
enzyme systems carried out at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. He further emphasized that continued
support of basic science and engineering in biotechnology
fields is certain to contribute to the long-term sustainable
development of the U.S. and global chemical industry. This
gives the Federal Government a unique opportunity to affect the
quality of life of all citizens. Dr. Dorsch related that
DuPont's reasons for beginning to study the applicability of
biotechnology should apply equally to the Federal Government.
Those reasons included: accelerated growth of knowledge and
number of biotechnology tools suggested that new approaches to
making previously unattainable molecular structures would now
be possible; and a deeper understanding that biological
manufacturing processes could operate under milder conditions,
i.e., lower temperatures, lower pressures, and less corrosive
conditions. These differences lead to both lower investment and
cleaner manufacturing processes. Making these new molecules
with these new types of processes also allows for a new range
of starting materials such as corn, a source of sugar to feed
the fermentation processes, hence offering the opportunity to
switch to a renewable resource base. Dr. Dorsch concluded by
emphasizing that new knowledge has tremendous effects that are
hardly ever apparent at the time the work is done, which is why
the Federal Government plays, and should continue to play, such
an integral role in funding.
Karl Sanford, Ph.D., Vice President, Technology, Genecor
International, testified that while most of the attention on
biotechnology has been focused for many years on the
pharmaceutical industry, industrial biotechnology, a less well
publicized aspect of biotechnology, is beginning to address
significant unmet needs crucial to the sustainable development
of our world. For example, Dr. Sanford, questioned the ability
of U.S. industry to compete in a world where we must all do
more with less. He believes that industrial biotechnology may
provide a powerful new alternatives to the traditional
practices. Dr. Sanford emphasizes that the goal of Genencor
International is to lead the way forward in this new paradigm
of industrial biotechnology research. Dr. Sanford further
believes that this new examination of the role of biotechnology
has often overlooked, but significant, social benefit. For
example, when biotechnology is used for industrial processes,
energy is saved, renewable resources replace fossil fuel, and
pollution is prevented or reduced. He further emphasized that
the technological advancement is progressing at an astonishing
rate. Biotechnology and computer technology, two previously
unpaired technologies, have crossed paths in the area of gene
sequencing. This area needs to be cultivated because there are
great opportunities for industrial biotechnology to improve our
everyday lives.
Edward Eisenstein, Ph.D., Associate Director, Center for
Advanced Research in Biotechnology, addressed the potential of
industrial biotechnology to provide a safe and cost-effective
alternative for the production of many profitable compounds and
fine chemicals from the perspective of a basic research center
(i.e., CARB). Dr. Eisenstein emphasized the importance of
CARB's primary purpose of promoting advanced research and
interdisciplinary training in fundamental problems at the
forefront of biotechnology through the collaboration of
scientists from NIST and industry. This purpose allows CARB to
facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration resulting in more
sound and efficient biotechnology advancement. For example,
their work in both protein and metabolic engineering, through
collaboration with other scientists, has made advancement and
the dissemination of such advancement much easier, thereby,
creating a much more efficient use of research dollars. Dr.
Eisenstein concluded by emphasizing the importance of
protecting the role of basic research in the emerging field of
industrial biotechnology.
4.5(kk)--Year 2000: What Every Consumer Should Know
September 24, 1998
Hearing Volume Number 105-86
Background
On September 24, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held
a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight entitled, ``Year 2000: What Every Consumer Should
Know,'' to determine the impact of the Year 2000 computer
problem on American consumers.
Although the Year 2000 problem is primarily found in
computer software, the problem also exists in some hardware
components where integrated circuits, also called imbedded
chips, store or process data. Some imbedded chips are pre-
programmed by the manufacturer to store or process year data
using only two digits. Embedded chips are used in all computer
hardware, including PC's and mainframes. Embedded chips are
also used in many consumer electronic devices and some control
different types of systems including thermostats, lighting,
sprinklers, medical equipment, telephone services, and other
consumer products.
The hearing discussed concerns consumers had about products
in their homes, and helped to raise awareness of the Year 2000
problem.
Witnesses included: Robert Holleyman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, The Business Software Alliance; Gary
Shapiro, President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers
Association; Gary J. Beach, Publisher, CIO Magazine; Paloma
O'Riley, Co-Founder Cassandra Project; and, Michael Hyatt,
Author, The Millennium Bug.
