[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Martens, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Colin Samples, Aschley Schiller, and Taylor Kelly
Subcommittee Staff
________________
PART 5
Page
Department of Commerce....................................... 1
Ocean Worlds................................................ 65
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.............. 121
National Science Foundation................................ 205
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
____________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
___________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-501 WASHINGTON: 2016
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017
----------
Tuesday, February 23, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
HON. PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Culberson. The first hearing of the Commerce, Justice,
Science Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. It is a
privilege to have with us today the Secretary of Commerce,
Penny Pritzker.
We have begun our work expeditiously this year. Chairman
Rogers has tasked us and each subcommittee to get started early
to get our work done as quickly as possible because we have a
budget agreement and a favorable forecast for the Senate, we
hope, Mr. Chairman to get all 12 appropriations bills done
separately, and hope that they will come not only to the floor
of the House separately, but to the floor of the Senate
separately, and we hope at the end of the year separately be
considered by the Congress.
And in keeping with that task, Mr. Chairman, and to keep
our schedule moving quickly, we are going to follow the 5-
minute rule for questions, and I certainly will not cut anybody
off mid-sentence. I will recognize members in order of
seniority based on who is present at the beginning of the
hearing, and going back and forth, of course, between parties.
For late comers, I will recognize those members in the order
that you arrive, and continue to go back and forth between the
parties until all members are recognized.
And this subcommittee, in particular, has a long history.
As you know, Chairman Rogers has told me many times, this is
one of your favorite subcommittees. The jurisdiction of this
subcommittee encompasses so many good things that we do in
helping keep the American people safe, and enforcing our laws,
and ensuring that the nation's trade--as the Secretary of
Commerce will talk to us about here in a minute--looking after
the nation's farmers and workers with the NOAA satellites. We
also, of course, have jurisdiction over NASA and the National
Science Foundation.
About everywhere you look, the work of this subcommittee is
just pure good, and it is one that is a real privilege for me
to chair. It is the one committee I truly wanted to chair when
I came on Appropriations, and I thank you for the trust you
have invested in me, Chairman Rogers, it is a real privilege.
And we are delighted to start with you today, Madam Secretary.
It is a privilege to have a chance for you to talk to us about
the President's 2017 Department of Commerce Budget request.
And as we all know, the Department of Commerce has a number
of important functions including the administration of
America's patent and trademark laws; preparing for and
conducting the Decennial Census; enforcing our trade laws;
forecasting the weather; managing our fisheries; and protecting
and exploring our oceans; and mapping and cataloging the
immense mineral wealth that lies beneath the ocean under
America's exclusive economic zone, which, in fact, encompasses
about--if you look at the entire EEZ, it is about 50 percent of
America lies under the nation's oceans, and there is vast
mineral wealth out there, and that is a key part of your
responsibility, Madam Secretary.
Now, we on the committee--I know many of the members here
share my concern that the budget request you have submitted to
us includes nearly a half-billion-dollars in discretionary
spending increases, and more than $2 billion in new mandatory
spending. Frankly, they are just gimmicks. Including such
things as a $10 barrel tax on oil, which is not likely to
happen.
So it is important that we focus on the realities that we
will actually be able to handle this year in our tight budget
environment, and recognize that we are simply not going to be
raising taxes on the American people. And so to that extent,
the President's budget request is not realistic, and that also
makes our job on this committee more difficult. But we do
appreciate the work that you do, Madam Secretary, have a duty
to our constituents to ensure that their hard-earned tax
dollars are spent wisely, and we will make certain that those
tax dollars are spent to enforce the law as written by
Congress.
We will also be focusing, in particular, in our hearing
today about making sure that we are protecting the Internet
from foreign governments; ensuring that the 2020 census is
going to cost less than the census that was conducted in 2010.
We want to make certain, Madam Secretary, that the weather
satellite program meets their cost and schedule timelines. And
something of particular interest to me and to my predecessor,
Frank Wolf, we want to make sure that we are strengthening
cyber and information technology security at the Department of
Commerce.
But before we proceed, I would like to recognize my
colleague and good friend, Mr. Honda, for any remarks that he
would like to make.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we start the FY 17 process, let me start by saying how
grateful I am for my chairman's leadership last year and how I
look forward to working with him and my colleagues on this
committee to build upon last year's successes and craft a
strong CJS appropriation--one that promotes strong economic
growth, robust innovation, and societal equity.
Welcome, Madam Secretary, and thank you for testifying
today, and thank you for your commitment to smart, effective
Federal investments in business and innovation.
I think it is fitting that my first hearing as ranking
member of this subcommittee is with the Secretary of Commerce.
My district is Silicon Valley in California.
It is a region known for its strong, innovative, high-tech
economy that has reshaped the world we live in, and it is also
a region that is dealing with the challenges and inequity that
accompany the great opportunities of our 21st century economy.
And I am pleased that the President's budget includes robust
support for our nation's priorities to promote new era
manufacturing, which I am sure you are very interested in;
investment in American companies; and quality data that our
government's businesses and researchers rely upon, as we know.
As we prepare our market to be a leader in today's global
data-driven economy, we must ensure that our investments and
programs lift up all Americans across this nation, and reach
those who have been historically left behind. As we grow
public/private partnerships to invest in advanced
manufacturing, we must also grow partnerships to invest in our
minority youth entrepreneurs.
As we ensure that we accurately and cost effectively count
each and every American, we must especially ensure that we
count all of our small, immigrant and rural populations as well
as those in the territories. A strong American economy is one
that is felt by all, and I believe that the President's budget
does just that.
So thank you again for joining us this morning, Madam
Secretary, and I look forward to hearing your responses to
questions asked by my chairman and my colleagues here today.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. It is my privilege to
recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You do a great job
here, by the way.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you for being with us.
We appreciate your taking the time to justify your budget
request.
As you know, last year we all reached an agreement setting
discretionary caps for both 2016 and 2017. I am proud that we
crafted an omnibus bill for 2016, that adhered to the terms of
that bipartisan agreement. It's not always easy to live within
your means, but it is necessary and responsible. That is why I
am disappointed that the President has chosen to put forth a
budget request for your department that is filled with gimmicks
in order to side skirt the very same budget caps that he signed
into law last year.
The budget you have put before us requests $2 billion in
new mandatory funding, making this budget effectively DOA. I
mean, we owe over $19 trillion, growing like a weed, but we
only appropriate a little less than one-third of Federal
spending. Federal spending is going to be $400 trillion; we
only appropriate $100 trillion of that.
When I came here, we appropriated two-thirds, now it is
one-third. In the last 5 years, in an effort to get at the
spending problem that we have, we have cut discretionary
spending by almost $200 billion over the last 5 years, and that
is an achievement, big time. But, in the meantime, the
mandatory spending has grown like a weed and the public is
alarmed, frightened, scared, frustrated, mad. And yet here you
come with a $2 billion increase in mandatory funding as if you
didn't know that would make me mad.
For fiscal 2017, you have requested $9.73 billion in
discretionary; that is a 5 percent increase over the previous
year. That number proposes increases for nearly every agency,
every program at your department. Given current law under the
bipartisan budget agreement, that is unrealistic, to say the
very least.
It is the job of this committee to ensure that the programs
that serve taxpayers well, are funded responsibly. Innovation
and job creation are essential to growing the national,
regional, and State economies, and despite this unrealistic
budget submission, your agency does do a lot of great work,
including in my home State of Kentucky.
Over the last 7 years, we have been hit with the war on
coal; the loss of over 10,000 coal jobs in my district alone.
That is just coal jobs, that does not mention convenience
stores, and truck drivers, and grocery stores, and restaurants,
and the like.
We are in a depression in my part of the world. They
shuttered the AK Steel plant in Ashland. Regions like
Appalachia--and we are not alone--that have been forced to try
to diversify their economies as a result of the hostile
regulatory environment of this administration and emerging
energy technologies and have had to think creatively and
strategically about what we do next to live.
From the grassroots level, I have worked with our outgoing
governor, Governor Beshear, and now the new governor, Bevin, on
a regional community development initiative that we have dubbed
SOAR, Shaping Our Appalachian Region. It is an effort to try to
diversify the economy, to bring new ways to create jobs to
replace those we lost.
Last summer, your assistant secretary for economic
development, Jay Williams, came down to our area to address the
second annual SOAR summit conference; almost 2,000 people.
During his remarks, he shared lessons learned from serving as
the Mayor of Youngstown, Ohio, and explained how our
communities can leverage Economic Development Administration
resources to help create those jobs and opportunities that we
desperately need for new businesses across the Appalachian
region. And I deeply appreciated the time he has spent with us,
two years in a row, frankly.
As he mentioned, Commerce has many programs that have
helped, and continue to help, these struggling coal mining
communities. For fiscal 2017, the President's budget proposes
to continue to fund what he calls the Power Plus Program, but
does not include a specific funding amount, or propose to
continue funding the Assistance to Coal Communities program
within EDA. That is despite the fact that Congress has included
clear direction in the last three omnibus bills to support coal
communities.
I would be remiss if I did not mention--even though it is
outside your purview--that I continue to believe that Power
Plus is toothless without regulatory relief for these coal
mining communities. The war on coal continues. I look forward
to hearing your plan for those important programs in the
future.
Additionally, the U.S. steel market has been flooded by
cheap imports from around the world; they are dumping steel on
us. That illegal dumping of steel in America has put many of
the U.S. steel makers in jeopardy, like AK Steel in Ashland
which is going to close. Across the country, steel companies
are closing facilities and sending their employees home. The
President's budget requests an increase for the International
Trade Administration, but only a small portion is targeted
toward enforcement and compliance.
With this continuous increasing pressure on U.S. steel
companies, I am very troubled by the allocation of the
requested budget increase. I would like to hear about how you
plan to address the unfair policies that countries like China
are today pursuing to the detriment and death, frankly, of U.S.
manufacturers in this country and their workers.
We have many challenges ahead of us, I look forward to
working with you throughout the process. Thank you for joining
us, we wish you well. I yield.
Mr. Culberson. Madam Secretary, we appreciate your
testimony today, and the written statement that you have will
be entered into the record. And I would ask, if you could, to
please keep your opening statement to 5 minutes so we will have
additional time for questions.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET REQUEST
Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely. First of all, Chairman
Rogers, Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Honda, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
lay out the priorities for the President Obama's fiscal year
2017 budget request for the Department of Commerce.
Building on your strong support over the last 3 years, this
request will enable the Department of Commerce to serve as an
effective voice for business in the Federal Government;
continue our work with the private sector on policy
development; and help firms of all sizes enter new markets.
Our fiscal year 2017 budget request provides $9.7 billion
in discretionary funding to support our core priorities under
our open-for-business agenda, while also allowing us to make
our department more efficient.
This agenda is focused on four key priorities--promoting
trade and investment; spurring innovation and entrepreneurship;
gathering and acting on environmental intelligence; and fueling
a data-driven economy. Today I want to highlight just a few key
initiatives under each of these areas.
First, the budget request will enable our department to
better serve American businesses as they seek to access the 96
percent of potential customers who live beyond our borders.
Increasing trade and investment is critical to growing our
economy. Nearly 10 million U.S. jobs are supported by exports.
This budget request will allow us to expand the footprint
of our foreign trade specialists to help American companies
navigate exporting into new markets. It will strengthen our
team's ability to enforce trade laws that protect U.S.
industries from unfair trade practices, and ensure foreign
governments' compliance with the international trade
agreements. We are also requesting funding to expand Select
USA, the first ever whole of government effort to facilitate
business investment to and within the United States.
Second, the budget request will also increase investment in
the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, which was
established to ensure America's global leadership in
manufacturing.
Each institute has a unique focus, but a common goal: to
create, showcase, and bring new made-in-America capabilities in
manufacturing processes from lab to market in the near term.
The Department of Commerce oversees the network of the seven
existing institutes, and we have the unique authority to
establish new institutes in technologies areas selected by
industry.
Another key piece of our agenda is ensuring that
communities and businesses have the information they need to
prosper in a changing environment. This budget request supports
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's core
missions that promote more resilient communities, including
fostering healthy marine resources, and improving forecasting
accuracy, and lead times for severe weather.
To ensure NOAA retains a robust observational
infrastructure, the budget also provides $2.3 billion to fully
fund the next generation of weather and environmental
satellites, including the Polar Follow On Satellite Program.
Finally, recognizing that data powers the 21st century
economy, the census bureau is committed to achieving a 2020
census that is both accurate and efficient, with the goal of
keeping the per household cost below that of the 2010 Decennial
Census.
