[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FUNDING FOR THE AMERICA COMPETES ACT
IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2009
ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-599 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
February 14, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Laura Richardson, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Witness:
Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP); Co-Chair, President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 30
Discussion....................................................... 30
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP); Co-Chair, President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)..................... 48
FUNDING FOR THE AMERICA COMPETES ACT IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2009
ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Funding for the America COMPETES Act
in the Fiscal Year 2009
Administration Budget Request
thursday, february 14, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, February 14, 2008, the Committee on Science and
Technology will hold a hearing to consider how the Administration's FY
2009 budget proposal addresses programs authorized in the America
COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
Subcommittees will hold additional hearings regarding specific agency
budgets, including for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Department of Energy
(DOE).
2. Witness
Dr. John H. Marburger, III is Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). The mission of the office is to serve as a
source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the
President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the
Federal Government. Dr. Marburger also co-chairs the President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and supports
the President's National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
3. Overview
H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act (COMPETES) passed the House of
Representatives (367-57) and the Senate (by Unanimous Consent) on
August 2, 2007 and was signed into law by the President on August 9,
2007.
A response to the 2005 National Academies' report Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, COMPETES seeks to ensure U.S. students, teachers,
businesses, and workers are prepared to continue leading the world in
innovation, research, and technology. The law implements
recommendations from the Gathering Storm report, and specifically:
Authorizes $33.6 billion over fiscal years 2008-2010
for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
research and education programs across the Federal Government;
Keeps research programs at NSF, NIST and the DOE
Office of Science on a near-term doubling path;
Helps to prepare new teachers and provide current
teachers with content and teaching skills in their area of
education through NSF's Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and
Math and Science Partnerships Program;
Expands programs at NSF to enhance the undergraduate
education of the future science and engineering workforce,
including at two-year colleges;
Expands early career graduate-level grant programs
and provides additional support for outstanding young
investigators at NSF and DOE;
Creates the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) at
NIST (replacing the existing Advanced Technology Program or
ATP) to fund high-risk, high-reward, pre-competitive technology
development with high potential for public benefit;
Puts the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP),
which provides cost-shared technical assistance to small
manufacturers to modernize their operations, on a path to
doubling over 10 years;
Establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for
Energy (ARPA-E), a nimble and semiautonomous research agency at
the Department of Energy to engage in high-risk, high reward
energy research;
Includes provisions throughout the bill to help
broaden participation by women and minorities in science and
engineering fields at all levels; and
Strengthens interagency planning and coordination for
research infrastructure and information technology (i.e., high-
speed computing).
The President released his FY 2009 budget proposal on February 4,
2008. The budget proposes funding increases for physical sciences
research programs as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI), many of which are consistent with increases authorized in
COMPETES. However, the Administration's budget ignores or neglects
several other areas of COMPETES, including math and science education
activities at NSF, manufacturing and technology stimulus programs at
NIST, and important energy programs including ARPA-E.
4. Funding for the America COMPETES Act, by Agency
National Science Foundation (NSF)
The COMPETES Act put NSF on a seven-year doubling path, authorizing
$7.326 billion in FY 2009. The Administration's FY 2009 request for the
National Science Foundation is $6.854 billion, $822 million (13.6
percent) above the FY 2008 level of $6.032 billion.\1\ While the FY
2008 omnibus gave only a 2.5 percent increase to NSF over FY07, the
Administration's FY 2009 request reflects a determination to keep NSF
on a 10-year doubling path proposed under the FY07 American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The expected FY 2008 funding level is $33 million below the
appropriated level due to a rescission required by the Appropriators in
the FY 2008 omnibus bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Related Activities
The request for the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account
is $5.594 billion, $773 million (16 percent) over the FY 2008 estimate
of $4.821 billion and $150 million less than authorized in COMPETES. In
keeping with the Administration's emphasis on the mathematical and
physical sciences, engineering and computer sciences under the ACI,
those directorates, in addition to cyberinfrastructure, each see an
approximately 20 percent increase over FY 2008, while the biological
sciences (+10.3 percent) and social, behavioral and economic sciences
(+8.5 percent) see more modest increases. Although the COMPETES Act
does not assume that all fields will receive equal increases each year,
the law does specifically call on NSF not to disinvest in the
biological and social sciences over the long-term.
K-16 STEM Education Programs
The COMPETES Act authorized $995 million for the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (EHR) in FY 2009. The Administration's FY
2009 request for EHR is $790.41 million, an increase of $64.81 million
(8.9 percent) over FY 2008, but still $205 million short of the
authorized level. Most of the increases authorized in COMPETES were
directed to two K-12 programs: the Math and Science Partnerships
Program (MSP), which supports teacher professional development, and the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, which educates K-12 STEM
teachers, focusing on both pedagogy and content areas. In the FY 2009
request, MSP receives a $2.5 million increase to $51 million ($60
million below the authorized level) and Noyce receives $11.6 million
($3.5 million below the FY 2008 appropriated level and $103 million
below the FY 2009 authorized level). (Note: The FY 2009 budget request
indicates that NSF plans to provide only $10.8 million for Noyce in FY
2008, despite the omnibus appropriation report's specification of $15
million.) Two undergraduate programs, the STEM Talent Expansion Program
and the Advanced Technological Education program, are flat-funded in FY
2009 despite being authorized for 10 percent increases in COMPETES. The
Administration's rationale for flat-funding all of these education
programs and not funding Noyce at the level of the appropriations
directive is that they have not yet undergone the evaluation required
under the new Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) process. (Note:
With regard to the Noyce program, the ACC is evaluating the program as
it was implemented in previous years, not the significantly revised
Noyce program authorized in COMPETES).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
COMPETES put NIST on a ten-year path to doubling, authorizing
$881.8 million in FY 2009 for research, lab construction, and the
external industrial technology programs. The President's FY 2009 budget
requests $638 million for NIST, 16 percent below the FY 2008 estimated
budget. While the request comes close to the authorized level for NIST
internal research programs, it eliminates or severely reduces funding
for the external industrial technology programs. This reflects a
continued Administration opposition to the industrial technology
programs.
NIST Labs and Lab construction
The NIST internal research laboratories perform research in support
of measurement science and technology and technical standards
development. COMPETES put the internal research laboratory account on a
ten-year path to doubling, authorizing $541.9 million in FY 2009. The
budget proposal nearly matches this level (falling short by $6.9
million or 1.3 percent), in keeping with the Administration's emphasis
under ACI on supporting basic research in the physical sciences. The
budget proposes $99 million in funds for laboratory construction. In
addition to COMPETES-authorized funds for basic maintenance and
completing construction of high-performance laboratory space at the
NIST campus in Boulder, CO, the budget proposes new funding for an
expansion of office and laboratory space at JILA, a joint research
institute operated by NIST and the University of Colorado.
Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
The Technology Innovation Program (TIP) was created in COMPETES to
replace the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). TIP awards cost-shared
grants to small companies and joint ventures for the development of
high-risk, high-reward technologies that meet critical national needs,
and was based in part on Administration proposals for reforming ATP.
Under the provisions in COMPETES, TIP will continue to fund grants that
were originally awarded by ATP in 2007, and will make its first round
of new awards in 2008.
The Administration's budget proposes zero funding for TIP. The
Administration justifies the elimination of the program by arguing that
TIP would support activities that private industry has the means to
support. The Administration has not provided documentation to support
this assertion.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
The MEP program is a public/private partnership in all 50 states
and Puerto Rico that provides technical assistance for small
manufacturers to modernize their operations and adapt to foreign
competition. MEP Centers are supported by equal contributions from
federal funds, State funds, and client fees. In FY 2006, MEP clients
reported increased or retained sales of $6.76 billion, cost savings of
over $1.1 billion, new client investment of over $1.6 billion, and more
than 51,000 jobs created or retained.
The COMPETES Act put the MEP program on ten-year path to doubling,
authorizing $122 million in FY 2009. The budget proposes only $4
million for MEP, to be used to close out the program. The
Administration states that the MEP centers will change to a self-
supporting basis, as the Administration asserts was intended in the
original authorization. However, the Technology Administration Act of
1998 (P.L. 105-309) extended the lifetime of MEP Centers indefinitely,
so long as they receive a positive evaluation through an independent
review. It is unclear that the Centers can operate on a self-sustaining
basis, and the Administration has not provided any documents to
indicate that this would be possible.
Department of Energy
The FY 2009 Administration request for the entire Department of
Energy is $25 billion. Of that, approximately $8.6 billion is dedicated
to non-defense activities in Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy and Electricity. The remaining
$16.4 billion is divided between the nuclear weapons mission,
environmental cleanup and management of radioactive waste.
Office of Science
The FY 2009 budget request for the DOE Office of Science is $4.7
billion. This represents an increase of $704 million, or 18 percent
over the FY 2008 enacted level of funding, and $478 million or nine
percent below funding authorized in COMPETES. (Note: COMPETES includes
only a top-line authorization level for the DOE Office of Science; it
is silent on funding for specific research program areas.)
The request for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.6 billion, an
increase of $298 million or 23 percent over enacted FY 2008 funding. As
the largest program within the Office of Science, BES conducts research
primarily in the cross-cutting areas of materials and chemical
sciences, and, based on a series of recent workshops, plans to focus
more on specific research areas for energy applications.
The budget would provide $369 million for Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (ASCR), an increase of $18 million or five percent
over enacted FY 2008 funding. This includes funds to continue upgrading
the Leadership Class Facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
Argonne National Laboratory.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) would receive $569
million under the President's budget, which is $24 million over current
year funding. In addition to the role of BER in areas such as genomics,
climate change research, medical applications, and environmental
remediation, the FY 2009 request supports continued funding for three
bioenergy centers established in 2007.
The FY 2009 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $805
million, which is $117 million or 17 percent more than the enacted FY
2008 level. This program conducts fundamental research in elementary
particle physics and accelerator science and technology. Funding for
the NOvA neutrino physics experiment and research in preparation for
the International Linear Collider at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory and Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory are restored in
this request.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) receives $493 million, an increase of
$207 million or 72 percent over enacted FY 2008 funding. Of this
amount, $214 million is dedicated to restoring funding for the U.S.
role in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
Finally, Nuclear Physics (NP) would receive $510 million, an increase
of $77 million (18 percent) over FY 2008 funding.
Math and Science Education Programs within DOE
The DOE Office of Science's Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS) program funds a number of math and science education
programs. The FY 2009 funding request for WDTS is $13.6 million, an
increase of $5.6 million or 70 percent over enacted FY 2008 funding.
This includes funding for the National Science Bowl, a math and science
knowledge competition among high school teams across the country; the
Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) program, which
supports students working at DOE National Laboratories in individually
mentored research experiences; and the DOE Academies Creating Teacher
Scientists (DOE ACTS) program, which assists educators in improving
their content knowledge in areas of high importance to DOE missions and
in becoming contributing researchers in the scientific community.
Recognizing the importance of K-12, undergraduate, and graduate
STEM education to the Nation's competitiveness and particularly
workforce needs in the energy industry, COMPETES directs the DOE Office
of Science, through a Director of Mathematics, Science and Engineering
Education, to expand and raise the profile of STEM education activities
at the Department of Energy. COMPETES directs the Department to
establish a separate fund using .3 percent of all DOE R&D funds for
education activities, and provide an accounting of this funding in the
Administration's budget request. The budget request does provide a
funding summary for education activities at the Department. However,
the budget request does not clearly indicate whether a separate fund
has been established or whether a Director has been named.
In addition, COMPETES authorizes several STEM education programs
that are not explicitly funded in the President's budget. These include
a pilot program of grants to specialty schools for science and
mathematics, education programs for middle and high school students and
professional development programs for teachers at National
Laboratories, and programs to expand research and education at
universities for nuclear and hydrocarbon (oil and gas) science.
ARPA-E
The COMPETES Act authorized the establishment of an Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. ARPA-E was created to
fund collaborative research and development to overcome long-term or
high-risk technological barriers in energy technologies that industry
by itself will not undertake because of technical and financial
uncertainty. The COMPETES Act authorized $300 million for the initial
year of ARPA-E's programs. Other legislative proposals establishing
ARPA-E called for subsequent year's funding as high as $1 billion to
$1.5 billion. The Administration's FY 2009 budget proposal contains no
requested funds for ARPA-E. COMPETES also calls for the appointment of
a Director for ARPA-E, and the legislative report further specifies
that an Acting Director should be appointed to serve until a Director
is confirmed by the Senate. The President has not yet appointed an
Acting Director.
ARPA-E is intended to be unique not only in the type of research it
conducts, but also in how it conducts that research. ARPA-E is intended
to be a nimble and semiautonomous agency within the Department of
Energy, similar to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the
Department of Defense (DARPA). Like DARPA, the Director of ARPA-E
should establish and monitor project milestones, initiate research
projects quickly, and just as quickly terminate or restructure projects
if such milestones are not achieved. Projects are intended to be
conducted through teams that utilize the talent, resources, and
facilities found in the Nation's universities, National Laboratories
and in the private sector. The Director is also given special hiring
authority to quickly recruit technical staff as program managers on a
short-term basis, and offer competitive salaries rivaling those of
industry. The Administration has not moved towards establishing ARPA-E,
nor do any current or proposed programs at the Department resemble the
organizational structure or operating principles of ARPA-E as outlined
in the COMPETES Act.
Chairman Gordon. This hearing will now come to order. Thank
you all for your patience. Dr. Marburger, last year we had
snow. This year we had a memorial service, and I suspect we
will have some act up as we go through, so we want to be
courteous to your time and try to move forward; and I am sure
Mr. Hall will be here soon and add his presence to this good
hearing.
Now, last August Congress passed and the President signed
into law the America COMPETES Act, a response to the 2005
National Academy Report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,''
and supported by a wide-range of U.S. industries, universities,
and science organizations. COMPETES seeks to ensure U.S.
students, teachers, businesses, and workers will continue
leading the world in science innovation, research, and
technology. And as we know, the global marketplace continues to
become more competitive. The fact of the matter is, our country
cannot and should not compete with the rest of the world on
wages when half the workers in the world make less than $2 a
day. Our country needs to compete at a higher level and with
better skills and higher productivity. This was the goal of the
America COMPETES Act.
The law presents a balanced set of policies to improve our
country's short-term and long-term competitiveness. COMPETES
invests in long-term science and research but also short-term
technology development and innovation. And just as importantly,
COMPETES ensures that not only our nation will produce the
world's leading scientists and engineers but also that all
students will have a strong grounding in math and science and
are prepared for technical jobs in every sector of the economy.
And although the Administration's budget is supportive on
basic research, it is weak on several other components critical
to our nation's competitiveness. Unfortunately, our students
are far from measuring up compared to other industrialized
countries. According to the latest OECD Program for
International Students, students in America ranked 25th out of
30 developed countries in math. In science, the news is just as
bad. U.S. students ranked 21st in science, down from 19th in
2003 and 14th in 2000. In fact, 25 percent of U.S. students
failed to reach even a basic level where they could identify
scientific concepts or apply data for a personal decision.
Knowing this, I am deeply disappointed that, yet again, the
President's budget does make K-12 education programs at NSF a
priority.
The top recommendation of the National Academies was to
ensure K-12 STEM teachers across the country have strong
content knowledge and effective teaching skills. The National
Academies' report cited the UTeach program which was developed
10 years ago at the University of Texas, as an example of what
is working for STEM teacher education. Based on its success,
UTeach has been used as a model for the State of California in
an effort to reform STEM teacher education. Likewise, the
private sector has pledged significant funding to expand this
teacher education model nationwide.
This committee led the way in COMPETES, making this top
priority and revamping the NSF's Robert Noyce scholarship. But
under the Administration's budget, the Noyce program would
receive only 10 percent of the funding needed to mobilize this
new program.
COMPETES also seeks to ensure that U.S. companies and small
businesses lead the world in innovation, creating jobs in the
process. Our country has lost 3.4 million manufacturing jobs
since 2000, and 217,000 jobs lost in 2007 alone; and
manufacturing employment in the U.S. now stands at its lowest
point since 1950.