Summary of hearing
Robert Holleyman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
The Business Software Alliance (BSA), testified that due to
certain technical conventions the two-digit date field was
adopted, shared, passed on, and reused in much of the early
software, firmware, and hardware development, throughout the
world. Mr. Holleyman stated that the Year 2000 issue is a
policy matter, that will only be effectively addressed
collectively. Additionally, Mr. Holleyman testified that PC
home users may face difficulty with some of their software, but
mentioned that users who have recently purchased their systems
may expect to face fewer problems than those with older
systems. Mr. Holleyman noted that consumers must take
responsibility for finding out whether their computer systems
are Y2K ready, and then take proactive measures to ensure that
they transition into the millennium without problems. Mr.
Holleyman testified that the most troublesome effects of the
Y2K issue will arise from embedded systems. Mr. Holleyman and
BSA support Congressional efforts to address the disclosure
liability dilemma.
Gary Shapiro, President, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers
Association (CEMA), testified that most consumer electronics
(CE) products will not suffer any kind of Y2K problems. Mr.
Shapiro stated that the majority of CE systems in use today
have been made to accommodate the date change. Furthermore,
regarding the few non-Y2K compliant CE systems in use today,
most do not use or need a date to function. Mr. Shapiro
testified that the Y2K impact on the small number of older CE
systems will therefore be minimal, and that a simple manual
resetting, or the addition of software upgrades, will easily
provide a remedy in most cases. Mr. Shapiro stated that in the
few cases where manual resetting would not work, he did not
anticipate much impact on consumers. Mr. Shapiro testified that
consumers should be able to find out whether or not they have a
Y2K problem by contacting the manufacturer. Mr. Shapiro
concluded by stating that Congress should move forward
expeditiously with passage of legislation to provide limited
liability protection for companies making Y2K disclosures.
Gary J. Beach, Publisher, CIO Magazine, testified that CIO
Communications commissioned the CIO Year 2000 Consumer Study to
determine consumer awareness and concerns regarding the Year
2000 problem. Mr. Beach stated that a total of 643 individuals
were contacted for the study, and of those 38% were not aware
of the Y2K problem and 62% were. Mr. Beach indicated that most
often respondents became aware of the Y2K problem through TV/
radio (48%), print publications (29%) or work (20%). Mr. Beach
stated that most respondents (80%) to the survey felt fairly
confident that the Y2K problem would be fixed before January 1,
2000. Mr. Beach stated that the report shows that respondents
are concerned about the Y2K problem on the government level,
and 34% expect that the government should be the one to monitor
and report on the progress solving the Y2K problem. Mr. Beach
stated that participants in the survey blame the Year 2000
problem on the technology industry (22%), government (12%), and
private business (5%). Moreover, forty-six percent of the
respondents mentioned that they would look into a lawsuit if
they were injured as a result of a product malfunction at the
turn of the century. Thirty-two percent of the study sample
indicated that they would be likely to close a bank account
before the turn of the century.
Paloma O'Riley, Co-Founder Cassandra Project, testified
that compliance in the face of the level of our dependence on
critical infrastructure is unlikely, and that we must recognize
due to the interconnectedness of our society, that systems are
only as compliant as the weakest link in the network. Ms.
O'Riley stated that it is therefore imperative that contingency
planning begin immediately. Furthermore, she stated that the
public must be given enough notice and information to form
their own contingency plans. Ms. O'Riley concluded by stating
that in addition to providing leadership, government must take
steps to protect the public from the direct, indirect, and
delayed consequences of the Y2K problem.
Michael Hyatt, Author, The Millennium Bug, testified that
some level of disruption is now inevitable, since it is
impossible to get all of our systems repaired before January 1,
2000. Mr. Hyatt stated that the failure of these systems will
affect government agencies, infrastructure providers, and
businesses both large and small. Furthermore, he stated that it
will affect each of us individually, including our associates
at work, our neighbors, and our friends and family. Mr. Hyatt
believes that Y2K is also a consumer issue, because ultimately
it will be the consumers who will feel its impact. Mr. Hyatt
testified that a three-pronged strategy is needed in order to
mitigate the consumer impact of Y2K. The strategy that he
proposed is as follows; (1) awareness needs to be built at
every level; (2) we must continue to press for compliance; (3)
and finally, most importantly, we must begin to make
contingency plans. Mr. Hyatt stated that consumers must make
life continuity plans, especially in regards to the possible
disruption of basic services like food, water, and shelter. Mr.