Investing wisely now in preparation for the 2020 census
will potentially save American taxpayers more than $5 billion.
To achieve these savings, this request provides a $1.6 billion
to develop, test, and implement the innovative design methods.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request furthers priority
programs that have a strong return on investment for American
taxpayers. Ultimately, these priorities are only a small piece
of the Commerce department's work to develop and implement
policies that support economic growth, enhance our country's
competitiveness, and strengthen America's businesses both at
home and abroad.
I look forward to answering your questions today, and thank
you for having me.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It is very
important for you as you go forward today from our hearing to
take to heart what Chairman Rogers has said, and that is that
this $2 billion increase in mandatory spending that you are
assuming in your request is simply not going to happen, and it
does make our job far more difficult; and that is the root of
the problem that the American people face. The massive
increases in mandatory spending are driving the annual deficit
and the debt right through the roof.
So it is very disappointing and frustrating to see the
increase that the administration has recommended through you to
this subcommittee includes $2 billion in new mandatory spending
that are simply not going to happen, and as Chairman Rogers
pointed out, breaks the budget agreement.
INTERNET GOVERNANCE
I also want to mention something to you that is of
particular interest and that I hear a lot about from my
constituents, and that is Internet governance. We all have a
keen interest in protecting the integrity of the Internet. My
predecessor, Frank Wolf, was one of the first out of the gate
to recognize the threat of Chinese cyber espionage. Frank,
quite correctly, spotted the problem that Chinese were creating
early on, and I was proud to support him in that effort to
protect the agencies under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee from cyber attacks by the Chinese.
So we are all becoming--the whole country's increasingly
aware of the threat of cyber espionage. And the committee, in
the last couple of appropriations bills, has included language
prohibiting the Department of Commerce from relinquishing
responsibility for the Internet Domain Name System to any other
country. Yet, despite these Congressional limitations, the
Obama administration continues to plan to transition this
responsibility to the global stakeholder community.
And I noted that at the Chinese government's world Internet
conference, China appeared to move back towards their original
belief that Internet governance is the responsibility of
governments, which is a tenet not acceptable in a final
Internet transition plan. We have had a very successful system
in the United States of the private sector maintaining that
responsibility. The Department of Commerce has overseen that,
and we have put very specific language in last year's bill and
in the 2016 bill prohibiting the transfer of that
responsibility out of the Department of Commerce.
Since the Chinese seem to want to make the governance of
the Internet the responsibility of government, I wonder if you
could talk to us about why you believe the Obama administration
and the Department of Commerce believe it is a good idea for
the Chinese to have a say in how the Internet is administered.
Secretary Pritzker. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me
start with the fundamental premise I think you and I agree on,
which is the stability and security of the Internet, and the
domain name system is of paramount importance.
The Department intends, you know, a rigorous review of the
IANA transition proposal, which we have not received a proposal
yet. When we think about the proposal, we believe that there
are a number of issues that would be absolutely paramount for
us to even consider any kind of transition.
First, a system would have to support and enhance a multi-
stakeholder model.
Second, it would have to maintain the security, stability,
and resiliency of the Internet's domain name system.
Third, it would need to meet the needs of our global
customers.
And, finally, it would have to ensure that we would have an
open and free Internet.
And as it relates to ICANN itself, the governance of ICANN
would have to be structured in a way that there could be no
government leadership of that organization. So we share that
fundamental principle.
There is no transition anticipated before the end of this
fiscal year. We are expecting to see a plan proposal in mid-
March, and, of course, when we receive that plan we will work
very closely with Congress throughout that entire process.
Mr. Culberson. But of course, you recognize that we have
prohibited any effort to move towards such a transition?
Secretary Pritzker. I understand----
Mr. Culberson. This fiscal year.
Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. I understand the language
that has been put in appropriations. And so what we are going
to do is receive a plan and then we will talk with you about
it.
Mr. Culberson. I just really want to drive that home
because the whole concept of a free, and open, and thriving
Internet is completely inconsistent with the way the Chinese
government approaches these things, and we want to keep the
control of those Internet domain names here in the United
States in the hands of the private sector has worked very, very
well, so that it does continue to be free and secure.
How would you ensure, for example--if I could, the last
question and then I will go to Mr. Honda--talk to us about how
you would even begin to protect and address cyber security and
privacy concerns, which is something of keen interest to all of
us?
Secretary Pritzker. Well, the domain name system and cyber
security are two different issues. As it relates to cyber
security, that is a paramount importance to the entire
administration, it is something that we have been working very
carefully and very closely on.
For our department, one of the things that we have done is
really make sure that we have installed the Einstein 3A system,
run by the Department of Homeland Security, throughout our
entire department to protect ourselves. And I am happy to talk
more about each bureau and what they are doing.
Mr. Culberson. Well, in particular what I was driving at,
is your understanding of what this proposal would be, what
would be the role of foreign governments in the----
Secretary Pritzker. We are not looking to have a role of
foreign governments. That is--forgive me--when I talk about the
multi-stakeholder process, it is a process where it is not lead
by governments but instead lead by the stakeholders in the
Internet community.
Mr. Culberson. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Honda.
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question about
the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, better known
as NNMI hubs. I believe that there are about seven of these
industry-led public/private advanced manufacturing centers
across this nation. In fact, my home of Silicon Valley was
recently selected as a site for a new center on developing
flexible hybrid electronics. And that is with the Department of
Defense.
This center, which focuses on developing this potentially
game-changing technology, took about $75 million in investment
from DOD and raised over a quarter of a billion dollars from
industry to build an innovation hub. And being from Silicon
Valley, I fully appreciate how important it is that we focus on
advanced manufacturing and potentially game-changing
technologies to ensure that the next Silicon Valley is located
right here in the U.S.
The vision of this network of advanced manufacturing hubs
was to link all of them together through NIST to develop an
innovation echo system across this country. In the fiscal year
2016 budget, NIST was given funding to coordinate this network
and to establish NIST centers through an open call to agencies.
Now until fiscal year 2016, only the DOE and DOD had the funds
to raise the seed money for these hubs.
Now with last year's appropriations, other agencies now
have the ability to compete for these seed funds to establish
an advanced manufacturing center focusing on their
technologies.
The questions I have are, what is the current status of the
NNMI network in this role in linking these centers and
establishing new ones? What are some of the successes from the
seven NNMI centers so far? And what is your view of the role of
the agencies in industry--agencies and industry/academia and
the long-term success and sustainability of these hubs?
And then in your opinion, would these centers develop
without seed funding from the agencies? And you may want to
talk a little bit about the source of the seed funding and its
anticipated, you know, growth in the next couple years.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, first of all, I want to thank the
committee for their support of the role of NIST in helping to
set up the network as well as to authorize us to do our very
first institute at the Department of Commerce.
You gave us $5 million for coordination which we are
setting up the advance manufacturing national program office.
And we, in fact, completed a review of all of the network, an
annual report of the network, as well as we produced a strategy
which we have recently distributed to all of you for what the
network intends to accomplish.
You know, the successes of the seven existing institutes
vary depending upon their age, the oldest being about three
years old. I went and I have actually visited three of them
myself. If you take the oldest, which is in Youngstown, Ohio,
that does 3D printing, it is extraordinary what is happening
there. It is, in fact, not just extraordinary what is happening
there, it is a really by virtue of your creating the network,
what is happening in other parts of the country, for example,
in Texas, in 3D printing is really amazing.
So they started with 60 different participants, and today
they have somewhere about 140. The institute in Youngstown,
Ohio, has now partnered with University of Texas in El Paso,
to--because El Paso has the greatest number of 3D printers. My
point is, what you all are funding and are seeding with
taxpayer dollars, I am a huge fan as a private sector person of
this program, because as Congressman Honda said, most of the
institutes are funded with some taxpayer dollars, the minimum
requirement a 1 to 1 match, most are matched much more than 1
to 1 by the private sector, local government, and the
universities, and the education partners.
It is also not just a big company game, but, in fact, I
spent--I talked with one small business who is making some of
the powders that are used in additive manufacturing. They said
we never would have had the gumption to build a new $70 million
plant to create these additive materials if this institute had
not been created. I am simply giving you the example of one, I
mean I could go chapter and verse on these things, but we do
not have time today.
In terms of the role of academics, it is really critical
that the private sector and the academia partner together
because the academic world is really great at research, but
often you need some help to go from research to market, that is
the whole goal of the NNMIs. And they are playing an absolutely
important role in doing the primary research, but they need the
catalysts to the private sector to get those potential products
out of the laboratory into the marketplace.
Seed funding is essential. I talked to--in each of the
venues that I visited, the leadership in those communities told
me we would never have come together organically, but it was
the Federal government's wisdom to do these programs that was a
catalyst for us to bring together. It is not just in one local
city, they bring together regions and then now are partnering
in different parts of the country. It is very exciting what you
all have unleashed, and I think it is, you know, an
extraordinary public/private partnership.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, if I just may. It may be of
interest to you, map out where a lot of these centers are, or
the participating entities are with the centers so that members
will see how, you know, how it affects their own communities
and the participation of that so that it does not sound like it
is just that one spot, but it is shared.
Secretary Pritzker. I think that is a really good point,
and I think if we map that and then follow it over several
years, you will see then the role of the network is to expand.
So the 3D printing is not just in Youngstown, Ohio, but it is
in Texas and in other places, or you take composite materials--
--
Mr. Honda. Sure.
Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. Or the different--the
seven or eight different----
Mr. Honda. Yes. So, Mr. Chairman, as to answer the
question, so what do I get out of it? Kind of an answer----
Secretary Pritzker. Exactly. For everybody.
Mr. Honda. Probably the last question I asked was the
anticipated buildup, because of this process, what impact does
that have in the future--this budget and in the future?
Secretary Pritzker. Well, in our budget, we have asked for
$22 million to do--you authorized us to do at least one
institute, last year we asked for additional funding so that we
could do at least another institute. And the first one that we
are working on, we have just put out the FFO. And what is
unique, if you recall me saying in my opening comments, is we
at the Department of Commerce for our advanced manufacturing
institutes, the private sector will determine the technology
that we choose to fund, which I think is different than
Department of Energy or Department of Defense where they are
picking the technologies. And then what we are asking for in
our budget is the ability to grow the number of institutes.
When you talk about the $2 billion of mandatory funding
going forward, that is over a ten year period, and it is to
stand up 27 institutes. That is what we had put in the budget.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Rogers.
SOAR
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, I mentioned earlier about
SOAR, the economic development group we put together with the
governor. I visited last--couple weeks ago, I took the chairman
of the FCC to two of the poorest counties in the country, very
small counties, but where the local telephone co-op had
installed high-capacity, high-speed cable--a remarkable thing
in that small community. The FCC chairman was flabbergasted.
But one byproduct of that is, the Teleco guy told us that
he has 150 people now working out of their homes, doing things
for Hertz Rent A Car, and Hyatt Regency, and whatever. Those
are jobs they can do at home even if they are homebound. So one
of the major goals of SOAR is to lay 4,300 miles of high-
capacity, high-speed cable, statewide, starting in eastern
Kentucky.
So, Mr. Honda, in competition with your Silicon Valley,
there is going to be Silicon Holler.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, we really do invite that. And
maybe he can look at cyber security as one of the hubs for the
area.
The Chairman. At any rate, I welcome your help in that. It
is an exciting thing, and it is beginning to pay fruit. And it
is through the work of your department and ARC, and EDA and
others, that we are trying to climb a very steep mountain.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION--STEEL DUMPING
Let me briefly get back to the steel layoffs. Just before
Christmas, AK Steel in Ashland temporarily laid off 700
employees in a very poor area. And those jobs are going to be
almost impossible to replace, at least in the short term, until
we get Silicon Holler going good.
Several of the steel companies around the country, in
response to the dumping that has been showered upon them,
several of them joined together and filed a complaint with the
International Trade Administration and the International Trade
Commission, accusing China, India, Italy, South Korea, and
Taiwan of purposefully undervaluing their corrosion-resistant
steel imports in order to increase market share in the U.S. It
is blatant, plain, open, purposeful, intended.
In the fiscal 2016 omnibus bill, we provided increased
funding for the International Trade Administration's
enforcement and compliance division. How is that working out?
Can we hope to see some result out of that?
Secretary Pritzker. Do you want me to answer?
The Chairman. Please.
Secretary Pritzker. Yes, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I
share your concern about the steel industry and the effects
that unfair trade is having on communities throughout our
country.