COMPETES seeks to reverse this trend with robust funding
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Technology
Innovation Program, both of which have a proven track record
for return on investment and job creation. However, the
Administration's budget phases out MEP and eliminates TIP
immediately. These programs help create good American jobs that
this budget would put in jeopardy.
And finally, COMPETES seeks to reduce our dependency on
foreign energy and address global climate change through
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E.
Modeled after the Defense Department's successful DARPA
program, ARPA-E is charged with rapidly developing and
commercializing transformational clean energy technologies
through collaborative research with universities, our national
labs, and the private sector.
Nothing like this research model currently exists within
the Department of Energy. A successful ARPA-E will stand on its
own within the Department and have the authority and resources
to quickly assemble teams to ramp up on research projects that
neither industry nor the Department will do on its own. A
successful ARPA-E might just cause us to rethink how we do
energy research in the United States, and I hope the
Administration will reconsider its lack of support for this
program.
And finally, Dr. Marburger, I appreciate the report on a
variety of R&D programs included in your written testimony, but
I also hope that you will address the important COMPETES
programs authorized by Congress and signed by the President
within your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Last August, Congress passed and the President signed into law the
America COMPETES Act. A response to the 2005 National Academies' report
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and supported by a wide range of U.S.
industries, universities, and science organizations, COMPETES seeks to
ensure U.S. students, teachers, businesses, and workers will continue
leading the world in science, innovation, research, and technology.
As we all know, the global marketplace continues to become more
competitive. The fact of the matter is, our country cannot and should
not compete with the rest of the world on wages when half of the
world's workers earn less than $2 a day. Our country needs to compete
at a higher level--with better skills and higher productivity.
This was the goal of the America COMPETES Act.
The law presents a balanced set of policies to improve our
country's short-term and long-term competitiveness. COMPETES invests in
long-term science and research, but also short-term technology
development and innovation.
Just as importantly, COMPETES ensures not only that our nation will
produce the world's leading scientists and engineers, but also that all
students will have a strong grounding in math and science and are
prepared for technical jobs in every sector of the economy.
Unfortunately, although the Administration's budget is supportive
on basic research, it is weak on several other components critical to
our country's competitiveness.
Dr. Marburger, I see in your testimony that you quoted from the
President's State of the Union Address. Well I would like to quote the
President's speech as well. The President said that: ``Last year,
fourth and eighth graders achieved the highest math scores on record.''
I suppose that's the good news. Unfortunately, the bad news is that
our students are far from measuring up compared to other industrialized
countries. According to the latest OECD Program for International
Students Assessment, or PISA, students in the U.S. ranked 25th out of
30 developed countries in math.
In science, the news is just as bad--U.S. students ranked 21st in
science--down from 19th in 2003 and 14th in 2000. In fact, 25 percent
of U.S. students failed to reach even a basic level where they could
identify scientific concepts or apply data to a personal decision.
Knowing this, I am deeply disappointed that, yet again, the
President's budget does not make K-12 education programs at NSF a
priority.
The top recommendation of the National Academies was to ensure K-12
STEM teachers across the country have strong content knowledge and
effective teaching skills. The National Academies' report cited the
UTeach program, which was developed 10 years ago at the University of
Texas, as an example of what is working for STEM teacher education.
Based on its success, UTeach has been used as a model by the State
of California in an effort to reform STEM teacher education. Likewise,
the private sector has pledged significant funding to expand this
teacher education model nationwide.
This committee led the way in COMPETES, taking this top
recommendation and revamping NSF's Robert Noyce scholarship. But under
the Administration's budget, the Noyce program would receive only 10
percent of the funding needed to mobilize the new program.
COMPETES also seeks to ensure that U.S. companies and small
businesses lead the world in innovation, creating jobs in the process.
Our country has lost 3.4 million manufacturing jobs under this
Administration's watch, with 217,000 jobs lost in 2007 alone, and
manufacturing employment in the U.S. now stands at its lowest point
since 1950.
COMPETES seeks to reverse this trend with robust funding for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Technology Innovation Program--
both of which have proven track records for return on investment and
job creation.
However, the Administration's budget phases out MEP and eliminates
TIP immediately. These programs help create good American jobs that
this budget would put in jeopardy.
Finally, COMPETES seeks to reduce our dependence on foreign energy
and address global climate change through an Advanced Research Projects
Agency for Energy--ARPA-E. Modeled after the Defense Department's
successful DARPA program, ARPA-E is charged with rapidly developing and
commercializing transformational clean energy technologies through
collaborative research with the university and private sector.
Nothing like this research model currently exists within the
Department of Energy. A successful ARPA-E will stand on its own within
the Department, and have the authority and resources to quickly
assemble teams to crash on research projects that neither industry nor
the Department will do on their own. A successful ARPA-E just might
cause us to rethink how we do energy research in the U.S., and the
Administration should reconsider its lack of support for the program.
The President is right that basic R&D funding included in his
American Competitiveness Initiative is important to our economy and our
future. But I believe the Administration is wrong that we don't also
need to be committed to a globally competitive workforce, investments
in small manufacturers that create jobs, and a new approach to cutting
edge energy research.
Last year, the President threatened to veto appropriations bills
that would have come much closer to fully funding COMPETES, as well as
his ACI. The Administration should listen to the businesses and
educators and scientists and engineers in this country and support full
funding of COMPETES this year.
I look forward to hearing your testimony on these issues.
Chairman Gordon. And now the Chair recognizes just on cue
Mr. Hall for his opening statement.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are always on time
and proper and kind to senior citizens, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and good morning, Dr. Marburger. It is good to have
you before us.
I am sure that we can all agree that striking that delicate
balance between adequately funding and giving proper funding to
the Nation's priorities while at the same time exhibiting
fiscal restraint to reduce the deficit continues to be quite a
challenge. That is going in both directions at the same time.
Likewise, I know we also are all in agreement that if we are to
remain the world leader in competitiveness and innovation, we
have to make the appropriate investments in research,
appropriate investments in development, technology, and math
and science education.
I am pleased to see the fiscal year 2009 budget request
gets us back on path to double the funding for physical
sciences and engineering at the National Science Foundation,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Office
of Science at the Department of Energy. Building on the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative and Republican-
led efforts in the last Congress, we stepped up to the plate
and enacted the America COMPETES Act last year, authorizing
increased levels of funding for these agencies. So I am sure
you share in my surprise and my disappointment when I realized
that our friends over on the Appropriations Committee did not
see fit to adequately fund these agencies for this fiscal year.
The funding they provided was not only 12 percent below the
level that we authorized in COMPETES, it was six percent below
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request levels. This is
absolutely and just simply unacceptable. The returns that we
receive from our investments in these agencies far exceeds the
cost. As I have stated before, whether it is fighting the war
on terror abroad or at home, ending our dependence on foreign
oil or inspiring our children to enter high-tech fields so that
the United States can continue to push the frontiers of
innovation, these agencies have critical roles to play. The
budget before us today keeps us moving forward in this regard.
Dr. Marburger, I am pleased to see boosts in funding for
several science programs such as the Advanced Energy Initiative
at DOE which works with solar, biomass, and hydrogen to move us
toward a more secure energy future. But I do have a couple of
areas of concern with this budget. There seems to be a number
of places where the President has repeatedly cut other
important science and technology programs. The Manufacturing
Extension Program at NIST, for example, is significantly cut or
canceled each year. And each year Congress fully funds the
program. This year again, MEP is zeroed out in the budget.
As for NASA, while the agency has had modest budget
increases, they have been insufficient to meet the goals laid
out in the President's Vision for Space Exploration announced
at the beginning of 2004. This has resulted in less ambitious
development schedules for the Shuttle's replacement, and this
year's budget request does not keep up with inflation. In two
years' time, we will find ourselves in a situation in which the
United States will be entirely reliant on other nations for
access to our multi-billion dollar Space Station. I am
concerned that America's preeminence in space may be
jeopardized if we do not narrow the gap between retiring the
Space Shuttle and developing the Orion and the Ares launch
vehicles.
Before yielding back to the Chairman, let me just say a
word about STEM education in this year's request. I recognize
and support the President's efforts to improve our STEM
education, and all of their needs, through the Department of
Education. There should be more focus there; however, I have
great concern that this budget does not likewise reflect the
STEM education responsibilities at the National Science
Foundation, particularly an expanded Robert Noyce Scholarship
program.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing, and I
certainly thank the presence of the gentleman today who gives
us his time not only on his way here, preparing to be here, and
the history of success that he brings to this committee, and I
look forward to hearing your testimony. Mr. Chairman, once
again, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Dr. Marburger. It's good to
have you before us this morning.
I am sure that we can all agree that striking that delicate balance
between adequately funding our nation's priorities while at the same
time exhibiting fiscal restraint to reduce the deficit continues to be
a challenge. Likewise, I know we also are all in agreement that if we
are to remain the world leader in competitiveness and innovation, we
must make the appropriate investments in research, development,
technology, and math and science education.
I am pleased to see that the FY 2009 Budget Request gets us back on
a path to double the funding for physical sciences and engineering at
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Office of Science at the
Department of Energy (DOE). Building on the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and Republican led efforts in the last
Congress, we stepped up to the plate and enacted the America COMPETES
Act last year, authorizing increased levels of funding for these
agencies. So, I am sure you shared my surprise and disappointment when
I realized that our friends over on the Appropriations Committee did
not see fit to adequately fund these agencies for this fiscal year. The
funding they provided was not only 12 percent below the level that we
authorized in COMPETES, it was six percent below the President's FY
2008 Budget Request levels. This is simply unacceptable. The returns
that we receive from our investments in these agencies far exceed the
costs. As I have stated before, whether it is fighting the war on
terror abroad or at home, ending our dependence on foreign oil, or
inspiring our children to enter high-tech fields so that the United
States can continue to push the frontiers of innovation, these agencies
have critical roles to play. The budget before us today keeps us moving
forward in this regard.
Dr. Marburger, I am pleased to see boosts in funding for several
science programs such as the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) at DOE,
which works with solar, biomass and hydrogen to move us towards a more
secure energy future. But, I do have a couple of areas of concern with
this budget. There seem to be a number of places where the President
has repeatedly cut other important science and technology programs, in
effect robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Manufacturing Extension Program
(MEP) at NIST, for example, is significantly cut or canceled each year.
And each year, Congress fully funds the program. This year again, MEP
is zeroed out in the budget.
As for NASA, while the agency has had modest budget increases, they
have been insufficient to meet the goals laid out in the President's
Vision for Space Exploration announced at the beginning of 2004. This
has resulted in less ambitious development schedules for the Shuttle's
replacement, and this year's budget request does not keep up with
inflation. In two years time, we will find ourselves in a situation in
which the United States will be entirely reliant on other nations for
access to our multi-billion dollar Space Station. I am concerned that
America's preeminence in space may be jeopardized if we do not narrow
the gap between retiring the Space Shuttle and developing the Orion and
Ares launch vehicles.
Before yielding back to the Chairman, let me say a word about STEM
education in this year's request. I recognize and support the
President's efforts to improve our STEM education needs through the
Department of Education. There should be more focus there; however, I
have great concern that this budget does not likewise reflect the STEM
education responsibilities at the National Science Foundation,
particularly an expanded Robert Noyce Scholarship program.
Thank you for coming up here today. I look forward to your
testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. If there are other
Members who wish to submit written opening statements, we will
submit it for the record at this time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Laura Richardson
Thank you Chairman Gordon for holding this important hearing today.
I would also like to thank Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy for attending today's hearing.
In my written remarks for yesterday's hearing on NASA's FY '09
budget I mentioned how the ``America COMPETES Act'' will help us
maintain our nation's role as leaders in the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics fields. The bipartisan manner in which
``America COMPETES'' passed both the House and Senate reflects the
urgent need to preserve and expand the innovative spirit that makes
America great.
I want to thank Chairman Gordon, and Ranking Member Hall for their
leadership and hard-work in getting that bill passed. The $33.6 billion
authorized in ``America COMPETES'' is just the beginning of Congress's
steadfast commitment to implementing the recommendations made in the
``Gathering Storm'' report.
However, implementing the recommendations is just the first step.
Fully funding those recommendations is essential to the future
performance of American students in the STEM fields. Unfortunately
American students rank 25th and 21st out of 30 countries in math and
science respectively.
Therefore given the current funding recommendations, I am concerned
with our ability to fulfill the goals of the COMPETES Act.
Naturally that commitment begins in the classrooms of our
elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Providing the
necessary professional development to our teachers so they are not only
competent but energized about their field of practice will benefit
American students who will hopefully share in that teacher's enthusiasm
for physics, biology, chemistry, or any other STEM field.
In addition to the educational aspects of ``America COMPETES,'' the
opportunity that this legislation provides for energy independence is
crucial to our national security. I am confident that the ``Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy'' will in due time accomplish the
goals that they were tasked to achieve.
The policy behind ``America COMPETES'' is sound policy. Innovation
and ingenuity made this country great, therefore any role that I can
play to ensure that American students, scientist and engineers continue
to compete at the highest level is a role and a responsibility that I
wholeheartedly embrace.
Mr. Chairman I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To maintain America's competitiveness in science and technology, we
must do more than merely keep up. We must lead, and commit ourselves to
providing the resources necessary to keep us at the forefront of this
kind of cutting edge research and development.
I'm very proud of the America COMPETES Act, this committee's
bipartisan legislation that got signed into law last August. This law
ensures that our students, teachers, businesses, and workers are
prepared to lead in science and technology.
However, the America COMPETES Act can only be successful if it's
funded adequately.
While I appreciate that the President has expressed his support for
America COMPETES and mentioned it as a priority in the State of the
Union, I am concerned that the Administration's budget request does
provide sufficient funding for all of the programs in America COMPETES.
I find the insufficient funding for math and science education
particularly alarming. As a former teacher, I know first-hand how
important it is to expose our children to STEM education. The future of
American competitiveness in science and technology is heavily dependent
on ensuring the involvement of future generations.
I look forward to hearing from our witness.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
I am pleased that Dr. Marburger is with us today to discuss how the
Administration's FY09 budget proposal impacts the programs authorized
by the 2007 COMPETES Act. Framing this hearing in the context of the
COMPETES Act is appropriate, given the strong bipartisan support for
the bill, and the fact that the bill is an authorizing measure and we
are an authorizing committee.
There are many programs authorized in COMPETES on which the
Congress and the Administration do not necessarily see eye-to-eye. One
of these areas includes the Technology Innovation Program (formerly
ATP) and Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). I am
disappointed that the FY09 request for these programs is substantively
zero despite the COMPETES authorization, historically strong support
from the Congress, and demonstrated results from these programs. I
mention this today, although I know we will hold a separate hearing on
the NIST budget, because I believe that the opposition to these
programs originates with OSTP and not internal to NIST.
Nonetheless, I am overall very pleased to see that the President
has been unwavering in his commitment to fulfilling the American
Competitiveness Initiative. He has consistently affirmed the pathway he
provided in 2006 for bolstering the funding for basic research at the
National Science Foundation, NIST and the Department of Energy in his
last three budgets. I am hopeful that we can find some common ground on
the COMPETES programs and ultimately ensure that the actual funding
reinforces the authorizations.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Marburger, as you can see, there are
some differences on this committee, but we are, I think, in
unison on many, many areas. We welcome you here. Let me
introduce Dr. Marburger to Laura and some of the new Members of
our committee. He is the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. He serves as the Science Advisor to the
President and also co-chairs the President's Committee of
Advisors on the Science and Technology and supports the
President's National Science and Technology Council. Dr.
Marburger, we welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MARBURGER, III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP); CO-CHAIR, PRESIDENT'S
COMMITTEE OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (PCAST)
Dr. Marburger. Thank you very much, Chairman Gordon,
Ranking Member Hall, Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure
for me to appear before you in this hearing once again on
funding for the America COMPETES Act in the President's fiscal
year 2009 Research and Development Budget. My written testimony
has a lot of detail about the overall fiscal year 2009 research
and development budget, so I will confine my oral remarks to
the specific questions you asked me in the invitation.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
Dr. Marburger. First, let me express my gratitude to this
committee for its support of the President's America
Competitiveness Initiative and for its work on the very
important COMPETES Act. This Act embraces recommendations from
a wide range of scientists, businesses, and education leaders
and their many organizations who believe federal actions are
needed to ensure America's future leadership in science and
engineering, fields which are essential to the processes of
innovation that lead to long-term economic competitiveness.