Hyatt concluded by discussing what Congress could do to help
alleviate the upcoming problems posed by Y2K. First, Congress
can help build awareness, by educating the public about the Y2K
problem. Second, Congress should encourage consumers to make
personal contingency plans. In order to stimulate contingency
planning, he proposed that Congress commission a study on the
feasibility of allowing consumers to deduct from their taxes
preparedness expenses. Finally, Congress should encourage
religious organizations and private charities to prepare for
those who either don't have the means or the foresight to
prepare for themselves.
4.5(ll)--Aviation and the Year 2000
September 29, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-89
Background
On September 29, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held
a joint hearing with the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; and the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, entitled, ``Aviation and the Year 2000.'' The
hearing focused on the progress made by the aviation toward
addressing the Y2K problem, to what extent contingency plans
have been developed, efforts to coordinate with the FAA in its
Y2K implementation plan, and examined the FAA's efforts to
coordinate its efforts with the international community to
ensure a seamless transition to the Year 2000.
Witnesses included: Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Former Chairman, House Investigations and Oversight Committee,
Bruce F. Webster, Chief Technical Officer, Object System Group,
Co-Chair, Washington, DC. Year 2000 Group, David E. Sullivan,
President, ZONAR Corporation, The Honorable Jane F. Garvey,
Federal Aviation Administrator, John Kelly, Jr., Assistant
Administrator for Weather Services, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Carol
B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air
Transport Association of America, Walter S. Coleman, Regional
Airline Association, Richard C. Cullerton, Assistant Vice
President for Engineering, Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, Dwight Greenlee, Director of Administration, Wichita
Airport Authority.
Summary of hearing
Congressman William F. Clinger, Jr., Former Chairman, House
Investigations and Oversight Committee, testified that the FAA
has accelerated its testing and remediation programs, and has
made remarkable progress in moving hundreds of mission-critical
systems toward Y2K compliance. Congressman Clinger stated that
the Host computer will be fully functional on January 1, 2000,
and that the agency will reach their goal of 99% compliance by
September 1999. Additionally, Congressman Clinger stated that
the airline industry's Y2K Program has been successful.
Congressman Clinger concluded by stating that the progress of
the last six months has demonstrated the aviation industry's
continued commitment to safety and dedication to excellence.
Bruce F. Webster, Chief Technical Officer, Object System
Group, Co-Chair, Washington, DC Year 2000 Group testified that
the Y2K problem will not bring civilization to a halt, but it
will not be a mere bump in the road either. Mr. Webster noted
that the following economic sectors were vulnerable according
to the Cutter Consortium assessment: financial services,
utility and power industries, telecommunications,
manufacturing, industrial and consumer services, social
services, food and agribusiness, chemicals and petrochemicals,
and hotels and tourism. Additionally, the Cutter Consortium
indicated that transportation was particularly vulnerable. Mr.
Webster concluded by stating that while the Y2K disruption will
be measured in days or weeks, one needs to remember that it
only took a few weeks of work stoppage at one supplier to cause
General Motors to shut down its entire North American
manufacturing system, lay off 200,000 workers, lose $1 to $2
billion, and all by itself impact the U.S. economy.
Furthermore, with Y2K we may face dozens of analogous
simultaneous scenarios, all interacting and intensifying one
another. Because of this, the Y2K problem must be the most
pressing issue for Congress and the Administration.
David E. Sullivan, President, ZONAR Corporation, testified
that we are now in the midst of an effort to fix the entire
world's inventory of computer programs. This current plan
requires changing hundreds of billions of lines of old,
reliable program code into new, improved, and untested code.
Based on the computer industry statistics, hundreds of millions
of errors will be made, and a large percentage of these errors
will not be repaired before the year 2000 deadline. Mr.
Sullivan stated that even a small number of failures, when they
occur at the same time, may trigger a chain reaction. Mr.