First, the money, thank you very much for the additional
resources in fiscal year 2016. I think the goal is to hire 37
additional enforcement officers. We have our pedal to the metal
to try and get these folks on board. It is a very, very high
priority for us because we have--on our anti-dumping and
countervailing duty efforts, we have over 300 orders in place,
of which 149 relate to steel products. So this is a huge
problem.
In fiscal year 2015, there were 62 anti-dumping and
countervailing duty investigations initiated, of which about 40
were related to steel. And that is the highest number of cases
we have had in any one year in the last 15 years. So we are
seeing what your communities are feeling, and we are reacting
as quickly as we can, we thank you with the additional
resources to address these challenges.
The other thing that we are doing is--a couple things I
want you to know that personally I have been doing. We hold the
joint JCCT meeting with the Chinese. In November, I personally
raised this with the vice premier about the dumping that is
coming from China and the over capacity that exists in their
country. I talked to a number of their economic officers as
well.
We are now--and the vice premier has agreed, we are going
to have a JCCT steel--say that three times fast--JCCT steel
dialog is coming up in May, as well we are having--have, we are
working in the OECD with our trading partners on steel over
capacity.
So we are working on a multi-lateral level, at a bilateral
level, we are doing our enforcement with as much of the
resources that you have given us. It is very troubling what is
happening to our steel industry. And steel capacity globally
needs to be reduced.
And the other thing that we are doing--and I have spoken
with the CEOs of a number of our steel producers--is to work to
make sure that we have complete information as to what is
happening so that when cases are brought, we can be as thorough
as possible in prosecuting them.
The Chairman. Time is of the essence.
Secretary Pritzker. It absolutely is. I could not agree
with you more, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. People are getting laid off every day, and
these companies are closing down. And unless something is done
rather quickly, you are not going to have a steel industry in
the United States of America.
Secretary Pritzker. I am very worried about it. We are
using all the resources that we have, we are very focused on
the tools that we have in our tool chest.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST STEEL DUMPING IN THE U.S.
Mr. Culberson. To follow up on that very quickly, Madam
Secretary, what specific enforcement actions have you taken?
You talked to the Chinese Premier, you are worried about it. I
think Chairman Rogers raises a very good question, we certainly
hear it in the presidential campaign, it is resonating with the
American people. You have a tool kit at your disposal, this
committee has given you the resources you need. What specific
enforcement action have you taken against Chinese companies
dumping steel in the United States?
Secretary Pritzker. Chairman Culberson, what we do is
really several things when it comes to enforcement. First thing
we do is--writ large and then I will talk about steel--is work
with companies with whatever trade barriers that they are
facing.
In the case of steel, this is working with the Chinese to
say you need to cut capacity. And, you know, the challenge will
be, will they cut capacity fast enough to have our steel
industry be able to survive? They have cut it some, but it is
not fast enough at this stage. So there is the working with
them.
There is our anti-dumping and countervailing duty effort,
which is where we basically assess the situation and then if
there is found to be dumping, and/or unfair subsidation then we
put tariffs and duties on those goods and products. And as I
said, fully half of the orders we have outstanding, 149 are on
steel products coming in from outside the United States.
And then finally, we support the U.S. trade representative
in WTO litigation. Because we are so familiar with working with
the companies on their particular issues, we use our expertise
to help the U.S. trade rep bring new cases.
And in the customs bill, which you all supported, there is
now additional resources in the ITEC, and hopefully through the
appropriations, the U.S. trade rep will get another $3 million
to continue to pursue more within the WTO context.
Mr. Culberson. What I was driving at is, you know, talking
to the Chinese does not help, working with them does not help,
they are not likely to do this of their own free will. When
have you dropped the hammer on them and actually hit them with
a tariff?
Secretary Pritzker. Well, we do it----
Mr. Culberson. That is what I am asking.
Secretary Pritzker. Well----
Mr. Culberson. Give the American people and Chairman Rogers
some good news here.
Secretary Pritzker. Oh, lots. I mean, we have probably--
last year I think we did, what, about 40 new tariff cases, or
something to that effect. I will get you the exact number
because I do not--please do not misquote--I do not want to give
you the wrong numbers. But we had more, as I said, more tariff
cases last year than we have had in 15 years, and of those, we
had 62, to be precise 41 were steel cases. And I think, you
know, the vast, vast, vast majority of those we found, you
know, where we were--we had to put tariffs in place because
there was dumping.
[The information follows:]
Question: Inform Chairmen Rogers and Culberson of specific steps
DOC has taken to sanction China
Response: Information on steel trade enforcement case shared with
Chairmen Rogers and Culberson staff on 3/2/2016. Phone call to
Culberson on ZTE matter on 3/7/2016.
Mr. Culberson. That was the point of my question----
Secretary Pritzker. I am sorry. Yes----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Because Chairman Rogers is
exactly right, time is of the essence. These American jobs are
disappearing and the Chinese will--they do not pay much
attention to anything else.
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you, Chairman Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jolly.
Secretary Pritzker. We are pursuing this, and I will get
you, Chairman Rogers, the exact number of new duties that we
put in place over the last 12 months in the steel industry.
[The information follows:]
To Clarify:
For Calendar year 2015, there were 65 AD/CVD investigations
initiated, of which 45 were of steel-related products.
For Fiscal Year 2015, there were 62 AD/CVD investigations
initiated, of which 41 were of steel-related products.
In terms of new duties, there were 31 new AD/CVD orders in
Fiscal Year 2015. The correct number of tariffs/orders put in
place ``in the last 12 months'' is 16.
Secretary Pritzker. What you have done by giving us
additional resources is allowing us to investigate allegations
more thoroughly, so that if there is dumping, we can put the
duties in place. So we are very focused on this issue.
Mr. Culberson. And we will be paying close attention, Mr.
Chairman, and aggressively watching this. Thank you.
Mr. Jolly.
HANGAR SPACE AT MACDILL
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Rogers,
Chairman Culberson, thank you for your support of some of the
Gulf Coast of Florida's priorities in the last year. Madam
Secretary, thank you for being here. I want to shift a little
bit to a couple NOAA priorities.
One in particular that I know is of strong interest,
concern to your department to the leadership at NOAA, and that
is the notification in the last few weeks by our friends at the
6th Air Mobility Wing at MacDill, that they need their hangar
space back for some KC 135s coming in and what that means for
the disposition of the Hurricane Hunters and the NOAA fleet
that, frankly, my predecessor was very instrumental in working
with the department to make sure they were accommodated at
MacDill.
I know the department and NOAA leadership has visited with
at least two airfields in the area, one at Saint Petersburg/
Clearwater Airport, which is in my district. It shares ramp
space with the Coast Guard station. My understanding is there
is ramp space, there is hangar space, there is office space for
your 100 employees there, and that might be a feasible
alternative. I know the Tampa Airport also has land and ramp
space. I'm not sure about their hangar and office space
available. NOAA leadership has been there.
My question for you really is from your perspective and
that of NOAA leadership, what you see as the options, the
requirements, the budget, the timeline. I know MacDill and the
Air Mobility Wing is suggesting no later than about this time
next year. They need the hangar space back at MacDill, so I was
hoping you could comment on what you believe the options are
and, obviously, as well as whether or not resources are there
for any potential move.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, thank you very much. You know, as
you mentioned, we have about 110 highly skilled employees in
your--in the area who support our Hurricane Hunters, and it is
very important to us to try and find a solution either at
MacDill or in that area because we feel that we might lose 50
percent or more of our highly skilled, trained workforce if we
were forced to move.
So, first, we are working close with the Air Force. We are
looking at the options. We don't have a specific option right
now that I can say we are going this direction or that
direction, but what we will do is keep you very much apprised
of it. But it is a priority for us to keep our skilled
workforce, and so a massive move someplace else is--it would be
a real--one, it would be expensive at a time when, as Chairman
Culberson said, we are, you know, no one's flush with money.
And two is we have great people and we want to keep our
people. So we are trying to figure that out within those
parameters. So I have set out the priorities, but I don't have
the solution.
Mr. Jolly. Sure. Do you know, among the options, the
posture of the department, if you will, or of NOAA leadership,
whether to move within the area to an airfield that actually
has existing facilities? To me, that would seem fairly
seamless. I know there has been planning and design at MacDill
to build a hangar, but that would be a multi-year project.
And maybe if you could also share--and I apologize, I don't
know the answer to this, kind of a color of money question--
would Commerce ever be involved in bricks and mortar
infrastructure on a DOD facility, or do you rely just on
leasing either at a DOD facility or at a private airfield like
Saint Pete/Clearwater or the Tampa Airport?
Secretary Pritzker. I can't--Congressman, I can't give you
the specifics of whether we would spend money on DOD airfield
or not. What I would say is the way I would look at this is to
say what is the most cost effective solution for the taxpayer?
Recognizing that I do not want to lose the talent that we
have because finding new talent, would be a disaster too. I
think we have to weigh all those issues. You may know more
specifics in terms of what the specific alternatives are. The
team is working on it and have committed to get back to me. And
as soon as we have our alternatives, we will work closely with
you to make sure you understand how we are thinking about it.
Mr. Jolly. Sure. And I appreciate that and I realize it is
an issue for--that you rely on NOAA leadership for some
direction on that. I will tell you, it is obviously of great
concern to our area, I know it is of great concern to NOAA to
keep the Hurricane Hunters regionally in that area, it is a
strong concern and priority of mine as well.
And to the extent that our Chairman would work with me
throughout this cycle, I want to make sure if there are
resource issues or other impediments to keeping them in the
Tampa Bay Area where, geographically, I think it makes sense to
keep them both for your workforce as well as for the missions
that they run. I want to make sure that this subcommittee is a
partner with you on that.
THIRD-PARTY DATA COLLECTION
Two other quick items I will just lay on the record in case
we do not have time for a second round is we have worked very
closely with NOAA on third-party data collection for ensuring
that the data involved and decisions regarding fishery closures
in the Gulf is sufficient.
This committee, together with the Senate, provided
additional resources for additional third-party data, and I
just want to lay on the record the intent, at least one part of
the intent, of going into that was to bring the stakeholders to
the table for the data collection at the beginning.
And I know so much of it will rely on peer-reviewed science
and academia, but the intent, the true intent, going back a
year was to make sure that our recreational, our for-hire, and
our commercial all feel as though they have a seat at the table
at the beginning of the data collection process, not at the
end.
Secretary Pritzker. Congressman, we agree with using third-
party data, and we think it can help improve our stock
assessments. And so our fiscal year 2016 priority has been to
do, for example, red snapper evaluation, that is where we
started and began.
So one of the things I think March 2 and 3 in New Orleans,
we are meeting with the private sector to talk about what our
priorities are so that they can actually figure out how, with
the data that they collect, to be able to support our efforts.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Secretary Pritzker. So I think, we are big believers in
those kinds of partnerships and appreciate your support in that
respect. And as it relates to the Hurricane Hunters, we will
stay in close contact as to what we find out.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you. And on that, I know we do have to
rely on academia to get the peer reviewed science right, but I
don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we want this
sector stakeholders to be involved in that process as well. So,
thank you.
Secretary Pritzker. As you can tell, I am a big believer in
the sector stakeholders being our partners.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Palazzo.
SHARED SERVICES
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for taking the time to meet with us today and answer
our questions. As you know, the administration has recognized
the potential that shared services could be very beneficial for
Federal agencies, both in terms of saving money, but also
efficient delivery of services. I have seen this first hand in
the private sector as well as in the public sector. I would
like to agree that shared service is the way to go.
I notice that the budget supports it also with $45 million
for a shared service initiative, and that Commerce has actually
put out an RFP as well. Could you elaborate on your efforts,
and what phase are you now? You got certain sites
geographically in mind? And just tell me more about it.
Secretary Pritzker. Sure.
Mr. Palazzo. I think it is a great idea.
Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely. Well, first of all, we had
a retreat--we have been working on shared services to try and
bring this together for several years, or a couple of years. We
had a retreat in February, early February, of all the
leadership of the Department, and the outcry for--demand for
this service, because we are really struggling with HR
acquisitions and IT support in most of our bureaus.
It is hard to attract the talent that we need in those
bureaus, it is hard to get a service quality that befits the
taxpayer. And so we are very grateful for NASA's support. I
know the Stennis Center has been very, very helpful to us as we
have been putting our plans together. Where we are, I think we
are in phase 3--phase 3--of our process, where we are focused
right now in putting together the HR component and going live
this year.
So it is a high, high priority for us. All of our bureau
leaders unanimously agreed that we need to have shared services
in HR acquisition and IT. And there is a fundamental view that
by doing this that we will be able to have increased
accountability, increased transparency, and increased
productivity.