[Slide]
I have on the screen a proclamation signed by almost 300 of
those leaders.
I look forward to working together with this committee to
achieve the goals of the ACI and the COMPETES Act.
You asked me how the President's budget addresses programs
in the COMPETES Act within the jurisdiction of this committee.
Because these details are spread throughout my written
testimony and the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal document
which is on line this year, not even available as a book, my
office has prepared a one-page table that summarizes the
numbers that you asked for, and I just show a picture of the
table. I am not going to reference this table, but you will
have copies of that that gives you a detailed accounting for
how the COMPETES Act fares in his 2009 budget request.
So first of all, let me talk about the bottom line. Of the
$13.8 billion authorized for fiscal year 2009 in the Act, the
President's budget funds $12.2 billion or 85 percent of the
authorized. This total compares favorably with the 82 percent
level at which Congress funded the Act within the fiscal year
2008 omnibus bill.
[Slide]
And the next slide shows a chart. The blue bars are the
authorized amounts, the red bar is the omnibus level of
appropriation for COMPETES funding, the green bar--so the bars
on the left are for '08, the bars on the right are for '09. The
green bar represents the President's request as a fraction of
what was authorized. It is--I think it is 85 percent of
authorized compared with the 82 percent that was appropriated
last year.
If the President's request is funded, COMPETES Act budgets
would grow by almost 15 percent under this budget. To place
this in context, the President's overall request for all non-
defense R&D increases by six percent, compared with the
remainder of the non-security discretionary budget which
increases by less than one percent in this request. In constant
dollars, growth and outlays in the non-defense R&D budget have
increased by nearly a third under this Administration.
[Slide]
My slide before you shows the growth in non-defense,
inflation-adjusted dollars for federal R&D. Total federal R&D
in the 2009 Budget Request stands at $147 billion, an increase
of $4 billion over last year's appropriated, which represents
$1 out of every $7 requested by the President in the
discretionary budget and the growth of 61 percent compared with
2001.
These figures express the strong priority the President
places on research and development. Even a 14 percent growth in
COMPETES funding is not enough to cover everything authorized
under the Act. And so the President's request follows well-
defined priorities. The Administration has accepted the
conclusions of many studies and reports that funding for ACI
basic research is most important and needs to be addressed
first.
The order in which you asked about specific programs in
your invitation to this hearing is exactly the order of
priority with which they are treated the President's request.
Research in physical sciences comes first with increases of
approximately 20 percent in this area for each of the National
Science Foundation, Department of Energy's Office of Science,
and National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Math and
science education activities at NSF, the next priority, are
also scheduled to increase. The NSF Education and Human
Resources budget would grow by about nine percent, and
according to NSF's budget detail, education-related activities
and other divisions would also grow. I should also mention that
increases in COMPETES-related programs at the Department of
Education are scheduled to increase by $143 million which is a
very substantial increase over the fiscal year 2008 omnibus
funding.
These are the top priority areas. In view of the very
serious under funding of the top category of research in the
fiscal year 2008 omnibus and the urgent need to close the gap
in this area, it was not possible to fund the remaining lower
priorities within the constraints of this budget.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I believe the
President's budget proposal is a very strong one for science
and is responsive to the goals and priorities expressed in the
America COMPETES Act. This is the third year in which the
President is proposing a budget that would substantially
strengthen America's long-term competitiveness in a globalized
high-technology world economy, and I hope that our joint
efforts this year will lead to a Fiscal Year 2009 Budget that
finally addresses the priorities that were established so long
ago with such strong bipartisan support from such a wide array
of constituencies. My written testimony contains much more
detail, and I ask that it be made part of the record for this
hearing. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:]
Prepared Statement of John H. Marburger, III
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee,
I am pleased to appear before you once again to present the President's
Fiscal Year 2009 research and development (R&D) budget. In the eighth
and final year of this Administration, this hearing provides an
opportunity to take stock of how far we have come, where we are today,
and, most importantly, what remains to be done for U.S. science and
technology. Exactly one year ago today, I came before this committee
seeking your support for the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
With Congressional passage and enactment of the America COMPETES Act,
you delivered that support.
Now I am asking for your help again. The basic research programs
prioritized in the ACI and authorized in the America COMPETES Act
remain in an under-funded state relative to their importance for the
long term strength of our nation's economy. The National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's core lab research and
facilities provide basic research infrastructure for every field of
science, and produce the new knowledge that make technology
breakthroughs possible. This committee has a commendable history of
bipartisan support for science funding, for effective advocacy of basic
scientific research, and for its technical applications that benefit
every part of our society. On behalf of the Administration, I thank the
Committee for the good working relationship it has established with the
science agencies and with my office, and look forward to campaigning
together for robust funding of our mutual innovation and
competitiveness agenda.
Overall, federal R&D in the 2009 Budget is $147 billion, $4 billion
more than FY 2008. That represents one out of every seven dollars
requested by the President in the discretionary budget. This total
exceeds the Fiscal Year 2001 amount by $56 billion and represents
growth of 61 percent since then. Over these eight years, the cumulative
federal R&D investment will total over $1 trillion.
The growth in non-defense R&D is even more dramatic in the 2009
Budget. The President is seeking a six percent increase in this
category. By comparison, the remainder of the non-security
discretionary budget is up less than one percent. And I draw your
attention to the chart of federal non-defense spending over time. (see
Attachment #1) With the 2009 Budget, real growth in outlays for the
conduct of non-defense R&D, with the effect of inflation factored out,
is up 31 percent in eight years. Real non-defense R&D growth for the
previous eight years was 11 percent. The President's commitment to the
government's R&D enterprise is strong, and the advancement of science
remains among his top budget priorities.
The most recent and dramatic evidence of this commitment can be
found once again in the President's State of the Union address last
month. In the President's words:
``To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust
in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them
to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress
passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness
Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This
funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask
Congress to double federal support for critical basic research
in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most
dynamic nation on Earth.'' (see Attachment #2)
Increased funding for critical basic research in the physical
sciences is my highest budget priority. This committee has led by fully
authorizing these basic research increases in the bipartisan America
COMPETES Act. We now must succeed in implementing ACI/COMPETES with
actual funding. If we fail, it will significantly impair and delay all
our efforts to strengthen long-term economic competitiveness through
innovation-enabling basic research in the physical sciences and
engineering. Lost research time delays innovations, slows development,
misses market opportunities, and costs jobs and economic growth.
America COMPETES Act: With respect to programs authorized by America
COMPETES in the President's Budget, the Administration's approach is
straightforward: among the many activities in the bill, establish
priorities to ensure that limited resources are allocated where they
are needed most. To this end, the Administration has accepted the
conclusions of many studies and reports that funding for ACI basic
research is most important and needs to be addressed first. This
prioritization reflects a broad endorsement by the business and
academic communities, most recently as part of last year's ``American
Innovation Proclamation,'' which states as its first conclusion that
``Congress must act to: Renew America's commitment to discovery by
doubling the basic research budgets at the National Science Foundation,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of
Energy's Office of Science and the Department of Defense.'' (see
Attachment #3)
Prioritizing within the constraints of budget realities necessarily
means that some of the programs and activities authorized in America
COMPETES could not be requested in this Budget. (see Attachment #4) The
lack of funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill for the
priority basic research increases authorized in the COMPETES Act makes
it even more imperative to address these priorities in the forthcoming
fiscal year. The President signalled this policy when he signed America
COMPETES in August of last year, stating that ``These new programs . .
. and excessive authorizations will divert resources and focus from
priority activities aimed at strengthening the basic research that has
given our nation such a competitive advantage in the world economy.
Accordingly, I will request funding in my 2009 Budget for those
authorizations that support the focused priorities of the ACI, but will
not propose excessive or duplicative funding based on authorizations in
this bill.'' (see Attachment #5)
As just one example of this prioritization, the Budget does not
request funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E) or
new math and science education programs at the Department of Energy.
This is because the Administration believes very strongly that the
basic research programs at the DOE Office of Science are a higher
leverage investment and in greater need of funding than new DOE
programs, especially given the devastating impacts of last year's
Omnibus appropriations bill on this agency. However, the President has
requested money for programs such as Math Now, confirming the
importance of improving students' access to rigorous and challenging
math classes.
Earmarks: Before summarizing this year's research budget, because
research earmarks returned in the 2008 appropriations, I want to
express my concern about the very serious deleterious impacts earmarks
have on the science budget. I make these remarks knowing that this
committee fully understands the impact of the problem and supports best
practices in the allocation of research funding.
In FY 2008, DOD basic and applied research earmarks total about
$1.1 billion (about one-sixth of DOD research's total budget); $124
million of the DOE Office of Science is earmarked; and $83 million in
earmarks and unrequested grants seriously dilute the core research and
facilities proposed at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. Altogether, research earmarks are estimated at $2 billion
of the $16.8 billion of overall appropriations earmarks government-wide
in FY 2008. In nominal terms, this is more than the $1.8 billion
increase in the overall FY 2008 Federal Science & Technology budget and
earmarks therefore result in an actual real cut in merit-reviewed
research at the agencies that are included in the FS&T budget. As we
discuss the importance of pursuing the best science to contribute to
U.S. competitiveness, I hope the Congress will significantly reduce
research earmarks in the FY 2009 appropriations process, as it did in
fiscal year 2007. Earmarks that divert funding from a merit-based
process undermine America's research productivity. The Administration
commends Congress for not subjecting NSF and the National Institutes of
Health to this debilitating practice. It is now time to end this
practice for all research programs.
Basic Research: Turning to overall Basic Research in the 2009 Budget,
$29.3 billion is requested, an $850 million increase. Since the effect
of FY 2008 earmarks only enhance this difference and make the real
programmatic increases even bigger, in my view this is a clear
indication of the Administration's strong focus on fundamental research
and the discovery of new knowledge as a leading mission of the Federal
Government. I want to emphasize that this favorable treatment of Basic
Research is occurring in a year of spending reductions for many other
domestic programs, indicating the high priority this Administration
places on the importance of this activity.
ACI: As described above, the centerpiece of the Administration's Basic
Research agenda is the American Competitiveness Initiative. The 2009
Budget calls for a 15 percent or $1.6 billion increase for the ACI's
three priority science agencies: the National Science Foundation; DOE's
Office of Science; and the laboratories of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. This level of total funding, $12.2 billion,
is necessary to restore the doubling path we all committed to last
year.
I know this committee is as disappointed as I am at the current
shortfall. In order not to lose yet another year of enhanced and
expanded high-impact innovation research, this year Congress must
complete the FY 2009 process on time.
In addition, planned basic research at the Department of Defense
will grow by $270 million over the FY 2008 request--a 19 percent
increase, yielding a total of $1.7 billion--consistent with the
President's commitment to support high value research in the physical
sciences. These investments are made to support national security but,
due to the broad effects of basic research, also contribute to ACI
innovation goals as well.
Climate Science: While long-term innovation and competitiveness are the
priority drivers in the 2009 Federal R&D budget, other science areas
remain very important to our nation's goals. Since FY 2001, the
Administration will spend approximately $14.6 billion on climate change
science research through the multi-agency Climate Change Science
Program, and the President's 2009 CCSP budget exceeds $2 billion, a 12
percent increase over FY 2008 enacted. The U.S. leads the world in
advancing climate change policy and programs, with planned expenditures
of nearly $9 billion in climate-related science, technology,
international assistance, and tax incentive programs proposed in FY
2009--much more than any other country and a nine percent increase over
2008 enacted levels.
Advanced Energy Initiative: The 2009 investment of $3.2 billion in
energy-related science and technology, a 25 percent annual increase of
the Advanced Energy Initiative, will keep us on track to meet the
President's goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity 18 percent by
2012 and on an achievable path to energy independence. Perhaps most
critically, the 2009 AEI includes over $788 million in basic research
at DOE's Office of Science, a 55 percent increase, to overcome major
technical barriers to the use of solar energy, cellulosic ethanol,
energy storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and fusion energy, including
critical commitment support for the ITER international fusion energy
research project. Before leaving this topic I should note that ITER
represents a long-term solution to an energy future without fossil
fuel, and I was alarmed to learn that the FY 2008 Omnibus eliminated
the U.S. contribution to this international project.
Earth Observations and Ocean Initiative: In other programs relevant to
the environment, the 2009 Budget includes increased funding for a
number of Earth Observations programs, most notably $74 million for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to sustain the highest
priority climate measurement capabilities that once were part of the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) program, and $103 million for NASA to embark on the new series
of space-based Earth observing missions recommended by the National
Research Council's recent Earth Sciences Decadal Survey. A new National
Land Imaging Program office to ensure long-term continuity of multi-
spectral imaging of the Earth's surface is established in the U.S.
Geological Survey. This year's Budget again includes the
Administration's Ocean Initiative, which calls for $84 million in 2009
funding for ocean science and research at NOAA, NSF and the USGS.
Biomedical research: The Budget sustains biomedical research at the
current FY 2008 level of $29.3 billion in the 2009 NIH Budget. The
Budget includes an additional $38 million, an eight percent increase,
for the NIH Common Fund, bringing the total to $534 million for this
interdisciplinary incubator for new ideas and initiatives that will
accelerate the pace of discovery across the NIH Institutes and Centers.
The 2009 Budget also includes increased funding to assist young
scientists as they begin their independent research careers. The
Pathway to Independence program is funded at a total of $71 million to
lower the age at which young scientists get their first grant award and
to encourage future generations to pursue careers in science. With the
2009 Budget, NIH discretionary budget authority is $8.9 billion, or 44
percent, higher than eight years ago, more than the 31 percent average
for all federal S&T.
Information Technology: President Bush's FY 2009 Budget of $3.5 billion
for Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD) represents a
doubling since 2001. This brings the eight year total investment in
this area to more than $20.9 billion. The 2009 Budget emphasizes the
NITRD priorities of high-end computing R&D and infrastructure, advanced
networking, and cyber security and information assurance. The tools and
capabilities that result from the NITRD program affect every area of
science and technology and enhance the Nation's competitiveness.
Nanotechnology: This Administration's National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) continues strong with over $1.5 billion in FY 2009 for
this well-coordinated multi-agency, investment in fundamental research,
multi-disciplinary centers of excellence, and development of focused
cutting-edge research and education infrastructure. With the 2009
request, nearly $10 billion will have been invested in nanoscale R&D in
seven years. The NNI includes important research on the societal
implications of nanotechnology, including human and environmental
health and methods for managing potential risks.
AGENCY BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
National Science Foundation (NSF):
Funds are requested to increase the budget for NSF to $6.85 billion
in FY 2009, 14 percent or $822 million above 2008's $6.03 billion. As
one of the three key agencies in the American Competitiveness
Initiative, NSF is the primary source of support for university and
academic research in the physical sciences, funding potentially
transformative basic research in areas such as nanotechnology, advanced
networking and information technology, physics, chemistry, material
sciences, mathematics and engineering. The NSF physical sciences
directorates receive increases of about 20 percent.
NSF leads two previously mentioned Administration priority research
areas that promise to strengthen the Nation's economy: the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the Networking and Information
Technology R&D program (NITRD). NSF-funded nanotechnology research,
sustained at $397 million in FY 2009, a 165 percent increase since
2001, has advanced our understanding of materials at the molecular
level and has provided insights into how innovative mechanisms and
tools can be built atom by atom. This emerging field holds promise for
a broad range of developing technologies, including higher-performance
materials, more efficient manufacturing processes, higher-capacity
computer storage, and microscopic biomedical instruments and
mechanisms. NSF's investments in NITRD, funded at $1.1 billion in 2009,
up $159 million over 2008 and 71 percent since 2001, support all major
areas of basic information technology (IT) research. NSF also
incorporates IT advances into its scientific and engineering
applications, supports using computing and networking infrastructure
for research, and contributes to IT-related education for scientists,
engineers, and the IT workforce. NSF will continue to support the
development of a petascale computing capability widely accessible to
the science and engineering community. A new $20 million cross-
Foundation investment that is part of both the NNI and NITRD, Science
and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law, is a multi-disciplinary effort to
advance the fundamental science and technology of semiconductor
electronics.