Sullivan stated that the Y2K solution needs to be looked at in
a new way. The new approach that Mr. Sullivan advocated is
based on the idea that we can change the years instead of the
program. While this approach is unconventional and temporary,
Mr. Sullivan insisted that it works. Since computers don't
really know what the date is we will be able to subtract 28
from the real year, and obtain 1972's calendar which is
identical to 2000's. With this new method, Mr. Sullivan stated
that we would be able to postpone the Y2K problem until we are
truly ready for it.
The Honorable Jane F. Garvey, Federal Aviation
Administrator, testified that the FAA will not be compromised
on January 1, 2000. Administrator Garvey stated that the FAA
has closed a significant gap in the Office of Management and
Budget's Federal Y2K compliance schedule, and continues to move
steadily toward its final solution. Furthermore, Ms. Garvey
stated that FAA was scheduled to complete renovations of 99% of
all required systems. With respect to the Host computer, Ms.
Garvey stated that the FAA's vendors have developed a well-
defined strategy for the successful transition to the Host
computer of the 21st century. However, she also mentioned that
as a contingency to the Host replacement, renovations to the
existing Host computer had been completed as of July 31. In
regards to FAA's wider repair efforts, Ms. Garvey stated the
FAA was on schedule to have the majority of its systems
compliant with the DOT's and OMB's deadline of March 31, 1999,
and all FAA systems will be fully compliant by the end of June
1999. Ms. Garvey mentioned that the FAA had made great strides
in its partnerships with the domestic and international
aviation industry, and that this has raised awareness and
allowed people to better work together to solve Y2K problems.
Administrator Garvey concluded by stating that the FAA has
worked extensively in the international arena.
John Kelly, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Weather
Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, testified that the National Weather
Service, in conjunction with other National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration agencies and Department of Commerce
Information Technology groups have been working since 1996 to
ensure that all its systems are Y2K compliant. Mr. Kelly stated
that all NWS computer based systems have been assessed in
accordance with the U.S. Government Y2K compliance standards
and requirements, and that these systems have either been
certified or are in the process of being certified as Y2K
compliant. Mr. Kelly stated that contingency plans will be in
place to ensure that the continued flow of weather data is
available after the millennium switch. Mr. Kelly concluded by
stating that based upon the successful Y2K testing accomplished
to date, the generally non-date centric nature of weather and
satellite date products, the partnerships established for the
exchange of data, and the planning being done to verify the
end-to-end testing of our systems and communications, the NWS
along with NESDIS has a high level of confidence in their
abilities to continue operations during the Y2K date change.
Ms. Carol B. Hallett, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Air Transport Association of America, testified that
she is confident the aviation system will operate safely on
December 31, 1999; on January 1, 2000; and beyond. Furthermore,
as part of the industry's Y2K readiness efforts, Ms. Hallett
stated that contingency plans are being developed for every
conceivable adversity. Ms. Hallett testified that airlines
individually recognized the Y2K problem several years ago, and
mentioned that over 300 airlines worldwide are engaged in a
cooperative effort to determine the Y2K readiness of the
aviation industry. Ms. Hallett concluded that the Y2K challenge
is similar in many ways to the multitude of operational
challenges that the airlines face daily. She believes that the
experience, coupled with the industry information survey and
exchange program, the planning efforts and resources devoted to
this challenge by the individual airlines, and the support of
Congress and the Administration, puts them in a position to
provide safe, efficient and economical air transportation on
January 1, 2000.
Walter S. Coleman, Regional Airline Association, testified
that the Regional Airline Association members, which include
airlines and suppliers, are participating in both individual
and industry initiatives to address the issues associated with
ensuring that the technology dependent software and processors
will function safely and efficiently in the Year 2000. Mr.
Coleman stated that the RAA is also working with the FAA as
necessary to assist in the mutual need for a fully implemented
Y2K program by June 30, 1999. Mr. Coleman moved on to discuss
RAA's Y2K ``Tool Kit'' to help airports in the country served
by RAA member airlines. Mr. Coleman concluded by stating that
the RAA will continue to work with the FAA to ensure a safe,
reliable and efficient air transportation system throughout
1999 and into 2000.