So we are really committed to this effort, and I really
appreciate the support that, as I said, NASA has given us
through their shared services center in your district.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, I am glad that you are consulting with
other Federal agencies. I think there is a best practice out
there for everything, and going and recreating the wheel, or
having to struggle through, you know, alone is not necessary,
because--and so I am happy to see that you are working with
NASA. Because, I think, the same could be said for data
consolidation.
It seems like, you know, everybody is talking about data
consolidation and--but there is actually Federal agencies that
have done it, and have done it well, and I wish these other
agencies would look to them for their best practices, and
government sharing it across the board. But I do look forward
to maybe hearing more from your office if you could provide
someone to come brief me.
Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely.
Mr. Palazzo. I would like that.
Secretary Pritzker. Happy to do that.
BUSINESS NEEDS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you. Also, you are the voice of
businesses in the United States. What is--and I read your bio
and your introduction, and so you have talked to a lot of
businesses, large and I am assuming small as well, every
category--what do they want out of this administration? What do
they want to see Congress do? And I am from the private sector,
I talk to a lot of businesses as well in my district, and I
know what they are telling me, I am wondering what they are
telling you, and what you are telling the administration.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, you know, I hear a lot of
different things, but there are some common themes. The first
is, help us to sell our goods outside the United States. Help
us to navigate these complicated countries where there is
potential for our products. And so one of the things we have
done is we have improved our market reports so that companies,
large and small, but particularly small, you know, GE is going
to figure this out, but the small company in any one of your
districts needs more assistance. And, frankly, I ran companies
that were more like those in your district and so that is one
thing they want, help us do that.
So we have done a number of things in terms of both people,
which is why we are asking for more resources for our foreign
commercial service, but also we have created tools to help
companies navigate throughout the world.
Second thing they ask for is, help us, we are struggling to
find the workforce that can help us grow our companies. And so
for the first time we made skilled workforce a priority of the
Department of Commerce. And it does not mean--we are not trying
to be the Department of Labor here, but what we are trying to
make sure is that the voice of busines
And the President listened to us and said the voice of
business needs to be present in all of those grants, whether
they are from the Department of Labor or other parts of our
government. So that is a second area where we have been very
active.
The third is we need good information. Whether it is
information coming from the American community survey or
information coming from the weather service, we need actionable
information that can help us make smart decisions. And so what
we have done is we have created a data service within the
Department of Commerce that is not only saving you money, and
us money, and the taxpayer money in terms of producing data
products because we are doing more efficiently with better
quality people by centralizing that effort. But we are also
getting better products out to the businesses in America so
they can decide where to grow and how to grow. Those are just
several things I have heard. I can go on and on.
Mr. Palazzo. What about certainty and stability? You know,
as a CPA, I like to be able to plan if I am going to make a
capital investment or hire additional employees. And what I am
hearing is that in this environment, people, they just can't do
it, and it may be partly Congress, partly the administration.
And, in addition, they are looking for tax relief and
regulatory relief. Surely, you are hearing those themes as
well.
Secretary Pritzker. Of course. And so in terms of certainty
and stability, that goes without saying. As we know, and I
know-- I have 27 years in the private sector--business people
are good at making decisions, risk-based decisions, on their
products, but when you can't understand the landscape it is
very hard to invest, and that is a big challenge.
Particularly with this challenge that has been affecting
the market, right, our public markets. I am not sure--well,
let's just say that has, I think, given people a lot of pause
for thought lately. In terms of tax policy, there is absolutely
an interest in seeing business tax reform. There has been,
since the day I walked in to my position and, obviously, tax
policy sits with the Treasury but as part of the President's
economic team, we have been trying to figure out how to work
with Congress to do business tax reform. And that is,
obviously, a much bigger conversation than probably we have
time for right now. But those are issues that are absolutely on
the front burner for businesses.
Mr. Palazzo. Madam Secretary, thank you. I know my time has
expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Judge Carter.
CYBER SECURITY
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I
apologize for being late. We had weather delay, and that kept
us sitting on the runway for a long time. But I am glad to be
here, I am glad you are here with us today. Thank you for
coming.
I want to talk about something that, at least on the
subcommittees that I serve on, seems to be mentioned almost
every day and that is cyber security, cyber threats. You
mentioned the formation of a commission on an ANSII national
cyber security. What are some of the goals you have for this
commission and how will they interact with DHS, who has
important efforts in the same arena?
Secretary Pritzker. Well, first of all, Congressman, thank
you for being here. And the cyber commission is something that
the administration announced about a week or ten days ago, and
we at NIST provide the secretariat, if you will, for the
commission, it is a bipartisan commission.
And the goal is to address a number of issues over the
next--that face us in terms of cyber security let's say over
the next five years, it is not meant to be something for just
this year. We play a important role at NIST, because first of
all, we developed the cyber security framework. And the cyber
security framework is both a language and a structure by which
both the private sector and the public sector manage our cyber
security.
And it is extremely important, and we are seeing a massive
take-up on our framework. And, in fact, one of the charges for
us in the whole cyber security national action plan is for us
to up--the framework is, I think, 18 months old, it is not that
old--but is for us to continue to evolve it, to modify it.
And the second thing that we are doing is working very
closely with the chairman and vice chairman of this commission,
Tom Donilon and Sam Palmisano, the former CEO of IBM, have said
they are putting an agenda together and they asked us there to
help them to, one, confirm this is a good agenda, but, two,
then help operationalize the agenda. And our goal is to help
make recommendations that, at the end of the day from the
commission, that help both the private sector and the public
sector.
Mr. Carter. And this commission is made up of both
government people and private sector folks?
Secretary Pritzker. Yes, it is. And we absolutely made sure
of that when the President was conceiving of the commission
that the private sector as well as the public sector are
represented.
Mr. Carter. Well, I serve on this subcommittee, which
almost everybody has a cyber issue in this subcommittee;
chairman of Homeland Security, and we have a big cyber effort
we have to deal with; and I am on defense, which, you know, it
is cyber everywhere.
I sometimes wonder if we--and I don't mean this in any way
a criticism of this commission-- but if we do not continue to
just keep adding more and more people, little pieces out there,
and we are not all working together on that. And I would hope
that anything new created would be at least communicating, not
in silos, but communicating with others so that we really have
a united effort in this fight.
Secretary Pritzker. Congressman, the cyber commission is
meant to be comprehensive, it is not meant to be siloed. The
secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, he and I sat
side-by-side with one another as this commission was being put
together and announced. Our teams are working side-by-side with
one another, and what we are trying--and our goal is not to
have this be a little piece of the pie but instead a
comprehensive look at what does the country need to do to deal
with the challenges that we are facing.
Given that the Internet, as it was created, was not meant
to carry the trillions and trillions of dollars of financial
instruments that it is carrying; the trillions of dollars of
commerce that it is carrying the very sensitive Department of
Defense data; and on, and on, and on. So now what do we do
since this thing kind of grew by itself, now what do we do to
protect ourselves? And that is kind of the charge that has been
given to this commission.
PROTECTING THE DATA-DRIVEN ECONOMY
Mr. Carter. Well, you know, many of us--and I don't know
how much time I have got--many of us are concerned about the
increasing intrusions pose--continue to build on I think our
data-driven economy. How would we reassure the American people
by what the efforts that you are putting together that
everything possible is done--being done to protect the data-
driven economy? You can wake up in the middle of the night in
cold sweats thinking about what could happen if they brought
down the American data-driven economy.
Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely. And, you know, your point
that each of us has to do our part but that someone has to look
at the whole, I think is absolutely right. And, you know, we at
the Department of Commerce, our rule is to work with the
digital economy on policy development. And that is one of the
reasons in our budget we ask for funding for digital policy
because, increasingly, the private sector is coming to the
Department of Commerce and asking us to weigh in on whether it
is issues of the open Internet, or issues of the Internet of
things, or autonomous vehicles, or smart cities, or sensorized
wearables, you know, privacy and national security issues as
those come in contact with one another, the cyber security
safe--you know, the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor, et cetera, et
cetera.
I think it is very important that we develop a policy--more
policy standpoints about this, but then from the standpoint
also of protection. At NIST, one of the things we did we just
opened the National Cyber Security of Excellence where we are
working with the private sector, 23 different private sector
partners, to look at the cyber security of everything from a
police car, think of all the information in a police car, to
our electric grids.
So this is a massive, as you point out, issue and requires
us to bring both the science, the private sector together with
the public sector. And we have to strengthen those engagements.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for your answers, I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman.
NIST: CYBERSECURITY AND FOREIGN NATIONALS
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge. Before I go to Mr. Honda,
if I could very quickly, I want to bring to your attention,
something I think I talked to you about last year. I know that
the National Institute of Standards and Technology is
responsible for creating the cyber security standards for the
government, as well as you just mentioned the Cyber Commission
at NIST is working with the private sector to see what those
standards should be for everything from police cars to electric
grid.
I have to tell you, I just got this assignment last January
and one of my first meetings was with the interim director at
NIST last spring and he really worried me, because he came into
my office and said very cavalierly that he was allowing foreign
nationals to come into NIST headquarters with flash drives and
laptop computers. He alarmed me so much because I know of the
problem of foreign nationals coming in with--I think if you
walk into the Pentagon with a flash drive, you go straight to
prison, I believe. Judge, is that about right? And I was deeply
concerned.
So I asked the FBI to go out and meet with your folks out
there at NIST. I understand from my committee staff that the
FBI is satisfied that some improvements have been made. Could
you talk to me a little bit about that? Because that is just
unacceptable to allow foreign nationals with flash drives and
laptops to walk into the center of where the United States
Government is developing cyber security standards for the
government and for police cars to the electric grid. I hope you
have got a good handle on that.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, Chairman Culberson, we take very
seriously your concerns about the issue of foreign nationals at
NIST and, frankly, we take very seriously the issue of cyber
security as well.
Look, the threat environment continues to change that we
have to balance that and that primary with the issue of to
solve some of the problems and technologies that we need to do,
we need to work with the best and brightest around the world.
And so there is a certain amount of openness and cooperation
that is required in order for us to solve some of the cutting-
edge, global problems.
Having said that, Director Willie May, in thinking about
the challenges of our foreign nationals, ordered an internal
review of how NIST manages its foreign guest researchers. And
we have proactively initiated a number of improvements since
our conversation last year.
We have issued, first of all, an overarching set of
policies based upon not only the review that you had us do with
the FBI, but also we recruited a security expert to be on staff
who has a counterintelligence background. Also the Deputy
Director reviews all requests for certain workers from certain
countries. We have also required that non-Federal researchers
are readily ID'd on their emails, so we know whether someone
is, you know, a Federal researcher or a guest researcher.
We have also upgraded the physical security throughout our
campus; cameras, access control, cipher locks, and things like
that. And then we have done additional training of our NIST
staff to make sure that they are sensitized to the potential
challenges that a foreign worker could bring to our campuses.
Mr. Culberson. One of the other things I asked you to do
was to be sure that you involve the FBI on a regular basis to
come out and conduct reviews to ensure that that level of
security was satisfactory in the eyes of the FBI. I think the
FBI is truly the gold standard when it comes to protecting this
Nation against a cyber attack. Is the FBI still reviewing on an
ongoing basis how you are handling this at NIST?
Secretary Pritzker. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, when the
last time the FBI was there, it has certainly been within the
last year. I do not know precisely what they are doing, but I
will look into it and we will get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Question: Let Chairman Culberson know when FBI last engaged with
NIST
Response: Department completed follow-up with Culberson staff on 3/
17/2016.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just off my time, I will comment about the FBI. You may
call them illegal status, but in the Asian-American community
they have made some arrests at work, at home, and held people
in jail without due process and then after a few months they
drop the charges. And these folks have been left without their
character, their jobs, their reputation, everything else like
that, not even with an ``I'm sorry.''
So I think that we need to keep a rein on them and/or ask
them what kind of training are they going through, because I
think it is kind of a serious matter and it is getting our
national attention.
So I want to support our enforcement agencies, but I also
want to support and make sure that our citizens in this country
are protected against undue intrusions in the name of security.
So I think that we have to be careful how we go about doing
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SELECT USA
Madam Secretary, the SelectUSA Program seeks to grow
foreign direct investments, as we are talking a lot about jobs
and everything else like that, and the foreign direct
investment in the U.S. and create or maintain jobs here in the
United States. So can you speak to the program's results since
its creation in 2011 and how the additional funding would allow
SelectUSA to expand its services?
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you, Congressman.
You know, SelectUSA's job is to communicate the benefits of
investing into the United States. And the United States, as we
know, has been ranked multiple years in a row as the number-one
place for investment, and our job is to connect investors to
investment opportunities in communities throughout our country.