The 2009 NSF Education and Human Resources (EHR) budget will
continue efforts to prepare U.S. students for the science and
engineering workforce with a nine percent overall increase (+$65
million) over the level in the 2008 Omnibus. Specifically, the 2009 EHR
Budget provides a five percent increase for the Math and Science
Partnerships program at NSF, and a seven percent increase for the Noyce
Scholarship program. NSF-wide Graduate Research Fellowships are
proposed for a 32 percent increase and will support an additional 700
graduate students.
NSF's investment in Cyber-enabled Discovery (CDI), begun in FY
2008, more than doubles for a total of $100 million in FY 2009. The CDI
investment promotes the advancement of science and engineering along
fundamentally new pathways opened by computational thinking.
NSF will continue to fund research on cyber security foundations,
network security, and systems software that supports the objectives of
the Federal Plan for Cyber Security and Information Assurance Research
and Development. Emphasis will be placed on usability, privacy, and
theoretical foundations.
Department of Energy (DOE):
DOE is the lead agency for the President's Advanced Energy
Initiative (AEI), highlighted above. The 2009 AEI Budget proposes:
$588 million for the Coal Research Initiative, R&D
focused on coal gasification and carbon sequestration processes
and systems, including $156 million for the FutureGen program
to demonstrate these technologies;
$343 million for biomass R&D to help enable
cellulosic ethanol to become practical and competitive;
$225 million for solar R&D to accelerate development
of cost-effective photovoltaic materials;
$221 million for R&D on hydrogen fuel cells and
affordable hydrogen-powered cars;
$101 million for R&D of hybrid electric systems
including $48 million for high-energy, high-power batteries for
hybrid-electric and ``plug-in'' hybrid vehicles;
$53 million for wind energy research to help improve
the efficiency and lower the costs of wind technologies for use
in low-speed wind environments;
$30 million for geothermal research; and
$544 million for the GNEP and Nuclear Power 2010
initiatives to demonstrate advanced fuel cycle technologies, to
expand the domestic use of nuclear power, and to provide for
safe, environmentally responsible global nuclear energy systems
that support nonproliferation objectives.
Full funding of $215 million for the U.S. contribution to the ITER
international fusion energy project is imperative to meet our
international commitment.
The Office of Science in DOE (DOE SC) is another of the three
priority research agencies in the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative, providing many of the major cutting-edge scientific
facilities and labs for a wide range of basic research related to
potentially significant economic innovations. The 2009 Budget provides
$4.72 billion for DOE SC, an increase of 19 percent over the FY 2008
omnibus. The Budget includes funding for priorities such as
nanotechnology ($300 million), materials science research facilities
($719 million), basic research in support of hydrogen production, use
and storage ($75 million), the advanced energy initiative including
electrical battery storage and an advanced nuclear fuel cycle ($788
million), and advanced scientific computing facilities and research
($368 million). The Budget also includes funding ($93 million) to begin
construction of the National Synchrotron Light Source II, a new x-ray
light source that will enable the study of materials properties and
functions at a level of detail and precision (nanoscale) never before
possible. It continues support for construction of the Linac Coherent
Light Source ($37 million)--a materials research facility that will
provide laser-like x-rays allowing an unprecedented real-time glimpse
of chemical and biological processes, fully funds operations for the
five nanoscale science research centers, and provides $29 million for
the upgrade of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST):
The Department of Commerce's NIST ``core'' research and facilities
receive $635 million in 2009, an increase of 22 percent over the 2008
Omnibus after accounting for earmarks and unrequested grants. In 2009,
the American Competitiveness Initiative proposes NIST funding increases
of nearly $115.2 million from the 2008 enacted level (excluding
earmarks and unrequested grants) for new initiatives in research and
measurements in high-leverage areas such as nanotechnology
manufacturing; expanding NIST's neutron facility to aid in
characterizing novel materials in high-growth research fields; and
improving our understanding of complex biological systems to accelerate
innovations and enable investment in biosciences, including disease
diagnosis and treatment.
Department of Education (ED):
ED is the lead agency for academic competitiveness and the
President requested the following under America COMPETES authority:
$95 million for the Math Now program which authorizes
competitive grants to improve instruction in mathematics for
students in kindergarten through 9th grade. Grantees will
implement research-based mathematics programs to enable all
students to reach or exceed grade-level achievement standards
and prepare them to enroll in and pass algebra courses.
$70 million under the America COMPETES Act for a new
vision for advanced placement, as embodied in the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative, the purpose of which is to
support State and local efforts to increase access to advanced
placement classes and tests for low-income students in order to
better prepare them for success after high school. The new
authority targets federal support more specifically on the
preparation of teachers to teach classes in the critical
subjects of mathematics, science, and the critical foreign
languages, and on encouraging more students from high-need
schools to take and pass AP and IB courses and tests in those
subjects.
$24 million for Foreign Language Partnerships, which
is part of the Administration's National Security Language
Initiative. These funds would support partnerships between
institutions of higher education and school districts, in order
to increase the number of American students who are proficient
in languages that are critical foreign languages to national
security.
The President's American Competitiveness Initiative also called for
the creation of an Adjunct Teacher Corps to support qualified math and
science professionals to become adjunct high school teachers. The
President's 2009 Budget requests $10 million for this program.
Additionally, the President's National Mathematics Panel will issue
the final report within the next month. The panel's recommendations
will help teachers teach all K-7 students pre-algebraic concepts so
that every student can take and pass more rigorous courses in middle
and high school, particularly Algebra I in middle school and Algebra II
in high school.
In general, the 2009 Budget does not support significant expansion
of STEM education programs that are housed outside the Department of
Education. The Administration believes that the mission agencies should
be focused on the R&D components of ACI.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):
The President's 2009 Budget for NASA is $17.6 billion, a three
percent increase over FY 2008, reflecting a steady commitment by the
Administration to the continued pursuit of the Vision for Space
Exploration and to using the Shuttle to assemble the International
Space Station until the Shuttle retires in 2010. Maintaining NASA
budget appropriations is extremely important for the continued
viability of its programs.
In 2009, NASA requests $3.5 billion in direct costs for exploration
systems including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and the Ares
I launch vehicle that will carry astronauts to the Moon. 2009 will see
the Ares I-X test flight, the first test flight of the Ares I launch
vehicle. Ares I-X will involve a first stage with a functional four
segment solid rocket booster and an inactive fifth segment, and an
upper stage mass simulator. Ares I-X will test first-stage flight
dynamics, controllability, and separation of the first and upper
stages. Having already initiated the acquisition process for certain
elements of this architecture during 2006, NASA now has all Orion CEV
and Ares I elements under contract with the first crewed-flight planned
to occur in 2015.
The 2009 Budget requests $4.44 billion in direct costs to continue
operating the nearly 60 spacecraft of NASA's Science Mission
Directorate and to support investments in future Earth and space
science missions, vital technologies, and frontier research. NASA will
launch seven new Earth observing missions in the next several years,
including projects such as the Landsat Data Continuity Mission and the
Global Precipitation Measurement mission. In a significant new
initiative, NASA also will embark upon a series of high-priority,
space-based Earth observing missions, informed by the recommendations
of the National Research Council's recent Decadal Survey on earth
sciences. At the same time, NASA will continue its roles in the
interagency Climate Change Science Program and the international
initiative on the Global Earth Observing System of Systems. NASA will
expand its program of scientific exploration of the Moon through a new
series of low-cost robotic missions that will advance our knowledge of
Earth's closest neighbor as we prepare for a human return to the Moon.
Following up ongoing missions to Mars, Saturn and Mercury, NASA also
will send ever-more-capable spacecraft to Mars and other outer planets.
In addition, NASA will continue its vibrant astrophysics and astronomy
efforts through programs such as Beyond Einstein and the Great
Observatories, and will upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope in late 2008
to provide five more years of productive on-orbit life. NASA also will
maintain its important heliophysics research through projects such as
the Radiation Belt Storm Probes.
In December 2007, the President approved the Nation's first
National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure.
Consistent with this Plan, the 2009 NASA aeronautics budget prioritizes
fundamental aeronautics research, the improvement of aviation safety,
and research supporting the development of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. In addition, NASA will continue to address
infrastructure upgrades and maintenance requirements for aeronautical
test facilities across NASA centers that are of vital importance to the
Nation. The 2009 budget requests $447 million for NASA aeronautics
direct costs.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
For NOAA in the Department of Commerce, the 2009 Budget provides
$383 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), 22 percent
more than in FY 2001. OAR provides for ongoing research on climate,
weather, air quality, and ocean processes.
The FY 2009 NOAA budget again requests $20 million for oceans
science and research (with another $20 million from NSF and USGS) as
part of a $40 million interagency effort to implement the Ocean
Research Priorities Plan called for in the President's U.S. Ocean
Action Plan. Unfortunately, the 2008 Omnibus provided about 10 percent
of the $40 million requested. Nevertheless, the President remains
committed to enhancing ocean science that will make our oceans, coasts
and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier and more productive and is again
requesting new funding to support efforts in these areas. The $20
million will address the four near-term ocean research priorities
established by the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation
Strategy, published in January 2007. The NOAA Budget also proposes $8
million to continue extended continental shelf scientific analysis to
define and map its U.S. outer limits and an additional $21 million to
develop an operational ocean monitoring network.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS):
The FY 2009 request for the USGS in the Department of the Interior
is $969 million, 10 percent more than FY 2001. The USGS portion of the
Landsat Data Continuity Mission remains steady at $24 million, while a
National Land Imaging office to assess future land imaging needs is
also established. $31 million is targeted for the new climate change
activity; an $8 million increase is proposed for the Water for America
initiative, including a national water census; and for the interagency
ocean science initiative referred to in NOAA, an increase of $3 million
is requested for the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and $4 million for
mapping of the extended outer continental shelf. The Minerals Resources
Program is again proposed for reduction, since much of this program's
research is not the responsibility of the Federal Government, and can
be conducted State and local governments, industry and universities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The FY 2009 budget for science and technology funding at EPA is
$790 million, $4 million more than FY 2008. Research priorities include
supporting the agency's nanotechnology program, funded at $15 million,
an increase of $5 million over 2008 enacted. Additionally, to ensure
EPA's ability to attract and retain the highest caliber scientists, the
budget proposes expanded special authority that will allow EPA to hire
up to 40 scientists quickly and competitively. $35 million is also
requested to support high priority Water Security activities.
Department of Agriculture (USDA):
The USDA science and research programs total $1.9 billion in the
2009 Budget, a $235 million reduction from FY 2008 mostly due to the
removal of earmarks and reduction of formula grants. Still at nine
percent more than FY 2001, the Administration favors competitive
research grants which are allocated based on an objective peer-reviewed
process. This is reflected in a requested 34 percent increase for the
National Research Initiative.
Department of Transportation (DOT):
The FY 2009 Budget request for highway-related research is $430
million, the same as current funding and consistent with the level in
the multi-year surface transportation research authorization. Highway
research includes the Federal Highway Administration's transportation
research and technology contract programs as well as some programs
administered by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
These research programs include the investigation of ways to improve
safety, reduce congestion, improve mobility, reduce life cycle
construction and maintenance costs, improve the durability and
longevity of highway pavements and structures, enhance the cost-
effectiveness of highway infrastructure investments, and minimize
negative impacts on the natural and human environment.
The 2009 Budget request for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Research, Engineering, and Development is $171 million, 16 percent more
than current funding and includes $56.5 million focused on the
advancement of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).
FAA's Air Traffic Organization account also includes $41.4 million for
NextGen R&D. This NextGen R&D is coordinated by the interagency Joint
Planning and Development Office.
In addition, the 2009 Budget requests $12 million for the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration to coordinate and advance the
pursuit of transportation research that cuts across all modes of
transportation, such as hydrogen fuels, global positioning and remote
sensing. DOT research programs also support the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, and the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
Department of Defense (DOD):
DOD's FY 2009 R&D budget (including pay for military personnel
engaged in the research, development, test and evaluation enterprise)
is over $80 billion. This level of funding will support the
Department's transforming commitment to reorient its capabilities and
forces for greater agility, while enabling effective responses to
asymmetric and uncertain challenges of future conflicts. These funds
will also help address emergent threats through countermeasures to
biological agents and novel technologies to detect and neutralize
improvised explosive devices, mines, rockets and mortars.
The Science and Technology (S&T) component of the overall DOD R&D
budget includes basic research (6.1), applied research (6.2), and
advanced technology development (6.3). At $11.5 billion in the 2009
Budget, DOD S&T exceeds the 2001 enacted level by $2.5 billion. From
2000 to 2008, Congressional ``adds''--almost all of which would be
classified as earmarks according to Congress' and the Administration's
definitions--to DOD S&T quadrupled. For 2008, there were 999 adds
(totaling over $2.3 billion) that must be identified and tracked down,
advertised in a way specific to the Congressional mark, evaluated,
negotiated and awarded, all separate from other potential awards. This
means that those awards consume several times the staff and management
resources of the average research award, and may not even target a
military-specific research need. The large number of such additions
creates impediments to the creation of effective research programs
throughout the Department, and, when seen in the big picture, should be
cause for concern to Congress as well as to the Administration.
A record $1.7 billion is provided for DOD basic research (6.1) in
2009. That's $270 million or 19 percent above the 2008 request,
consistent with the ACI and the FY 2009 OSTP-OMB Federal R&D Priorities
Memorandum. $1.7 billion is also $65 million over the nominal basic
research (6.1) appropriated level in FY 2008 even with non-program
earmarks included. In the 2009 Budget, DOD basic research represents
14.8 percent of the DOD S&T budget, more than last year's 13.3 percent
share.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
The President's FY 2009 request includes $869 million for the DHS
Directorate of Science and Technology. $564 million is also requested
for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, $79 million or 16 percent
over FY 2008 funding. R&D continues to play a key role in securing the
Nation against the terrorist threat. The President's 2009 Budget
maintains an aggressive investment in scientific research, technology
development, and research infrastructure aimed at continuing to enhance
our nation's security. Priority research areas include: $360 million
government-wide in transformational R&D aimed at enhancing our ability
to detect, identify, prevent and attribute nuclear and radiological
materials; $96 million at DHS for explosives countermeasures research;
$691 million in USDA, HHS and DHS to improve food and agriculture
defense, and $280 million government-wide to fund cyber security and
information assurance R&D.
CONCLUSION
Making choices is difficult even when budgets are generous, but
tight budgets require focused priorities and strong program management.
This year's R&D budget proposal provides robust levels of investment
that allow America to maintain its leadership position in science and
move ahead in selected priority areas. The ACI and Advanced Energy
Initiative properly focus R&D investments in areas that will increase
our economic competitiveness, decrease our dependence on foreign oil,
and accelerate development of clean energy technologies.
America leads all nations in research and development expenditures.
In 2006 U.S. R&D investment at $340 billion exceeded that of all the
other G7 nations combined. After a worldwide slowing in R&D
expenditures in the early 1990's, R&D spending rebounded in the late
90's, with the United States experiencing the most robust growth. Our
scientists collectively have the best laboratories in the world, the
most extensive infrastructure supporting research, the greatest
opportunities to pursue novel lines of investigation, and the most
freedom to turn their discoveries into profitable ventures if they are
inclined to do so. Combined with the merit review process that has
ensured the quality of American science in the past half century, these
factors make American science the strongest in the world.