Richard C. Cullerton, Assistant Vice President for
Engineering, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
testified that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
operates both Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and
Washington Dulles International Airport. Together, Mr.
Cullerton reports that these airports move over 30 million
passengers a year. Due to the disruption the Y2K problem poses,
the Authority takes it very seriously in order to ensure the
safety of its future travelers. In order to combat the problem,
the Authority has set up a Task Force to address potential Y2K
impacts. Furthermore, the Authority has implemented a
remediation approach based on the GAO format that encompasses
the following five phases: Awareness, Assessment, Renovation,
Validation, and Implementation. Mr. Cullerton indicated that
the Awareness Phase has been completed and that the Assessment
Phase is underway. Furthermore, the Authority has divided the
Y2K problem into four areas: Personal Computers, software,
embedded systems, and external interfaces. He stated that each
area is being worked on concurrently. To date, the Authority
has developed an inventory of over 500 potential non-compliant
Y2K systems components. Mr. Cullerton concluded by stating that
the Authority feels confident that it can resolve the critical
system issues over the next 16 months, and ensure that both of
its airports operate normally on Saturday, January 1, 2000.
Dwight Greenlee, Director of Administration, Wichita
Airport Authority, testified that given the limited time
remaining, it has become critical at all levels to prioritize
resources to assure that ``mission critical'' systems perform
as required. Mr. Greenlee stated that for this reason the
Wichita Airport Authority joined with others to pool resources
to solve their Y2K problem. However, Mr. Greenlee stated that
legal measures discourage many others from cooperation that
requires commitment of funds, people and the sharing of
information, and indicated that it is necessary to pass
legislation to relieve this dilemma. Mr. Greenlee moved on and
discussed the situation that many smaller regional airports
find themselves in, specifically in regards to the high costs
associated with relieving their Y2K problems. They must either
issue debt financing, apply for Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) funds, include the request in a Passenger Facility Charge
(PFC), or attempt all of the above. However, the application
process for AIP and PFC funds is time consuming, and to be able
to help smaller airports with their Y2K effort a fast track
procedure must be implemented.
4.5(mm)--Status of the District of Columbia's Year 2000 Compliance
Effort
October 2, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-92
Background
On October 2, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia; Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
entitled ``The Status of the District of Columbia's Year 2000
Compliance Effort,'' to review the Year 2000 computer challenge
compliance efforts by the Government of the District of
Columbia.
On June 17, 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
submitted a report to the DC Subcommittee that the District of
Columbia faces serious problems in ensuring that vital services
are not disrupted by the Year 2000 problem. Due to the current
financial constraints facing the District, most current systems
utilized by the DC Government are not 2000 compliant. The DC
Inspector General also found that there is no overall Year 2000
plan.
Witnesses included: Mr. Jack Brock, Director Information
Management Issues, Accounting and Information Management
Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, The Honorable
Constance B. Newman, Vice Chair, District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Authority, Washington, D.C., Dr.
Camille C. Barnett, Chief Management Officer, Government of the
District of Columbia, Washington D.C., Ms. Suzanne Peck, Chief
Technology Officer, Government of the District of Columbia,
Washington, D.C.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Jack Brock, Director, Information Management Issues,
Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General
Accounting Office, testified that until this past June, the
District had only made limited progress in addressing its Y2K
problem. Mr. Brock stated that since June, the pace of the
District's Y2K effort has picked up considerably, and this
should substantially improve its ability to complete the tasks
ahead. However, Mr. Brock stated that since the District was so
far behind in addressing this problem, the risk that critical
processes could fail is greatly increased. Mr. Brock concluded
by stating that the District needs an absolute commitment from
its leadership to make the most of the short time remaining.
Constance Newman, Vice Chair of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
testified that the District started very late in addressing the
Y2K problem. This has necessitated a work schedule that
requires certain steps to be undertaken simultaneously rather
than in the optimum situation where they would be implemented
sequentially. Additionally, Ms. Newman requested that Congress
give the District consideration when it debates the
appropriation of $3.25 billion in aid to government agencies in
achieving Y2K compliance. Ms. Newman concluded by discussing
the opportunities that arise as logical extensions out of the
currently approved management reform technology infrastructure
projects. She stated that the successful completion of these
projects will dramatically increase the District's ability to
improve services to citizens, reduce costs, and expand revenue
opportunities. Dr. Camille Cates Barnett, Chief Management
Officer for the Government of the District of Columbia,
testified that until June the Districts Y2K efforts had been
moving slowly. However, since June the District has moved
quickly to engage the problem. The first milestone was
completed on August 28, 1998 when the District identified 336
mission-critical systems, 84 of which are Y2K compliant. The
others require a mix of testing and remediation. Dr. Barnett
stated that the District is significantly behind, and has much
more work to do before it can confidently call itself Y2K
compliant.