SelectUSA has helped facilitate over $17 billion worth of
investments. What we have done is develop a strong team of
investment promotion specialists that help navigate both the
U.S. Government, as well as help introduce investors to the
state or local economic development officers.
We have held two investment summits to date, we have a
third one coming this June. I invite all of you to attend, it
is really terrific.
Mr. Honda. Excuse me, where were they held, the two first
ones?
Secretary Pritzker. The first two, they are always held
here to date in Washington, DC. The last one we had, over 2,000
firms were represented who wanted to invest in the United
States. I think we had, every state had economic development
representation, officers represented. So it was terrific. As
the economic development officers tell me, this is a target-
rich environment for them to find new investors into their
states.
Obviously, we do not prefer one state over another. Our job
is to bring folks together. We have also led road shows to
various countries and to the United States, including 14 events
just in the last year.
The additional funding, you asked what would that do. That
would allow us to expand our services for investors and U.S.
economic development officers in 14 additional focus markets.
We have 32 markets total, we do not cover the 32 markets yet.
And this would allow us to integrate the investment promotion
into the U.S. and foreign commercial service apparatus.
And, finally, it would allow us to create public-facing
foreign direct investment data analytic tools, so it is easier
for an investor to figure out where they should put their plant
or investment as it relates to, let's say, supply chain or our
infrastructure or our talent pool, et cetera.
Mr. Honda. To follow up on that, you said that you do not
choose sites for them, but in our country we have depressed
areas like our chairman talks about, certain communities that
are being hit because of the energy shift. And it seems to me
that some attention should be paid to those communities where
they might want to be able to look at those communities and say
what are some of the possibilities of investments there and
what kind of activities can come up there, because there are a
lot of skilled people out there. It is just the economic
picture has changed and I think that some direction or some
discussion around some of the impacted areas of our country
might be important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Pritzker. I appreciate that.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ARGOS
Madam Secretary, just one more quick topic and again
focused on NOAA, so if it is something we need to just put on
the record and get back to. But I appreciate the request for
additional investment in ocean acidification and coastal
resiliency.
My question is about the delay of the Argos Satellite
launch, the data-collection program that I believe as late as
last year the decision was made between NOAA and some of the
industry partners involved in the Argos program to launch in
2019, and I understand in the request that is possibly delayed
now as late as 2021. And if we need to take it for the record,
we can, but this is a question given our mutual interest in
both data as well as the quality of our oceans, the ability to
monitor the data related to ocean quality, ocean acidification,
resiliency, and so forth. How Argos contributes to the current
mission and any fear of a lapse in data collection or
compromised data as a result of a two-year delay from a
schedule that as recently as last year was just agreed to.
So if you do have any information on that, I would be happy
to--certainly appreciate any contribution. If not, we can do it
for the record.
Secretary Pritzker. So are you talking about our GOES-R
program?
Mr. Jolly. Right.
Secretary Pritzker. Right, exactly. OK. So we had----
Mr. Jolly. Argos.
Secretary Pritzker. What? Yes, why don't I let our staff
talk to you about it, because this is one that I am not as
briefed up on.
Mr. Jolly. Sure. And I appreciate that.
Secretary Pritzker. Terrific.
Mr. Jolly. If we can just put it on the record and follow
up.
Secretary Pritzker. I know more about our Polar Follow and
our GOES-R program.
Mr. Jolly. Right. No, Argos. Thank you very much.
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.
Mr. Jolly. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
argos contributions to gathering ocean data and information
Argos-DCS collects, processes, and disseminates environmental data
from more than 14,000 fixed and mobile platforms worldwide. NOAA relies
on the Argos system to collect worldwide ocean data (e.g.,
temperatures, air pressure, currents, and salinity) from moored and
drifting buoys and submerged profiling floats. In addition to ocean
data, Argos provides data for wildlife studies, monitoring and managing
fisheries, non-environmental applications (i.e., monitoring vessels to
improve maritime transportation security, tracking humanitarian
supplies), and other environmental applications (i.e., environmental
safety, hydrology, and marine pollution response applications).
effects of a 2-year delay of argos
The Department of Commerce is not afraid that a two year delay will
compromise the Department of Commerce's ability to monitor the data
related to ocean quality and resiliency at this time. The Argos
constellation is currently healthy and NOAA and its partners will
continue to monitor and manage to ensure constellation health. The
Department and NOAA will reevaluate the ARGOS constellation needs as a
part of the FY 2018 budget process.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Palazzo.
BUILDING A WEATHER-READY NATION
Mr. Palazzo. Sure. You know, I am here, I have got a chance
to ask you another question, I will take it.
You mentioned in your testimony building a weather-ready
nation and you mentioned of course NOAA National Weather
Service. And we have in my district a specific interest with
the National Data Buoy Center, which is extremely important to
help calculate natural disasters and patterns in our oceans.
Can you expand?
I mean, right now I am getting all kind of weather alerts
back home, tornado watches and stuff like that. So it is on my
mind. Maybe a little bit more about what it means to build a
weather-ready nation.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, what we are trying to do at a
large, philosophical level at the National Weather Service is
as follows, is to make sure that we are not only collecting
enough information, that the data is good and that we have
information, but it is no good if we just know it. We have to
be able to get it out to the first responders, to the emergency
managers, to mayors, to governors, so that they can do
something with the information that we have.
And so we are trying to evolve the Weather Service from one
that is just focused on having the most accurate information to
one that makes sure we are having the most accurate information
and getting it into the hands of those people who can take
action to protect life and property.
And so that means we need to think about making sure that
we have our resources first of all as it relates to buoys and
things like that, and data collection. In fact, in our budget
request we are talking about trying to expand our Automated
Surface Observing Systems to not only extend their life, but
improve their functionality.
And in fact I have these great maps that the team did for
me about the amount of coverage we have today and the amount of
coverage we would like to have, so that we can have better data
information that we think we can achieve and we have some money
in our budget for that. The other is to improve our Doppler
radar system.
But fundamentally, having good information is not good
enough. I mean, if people are dying or property is being hurt,
we need to make sure that we are getting that information to
the folks on the ground who can do something with that
information. Now, sometimes that means responding to a
hurricane, but it also means a better understanding. What is
going to happen, what kind of flooding, what kind of drought is
being predicted, what kind of extreme weather should we be
thinking is coming? And that is a lot also of what we are doing
with the Weather Service.
So a weather-ready nation is one that is more than just
knowing what the weather is going to be in the next hour, it is
being able to get enough information early enough so that
actions can be taken to protect life and property.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you.
OCEAN EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, half of the United States actually lies
under the ocean and under the exclusive economic zone of the
United States, and the Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
conducts mapping--oh, excuse me, Mr. Carter, forgive me.
Mr. Carter. That's all right. I will catch up after you. Go
ahead.
Mr. Culberson. Excuse me, I am sorry about that.
Anyway, I want to ask, in the budget request that you
submitted to the committee you propose cutting that program by
nearly 40 percent. Yet the mapping that they are doing, the
cataloging of the mineral resources that are out there is
extraordinarily important, particularly in light of the fact
that the Chinese have locked up 98 percent of the world's rare
earth elements and it is already apparent that there are vast
amounts of rare earth elements out there.
That is an extraordinarily important program that the
committee strongly supports. I am very passionate about it, and
could you talk to us about why you proposed cutting that
program by nearly 40 percent? I hope that is not something that
you intend to do. I would hope you will be as strong a
supporter of that program as this committee is.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all,
NOAA's ocean exploration program does very important work and,
you know, both NOAA and I support the program that we do. What
we are trying to do is weigh competing demands on our NOAA
budget which led to us decreasing the request for that program.
But what I would assure is we run a skilled program at the
proposed funding level.
The other thing we do, exploration of rare earth minerals
is something that is work that is supported by our proposal and
will improve our knowledge of the possible location of these
resources within our U.S. exclusive economic zones.
So we are trying to balance our budget here, but also to
make sure that we are better understanding exactly what are the
assets that we have within our oceans.
Mr. Culberson. Well, I will pass to Mr. Carter, but I want
to recommend to you that the work being done for example by Dr.
Robert Ballard and the Nautilus in the private sector, he
matches every dollar that you invest and that NOAA invests in
the work that the Nautilus does, he matches it with at least
two dollars of private funding and they are doing extraordinary
work. So I hope that you will continue to support that program
aggressively, because it is a great benefit to future
generations.
Secretary Pritzker. Terrific. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And I recognize Mr. Carter.
Thank you.
PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, you mentioned the good work that you are
doing to spur innovation and technology. What steps are you
taking to address the intellectual property theft perpetuated
by foreign nations and specifically China?
Secretary Pritzker. It is a challenge. What we have done is
we work with the Chinese. And I will begin with the
Administration's position, which is this went all the way up to
President Obama and President Xi, where President Obama and
President Xi agreed that we would not tolerate intellectual
property theft for commercial purposes between our two
countries. And that was a very important marker to set down and
something that we are watching very carefully as to what has
occurred since last September when that agreement was reached.
And the second thing that we do through our dialogues and
our work through the International Trade Administration, we
work with China on, you know, I work with different companies
that have various issues with the Chinese Government, raising
specific issues as they arise with their government as it
relates to intellectual property theft.
And I have been a consistent and strong voice for
intellectual property protection as it relates to the Chinese.
It is a challenge.
Mr. Carter. Well, you know, I come from a world where
actions have consequences. And it is great to get two heads of
state to sit together and say, boy, this is really a bad deal,
this should not be happening. But the next question is, what
happens if it is happening and what are going to be the
consequences to the thieves that are stealing the intellectual
property? And I do not think we get to that level of addressing
it. And you do not stop bad behavior without having
consequences of bad behavior.
And I heard a story from a small, relatively small company
about how they had grown to the point where they could utilize
the Chinese market to build their product better, except that
within 18 months the Chinese had stolen everything they had and
basically were putting them out of business.
And, you know, you hear these stories all the time and you
hear the stories from the big guys who say they are stealing
our best ideas we have had recently. And having tried, at least
had a few intellectual property cases filed in my court,
amazingly enough, what you steal today becomes irrelevant eight
months from now in some industries, because it is already old
data or old information. And so the courtroom even does not
reach the consequence area before everybody says it is not
worth fighting over.
They are going over a line on this. We have to do something
to get their attention or they are not going to stop.
Secretary Pritzker. Well, the President has also created
the ability to do sanctions against bad actors who are stealing
intellectual property of our companies. And so that sits in
place and the utilization of those sanctions is something that
the decision to do that resides above my pay grade.
Mr. Carter. And I understand that. I just hope that we not
only do that as an example, but let the American public know it
is an example and we are pointing the finger at people that are
stealing.
Secretary Pritzker. I will be sure to share that.
CURRENCY MANIPULATION
Mr. Carter. And in the same scope of relationship, in your
opinion, how big of a problem is currency manipulation and what
steps are we doing to limit its impact on international trade
for the country?
Secretary Pritzker. Well, you know, currency manipulation
resides in the Treasury Department, addressing that, I think
that is appropriate. There is one place where the hammer
exists, if you will.
Having said that, the Customs bill, which you I believe
will get signed into law tomorrow and you all passed, gives the
Treasury Department and the Administration more tools to deal
with currency manipulation and it is something that is very
welcomed, frankly, by all of us in addressing those challenges.
We at the Department of Commerce particularly would deal
with currency manipulation if it was brought up as something
that was viewed as a subsidy, that is technically the way it
would enter into the Department of Commerce's AD/CVD, our Anti-
Dumping and Countervailing Duty processes. But really most of
the tools exist and the most useful tools exist at the
Department of Treasury.
Mr. Carter. As you deal with industry, do you hear
complaints about currency manipulation as making an unfair
playing field for our products and services?
Secretary Pritzker. To be honest, that is not the big--I
have heard there are selected industries that have raised that,
but intellectual property protection is much bigger----
Mr. Carter. It is a much bigger deal.
Secretary Pritzker [continuing]. Much broader, of much
greater concern to our industry.
Mr. Carter. I agree with that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SANCTIONS
Madam Secretary, there is a common theme here that the
Chinese have continued to be one of the worst actors in the
world when it comes to stealing intellectual property, whether
it be dumping steel or currency manipulation, but I have to
tell you, we just have not heard enough. I am glad to hear you
have imposed some tariffs.
What sanctions has the Administration imposed on the
Chinese for the theft of intellectual property?
Secretary Pritzker. I will have to get back to you on that
and give you an outline of what has been done.
[The information follows:]
Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights
in China is a high priority for the Administration and the Department
of Commerce.