This budget will sustain this leadership and maintain science and
technology capabilities that are the envy of the world. I ask that
Congress fully fund the R&D initiatives advanced in the President's
2009 Budget. I would be pleased to respond to questions.
Biography for John H. Marburger, III
John H. Marburger, III, Science Adviser to the President and
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, was born on
Staten Island, N.Y., grew up in Maryland near Washington D.C. and
attended Princeton University (B.A., Physics 1962) and Stanford
University (Ph.D. Applied Physics 1967). Before his appointment in the
Executive Office of the President, he served as Director of Brookhaven
National Laboratory from 1998, and as the third President of the State
University of New York at Stony Brook (1980-1994). He came to Long
Island in 1980 from the University of Southern California where he had
been a Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, serving as
Physics Department Chairman and Dean of the College of Letters, Arts
and Sciences in the 1970's. In the fall of 1994 he returned to the
faculty at Stony Brook, teaching and doing research in optical science
as a University Professor. Three years later he became President of
Brookhaven Science Associates, a partnership between the university and
Battelle Memorial Institute that competed for and won the contract to
operate Brookhaven National Laboratory.
While at the University of Southern California, Marburger
contributed to the rapidly growing field of nonlinear optics, a subject
created by the invention of the laser in 1960. He developed theory for
various laser phenomena and was a co-founder of the University of
Southern California's Center for Laser Studies. His teaching activities
included ``Frontiers of Electronics,'' a series of educational programs
on CBS television.
Marburger's presidency at Stony Brook coincided with the opening
and growth of University Hospital and the development of the biological
sciences as a major strength of the university. During the 1980's
federally sponsored scientific research at Stony Brook grew to exceed
that of any other public university in the northeastern United States.
During his presidency, Marburger served on numerous boards and
committees, including chairmanship of the governor's commission on the
Shoreham Nuclear Power facility, and chairmanship of the 80 campus
``Universities Research Association'' which operates Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago. He served as a trustee of
Princeton University and many other organizations. He also chaired the
highly successful 1991/92 Long Island United Way campaign.
As a public spirited scientist-administrator, Marburger has served
local, State and Federal governments in a variety of capacities. He is
credited with bringing an open, reasoned approach to contentious issues
where science intersects with the needs and concerns of society. His
strong leadership of Brookhaven National Laboratory following a series
of environmental and management crises is widely acknowledged to have
won back the confidence and support of the community while preserving
the Laboratory's record of outstanding science.
Discussion
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Marburger, and thank you
for addressing our questions. We will now proceed to questions
from this committee, and the Chairman will recognize himself
for five minutes.
We have now seen seven budget requests in a row that
propose a range of funding for MEP that most of us agree are
woefully inadequate, and each year there is a different
justification for the cuts and each year the Committee has
heard experts that will come in and testify to refute those
justifications. This year the justification is I think the
weakest of all. The Administration says that the Congressional
intent was for MEP centers to stop receiving federal funding
after six years. Can you explain that to me, Dr. Marburger?
Dr. Marburger. The MEP program is a successful program that
assists private sector in their efforts to develop technologies
that will help the United States economy. This Administration
believes that programs that help the private sector should be
funded by the private sector, and that explains the pattern of
budget requests by this Administration over the years.
Chairman Gordon. Well, many of us feel that by creating
additional jobs and small businesses, we are going to be
benefiting our country; but the justification in the budget was
that the Congressional intent was for MEP centers to stop
receiving federal funding after six years. Could you explain
that?
Dr. Marburger. I do not----
Chairman Gordon. Well, let me help you. Let me help you.
Dr. Marburger.--know what the explanation for the six-year
period was but there is no question----
Chairman Gordon. I am not trying to trick you here. Let me
just get the information on the table here. When the original
Omnibus Trade Act was passed in 1988, it did have a six-year
sunset.
Dr. Marburger. I see.
Chairman Gordon. Yet, in 1998 the bill was reauthorized
saying that it would continue, it needed to be reviewed unless
there was a review that said it should stop, and no review has
said that. And this authorization was continued with the
COMPETES Act. So once again, we are looking for a reason. I
think that the reason that you gave orally is what you believe
and what many of us do not concur with and the reason that this
committee has, time after time on a bipartisan basis, made that
clear.
Also, Dr. Marburger, Section 1009 of the COMPETES Act
required your office to work with all federal science agencies
to develop and issue principles to ensure that the federal
scientists can communicate the findings of their research
openly to the public and that their research will not be
suppressed or distorted. These principles were to be developed
within three months after the law was passed. Within six months
after the law was passed, your office was to ensure that each
federal agency developed and implemented policies and
procedures consistent with these principles. I would like to
ask, what have you done to fill the requirements in Section
1009 of the COMPETES Act and have you developed the principles?
Have they been issued by your office? Have all federal science
agencies developed and implemented policies based on these
principles?
Dr. Marburger. My office has developed principles. In fact,
I saw the final draft of those principles within the last few
weeks. They have been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for distribution to the departments for the kind of
review that is specified in the Act. That will take some time,
but we do want the agencies and offices to have buy-in to these
principles so that we can be assured that they will be
followed. Sorry that it has taken this long. It is a process
that involves consultation with the agencies, but I do believe
that we are on a good track to get this out. You will receive
the information as soon as it is possible to get it to you in
the form in which it is likely to be approved.
Chairman Gordon. Better late than never. We do hope that
you will try to move this forward. I think it is important. Let
me ask you, did you take any type of public comment or seek
public comment on these principles as you were developing them?
Dr. Marburger. We did not take public comment as far as I
know on these principles, but they will go through an inner-
agency vetting process that will expose them to public view
that will inform the final version of them. I believe that
several agencies have good models for a set of principles, and
we drew heavily on those. NASA is one that I can name in
preparing our document that we are now circulating to the
agencies.
Chairman Gordon. Well, we would certainly welcome to see
that at the earliest convenience, Dr. Marburger.
I want to lead by example. My time is up.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Marburger, what are
the consequences of the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations
on the agencies that were targeted for increases in the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES
Act; and to follow up, how does the fiscal year 2009 budget
rectify this, what we call a funding dilemma?
Dr. Marburger. Congressman, the agencies that were targeted
for increases under the COMPETES Act and the ACI last year did
receive some increases but nowhere near the amount that were
proposed by the President. In fact, I believe I have the slide,
if it is still available at the end, that shows the impact of
COMPETES Act funding, of the omnibus funding.
[Slide]
The green bars represent the Presidential requests for the
three priority agencies, National Science Foundation is the
first, the Department of Energy, Office of Science is the
second, and the NIST is the third. And on the right, the bars,
some of the white and the red bars, are the amounts that were
actually appropriated in the omnibus bill. The red hatched bars
indicate the amount of unrequested funds or earmarks associated
with that funding which I will not comment on, but you can see
the difference is very great. And I believe that there has been
some very significant adjustment required, particularly in the
High Energy Physics Program and the Department of Energy,
Office of Science, and in the International Fusion Initiative
called ITER. The omnibus bill specifically cut funding for
these areas that has precipitated loss of jobs in some key
national laboratories, layoffs on the order of hundreds of
trained scientists and engineers at SLAC, Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center, in California, and at Fermi Lab in
Illinois. This represents a serious problem for those
laboratories. They are coping with it and adjusting their
priorities, and it also causes a great deal of embarrassment
for the Nation because we have international commitments to the
ITER program that just have to be fulfilled.
So there are these specific consequences that have a more
or less immediate impact. In the longer run, of course, failure
to fund these I think visionary increases causes us to lose
opportunity. Other countries are investing in infrastructure
for basic research in precisely these areas. These are the
areas that support nanotechnology and energy technology and so
forth, and we just need to catch up. This fiscal year 2009
proposal from President Bush aims to catch up. He did not
shrink from asking for large increases in the research budgets
for these areas and, in addition, increases in other areas as
well, including education and to the extent possible in more
targeted technology areas.
So I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Hall. I think it does. Let me get more up to date on
another issue, and you may not--can comment on this but I will
ask it anyway and at a later time when you can comment on it, I
would ask you to give us something in writing on it. I think
you are going to allow us to do that, aren't you, Mr. Chairman,
to ask for a follow-up?
Chairman Gordon. If you want, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Just last night the Committee received a copy of
the National Nanotechnology Initiative called ``Strategy for
Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research.'' I just got that last night. I think staff did, ours
did. I don't really know when the Chairman got it. He is
entitled to get it first, and I understand that. But our staff
is still reviewing it. Tell us how the fiscal year 2009 budget
addresses the recommendations in this report, if you know, and
it may be an unfair question with this recent development.
Dr. Marburger. I also just received this this morning, and
I do note that it includes the supplemental that is published
annually, usually shortly after the President's Budget Request
comes out. It is called ``National Nanotechnology Initiative
2009 Budget and Highlights,'' and there are tables in this
document, this very brief document, that shows how each agency
has a share of the mission under the National Nanotechnology
Initiative. This is a robust initiative. The 2009 budget
provides increased support for this initiative. It increases
from $481 million in 2007 to $551 million in 2009, and that is
a substantial increase, and we think that the program is
focused and agencies are appropriately coordinating their work
and participating in it very strongly.
Mr. Hall. I thank you for that. I have led you over and
gone over my time. I yield back my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. That is an important
document. I think it has just come to our office the same as
yours. We look forward to looking that over. Dr. Marburger, I
think you will find that this committee will agree on much more
than we disagree on, but just to set the record straight, let
me concur that we all are disappointed with the funding within
an omnibus of the COMPETES bill. However, early last year, the
House of Representatives passed by a large bipartisan margin,
281 to 142, Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Bill that
came very close to fully funding NSF and NIST programs under
the COMPETES, as well as the President's ACI. The Senate passed
a similar bill by a margin of 75 to 19. However, the White
House issued a statement of administration policy on the bill,
stated that the Administration strongly opposed the House and
Senate bills and if the bills were presented to the President,
they would be vetoed. The White House issued an almost
identical statement on the House, Energy, and Water
appropriations bill which came close to fully funding COMPETES
and the ACI programs at the DOE Office of Science, just again,
for everybody's information. Now, Dr. Baird, the Chairman of
the Committee that oversees NSF.
Mr. Baird. Dr. Marburger, thank you for joining us. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I share the disappointment expressed by my
colleagues on what happened at the end of the year last year, a
bit of a self-inflicted wound by the White House to some
extent, but unfortunately it wasn't self-inflicted, it was
inflicted on the scientific community with I think unfortunate
consequences. I want to just raise two general issues that are
of concern to myself and my committee in particular this year.
One has to do with the role of social sciences, and just
briefly, you have probably followed the stories for example
about DOD embedding anthropologists with its units in the field
and the units finding them incredibly valuable to address
cultural issues in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have had testimony
before our hearing on Energy for example, just changing the way
one messages conservation efforts can increase efficiency by 34
percent in terms of re-using towels and other things. They
sound like small things, but on a nationwide scale it is large.
In the health care front, if you look at the rising cost of
health care in this society, many of the illnesses that are
driving health care costs up are behaviorally related, and if
you look at transportation sector, highway safety, et cetera,
which is a long introduction into the question of how you and
the Administration see the role of social sciences in solving
some of this nation's priorities and within your budget.
The second question I will give you and then you can answer
both if you like, another issue of concern to our committee,
and to myself, has to do with science diplomacy. For many
years, the United States led the world in a number of ways.
This committee, I understand, had a subcommittee dealing with
international science exchanges. I think actually prior to 9/
11, those were actually declining, and I think we have lost our
leadership role in that. What are your thoughts about the
Administration priorities and where this country should go to
regain our international standing as a leader in scientific
dialogue and exchange? Those two questions would be much
appreciated.
Dr. Marburger. Thank you, Congressman. First, in the social
sciences, I want to declare here that I am a strong advocate
for social sciences. I believe that social sciences have a
great deal more to contribute to solving the difficult problems
of society than they are now, and I hope that the increases
that have been requested for the National Science Foundation
will help those budgets and move us forward in that area.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. That is great to hear.
Dr. Marburger. So I completely agree on a priority for the
social sciences. I can talk much more about that if----
Mr. Baird. We should get together and do that. We would
love to have you do that.
Dr. Marburger. I would like to do that. On science
diplomacy, by coincidence after this hearing, I will be meeting
with the European Science Commissioner, Dr. Potocnik, to
discuss important large-scale science interactions that we have
with the European Union; and next week, starting on Monday
evening and extending for a day-and-a-half beyond that, I will
be leading a joint commission meeting with Russia, and the
Minister for Science in Russia will be leading the delegation
on the Russian side. So we have all the major agencies that are
under the purview of this committee represented in our team on
that joint commission. I mention these activities to indicate
that there is a continuing, ongoing relationship with other
countries and that the President himself and the Secretary of
State both support the use of science in their diplomatic
endeavors. It is important for us to maintain the funding that
we have committed for these efforts. That is why I am so
disappointed in the ITER treatment in the omnibus bill, but we
are going to just do this somehow; and of course, we have major
cooperative initiatives in space and basic science, large
machines, as the Large Hadron Collider comes on line in Geneva
later this year. Americans will probably dominate the team that
is working there.
So we think this is important, and we continually look to
the State Department to support the efforts of all the
agencies.
Mr. Baird. I am pleased by both responses. I just want to
thank you for that, and I would like to follow up with you on
both areas. And finally, I just would acknowledge that I had
the privilege of leading many Members of this subcommittee to
Antarctica, and I just want to commend the research that this
country is conducting down there, the NSF people, and all the
folks who make that possible. I know you have a passion for
that as well. It is really remarkable what they do there. Thank
you, Dr. Marburger, for your service and your testimony today.
Chairman Gordon. Right on time, Dr. Baird. And Ms. Biggert
is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my
question, if I could ask unanimous consent that an op-ed by
Craig Barrett, the Chairman of Intel Corporation that was in
the San Francisco Chronicle on January 20, 2008 be included in
the record for today's hearing?
Chairman Gordon. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Flagging economy needs science investments
Craig Barrett
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Two years ago, the National Academies published the seminal study
on U.S. competitiveness entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
The study identified major shortcomings in U.S. investments in basic
scientific research as well as in math and science education for our
youngsters. The suggestions contained in this study were immediately
picked up by the Democratic House Leadership as their competitiveness
strategy and later by President Bush in his State of the Union message
under his American Competitiveness Initiative. Legislation in the form
of the America COMPETES Act was passed in the House and Senate in 2007,
and it appeared the United States was finally going to move forward
after years of neglect to increase investment in math, science and
basic research. All parties agreed that our competitiveness in the 21st
century was at stake and we needed to act.
So much for political will.
The recent budget deal between Republicans and Democrats
effectively flat-funds or cuts funding for key science agencies.
Excluding ``earmarks,'' the Department of Energy funding for fiscal
year 2008 is up only 2.6 percent, thus losing ground to inflation. The
National Science Foundation is up 2.5 percent, with the same result.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is up 11 percent,
however the labs where research happens only get 2.3 percent, again
losing ground to inflation. Key national laboratories, such as the
Fermilab, which focuses on high-energy particle physics research, face
the likelihood of hundreds of jobs being lost and the closing of some
facilities, helping to shortchange defense research. Predicting the
impact of such funding cuts in basic research on future job creation is
difficult. Who could have predicted a $300 billion semiconductor
industry from the invention of a transistor? But our kids who are
heading to college are very smart. They will make their career
decisions based on where they see the priorities of our government and
economy.
The funding decisions on the America COMPETES Act took place a few
days after Congress passed a $250 billion farm bill. In the eyes of our
political leaders, apparently, corn subsidies to Iowa farmers are more
important for our competitiveness in the next century than investing a
few billion in our major research universities. The President expressed
his happiness with the budget and Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority
Leader, said, ``The President didn't get his priorities, we got ours.''
At a time when the rest of the world is increasing its emphasis on
math and science education (the most recent international tests--NAEP
and PISA--show U.S. kids to be below average) and increasing their
budgets for basic engineering and physical science research, Congress
is telling the world these areas are not important to our future. At a
time when we are failing our next generation of students, politically
charged topics such as steroids in Major League Baseball and the
destruction of CIA interrogation tapes command instantaneous
congressional hearings while the seed corn (no pun intended) of our
future is ignored and placed lower in priority than billions of dollars
of earmarks.