Suzanne Peck, Chief Technology Officer for the Government
of the District of Columbia, testified that the total cost of
the Districts Y2K problem will probably be in the range of $80-
130M. Ms. Peck stated the District's most important task over
the next 15 months is to effectively manage the risk of
disruption to essential city services. Expecting that some of
the city's agencies will still fail after remediation and
testing, Ms. Peck stressed the need for contingency planning.
Additionally, for these contingency plans to be successful, a
substantial commitment of resources must be made by agencies.
Ms. Peck also stressed the need for agencies to develop full
blown disaster recovery plans.
4.5(nn)--Fastener Quality Act: Needed or Outdated?
October 8, 1998
Hearing Volume No. 105-94
Background
On October 8, 1998, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Fastener Quality Act: Needed or Outdated?''
Despite its passage in 1990, FQA has never been
implemented. Questions about the adequacy of laboratories
facilities to test fasteners in a timely manner, the definition
of fasteners covered by the Act, and the need for FQA have
dogged the law and prevented implementation of a final NIST
rule.
Witnesses included: The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Member
of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC; The
Honorable Donald Manzullo, Member of Congress, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC; The Honorable Raymond Kammer,
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Rockville, MD; Richard Klimisch, Ph.D., Vice President-
Engineering Affairs Division, American Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Washington, DC; Mr. Tommy Grant, President, Grant
Fastener, Inc., Houston, TX; Mr. Robert Brunner, Vice President
and General Manager, Shakeproof/ITW, Elgin, IL.
Summary of hearing
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress, U.S.
House of Representatives, addressed a number of issues
important in this examination. Congressman Hastert emphasized
that dramatic changes have occurred over the last decade, since
the law was passed, in the fastener manufacturing process. This
fact is explicitly recognized by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in their Final Rule implementing the
FQA published earlier this year. He also expressed that it is
important to realize that increases in fastener quality and
public safety over the last decade have occurred in the absence
of the implementation of the FQA. Thus it is safe to conclude
that the Act has served its purpose--without ever being
implemented. Furthermore, he believes that the lack of clear
evidence suggesting that fasteners pose a serious risk to
public safety is one of the key problems that have plagued the
FQA since its inception. In other words, anectdotal evidence
alone may have replaced hard science in necessitating this Act.
Congressman Hastert concluded by cautioning Congress to take a
much closer look at the origination of the Act in order to
determine the onerous burden that will be placed on many small
businesses.
The Honorable Donald Manzullo, Member of Congress, U.S.
House of Representatives, welcomed the opportunity to address
the issue of the disposition of the Fastener Quality Act (FQA)
as no issue has as greater an impact on the future of fastener
businesses in his district and across the United States than
this one. Congressman Manzullo feels that any lasting
resolution to modify the FQA must address the concerns raised
by the small manufacturers within the fastener industry. These
problems with the FQA from the perspective of small fastener
firms are numerous: ambiguity about which fasteners the Act
covers; availability and proximity of accredited labs;
confusion about the definition of certification; prohibitive
compliance costs; over-regulation of the industry; loss of
market share to foreign competitors because the FQA exempts
fasteners imported as components of larger parts; and lack of
information about required tests of a specialized product are
all major concerns of fastener manufacturers in his district.
He cautioned that resolution of these matters needs to be an
important part of any final modification of the FQA. Otherwise
small fastener manufacturers across the U.S. will have serious
problems. Congressman Manzullo concluded by emphasizing that he
believes all interested parties can and should work together to
arrive at an agreeable solution.