We have continued to raise our concerns with the highest levels of
the Chinese leadership in settings such as the U.S.-China Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT).
However, counterfeiting and piracy rates in China remain
unacceptably high.
Our colleagues at the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) have identified China as a Priority Watch List
Country in annual Special 301 reports; our International Trade
Commission (ITC) colleagues have issued limited as well as general
exclusion orders against multiple Chinese suppliers of patent-
infringing goods; and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has obtained
indictments against several Chinese state actors involved in the sort
of cyber theft you highlighted.
Last year, the President issued the Executive order on ``Blocking
the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious
Cyber-Enabled Activities,'' which targets the threat posed by malicious
cyber actors Specifically, the Executive Order authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on individuals or entities that
engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities that create a significant
threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic or
financial stability of the United States.
I defer to the Secretary of the Treasury on any actions he may have
taken pursuant to the Executive order.
Mr. Culberson. My impression is there have not been any
sanctions. I mean, this is the equivalent of cyber warfare that
the Chinese have declared on us some time ago and it really is
about time the United States hammered them back. This is just
not acceptable.
When you go to these briefings with the FBI, you discover
that the Chinese have engaged in the largest theft of property
probably in the history of mankind. It is an extraordinary loss
of intellectual property. Mr. Carter is exactly right. Small
companies, large companies, on a massive scale we are seeing a
level of intrusion that is absolutely unheard of. They stole
all the government records on government employees. And if it
had been semi-tractor trailer trucks backed up to a government
office loading file cabinets, I think the level of outrage
would be greater, but that is essentially what the Chinese
government has done.
So I hope you gather of course from the questions that you
have heard from all of us here today that we are counting on
you and this Administration to respond, whether it be dumping
steel, theft of intellectual property, protecting the Internet,
protecting our privacy as Americans from governments around the
world attempting to interfere in the way the Internet is
regulated. We need action and we are looking to you to do so,
and this committee will be aggressively working to ensure that
that action is taken.
Mr. Honda.
Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely understood. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two quick questions. One has to do with census preparation,
the other is the Minority Youth Entrepreneurs.
Could you please talk about some of the budget problems we
might be seeing a few years from now if the budget for 2020
census preparation activities were to be greatly reduced below
the requested level for fiscal 2017 and what cost-saving
innovations for the next decennial census might not be
achievable under a greatly reduced budget.
And then the other question would be Minority Youth
Entrepreneurs. The Department's request for the Minority
Business Development Agency contains a new $3.6 million
initiative focused on business innovation for young
entrepreneurs. Madam Secretary, could you please describe the
ways in which you anticipate this initiative will help enable
young entrepreneurs to create jobs and spur innovation in the
economy?
Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely.
So let me talk first about the 2020 census, which is at a
very critical phase, as we are all aware. Our commitment is to
try and save $5 billion, but in order to do that we have to
spend money. And this is one of the critical years and that is
why we have asked for a significant increase for the Census
Bureau to $1.6 billion.
We released an operating plan for the census in October,
that is three years ahead of what the 2010 cycle is. In our
operating plan we detail what we are going to do and the
milestones that we set out for ourselves for all of us to know
whether we are on track or not to have a 2020 census the way we
want.
And the thing about the 2020 census is we are trying to do
four main things that are new. First is use administrative
records. And if we want to use administrative records and we
have gotten great access to many, many records, some of which
though we would like to get access to that need legislation,
but many that we have gotten, we have got to test the efficacy
of using administrative records. We cannot just use them and
hope that it is going to give us an accurate census.
The second is we are re-engineering the field operations to
be more efficient, so that when we send people into the field
we know that there actually is someone at the other end of the
doorbell to answer the door.
The third is we want to collect more information over the
Internet. As you can imagine, we need to make sure it is
secure, we need to make sure we know the person who is
responding is the person they say they are. And so there is a
lot of testing that has to go on with that.
And, fourth, we have to have a communications plan with the
American people that explains here is how the census is going
to work in 2020. So there are a lot of things that need to be
tested this year before we can do what we call an end-to-end
test which has to be done in 2018 in order to lock down the
census for 2020, make any final adjustments and lock down the
census for 2020.
So this year, one of the things that we'll do is a very
significant test in both Houston and in Los Angeles and we will
also test-- we decided not to use the bring-your-own device but
instead we are leasing devices where we're going to control the
operating systems being used. All the software is our software,
but this way we will also be able to control the operating
systems that are being used.
So there is a lot that is happening with the census. The
other thing that is important that we need to spend money on
now is we are putting in place the technology and the systems
to be able to assimilate all the information that we are taking
in. That has to be completed and tested also now so that we
know that that works at the time of the 2020 census.
So I think to date we are meeting our milestones. We work--
my deputy is briefed monthly on where we are at. I feel that we
are very--and I am briefed, you know, no less frequently than
quarterly on exactly where we are at. So we are very much on
top of it, we know what is at stake, but we need the money to
be able to actually execute this year. So it is a very
important year for the census.
As it relates to MBDA and your question about MBDA, we have
proposed to add two programs. First is the minority--program
for minority young entrepreneurs which is really--what we know
is from research. If there are minority run enterprises in a
community, there is less crime. So we need more minority run
businesses in the communities that are having the biggest
challenges.
So what we want to do is add youth business innovation
centers in different communities. We want to have lab-to-market
forums. We want to have venture capital forums in parts of our
country that have received less attention as it relates to
entrepreneurship.
So it is very exciting. It would be a Federal grant program
that we are proposing and one that we spent a lot of time
crafting. And one that, frankly, given the unrest in places
like Ferguson and Baltimore, I think have the opportunity to
help more businesses spring up in those neighborhoods.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Madam Secretary, we appreciate your service
to the country. In conclusion, we will be following up and
deeply appreciate your attention as we discuss making sure we
are protecting American industry, making sure that we are
keeping the Internet safe and secure against cyber attack.
And the Founding Fathers entrusted--one of the most
powerful checks and balances we have in our Federal system is
the power of the purse, and over the decades Congress entrusted
that authority to the Appropriations Committee and it was in
turn entrusted to the subcommittee chairman. And as the new
chairman of the subcommittee, the new rule is, for every agency
under our jurisdiction, if you want access to our hard-earned
tax dollars, follow Federal law as enacted by Congress and that
will be true of all the agencies as well as the grant
recipients. That is why I will be paying particular attention
to sanctuary cities, for example. If they want access to our
hard-earned tax dollars, they are going to have to follow
Federal law.
We will work hard with you to make sure that we give you
the resources you need to fulfill the mission that you have,
but we really want you to be aggressive in protecting American
industry and protecting the privacy and security of Americans
in this digital age as Mr. Carter just pointed out because the
Chinese are engaged in cyber warfare against the United States.
They have stolen virtually every piece of intellectual property
in this country and it's just unacceptable and it has just got
to stop.
And we will work with you to make sure you've got the
resources you need, but we will also be exercising aggressive
and good stewardship and working with you in a cooperative way
using the power of the purse entrusted to the Congress by the
founders. And we deeply appreciate your service to the country
and thank you very much for appearing to us today and the
hearing is adjourned.
Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 3, 2016.
OCEAN WORLDS
WITNESSES
DR. CHARLES ELACHI, DIRECTOR, JET PROPULSION LAB
DR. JONATHAN LUNINE, DIRECTOR, CORNELL CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS AND
PLANETARY SCIENCE
Mr. Culberson. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, and Science will come to order. I would like to
welcome our two distinguished panelists, Dr. Charles Elachi,
the Director of Jet Propulsion Laboratory; and Dr. Jonathan
Lunine, the Director of the Cornell Center for Astrophysics and
Planetary Science. We are very pleased to have you here with us
today to talk about the future of one of the most exciting
areas of looking into the future of space exploration, the
Ocean Worlds program that this committee put in place in last
year's bill to open up new frontiers in the search for life
where it will be the most, I think, promising. And we are going
to discuss that with you today and I appreciate so much your
taking the time to be with us.
I understand Dr. Elachi, we want to keep your testimony to
a minimum, because we do not want you to get complete
laryngitis. Dr. Elachi is being honored tonight. We want to
make sure he has got enough voice for your acceptance speech
tonight.
We live in an extraordinary time where the scientific
community has revealed to the world that there are as many
Earth-like planets as there are stars in the sky. The amazing
discoveries that Kepler has made to discover not only Earth-
like planets but solar systems everywhere we look and the
possibility for life on those other worlds and indeed within
our own solar system has become very, very real. So today we
are here to talk about that search for life beyond Earth, the
search for Earth-like planets, the need to develop next
generation rocket propulsion to enable us to reach the outer
solar system more rapidly and lay the foundation for
interstellar travel so that our children and grandchildren will
actually have the reality of being able to reach Alpha Centauri
and beyond.
I particularly want to welcome our first witness, Dr.
Charles Elachi, the Director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
who it has been my privilege to know and work with ever since
we first met in 2004 at the Mars Opportunity landing in January
of that year. Over the years, as I have gotten to know Dr.
Elachi and work with him, I have come to see that I think quite
frankly that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the gold standard
for NASA flight centers. The work that you do is extraordinary.
The way that Cal Tech and JPL work with NASA is I think a model
that I would like to see replicated at other flight centers
around the country. Your collaboration with the National
Science Foundation and MIT has most recently led to a
confirmation of a theory that Albert Einstein came up with a
hundred years ago about gravitational waves, something I am
looking forward to getting briefed on when I come visit you
again in the near future.
The discoveries you have made are just absolutely
extraordinary. JPL in particular, NASA has developed with JPL
taking the lead and creating mankind's first interplanetary
data relay system with the constellation of satellites and
landers that you have in place around Mars. And it is just
absolutely extraordinary. The Opportunity lander, in fact, that
I was there with you in January of 2004, is still thriving and
doing well after all these years making great discoveries.
I want to make sure the committee is aware, Dr. Elachi has
just announced his retirement. Your successor will be in the
same position, I think, that Thomas Jefferson was when he
discovered that Benjamin Franklin was retiring as the American
Minister to France. Someone asked Mr. Jefferson about replacing
Dr. Franklin, and he said, ``No one can replace Dr. Franklin. I
can only succeed him.'' And your successor will be in the same
position, Dr. Elachi. Your contributions to the country, to the
exploration of outer space, and to pushing the frontiers of
human knowledge are just absolutely unparalleled and it has
been a great privilege for me to get to know you and work with
you, and the great team that you have got there at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. And your successor is also going to have
to manage, as you do so beautifully, to pull off not only
weaving together all of the scientists, the engineers, but
being able to work with elected leadership. And you know you
will have the support of this committee. And your successor
will have the same level of support that you have always had.
I want to be sure also to welcome and thank Dr. Lunine for
being with us today, who is the David C. Duncan Professor in
the Physical Sciences and the Director of Cornell's Center for
Astrophysics and Planetary Science. And you have a particular
interest, I know Dr. Lunine, in how planets form and evolve,
what processes maintain and make habitability possible, and
what kind of exotic environments might host the chemistry that
would be consistent with the evolution of life in one, maybe in
the form that we know and perhaps in others. I would be
interested to hear your thoughts on that.
We have in our bill, the 2016 appropriations bill and in
previous bills, made certain by law that NASA is going to fund
and fly the mission to Europa that the planetary decadal survey
recommended last decade as a top priority, and then this decade
as a priority right there with the Mars cache mission. And we
have made that mission a top priority because it is the top
priority of the decadal survey but also because it holds the
greatest promise for discovering life on another world. And I
want to discuss that and how important that mission is and why
that moon of Jupiter is the place we will most likely, in your
opinion, find life on another world in our own backyard.
NASA is uniquely positioned to explore our universe. It is
the only government agency that pushes the boundaries of our
knowledge by sending humans and machines beyond Earth to
explore and discover. NASA's image among the American people is
so positive and so high that the only other function of the
government that even comes close to them is the United States
Marine Corps in a wonderful nationwide survey that I saw, of
when you think about the government which agency of the
government has the greatest recognition and positive feeling.
It is NASA and the United States Marine Corps.
But unfortunately once again the Office of Management and
Budget has given us a 2017 request that cuts the planetary
science budget; that cuts NASA below the level funded by this
committee and the Senate. Very disappointing and aggravating.
It is why we included language in the financial services
portion of the bill that makes it clear that the agencies of
the Federal government have to follow the appropriations bill
and they cannot follow the budget. So it is important for you
to communicate to your colleagues that they should just frankly
ignore the budget recommendation. Do not be concerned, do not
be alarmed by what they read in the budget. Follow what is in
the appropriations bill. My good friend Mr. Honda and Mr.