Perhaps this would all be a moot discussion if we could continue to
import the best and brightest minds from around the world to start and
staff our next generation of high tech startups. But Washington can't
even get that strategy straight, as legal immigration--the process by
which bright, highly educated workers immigrate to the United States--
is being choked by our inability to control illegal immigration. While
the EU has proposed a simplified and expanded program for importing
highly educated talent from the rest of the world, we continue to make
if more difficult for the same talent to work in the United States,
even when some of these knowledge workers have received their education
in the United States at partial taxpayer expense.
Where are the voices in Washington to bring reasoned debate and
action to these topics? Where are the voices among the presidential
candidates to propose solutions to these challenges? What do we elect
our political leaders for if not to protect our long-term future?
The United States stands at a pivotal point in our history.
Competition is heating up around the world with millions of
industrious, highly educated workers who are willing to compete at
salaries far below those paid here. The only way we can hope to compete
is with brains and ideas that set us above the competition--and that
only comes from investments in education and R&D. Practically everyone
who has traveled outside the United States in the last decade has seen
this dynamic at work. The only place where it is apparently still a
deep, dark secret is in Washington, D.C.
What are they thinking? When will they wake up? It may already be
too late; but I genuinely think the citizenry of this country wants the
United States to compete. If only our elected leaders weren't holding
us back.
Craig Barrett is the Chairman of Intel.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDFDUHP1I.DTL
This article appeared on page G-5 of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Ms. Biggert. Let me just say that this article does have a
quote in talking about the funding decisions and the loss of
funding in the omnibus bill. He says, ``The President expresses
happiness with the budget, and Senator Harry Reid, the Senate
Majority Leader, said, `The President didn't get his
priorities, we got ours.' '' And I don't want to point fingers
at anyone, but I really just want to say how serious this
problem is and how important it is that, you know, hopefully we
can do something.
So with that, Dr. Marburger, I would like to start by
commending you and President Bush for remaining committed to
the American Competitive Initiative and the spirit of the
America COMPETES Act in Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request. I
think, you know, despite the failure by this Congress to fully
fund related R&D programs in each of the last two years, I know
that you are talking about the fiscal year 2009 budget request,
but I would just like to ask you if you could share with this
committee what would be the consequences if Congress fails to
restore the funding that was lost in the fiscal year 2008
budget, if we fail to fund that in a supplemental appropriation
bill? Could you give us a damage report?
Dr. Marburger. Congresswoman, I can't really speak to what
happens in fiscal year 2008. I don't have any information on
that. I do think that the best possible thing that could happen
for those programs which are impacted by the results of the
2008 omnibus bill would be a timely appropriation for the
current request and swift action on appropriations during this
session of Congress. I think that would send the right signal
to the agencies whose hopes had been dashed, and I think it
would send the right signal to the international community. But
I can't speak to the fiscal year 2008 process. I am sorry.
Ms. Biggert. Well, what I was more concerned about was, and
maybe you can speak to this, what happens with the personnel,
you know, the scientists, the engineers, and support staff for
these programs? My concern is that already we are seeing
layoffs in some of the labs and furloughs and scientists
already saying I am going back to France.
Dr. Marburger. We have heard some stories like that. I know
that the Department of Energy is doing everything they can to
help those people whose jobs are impacted by the consequences
of that bill. I have spoken directly with the Secretary of
Energy and with the Under Secretary for Science, Dr. Orbach,
and I know that they are working as hard as they can to make
arrangements to deal appropriately with that. But I can't put a
bright face on it. These are things that happen, and they are
happening. There are impact reports available from the
Department of Energy that I have seen, and it is possible to
give more detail on the actual reductions in force that are
required. I don't have the current numbers with me, but I know
they have been reported in the newspapers as well.
Ms. Biggert. Another consequence seems to be from American
businesses who use their facilities where they are going to be
cut the usage of the research that they need to do to be
innovative and creative.
Dr. Marburger. Well, this is true. I focused on the most
acute impacts which were actual furloughs and layoffs, but the
reason that these agencies are prioritized in the first place
is that their budgets have lagged for decades, literally, and
the facilities that they operate for the rest of the science
community, which are very heavily used, are operated on very
thin budgets. And so this year it has been necessary to curtail
the running time of some of these important facilities which
are used by biomedical investigators and people working on
energy technology, nanotechnology, and so forth. So there is no
question that there has been a fairly broad impact on the
ability of our nation to compete in these fundamental areas.
Ms. Biggert. Have you talked at all to Secretary of State
Rice about the international reaction to our failure to fund
ITER?
Dr. Marburger. I have not talked directly with the
Secretary, but I have had discussions with her science advisor,
Dr. Nina Federoff, and I have been in touch with her regarding
correspondence with the Secretary and others on this issue. So
we are in very close contact with the State Department.
Ms. Biggert. Now, I just hope that the President--and I am
sure that he does because he has heard from a lot of us, about
the importance of this issue and to every Member in this
committee and the consequences if we fail to restore the
funding. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Biggert. Ms. Richardson is
recognized.
Ms. Richardson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
being here today, and it is a pleasure meeting with you, and I
look forward to working with you.
A couple questions. Number one, since I am a newer Member,
if you wouldn't mind supplying to the Committee, you mentioned
in your testimony what are some of the levels of how other
countries are contributing and investing in this area. If you
wouldn't mind giving us a more updated report of what some of
those countries are doing, that would be of great help to me.
And then as I go into my second question, I would like to build
upon what Chairman Gordon was saying in his initial questions
and that was that you put up in your slide of the earmarks and
requests and all of that. The bottom line is within your
particular department, there have been significant cuts, and
our concern is as a matter of this committee, we want to see
not only--we don't want to see a reduction in terms of programs
and services, we would like to see an increase. Specifically
the National Nanotechnology Initiative had a barely increase of
two percent which doesn't even meet with the normal cost-of-
living increases, and in particular, I would like to point out
to you the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Since 2000 and
the current Administration, we have lost 3.4 million
manufacturing jobs. These are high skilled, high wage jobs that
are the backbone of many communities such as mine. NIST
recently reported the results of a survey where manufacturers
who used your program, MEP in 2006, after one year you had
52,000 jobs that were created or retained, $6.8 billion in new
or retained sales, $1.1 billion in cost savings, and over $1.7
billion of private investment leverage. So my question to you,
sir, is did you request an increase for this program and also
the NNI program, and if so, what did you request?
Dr. Marburger. The two programs are quite different in how
they are funded. To start with the NNI program, the NNI program
is funded through the agency budgets primarily of the agencies
that are targeted under the COMPETES Act, and we roll up their
expenditures on nanotechnology at the end of each year, and we
also ask them to indicate how much they are spending in
subsequent years. And I believe that is part of what this very
recently issued document describes. I was just trying to
identify the increases. So on nanotechnology, we do not ask for
specific increases for that program. We ask for increases for
the agencies that fund that program. The Department of Defense
and the National Science Foundation have the largest share of
that program, and I believe that the funding will go up in
those agencies in this year.
With respect to the Manufacturing Extension Program, our
argument is not about the effectiveness of the program but with
how it is funded; and in my response to Chairman Gordon's
question, I tried to give a succinct explanation for that which
is primarily is that there is a difference of opinion about how
that program should be funded.
Ms. Richardson. So given the comments of this committee and
if we are saying that we are supportive of that program and we
see the results of that, what could we anticipate from you of
taking that back to the Administration and reconsidering
because clearly to have the budget, you know, zeroing out for a
program that is working and we are losing manufacturing jobs
across this country, it is a very key priority for me.
Dr. Marburger. I don't believe that there is any chance
that the President will change his request to Congress that is
now before Congress in response to your question.
Ms. Richardson. I look forward to you taking back this
committee's comments to the Administration.
Dr. Marburger. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Just for your information, Ms. Richardson,
I think year after year on a bipartisan basis this committee
has supported the MEP program and felt that it is very
worthwhile. But unfortunately, much of the funding has been
replaced, although it is very tight there.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank
you, Dr. Marburger, for being here. Thank you for the hard work
you are doing to try to straighten out what is a very
unfortunate situation which a good deal of the blame belongs in
the Congress for passing an omnibus bill which is totally
inadequate in funding science and research, and we will have to
continue to work together to try to correct that. But I
appreciate your efforts on that score. I also thank the
President for his strong support of ACI and the authorization
bill and also attempting in fiscal year 2008 to institute the
ACI authorizations with full funding. Unfortunately, we find
ourselves in a bad situation, and I will get back to that in
just a moment. But I do want to mention, MEP always comes up
every year, and I have fought assiduously for it. I have talked
to Director of OMB and the Chief of Staff of the President
about this at times and complained about the little man in the
basement of the White House who doesn't like MEP and tries to
kill it every year. Now, I know that little man is a big man,
and he is not in the White House, and I do know where he is.
But that is in your shop and the President's shop and not in
ours, but so be it.
I do want to point out, however, that we have a forerunner
for the MEP. It is called the Cooperative Extension Service in
the Department of Agriculture. That has been in place for many
years. I don't know how many, but it basically grew out of the
land grant system which the Congress developed in the 1860s or
thereabouts. It has been around a long time. It has been very,
very useful in making American farms the most efficient farms
in the world. It works extremely well, and we as a nation spend
$400 million a year to fund the Cooperative Extension Service
which is for agriculture. Agriculture today in this country
employs about one and one-half percent, at most two percent, of
the population. Manufacturing on the other hand employees 14
percent of the workers in this nation. Now, I fail to
understand the logic of the Administration in saying, yeah, it
is okay to spend $400 million a year on agriculture extension
programs which meets the needs, the training needs and so
forth, of one and one-half percent of the population, but it is
totally wrong to support for manufacturing which has 14 percent
of the workers in the Nation. And there is a strong
philosophical disagreement here. And I am not castigating you.
I know what the situation is. But I simply do not understand an
Administration position which he held onto for years. We
continue to fight the battle, we continue to appropriate the
money. It is just a silly conundrum to have to deal with.
Having vented myself on that, let us get back to the real
issue which is the funding of research. We all heard the
stories about China, India, and so forth. They are where they
are for two reasons because in approximately 20 years both
countries, China and India, made major changes in their
political structure and basically adopted the free enterprise
system, a limited free enterprise system. Secondly, they
strongly emphasized math and science education for their
students. The result of those two major decisions of those
countries is that they are beating us in manufacturing and
production in ways we never anticipated. We already have the
free enterprise system. That is how we grew what we did and how
we became so strong. But we have not beefed up the math and
science education programs in our nation, and as a result, we
are losing ground dramatically. And we also are faltering in
our research efforts, whereas those countries are substantially
improving them as are almost every country in the world. We are
in danger of losing our status. Right now South Korea is
becoming very close to us in the dollars spent per year on
basic research compared to GDP, and other nations are
approaching us or exceeding us. Our country simply has to come
to grips with that. The omnibus error was our fault as a
Congress, and the President had little choice but to sign it.
So the Administration saved money because less money was spent
on science and R&D. Why in the 2009 proposal didn't the
Administration fund or propose funding all the ACI entities,
whether an NSF, DOE, NIST, at the fiscal year 2009
authorization? In other words, continue what they would have
done had we passed the 2008 authorization that was requested by
the President. The omnibus bill, like it or not, it cut science
funding substantially, but that did save the Administration
some money. Now why base next year's fiscal year 2009 proposal
on a faulty 2008 fiscal year result? And I have never
understood that method of budgeting. I happen to be a fan of
zero-based budgeting, but be that as it may, it just doesn't
make sense to me. If we set ourselves on a path to double the
funding for research in DOE, NSF, and NIST to double in a
certain number of years, just because we fall back in one year,
why do we have to fall back next year as well? Why not restore
that? Do you have an answer for that?
Dr. Marburger. I am not sure I can answer all of those
questions.
Mr. Ehlers. You don't have to answer all of them.
Dr. Marburger. Well, certainly, in my view, the 20 percent
increases for these agencies, and two of them are quite large
agencies, those represent a very powerful commitment by the
Administration----
Mr. Ehlers. No question. No question.
Dr. Marburger.--in a time when the President is holding the
rest of the discretionary budget to less than one percent
growth, I mean, below inflation. These priority areas are
getting huge increases, even in the area where people are
concerned about, the education sections of NSF and other
agencies, the increases are on the order of nine percent. These
are big increases at a time when the Nation is facing budget
deficits and difficult economic times, and I think that the
prioritization within this budget request reflects the needs of
these agencies. I mean, I think these are healthy requests.
Mr. Ehlers. I don't argue with that. My argument is very
simple. If we had in fact passed the President's request this
past year, which both Appropriations Committees had decided to
do, he would have put more money in this. In other words, we
went on the NIH doubling path a decade ago. We had an
agreement, and every year we took the steps to double in a
certain amount of time, and we fulfilled our commitment to do
it. After one year, we are falling back.
Dr. Marburger. I am not sure of that. I would like to get
back to you on that because I think the increases that the
President is requesting for this year actually get us back up
on the original ACI schedule. The difference between the
omnibus bill and the President's request this year is much
greater than the difference that he would have had to ask for
had the omnibus bill funded----
Mr. Ehlers. No, I understand that----
Dr. Marburger.--full request.
Mr. Ehlers.--and we will discuss that privately. We don't
have to hash that out here.
Dr. Marburger. Okay. But let me just state finally, I
believe the fiscal year 2009 request for the ACI agencies was
not based on the fiscal year 2008 request but was an
independent judgment of what needed to be done to meet the
President's targets, and I will be glad to say that in writing.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. Ms. Woolsey is recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I was here for
your testimony, sir. I had to leave and then come back, and you
know how we are. But your answer to my colleagues,
Congresswoman Richardson and then to Congressman Ehlers, still
makes me confused. Why are you asking us for support if you
think what the President's budget does is adequate? That is
confusing to me.
Dr. Marburger. Congress appropriates the money----
Ms. Woolsey. Right.
Dr. Marburger.--and this is my opportunity to speak to
Congress.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. So in asking us to help, will one of the
pieces of legislation that then we can do more about in the
COMPETES Act, advanced research projects, ARPA-E, I mean, if we
can do more for you, will the White House support more for our
move to replace fossil fuels with more energy efficient
technologies? Is it going to work both ways or do we help and
then we put more money into old-fashioned energy systems?
Dr. Marburger. The failure of the President to designate
and create an ARPA-E within his budget request does not mean
that this request falls short for what is needed for
investments in energy-related research. Under the Advanced
Energy Initiative, which funds parts of the Department of
Energy that do the same things that the ARPA-E would do, or
similar things, there is a very large increase. I think there
is about a 25 percent increase in the budget for energy-related
research and development and technology, a very large increase.
The base is about $3 billion I think now, and the President is
requesting an additional $600 million for that area. So there
isn't any failure to rise to the occasion as it were for
energy-related research.
Ms. Woolsey. But remember, my question to you was, is it
energy that will take us to the future so that it is getting
beyond fossil fuels or is it staying with the same energy
programs that we have had in the past?
Dr. Marburger. Absolutely. I believe there is some detail
in my written testimony. I apologize for not having time to go
through all of that in my oral, but there are large requests
for biomass, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid electric
systems, wind energy, geothermal, and nuclear power, all
receiving increases under that title. So I believe that this
proposal does in fact address the important national needs in
the energy technology area.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I am probably going to ask you something
that is unfair because I have a couple of seconds left I am
sure. Do you have any idea why the President feels that it is
okay to increase the Pentagon's budget by 8 percent and leave
projects like ARPA-E without any funding at all?
Dr. Marburger. As I explained, the objectives of ARPA-E as
I understand them are in fact funded through other programs
within the Department of Energy. When it comes to the
Department of Defense, the major increases in basic research in
this budget proposal for the Department of Defense, which is a
major funder of things like nanotechnology and other things
that are important for our competitiveness, so that the
President's increases to the Department of Defense do not
ignore or shortchange in any way other areas of the science
budget. We think that the science budget proposal in this
document is healthy, it addresses the needs of the Nation, and
I don't think there is any need to feel that the Defense budget
is somehow causing the science programs to be short-funded.