The Honorable Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute
of Standards and Technology, addressed the specific concerns
that Congress and industry appear to have regarding the
ultimate resolution of the FQA. He detailed the three steps
that NIST and the Department of Commerce are taking to deal
effectively with this: First, the Department published a
Federal Register notice on October 7, 1998, requesting
information from the public about important issues related to
the study including changes in fastener manufacturing
technology over the past eight years and information on other
regulatory programs. Second, the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) has agreed to conduct a three-day workshop in
mid-November to document how fastener manufacturing technology
has changed since 1990. ASME is the premier technical and
educational society in mechanical engineering and have recent,
and direct, experience in conducting such studies. Their goal
is to quantify not only the sophistication of the technology
now being used, but also to learn the extent to which it is
used across the industry. Third, staff from NIST not previously
involved in fastener activities will document other fastener
regulatory programs. In conclusion, Director Kammer emphasized
that the Department of Commerce is working vigorously to
actively solicit--and consider seriously--all suggestions for
changes to the Act. In the interim they are also moving forward
to the implementation of the Act as required by law.
Richard Klimisch, Ph.D., Vice President--Engineering
Affairs Division, American Automobile Manufacturers
Association, emphasized that since the domestic automotive
industry is the single largest consumer of industrial fasteners
in the U.S. economy the AAMA takes very seriously the
performance of fasteners. AAMA believes the entire universe of
industrial fastener users would agree that the Fastener Quality
Act, in its present form, is unworkable and will cause great
disruption to the U.S. economy without providing any
significant public safety benefit. That the law was passed
eight years ago and yet still has not been implemented calls
into question the necessity of such an onerous burden being
placed on so many manufacturers. AAMA and its member companies
recommend very strongly that the current law as written be
replaced and that Congress and the Secretary of Commerce, as
directed by PL 105-234, approach the matter of whether and how
industrial fasteners should be regulated with a ``clean sheet
of paper.''
Mr. Tommy Grant, President, Grant Fastener, Inc., believes
that just as there was a need for a fastener quality law then,
there is a need now. He emphasized that the FQA is a badly
needed public safety legislation. Mr. Grant concedes that
perhaps forty years ago the U.S. did not need such an umpire,
but now our entire society lacks honesty and ethics, thereby,
necessitating the FQA. Mr. Grant believes that FQA is a simple,
and inexpensive law that ensures that what is being supplied
matches what is ordered. He believes that if a manufacturer is
capable of doing his job, then he shouldn't be objecting to the
act. He also cautioned against changing the legislation due to
concerns that it will adversely impact small business. The law
as written, and attested to him by a number of small fastener
manufacturers, will have a minuscule impact on small
manufacturers.
Mr. Robert Brunner, Vice President and General Manager,
Shakeproof/ITW, testified on behalf of the Industrial Fasteners
Institute (IFI); a trade association representing the fastener
manufacturing industry in North America, including Canada,
Mexico, and the United States, and its suppliers of raw
materials, machinery, tooling, installation equipment and
engineering services from around the world. He emphasized that
IFI strongly supported Congressional action in the form of PL
105-234, delaying implementation of the Fastener Quality Act
(PL 101-592, as amended) so as to examine fully whether the Act
is still needed. Mr. Brunner contends that since there have
been significant changes in fastener manufacturing and
purchasing practices since the FQA was first passed in 1990, an
examination of the continued necessity of the law is in order.
The goal of the IFI is zero defects in parts, including
fasteners. In fact many are already required to institute
Quality Assurance Systems(QAS) with stated goals achieving zero
defects. IFI also contends that the study Congress directed the
Department of Commerce to perform and submit to Congress in
February 1999 to identify changes that have occurred in the
fastener industry is overdue and will demonstrate that the
present FQA is both unworkable and unnecessary in today's
private sector fastener environment. Additionally, IFI stands
ready to assist the Commerce Department in assessing the
changes that have occurred in the industry, and hopes that the
Department will work closely with industry in conducting the
study and in drafting its Report and recommendations to
Congress. Mr. Brunner recommended that Congress schedule
additional hearings on the FQA once it receives the Commerce
Secretary's report and recommendations so that Congress can
have the opportunity to explore options for amending the Act
with industry and other impacted interests, both domestic and
foreign, including distributors, federal agencies that procure
fasteners, and federal agencies that already have prosecutorial
jurisdiction before taking action.