Fattah and the members of this subcommittee are going to make
sure that we take good care of the scientific community and
NASA.
The decadal survey in my mind has always been the gold
standard that NASA should follow. They do a superb job of
prioritizing missions, having the scientific community experts
get together, and decide which missions are the most important
and then they prioritize them. And if I could just take a
moment before I wrap up and recognize my good friend and
ranking member Mr. Honda, the decadal survey for 2013-22 states
in relevant part that, ``if NASA's planetary budget is
augmented then the program will also carry out the first in
depth exploration of Jupiter's icy moon, Europa. This moon with
its probable vast subsurface ocean sandwiched between a
potentially active silicate interior and a highly dynamic
surface ice shell, offers one of the most promising
extraterrestrial habitable environments in the solar system and
a plausible model for habitable environments outside of it. The
Jupiter system in which Europa resides hosts an astonishing
diversity of phenomenon, illuminating fundamental planetary
processes. While Voyager and Galileo taught us much about
Europa and the Jupiter system, the relatively primitive
instrumentation of these missions and the low volume of data
returned left many questions unanswered.''
The decadal survey goes on to say, ``Major discoveries
surely remain to be made. The first step in understanding the
potential of the outer solar system as an abode for life is a
Europa mission with the goal of confirming the presence of an
interior ocean, characterizing the satellite's ice shell, and
enabling understanding of its geologic history.'' My
colleagues, Ocean Worlds, and in particular Jupiter's moon
Europa, hold many extraordinary discoveries that are yet to be
made. We now know of course about the ocean of Enceladus, and
we want to be sure we hear a little bit about that as well.
But in particular I would like the witnesses to focus on
the importance of the Europa mission and why it is so critical
that we go to Europa, and what we are likely to discover there,
and what type of launch vehicle we want to use.
But before we proceed I would like to recognize my good
friend Mr. Honda for any remarks that he would like to make.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And can you be a little
bit more excited about this hearing, please? You can tell. It
is just like Christmas Eve.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
Elachi, and Dr. Lunine for joining us this morning to testify
on this very exciting topic. And it is really an amazing time
to be alive.
We are living for the first time in human history where we
have the technological ability to actually seek out and find
signs of life beyond Earth, and it is like science fiction. And
here we are today actually discussing the NASA missions that
will do just that. It is truly inspiring. And from the hundreds
and hundreds of planets around distant stars discovered by the
Kepler telescope, to the discovery of flowing waters down a
crater on Mars, to the discovery of the prevalence of liquid
water on at least half a dozen of the moons of Jupiter and
Saturn, the last decade has been filled with tantalizing
scientific discoveries that are screaming for astrobiologists
to go exploring. It sort of sets the stage for that movie ``The
Martian''. And that is exactly what we are going to be doing.
Second perhaps only to my chairman is my excitement for
NASA to forage out into our outer solar system and begin a
series of missions to explore the water covered moons of
Jupiter and Saturn, the so-called Ocean Worlds, and seek out
the signs of life. It is time to have missions that are
dedicated to searching for the clues and signs of life that may
have evolved in these alien worlds.
Missions to Jupiter's Europa are just the first steps.
Saturn's moons of Enceladus and Titan are also calling out to
us as we search for life beyond Earth and seek to understand
the potentially habitable environments of other worlds. And we
are not talking about a one and done Europa mission, but
instead a series of missions to the Ocean Worlds to probe their
environments to see if it is habitable and potentially harbors
signs of life. The extreme diversity and resilience of life on
Earth has shown us that wherever there is water, organic
compounds, and energy, there is life. Each of these Ocean
Worlds have these three prerequisites for life and I guess we
need to know does this mean life may have developed there? Or
do we have neighbors? Or is there more to life forming than
just having the ingredients as we understand them today?
I am excited to play witness as we journey out and see what
bizarre and magnificent discoveries await us on Europa,
Enceladus, Titan, and the Ocean Worlds. And truly for someone
like me, who was here before television, when radio was just a
crystal, that to go beyond the confines of this planet and
watch these kinds of things unfold is really a privilege to be
part of this process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. I feel the same way,
as I know Mr. Fattah does. And all of us on the subcommittee
are extraordinarily supportive of the work that you do. Dr.
Elachi, Dr. Lunine, we are glad to have you with us today. And
we will start with you, Dr. Elachi. And of course, without
objection, your written statement will be entered into the
record in its entirety and we encourage you to summarize,
particularly in light of the fact that we do not want you to
lose your voice entirely. But thank you so much for being here,
and Dr. Elachi, you are recognized.
Dr. Elachi. Thank you, and Chairman Culberson, Ranking
Member Honda, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Let me
start by apologizing about my voice. My doctor's prognosis is
that I talk too much. But that is not stopping me, to come and
talk to you here. And it is a great honor for me to have this
opportunity to talk to you about exploration of life in the
Ocean Worlds.
Just thinking about it, that for thousands of years our
ancestors looked up into the sky and wondered if there was
life. And for the first time in human history, and I will
repeat what I said, the first time in human history we know how
to do that. We have the technology and the capability to
explore for life in our solar system and beyond. And it really
depends on us. It depends on you as our leaders and policy
makers, and it depends on us as the technical people, we at
NASA, in academia, and in industry.
In addition we know where to look, and I am going to touch
on two locations and my friend and colleague Professional
Lunine will touch on two other locations. First let me talk
briefly about Mars. With Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity and the
spacecraft we have in orbit, we are convinced now on scientific
grounds that actually there used to be oceans on Mars in the
past. And then with the changes of the climate on Mars, the
water is frozen now. And the key question is always the ocean
in the past. And based on Curiosity's measurement, Mars has all
of the ingredients that exist on Earth, could life exist? And
that is what we are doing through our Mars program, looking for
past life, on Mars.
And as you know we have Mars 2020, which is preparing with
biological instruments to look and collect samples so they can
be brought back to Earth in the following decade. And NASA in
the budget has something that was called Mars precursors, which
basically is to prepare for that era. To have the orbiting
satellites that are needed and to look at how do we bring those
caches back, how do we explore and prospect for ice in
preparation for a human mission?
As was mentioned about ``The Martian,'' one thing I like
about ``The Martian,'' that that could happen during my
children's lifetime. And NASA is putting in place all of the
elements which could enable us to explore, that planet.
Now the reason we are in such a good shape in Mars is
because NASA developed a well thought-out integrated program,
and that is the kind of program we need to do the exploration
of the Ocean World, in the outer solar system. Now based on
Voyager and Galileo data, we do know that Europa has an ice
shell, H2O ice, it is water ice, like I am drinking
here. And it has an ocean below the surface which has enough
water, which is two to three times the water which is on Earth
here. Now you would say how could that be? It is so cold out
there. How could there be liquid water in that location? Well
it turned out as these satellites, like Europa, go around
Jupiter, which is a very heavy planet, it is about 300 times
the mass of Earth, it creates tides exactly like what happens
with our Moon. So over millions of years that tide has been
pumping that ice back and forth, and that is what leads to
generation of heat. So there it has the right ingredient, where
you have liquid water today. It had organic material, and there
is energy coming from the tide. So it has all the ingredients
that life could exist today. Not in the past.
Now in order to successfully look at that life I think we
need basically to land on the surface, melt our way, and get
down to that ocean. Now we cannot do that today because there
are a number of things that we need to learn before we can do
that ultimate mission. So in order to be successful I think
there are three elements that need to be done in the near
future. One is to have an orbiter which will map the surface of
Europa at very high resolution and sound through that ice so we
can determine how thick it is. And that is what NASA is
planning, a Europa mission that through your direction, NASA
and the decadal, NASA today has instruments selected, we are in
phase A, and I think we are progressing, with that mission.
The second element is to put a modest lander on the surface
so we can determine the characteristics of that ice. So between
the combination of the sounding which tells us how thick and
the lander which tells us the characteristics of that ice that
will prepare us in the future to put a Europa ocean explorer to
melt our way and go below the surface.
NASA has started that activity based on your direction.
Just a couple of days ago they requested from the science
community for people who are interested to be on a science
definition team to work with us on defining scientifically what
should be the payload. And that lander will capitalize very
heavily on what we have done on Spirit, Opportunity, and
Curiosity in the technological technique of how do we land with
a sky crane. And it looked very much like some of that
technology that we have developed before. So we are very
confident technologically that with appropriate funding that
mission could be done at an acceptable risk.
And the third element is to have a technology program which
will support from now, start to think how do we melt our way,
how do we create a submarine? So by having these three
elements, I am confident that we can explore the oceans of
Europa in the foreseeable future.
Now the next key question is how do you launch it? How do
you get there? And here there are a number of possibilities we
are looking at. Clearly today we have heavy launch vehicles.
Those heavy launch vehicles would take at least seven to eight
years to get us to Jupiter. And that is what happened on
Cassini. What we have to do is to launch, do a series of fly-
bys by Earth to get enough energy to get there. Fortunately
NASA is developing the SLS. With the capability of the SLS we
can get directly to Jupiter in about two and a half years. That
is a huge difference, and to some extent cost saving from the
point of view of operation. And then you can have combination.
Depending on how heavy the lander is if we cannot go direct we
can go and do one fly-by by Earth and then head to Jupiter and
that takes about four years.
So as we speak today we are looking at all these different
options. Now fortunately what is elegant about our approach is
you do not have to wait to decide what launch vehicle and when
until another 2 or 3 years. So we can move ahead on the
development of the orbiter and the lander and then over the
next 2 to 3 years, as we know the availability of these launch
vehicles, their cost, then we can work with NASA, I am sure
they will come to you, with what is the right combination of
SLS and the traditional launch vehicle.
So let me close by a quote that I would like to mention
from President Teddy Roosevelt, because such a program is
challenging. We are going to have successes and we are going to
have failures. But mentioning, let me repeat, and I am quoting
what he said it is ``far better to do mighty things, to win
glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to
rank with those timid spirits that know neither victory nor
defeat.'' The exploration of the Ocean Worlds is one of the
mightier things that our country can do and we sure are not
going to be timid. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Dr. Elachi. Dr. Lunine.
Dr. Lunine. Thank you, Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member
Honda, and members of the subcommittee. It is a wonderful
opportunity to present my views on the search for life in the
Ocean Worlds of our solar system but I am going to keep my
remarks brief because the chairman and ranking member so well
summarized why it is we want to go to each of these worlds.
But I do want to say that I personally feel passionately
patriotic and proud of what our nation has accomplished in the
exploration of the solar system. And I feel humbled personally
to be a scientist participating in one of the greatest space
odysseys ever undertaken, the Cassini mission to Saturn. This
is an extraordinary voyage of discovery with which I have been
involved essentially in the planning stages, when I was a
graduate student, up to today. And this mission truly
exemplifies the remarkable things that this nation can do, and
in particular the remarkable things that the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, ably led by my friend and colleague, has been able
to do over the years. These are historic missions and their
impact is historic as well.
So both Cassini and its antecedent to Jupiter, the Galileo
orbiter, have provided incontrovertible evidence that there are
salt water oceans underneath the icy surfaces of three moons of
the outer solar system, Europa at Jupiter, Enceladus and Titan
at Saturn. And on Titan, Cassini has discovered vast seas of
hydrocarbon liquids, methane and ethane, essentially hundreds
of times more hydrocarbons than the known gas reserves on the
Planet Earth.
Now Dr. Elachi has talked already at length about Europa
and so I am not going to discuss that. But I want to make sure
that everyone understands that I too find the exploration of
Europa and the search for life there a top priority. So I am
happy to answer questions about Europa.
But I will press on to Titan, which is larger than the
Planet Mercury, the only moon to host a dense atmosphere of
nitrogen and methane. Cassini and the European lander that it
carried with it, Huygens, have revealed a methane hydrologic
cycle, with clouds, rain, river valleys, vast seas, all
involving methane and all going on in an unimaginably frigid
environment. And yet Titan's surface has all of the formal
requirements for life: abundant organics, liquids, and sources
of energy. But because that liquid is not water we have to ask
the question is this really a place that we want to go look for
life? It would have to be very exotic life. But a 2007 National
Research Council study in fact said that we should. And it said
that Titan is a test for the universality of life as an outcome
of cosmic evolution. So if we are going to look for life in
those seas, the best way to do that is to land a capsule, float
across the surface. That would be the first maritime
exploration of an alien sea, which in and of itself would be an
extraordinary adventure.