Ms. Woolsey. Do you think that that would make any kind of
sense to remove these programs from the Department of Defense
and bring them over to the other side of the fence so that we
don't have to have this huge Defense budget to get something
done?
Dr. Marburger. Well, the Defense Department has
traditionally been the major supporter of research in
engineering particularly and in material science and lasers and
other things. They have a strong track record of success in
these areas. And furthermore, research in these priority areas
is important for the Department of Defense missions. So I think
it is appropriate to see the robust research budget in the
Department of Defense.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, and Dr. Gingrey is
recognized.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, Thank you. Dr. Marburger, thank
you for your testimony, and you know, relating back to what the
gentlelady from California just said, Ms. Woolsey, we are not
often necessarily on the same page on every issue, but I think
she does bring up a pretty good point; and it makes me wonder
sometimes if when we get reports like we did with The Gathering
Storm and the fact that we all realize that we are so far
behind other developed countries in math and science and the
push by this committee to pass the America COMPETES Act and to
try to address that problem with more funding for STEM research
and education, it makes me wonder sometimes if we are fighting
hard enough. And when I say we, I am talking about these
agencies to which these budgets apply, and maybe even Dr.
Marburger yourself and your committee and the great scientists
that you and others are that advise the President and advise
the Administration. I also sit on the House Armed Services
Committee, so I am a strong proponent for continued funding for
our national defense and growing that; and I think it is
important what we do in Darfur as you pointed out. But I think
as she pointed out in regard to ARPA-E, we are talking about
alternative energy sources and if that is not a threat to us
both economically and security-wise, I mean, I don't know what
else is. I mean, certainly it is a threat. So it makes me
wonder if you guys, if I can use that expression, are fighting
hard enough to get your share of the pie. And of course, we
want to keep the pie small. I do as a fiscally conservative
Republican, and I will continue to take that posture but here
again, I mean, Dr. Ehlers pointed out in regard to Agriculture
Extension Programs and the number of people today in this
country involved in agriculture as their means of income versus
those that are involved in manufacturing, and we have no money
in here for MEP which is so important in every district of 435
Members of this House of Representatives and 100 Senators, I
just don't get that part. I better finish up quickly or you
will have no time to respond. But in regard to the math
education as an example, you have got funding. Your testimony
says that your budget does not support significant expansion of
STEM education programs that are housed outside the Department
of Education. Why not? So at this point, I will turn it over to
you and let you respond to my diatribe.
Dr. Marburger. Thank you, Congressman. I will try to spend
a minute on each. First of all, with respect to energy
technology, I think a 25 percent increase in a $3.2 billion
base for advanced energy technology really is responding to the
need in this area. And so the fact that the President did not
fund those activities through ARPA-E does not mean that we are
not funding them. ARPA-E was authorized at $300 million this
year, but the President's request for research in these precise
areas was $600 million so we can't say that this budget
represents a pull-back from the need to fund energy technology.
With respect to the remark in my testimony that indicated that
the significant expansion of education programs took place only
in the Department of Education, I think that is an artifact of
a way of counting these things that perhaps OMB, from whom I
got those talking points, expresses it. The fact is that the
budgets for education in the National Science Foundation are
approximately equal to the budgets for math and science
education in the Education Department. There were certain
increases in ACI categories that were quite substantial this
year in the Education Department. There was a nine percent
increase in education in the National Science Foundation on a
pretty big base. So I am not sure that we are comparing apples
and oranges here, but I know that the President is asking for
increased money, both in the National Science Foundation and in
the Department of Education. The Education Department is
designed to address large-scale education programs,
implementation, if you wish, of education, whereas the National
Science Foundation's role here is to develop materials and
learning techniques and so forth doing education and science
research. And they both do a good job at their respective
missions.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Marburger. I will just stop there. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. So I guess, Dr. Marburger, since the
Department of Education has been doing such a good job you are
satisfied with our international rankings?
Dr. Marburger. I think the international rankings are
difficult to interpret. The----
Chairman Gordon. Okay. Well, since we are close, we will
let Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
simply ask, and you might not have time to answer my question
in completion. I got here a little late, so maybe you addressed
this but to me, the most important thing about any future in
research or anything else is finding the students interested.
And what I would like you to do is describe to me the
activities that you are involved with or that you know
education is involved with in seeking that preparation for our
nation for the future. If we can't have basically prepared
people to do this, the rest of it is for naught. Thank you. I
look forward to seeing your response.
Dr. Marburger. Thank you. I would like to respond to that
in writing because there is such a large number of programs
that are funded and increased in this budget proposal.
Ms. Johnson. I would like also your recruitment activity.
Dr. Marburger. And recruitment. I will look into that. I
can't respond to that immediately.
Ms. Johnson. I really can read what is in here for funding,
I just want to know some activities that are encouraged, that
is supported by the Administration, or that is going on to get
the attention of young people to participate in these programs.
Dr. Marburger. I think I understand. And I do believe
information exists on that that I will send to you.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. And because of Ms.
Johnson's courtesy, Dr. Bartlett, you can close us out here as
we have 10 minutes to a vote.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony, sir. The same gentleman that predicted that the
United States would reach its maximum oil production in 1970,
M. King Hubbard predicted that the world would be reaching its
maximum oil production about now; and as you know, the IEA,
International Energy Agency, and the EIA, the Energy
Information Agency, have both been tracking the production and
consumption of oil, and they have shown that to be flat for the
last 30 months. With a flat production and an increasing
demand, oil has increased from $40 a barrel to I think it is
about $95 a barrel today. A couple of weeks ago Shell Oil
Company issued a statement saying that not later than 2015,
just around the corner, that the world would not be able to
meet the demands of our industry with oil and gas. The Hirsch
Report, the first of four reports paid for by our government
and ignored by our government, published in 2005, said that if
you didn't anticipate this maximum production of oil, peak oil
by two decades, that you would have meaningful economic
consequences of that. Considering, sir, that most of the monies
that we are spending are business as usual, wind, solar,
nuclear, biomass, and ethanol, I would submit that we really do
need an ARPA-E. None of these things that you mentioned on that
list, and they are all very admirable, but they are not the
cutting edge kinds of things that we are going to absolutely
have to do if we are going to avoid a big train wreck. I see
little indication on the part of the Administration that they
understand the seriousness of the challenge that we face. My
wife, by the way, says that I shouldn't be talking about this.
Don't I remember in ancient Greece they killed the messenger
that brought bad news, and I tell her this is a good news story
because if we start today, the ride will be less bumpy than if
we start tomorrow. I find this exceedingly challenging. There
is no exhilaration like the challenge of meeting and overcoming
a big threat, and that is what this is. Shouldn't we start
having a really aggressive program in ARPA-E considering the
real challenge of energy in the world?
Dr. Marburger. I certainly agree that we need to be working
very hard and doing everything that we can do to address the
energy challenges. Whether it is spent through ARPA-E or
through the Advanced Energy Initiative or something else, I'm
not as concerned as long as it is being spent; and I do think
that there is a substantial commitment by this Administration
to addressing the issue of energy security, which means that we
should be able to use the energy resources that we have
available to us, including nuclear and coal, without
contaminating the environment. And that is why the President is
seeking funding for demonstration projects and programs to
produce electricity from coal without adding to the CO2
in the atmosphere. I think that there is in fact a very
compelling set of initiatives that have been defined by the
Department of Energy in their energy technology plans that if
funded would in fact help us to meet this very grave and very
serious challenge. I agree the challenge exists and we ought to
be doing something for it. I think the President is asking for
the funds to do that.
Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir. Most of the things that we are
doing are to produce more electricity. I am fairly sanguine
about the future of electricity production. I think with more
microhydro which has a huge potential, I think with a lot more
nuclear, with wind and solar we can get around the huge storage
challenges there, we can probably produce about as much
electricity as we would like to use. I am not at all sanguine
about liquid fuels. I see almost nothing out there that can
take up that slack. I spent a week in South America with the
Chairman of our Committee on Agriculture. He believes that at
the end of the day when we have exploited every potential we
can for fossil fuels, renewables, for fossil fuels, that we
will be producing about a third as much equivalent as we are
today. We can live very happily with that, sir, but that is
going to require a huge investment, don't you think?
Dr. Marburger. Absolutely.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. In summary, Dr. Marburger, I think what
you have heard on a bipartisan basis is more of the same in
education, more of the same in our energy research is not
getting the job done. We have to look at a different way to
approach these, or we are going to continue to be, you know,
21st with our students, we are going to be, you know, running
out of energy. But let me say to paraphrase Dr. Bartlett, you
are the messenger, and we respect that. We respect you, and we
thank you for coming here and I am glad that we could get you
out before we had to hold you up on this vote. This committee
will receive any additional statements from Members and
questions if they would like to have his follow-up answers from
the witnesses, and the witness is excused and the meeting is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP); Co-Chair, President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Department of Energy, Office of Science
Q1. A large fraction of the workforce at federal research agencies
like DOE and NASA has been there for decades. Yet, there does not
appear to be a significant effort to make it easier to bring in top
talent and pass on institutional knowledge before these employees
retire in the next few years.
Does the Administration have any plans to address
this issue? Is the Administration conducting a wholesale review
of recruiting and hiring practices to ensure a free-flowing
pipeline of top talent into federal research agencies?
A1. Agencies were tasked by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) as
part of the Human Capital Initiative (part of the President's
Management Agenda) to identify potential skill gaps and create plans to
address those gaps. More information on this initiative can be found
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf
At the agency level, workforce planning activities occur on an
ongoing basis consistent with specific agency and mission needs. For
example, the Office of Science (SC) has sought and received delegated
hiring authority from the DOE Human Capital Office. Once the approval
was received, SC instituted the following processes to attract and
expedite the hiring process within overall DOE guidelines:
1. Developed templates for our scientific program manager
position descriptions, crediting plans, and hiring management
questions to speed the process.
2. Utilized available recruitment incentives such as superior
qualifications in order to be able to set salaries higher than
the normal entry level of step 1.
3. Paid relocation and/or moving expenses.
4. Offered recruitment incentives as a percentage of salary.
5. Aggressively advertised outside of the normal human
resource mechanisms in scientific journals to attract interest.
Q2. For several years NSF has been tasked to fund the operations and
maintenance costs of Coast Guard icebreakers under the rationale that
the only use of Coast Guard icebreakers is to support NSF's polar
research activities. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences completed
a review of national needs and requirements for icebreaking
capabilities in polar regions and concluded that ``polar icebreakers
are essential instruments of U.S. national policy.'' Furthermore, the
Academy recommended that the Coast Guard have the responsibility, and
the budget, to construct new icebreakers and provide for the operations
and maintenance costs of existing icebreakers. Finally, the Academy
stressed the need for a Presidential Decision Directive to clearly
align agency responsibilities and budgetary authorities.
Q2a. Has the Administration made a determination, through a
Presidential Decision Directive or otherwise, on whether there is a
national need for icebreakers, and if so, whether the Coast Guard
should have the budget and responsibility for icebreaker construction,
operation and maintenance?
A2a. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) recognizes
there are national needs for icebreaking capability not directly
related to science, however, OSTP cannot speak authoritatively to
individual agency needs beyond science unless they are spelled out in
existing policy documents or agreements.
There are two ongoing interagency discussions. The first
interagency discussion includes the Department of State, Department of
Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Commerce,
Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, and the
National Science Foundation. These discussions include broad reviews of
previous executive branch policy documents, and evaluations of possible
policy changes that recognize likely future increases in human activity
that will accompany climatically driven environmental change
anticipated in the Arctic region. Once the interagency policy
discussions are completed, agencies can use the results to identify and
develop capability and resource requirements.
There is a second separate but parallel interagency discussion, to
include broad reviews of operational requirements for polar
icebreakers, which has just begun and also includes the aforementioned
agencies. A number of agencies are involved because the Coast Guard
icebreakers are used by multiple agencies, including NOAA to map the
Extended Continental Shelf.
Q2b. If the Administration has concluded that there is no national
requirement for icebreakers, will NSF be released from the
responsibility for funding all of the costs of the Coast Guard's active
icebreakers and be allowed to pursue other options, which may be less
costly, to support its requirements for access to and support of
research in polar regions?
A2b. The Administration has made no conclusion yet regarding national
requirements for icebreakers. It is necessary to first complete the
ongoing Arctic policy review.
National Academy of Sciences Study on Service Science
Q3. Section 1005 of the America COMPETES statute requires the Director
of OSTP, through the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study
on service science and report to Congress on how the Federal Government
should support this discipline. What is the status of this study?
A3. OSTP is reviewing the proposal from the National Academy of
Sciences and is currently exploring options to fund the study.
Additionally, OSTP is in the process of reaching out to relevant
stakeholders in order to define the scope of the study.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In the President's budget request of $74 million for NOAA in FY09,
what will be the practical affect of this cut? How will the cut affect
NOAA's ability to leverage the $74 million in the FY09 request? Will
there be further delays in the NPOESS satellite due to this cut?
A1. The $74 million in new funding included in the FY 2009 President's
Budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is intended to support the reinstatement of several key climate
measurement capabilities that once were part of the tri-agency National
Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
effort, but were removed from the planned NPOESS satellites during the
2006 restructuring of the program. In particular, this funding will be
used to sustain the data sets for three high-priority climate-related
measurements: total solar irradiance (measured by the Total Solar
Irradiance Sensor, or TSIS); Earth radiation budget data (from the
Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System sensor, or CERES); and ozone
vertical profile data (from the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite Limb
sensor, or OMPS-Limb). The TSIS and CERES measurements contribute to
long-term climate records that are vital to discriminating between
natural and human causes of climate change and to monitoring long-term
shifts in the energy budget that forces climate change. The OMPS-Limb
data are important for monitoring ozone structure and depletion
vertically in the atmosphere and thus to our understanding of the ozone
recovery process and related phenomena.
The $74 million in funding allocated for this climate sensor
package does not represent a budgetary cut, but rather represents
funding that has been added to NOAA's request specifically for this
purpose. The Administration believes that NOAA is well-positioned to
use these funds in programmatic actions for sustaining these valuable
data sets. No delays for the NPOESS satellites themselves are
anticipated as a result of this action.
Q2. In your written testimony, you state that the FY09 budget request
for the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is $2 billion, but that
the overall spending on climate change policies, science, technology,
international assistance and tax incentives is almost $9 billion.
Subtracting the $2 billion for CCSP--half of which goes to NASA for the
satellites--can you please provide a detailed accounting of how the
other $7 billion is being spent? Please also provide a detailed
accounting of how the $4 billion for the CCSP program is to be
distributed.
A2. The distribution of the $2.08 billion requested for the Climate
Change Science Program is shown in this table. Details for each agency
are not available and may be obtained from the agency.
The summary of distributions for the climate change expenditures is
shown in this figure:
By the end of this Administration, the President will have spent
almost $45 billion on climate change programs. In addition, the 2009
Budget requests a record additional $8.6 billion--a +9 percent increase
over 2008 enacted spending levels--to support climate change-related
research, development, and deployment programs, voluntary partnerships,
and international aid efforts.
Climate Change Science. The FY 2009 Budget proposes
$2.1 billion for the Climate Change Science Program, an
increase of +12 percent over 2008 enacted, including a +12
percent increase for NASA's Science Program.
Climate Change Technology. The Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP) is coordinated by the Department of
Energy. The 2009 Budget proposes $4.4 billion for CCTP
activities, an increase of +3 percent over 2008 enacted
spending. This includes a +67 percent increase for DOE research
on fusion, carbon sequestration, and hydrogen, and a +22
percent increase for energy efficiency and sequestration pilot
projects.
International Assistance. These programs support
developing countries' efforts to address climate change through
improved energy efficiency and renewable energy, land use, and
forestry practices. Proposed spending in the 2009 Budget
increased +225 percent from 2008 to $657 million, due largely
to a new international Clean Technology Fund to provide
financing to the developing world for investments in cleaner
technologies.
Energy Tax Provisions. This category includes tax
incentives for investments in certain energy technologies.
These incentives promote deployment of energy efficient or
alternative energy technologies. The value of these tax
incentives in the 2009 President's Budget total $6.0 billion
over the years 2009-2013, a +19 percent increase from 2008
enacted levels.
Q3. Since the President's Vision for Space Exploration was announced
in January 2004, the cumulative effects of subsequent NASA budget
requests and a continuing resolution have caused the operational date
of the Constellation system to slip to March of 2015. The FY09 budget
request seeks funding that only maintains an initial operational
capability by March 2015. Hence, the Administration does not endeavor
to accelerate development of Ares/Orion, and as a result, the United
States will be reliant on the Russians for access to ISS for at least
five years. Why is the Administration reluctant to propose additional
funding to close the gap?
A3. While NASA has committed to an Initial Operational Capability (IOC)
of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and its associated Ares I Crew
Launch Vehicle by March 2015, it is our understanding that NASA is
targeting an aggressive schedule with an IOC potentially as early as
September 2013 albeit at a reduced cost confidence level. The
President's FY 2009 Budget request for NASA, which increases
exploration funding by 11 percent, supports NASA's current Orion/Ares
program development plans in terms of achieving IOC by the March 2015
date with a 65 percent cost confidence.
With regard to budgetary resources, it is important to note that
the Vision for Space Exploration calls for a ``sustained and
affordable'' program of space exploration, and the Administration's
approach has been for NASA to proceed with exploration activities and
missions as it can afford to pay for them. At the same time, an over-
arching Administration goal with respect to NASA is to maintain
sufficiently robust programs (in the context of program requirements
and Presidential priorities) across the range of NASA mission areas and
activities, including not only human space flight activities but also
areas such as Earth and space science and aeronautics. The President's
FY 2009 Budget request is consistent with this objective, calling for a
total of $17.61 billion (a 2.9 percent increase over the FY 2008
enacted level), with almost a third of this amount allocated to science
activities. Our view is that this request reflects a strong commitment
by the Administration both to the exploration vision and a vigorous
NASA science program, while also seeking to reinforce the foundational
R&D capabilities necessary for long-term technical excellence and
success in aeronautics. In light of this over-arching budgetary
objective and other non-NASA fiscal demands, the Administration
considers the amount requested for NASA exploration activities, as well
as for NASA overall, to be appropriate and reasonable.
Q4. The Administration is aware that the Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-
proliferation Act (INKSNA) prohibits NASA from making cash purchases
from Russia after 2011. NASA's FY09 budget request includes $2.6
billion to purchase ISS transportation services through 2013. In order
for NASA to purchase Soyuz flights after 2011, Congress must amend the
INKSNA. Does the Administration plan to seek an amendment for INKSNA?
If so, when should Congress expect to receive the request?
A4. This is an important issue, and OSTP is working closely with NASA
and other appropriate offices and agencies to coordinate the
Administration's views and next steps on this subject. We expect this
coordination process to be completed soon.
Questions submitted by Representative David Wu
Q1. Does the Administration think our small and medium manufacturing
base is important? The MEP is the only federal program to assist our
small and medium-sized manufacturers. In my district, and I believe in
every Congressional district, we hear from this community that their #1
priority is to maintain full funding for MEP.
Dr. Marburger, what should I tell these groups? Why
do their priorities fall on deaf ears in this Administration?
What priority do you give to our small manufacturing base?
A1. Certainly the prosperity and health of the small and medium
manufacturing base is important for U.S. competitiveness. However,
programs that provide direct support for the private sector should be
funded, when possible, by the private sector and not by the government.
In the case of MEP, the government is providing consulting services
that are available concurrently from commercial entities. Originally
targeted at small firms, MEP centers now also serve many larger firms
that do not need federally-subsidized consulting advice. Given the
substantial benefits that MEP clients receive from the program, these
clients have both a profit incentive and the means to obtain these
services from the private sector. In an environment of limited
resources, choices such as this help ensure the taxpayers' money is
used optimally to achieve the maximum positive impact. It is the
Administration's judgment that the NIST core budget is a higher
priority than NIST extramural programs like MEP.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Fermilab
Q1. The President's budget request for the federal agencies
encompassed in the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) appears to
place a high priority on investment in the Nation's scientific
enterprise. However, a close reading of the budget shows that this
funding comes at the expense of some 151 federal programs that the
President proposes on paper to reduce or eliminate for savings of $18
billion that can be invested in Administration priorities.
Illinois is home to two DOE national laboratories--
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and
Argonne National Laboratory.
Fermilab is the Nation's only national laboratory
devoted to studying particle physics. When Congress restored
funding to many programs the President proposed to cut or
eliminate in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, there was
not enough money to fund the ACI. DOE's High Energy Physics
program, which funds Fermilab, was cut by eight percent below
the FY 2007 level--a real cut with real consequences.
On February 1st, Fermilab began unpaid rolling
furloughs of its 1900 scientists, engineers, technicians and
support staff. On February 5th, Fermilab began the process of
laying off 200 people from the lab given the budget for FY 2008
and outlook into FY 2009. We are losing the best and brightest
scientists and sending a chilling message to our university
students choosing a career path when we need more scientists.
This is a repeat of the FY 2008 budget all over
again. Are the President and the Administration serious about
investing in the Nation's scientific enterprise and making the
ACI a reality?
A1. The President and the Administration are absolutely committed to
making the ACI a reality. In his 2008 State of the Union speech,
President Bush renewed his call to implement the American
Competitiveness Initiative now, stating:
``To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust
in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them
to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress
passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness
Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This
funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask
Congress to double federal support for critical basic research
in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most
dynamic Nation on Earth.''
Unfortunately, the 2008 omnibus appropriations bill drastically cut
proposed ACI civilian research, funding only one-third of the
President's requested increase. In addition, Congress directed over
half of the enacted increase ($207 million of a total $403 million
increase) to earmarks and an unrequested new grants program. This
significantly impairs and delays the Administration's efforts to
strengthen long-term U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. The
increased funding would enable scientists to further explore promising
and critical areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and
alternative energy sources. President Bush's call for doubling these
basic research levels has been endorsed by Congress, which fully
authorized his ACI research increases in the bipartisan America
COMPETES Act (Public Law 110-69), and is supported by a broad coalition
of business and academic leaders in the ``American Innovation
Proclamation'' (http://futureofinnovation.org/media/Proclamation-
FINAL.pdf). The President's FY 2009 Budget returns ACI civilian
research to a doubling path to ensure this consensus national priority
objective is realized.
Q2. High Energy Physics is an international field with great
collaboration. The field will soon be focused on the Large Hadron
Collider coming into operation in Switzerland and operations at the
Tevatron at Fermilab will wind down by the end of the decade.
What is the Administration doing to help minimize the impacts of
the final FY 2008 budget for Fermilab? What can we do together to
reduce the serious impacts on Fermilab and our other research
laboratories and facilities?
A2. The Administration is very concerned about the impacts of the FY
2008 budget on Fermilab and on other research laboratories and
facilities. The impacts of the FY 2008 budget have been severe,
particularly for Fermilab and the High Energy Physics community. The FY
2008 budget allocates $688 million for the DOE/HEP, which supports
Fermilab. This represents a funding cut of six percent compared to FY
2007. Representative Lipinski has already described the impacts of
these cuts, including a large number of layoffs and unpaid rolling
furloughs for all employees. The President's FY 2009 Budget includes
$805 million for DOE/HEP, an increase of 17 percent over FY 2008. This
proposal focuses on supporting operations and facility improvements at
Fermilab, preserving the U.S. leadership roll in the Large Hadron
Collider collaboration, fulfilling our commitments on international
collaborations, and investing in research and technology that will
position the U.S. to regain and preserve leadership in the field of
High Energy Physics for the future. The serious impacts of the FY 2008
budget can be reduced by passage of the President's FY 2009 Budget.
Q3. The future for Fermilab belongs in new projects, which must be
accelerated, including the NOvA neutrino program done jointly with
Fermilab and the State of Minnesota and a new project (Project X) which
will pave the way to develop the technology for the proposed
International Linear Collider. What is the Administration's commitment
to these future programs for Fermilab in the FY 2009 budget?
A3. The Administration is committed to investing in a program that is
scientifically productive and in technology development that will
enable the U.S. to maintain a High Energy Physics program that is
internationally vital. The DOE has charged its Particle Physics Project
Prioritization Panel (P5) with developing a 10-year strategic plan for
an optimum science program within the constraints of a limited budget.
Since Fermilab is the only dedicated national facility for DOE Office
of High Energy Physics (HEP), this strategic plan is particularly
important for defining its role in the national and international
context.
The President's FY 2009 Budget includes $65 million for the NuMI
Off-axis Neutrino Appearance Detector (NOvA). There is no funding
explicitly requested for Project X since it is still being defined. The
FY 2009 budget restores funding for International Linear Collider (ILC)
R&D. Funding designated for technology development in support of the
ILC and funding for superconducting radio frequency (RF) technology are
both investments in the U.S. capabilities. These help preserve U.S.
leadership in the field and the option for a future the next
administration to host the next collider. This request fully supports
Fermilab's ability to plan for the future even though that future is
strongly tied to the strategic planning efforts of the HEP community
via P5.
Nanotechnology
Q4. Although the FY09 budget request provides funding increases for
some R&D agencies, it has curious inconsistencies. One significant
inconsistency is the funding proposal for the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI), which arguably involves the most cutting edge science
and technology and is critical for our future technological strength.
Under this budget proposal, NNI funding would stagnate, receiving an
increase of only two percent above FY08.
This budget proposal, which provides an increase below inflation,
would effectively result in a reduction in the level of effort for
nanotechnology research. How is this consistent with the goal of
strengthening U.S. innovation and competitiveness, and how do you
justify it in a year in which the Administration is trumpeting its
support for research in the physical sciences and engineering?
A4. The President's FY 2009 Budget provides over $1.5 billion for the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), over three times the level of
investment at the beginning of this Administration, bringing the total
since the NNI was established in 2001 to nearly $10 billion. This
sustained investment is advancing our understanding of the unique
phenomena and processes that occur at the nanometer scale and
expediting the responsible use of this knowledge to achieve advances in
medicine, manufacturing, information technology, and energy and
environmental technologies.
This budget request for nanotechnology reflects its high priority
among interagency R&D areas, and includes increases for nanotechnology
R&D within the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (in the Department of
Commerce), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
Environmental Protection Agency. The budget request for the Department
of Defense declines by $112 million relative to 2008 primarily because
the Administration does not request funding for the numerous earmarks
that Congress added in this area.\1\ (The Administration prefers
instead to award research funds based on merit review through a
competitive process refereed by scientists themselves. Such a system
has the best prospects for ensuring that the highest quality research
is supported.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, because ``nanotechnology'' is not a separate
budget item, DOD programs are driven by performance goals, not the
means by which those are achieved. As a result, the amount within DOD
programs that will be spent on nanotechnology-related R&D in the future
can only be roughly estimated. In fact, DOD is generally conservative
in its estimate and in the past has spent more than it proposed for a
given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the total NNI budget increase over FY 2008 is about 2.4
percent, the increase targeted for physical sciences at NSF, NIST, and
DOE is a substantial 11 percent, and seeks to restore funding in FY
2008 that was expected to be much higher ($80 million more for DOE
alone) as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). This
increased support for basic research in the physical sciences is
essential to progress across the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Ultimately both Congress and the Administration must fit funding
within a discretionary budget that has limits. Looking at overall
funding for the NNI relative to other areas, it is clear that the
direction of the requests for the NNI over the course of this
Administration has been consistent with the President's commitment and
congressional intent to support American competitiveness.
Q5. The National Science and Technology Council, which you chair, is
charged with setting overall goals and priorities for interagency R&D
initiatives, such as the NNI. Does the FY09 budget request for the NNI
result from a conscious decision by the agencies represented on the
NSTC to reduce the level of effort in this area of research? If so,
what are the reasons for the de-emphasis, and if not, how did this
budget request come about?
A5. See answer to question one above regard funding levels--the level
of effort in nano research is not being reduced--it is being increased
government-wide and particularly within the priority ACI agencies. The
process associated with developing R&D budgets is a collaborative one
involving agencies working with the OMB and OSTP.
DOE Office of Science Labs
Q6. The DOE Office of Science is the steward for several very large-
scale experimental and scientific facilities around the country, some
of which can cost hundreds of millions or more to build, and tens of
millions in annual operational costs. Argonne and Fermilabs are two
such examples, both of which help to greatly stimulate the economy of
Illinois and the Midwest. But, these facilities are often used for non-
energy research by other agencies such as NIH, DOD, NSF, and private
industry for what amounts to nominal compensation.
Given your call to diversify funding sources for research, is the
current scheme adequate for the dual goals of encouraging diverse,
productive use of these facilities and recovering significant
operational costs? Or should DOE continue to bear the brunt of
responsibility for others' research?
A6. One of the most important missions the Office of Science carries
out on behalf of the entire U.S. research community is designing,
building and operating many of this country's largest scientific user
facilities. Scientists are awarded time on these facilities based on
the strength of the science they propose to do--regardless of whether
they come from government labs, academia or industry and regardless of
whether they are directly supported by DOE or other agencies. Argonne
and Fermilab, alone, support approximately 6,000 visiting researchers
per year who use those labs' particle beams and colliders, nuclear
physics accelerators, x-ray synchrotron light sources, nanoscience
centers and supercomputers.
In cases where the Office of Science is the source of 90 percent or
more of total federal funding for a discovery-oriented field, such as
nuclear physics and particle physics, recovery of operational costs
would not result in more efficient or effective use of taxpayer
resources. Support of these two fields is a shared responsibility of
NSF and the Office of Science. The federal investments in these fields
are coordinated through two committees that advise both agencies: the
High Energy Physics Advisory Panel and the Nuclear Sciences Advisory
Panel. About 40 percent of the 6,000 users at Argonne and Fermilab are
using high energy or nuclear physics machines. There are two distinct
areas in which foreign collaborators have contributed (cash or in-kind)
to the Tevatron Collider program: detector and upgrade construction,
and ongoing support of detector operations and software and computing
for data storage and analysis. Foreign collaborators have contributed
over $100 million in capital equipment for detector fabrication and
upgrades and about $8 million per year in ongoing support for
operations and computing.
In other fields, the Office of Science may not be the dominate
source of research funding as it is in particle or nuclear physics, but
it does have a mission to operate the majority of large national
facilities. X-ray synchrotron light sources are one example. The Office
of Science operates four of the Nation's six synchrotrons operating as
user facilities, and DOE facilities are the site of 178 of the 212
beamlines in the Nation. Of those 178 beamlines, 96 receive full
operational support from the Office of Science. The other major
operational support is provided by NIH (21 beamlines), universities (22
beamlines), and industry (21 beamlines). Research institutes, NSF,
Department of Commerce, and DOE EE/EM also support three to five
beamlines each. When researchers use these beamlines to conduct
proprietary research not published in the open literature, DOE charges
full cost recovery. In most cases, that is a very small proportion of
any facility's budget. As an example, revenue recovered for proprietary
research at Argonne's Advanced Photon Source in FY 2007 represents two
percent of the total facility budget.
A 1999 National Academies report entitled, ``Cooperative
Stewardship: Managing the Nation's Multi-disciplinary User Facilities
for Research with Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons, and High Magnetic
Fields,'' describes this most efficient and effective model for
operating these national resources--that is the funding of the core
operations under the stewardship of one agency. Scientific user
facilities are generally characterized by large fixed costs and their
operations become unstable when those fixed costs are spread over a
diverse base of uses. The cooperative stewardship model does allow for
shared investment by partner agencies, and DOE's partners have a
successful track record of making those shared investments.
The recovery of operational costs from users is not a goal of this
Administration. Rather, the Administration believes that maximizing the
scientific and technological return on the Nation's existing scientific
infrastructure should be one of the highest priorities for our R&D
investment to protect our global scientific and economic leadership.
That is why the President proposed the ACI and wants to see it fully
funded.