Now let me move on to Enceladus. Enceladus has not
surprised scientists; it has completely shocked us. It is a
very small moon and yet it has a plume of material pouring out
into space from a series of fractures in its south polar
region. And it was Cassini that discovered this plume of icy
grains and vapor and then flew through that plume seven times,
surviving each time. Thanks to the prodigious capability of its
instruments, its chemical sniffers, Cassini has found not only
water ice and water vapor, but also organic molecules, salt
dissolved in the water, tiny grains of silica, all indicators
that inside Enceladus, down in this small, liquid water salty
ocean, is a hydrothermal system. A place in which water,
organics, and minerals are heated together in the kind of
chemical stew that many scientists think was the place where
life began on Earth 4 billion years ago.
And there really is a subsurface ocean. Cassini is so
powerful in terms of its scientific capability it has detected
the presence of the ocean in two completely independent ways.
And so if you look at all of the requirements for terrestrial
type life, liquid water, organics, minerals, energy, chemical
gradients, Enceladus has it all. And all that stuff is pouring
out into space. It is not hidden beneath the surface. And so as
far as we understand it today Enceladus provides us with the
most straightforward way to look for signs of life, given the
compelling evidence that much of the gas and the grains are
being expelled from the interior ocean.
So let me make this very clear. To sample the plume of
Enceladus is to sample the ocean beneath the surface. So merely
flying through the plume, as Cassini has done, but with
instrumentation more modern then Cassini's, is sufficient to
search for signs of life. And this can be done for well below
the cost of a flagship mission and it can be done with
instruments available for flight today.
So let me summarize by saying that discovering life on or
within the Ocean Worlds of our own solar system may provide
unexpected and as yet hard to predict practical benefits,
something that Carl Sagan pointed out many decades ago. But
more profoundly it will inevitably direct our attention to the
Milky Way Galaxy beyond the confines of our own planetary
system. If life can begin two or three or four times in our own
solar system, then the number of planets in the galaxy as a
whole that harbor life must be enormously great. And then how
could we resist taking the leap beyond our solar system to
explore the vast spaces between the stars for life there?
Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you
today.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Dr. Lunine and Dr. Elachi. And I
know my colleagues have questions. It is extraordinary, is it
not? We have, the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats
alike, strongly supported NASA and its mission. One of the most
gratifying things we get to do, is to help you seek out new
life and discover these incredible new worlds. And I have, in
our bill this year we funded, NASA has the largest
appropriation they have ever received since the start of the
agency in 1958 and we have got planetary science funded at a
level of $1.63 billion this year. What level of funding in your
opinion, Dr. Elachi, will be necessary in the 2017 bill to make
sure that we stay on track? That the planetary science
community has the resources they need to achieve the objectives
of the decadal survey, both for this flagship mission to Europa
and the new frontiers and Discovery class missions?
Dr. Elachi. Well I think that is a better question to ask
for NASA. But clearly it all depends on when do you want these
missions to happen? So from my experience, based on Cassini and
other missions, typically it takes us 6 to 7 years after the
selection of the payload to actually be ready to be on the
launch pad. And in the case of the orbiter or the fly-by, those
were selected a year ago. So you can add 6 to 7 years to it. In
the case of the lander, it heavily will depend on the payload
selection data. So a critical element before we can tell you
really the detailed cost is the payload selection.
Mr. Culberson. But we are on the right track? This funding
level that we are on now, you have got what you need so far?
Dr. Elachi. Well clearly depending on when you want it. If
you want to launch in the early twenties, the present level is
not sufficient to do that. I am sure we can provide you with
with a more accurate number for it. But I think it is
appropriate for NASA now. For the total cost of the mission, as
you know, NASA makes a commitment when we do the KDP-C, which
is a decision that it makes when we start in the
implementation. And those will be coming up in the next couple
of years. But we can use as a reference the Cassini mission, or
the Mars 2020 mission. Because those are well known missions of
similar class to what we are talking about.
Mr. Culberson. You know when Neil Armstrong first set foot
on the moon, that is an extraordinarily important and important
milestone. But the discovery of life on another world I think
will be another one of those transformational moments in human
history that when that occurs will encourage the entire, it
will galvanize the country and the world and certainly
encourage the nation to take NASA even further, funding levels
that you will need to make sure the American space program is
the best in the world. And that is actually another reason I
have been so enthusiastic about this mission is that it holds
the greatest promise for that first discovery of life on
another world which will then enable the entire country to get
behind NASA with the funding levels that you need to do what is
necessary to keep the American space program the best in the
world.
But for this mission to succeed, Dr. Elachi, I wanted to
ask you about the launch vehicle. Talk to us, if you could,
about the importance of using SLS for the Europa mission. And,
can you talk to us a little bit about whether or not it will
require one or two SLS missions? For example, one for the
orbiter and one for the lander. Can you talk just a little bit
about it?
Dr. Elachi. Sure. No, I would be glad to address that. As I
mentioned earlier with the EELVs, the present launch vehicle,
it takes at least 7\1/2\ years to get to Jupiter because we
have to do a series of fly-bys. With an SLS we can do it in two
and half years. And that would lead to, even if SLS might be
more expensive, but it would lead to savings of five years of
mission operations. So the trade will need to be looked at.
Now we are looking at having the orbiter and the lander as
two separate spacecraft. And there are different ways you can
launch them. You can put them both on one SLS, but because that
will lead to a heavy payload that still will require to do one
fly-by by Earth. So that will take us, then it will add one or
two years to the mission. Or you can launch them separately on
two SLS. And then in that case you can get much faster to
Jupiter. So over the next few months at the request of NASA we
are going to look at all these different combinations, one SLS,
two SLS, EELVs, and provide NASA technically how long it will
take us to get there and when would we will be able to land,
but also cost-wise, what are the trades. So we should be able
to get back to you over the next few months with that trade.
Now as I said earlier we do not need to decide today what
launch or what kind of configuration. We can wait about two
years before we do that. But no question the SLS or any
equivalent there is the Falcon 9 Heavy, will revolutionize how
we explore the outer solar system. It will make a huge
difference when you send a mission to wait seven years and
analyze the data before you plan the next one, versus one where
what you have to wait is two years. So no question, the SLS
will be a game changer in this area.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. They are going to call votes
between about 11:20, I understand, and 11:30, so I want to move
on to my--oh, excuse me, 11:30 and 11:50. So we do have a
little more time. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Elachi, what are
the primary science goals of the Europa orbiter and related
missions? And is astrobiology and biomapping part of the stated
NASA objectives?
Dr. Elachi. Let me briefly answer it, but my colleague here
is smarter than me when it comes to astrobiology. The orbiter,
which has the payload selected already, will do very high
resolution mapping of the surface, will look at the composition
at the surface with spectrometers, and will allow us to sound
through the ice so we can determine how thick is that ice. And
with the gravity measurement will be able to determine the
characteristic of the ocean, how thick that ocean is. So it
will provide us all of the ingredients that are needed to start
planning for the next step with the measurements that the
lander will get by making in situ measurement of
astrobiological components as well as the characteristic of
that ice. So let me, with your permission let me turn it to
Jonathan. He is smarter than me.
Dr. Lunine. Well I am not sure I would agree with that
statement. But the Europa fly-by mission is very, very well
instrumented to address astrobiology goals. And in fact within
the organization of the mission itself we have what is called a
habitability working group to look at how these instruments can
address those goals. And so there is an instrument that will
look for organics on the surface that might have been deposited
from the interior. We must understand whether Europa has carbon
bearing compounds, organic molecules. We do not know that today
and that is a key ingredient for habitability because that is
what life as we know it is made of. And there are two
instruments, mass spectrometers, that will actually sample
Europa material directly on the fly-by spacecraft. If there is
a plume, they will sample material in the plume. If not, they
will actually sample material that has been deposited on the
surface that gets bombarded by micrometeoroids and is then
lofted into the atmosphere. And both of those instruments can
measure the composition, look for organics as well, and even
possibly look for clues that there might be a hydrothermal
system in Europa's interior. So I think we are going to get a
great deal of information on the habitability of Europa just
from the fly-bys themselves, and then a lander of course would
provide in situ information to add to that.
Mr. Honda. OK. So this may be the same question in a
different way, though. So if life detection is one of these
goals, how will all of this be accomplished by a potential
Europa orbiter mission without a secondary mission or landers?
And how likely are we to learn something from an orbiter
mission that will affect what we would want to know with a
lander, both guide where we would want to land and with what
type of craft as well as the instruments to put on the lander?
And then I understand for decades NASA and JPL have
successfully explored planets and their moons through a three-
step strategy of fly-by, followed by an orbiter, and then
followed by a lander. I have heard this described in your
testimony. Each step on this journey builds on the knowledge
gained through previous missions, which you have explained.
This is designed to maximize the science return at each step
while minimizing the scientific and technical risk to
spacecraft, landers, and rovers. With respect to a Europa
mission concept involving a lander, what provides the
confidence that we would know enough about the Europa surface
to ensure that a lander will be placed on a scientifically
compelling and safe site on the icy surface?
Dr. Elachi. OK let me----
Mr. Honda. I know it is a lot of information, but I was
just trying to put it all together so I can conceptually
understand.
Dr. Elachi. OK. Now, I think our strategy is the orbiter
will get to Jupiter before the lander and it will survey the
area, image it at a very high resolution, identify the area of
interest. And the lander, even if they are launched on the same
launch vehicle
We would put the lander at the high altitude orbit to
protect it from radiation, wait until the orbiter maps the
surface, then we will zoom in and come down. Nothing will
replace in situ measurement. There will be always uncertainty
until you actually grab some of that ice and measure it in a
mass spectrometer. The additional thing we need to be thinking
about is we need to learn how to land on Europa for the
ultimate mission where actually we will have to drill. So this
lander that we are talking about will have a great scientific
value, but also it will have the value of learning how to land.
That is what we did on Mars. First we landed Pathfinder, then
we drove a little bit, then Opportunity, and then Curiosity. So
I think we have enough information that we do not have to wait
for a mission to be completed before you get to the next
mission. We have worked a strategy that you can do it on a much
faster time.
Dr. Lunine. Yes. And then just very briefly, Congressman
Honda, there is a very important distinction that has to be
made between habitability and looking for life itself. And in
the case of Europa we are still at the stage of determining
whether Europa is habitable. The saltwater ocean indeed seems
to be there. But what we still do not know yet is whether there
are organic molecules. In Europa it is possible that there were
never any, or they have all been essentially exsolved into
space in some way. So that is crucial. And then the whole issue
of whether there are hydrothermal systems at the base of the
ocean to generate the gradients in energy that life would need,
we need the clues again from the minerals that might be coming
out of plumes that might be deposited on the surface. So the
mission as it is constructed today will really address the
habitability of Europa. And if those indicators are positive
then going after the question of whether life actually exists
there becomes the primary goal at that point.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. I see they rang for votes. I will be very brief.
I know this is a priority of the chairman so I want you to have
as much time as possible. The chairman has been very helpful to
me in the Gulf of Mexico and making sure we know how to count
fish, so I am happy to support your initiatives here in space.
My only question is in these oceans you are finding are there
any red snapper in them?
But look, we have the right chairman, the right ranking
member on these issues on right now. I am excited to support
what you are doing. So thank you all for being here today. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. It is always with mixed emotions,
your retirement is both well deserved but your leadership has
been extraordinary. I visited the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I
was on the floor with you when the Mars Rover landed on the
surface and it was an extraordinary success for the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory and for NASA, for our country, and for
science worldwide. So I want to congratulate you on all your
hard work and your success at the laboratory, and wish you well
on your next endeavor. I am sure there is a second act or a
third act here.
But I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. Given the
fact that you are stepping off the stage, if you could give the
committee some reflection on, you know, we at one point had a
lot of back and forth. It was pretty lonely in advocating for
commercial crew and commercial cargo in the space technology
portion of the NASA budget. Because there was a lot of buy into
what we might call the old NASA, right? And so there was this
big tug of war that has now been settled and we have a robust,
competitive, I think, commercial crew operation. So let us just
talk about, so it really puts NASA and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in the position to focus in on exploration. So if
you could give us a few minutes on your thoughts about where we
are in terms of the decision package around these issues that
would be helpful.
Dr. Elachi. OK. Sure, I would be glad to do that. Let me
first start by saying I am retiring from being the JPL Director
but I will be Professor at Cal Tech, which I am presently. So I
will stay engaged. I mean, I spent 40 years on this amazing
quest of exploration. So I will continue to be engaged in that
one.
Now on your second one, I think it is like every time NASA
develops a capability we need to turn it over to the commercial
sector so they can make a business out of it. That has happened
on telecom satellites, GPS. And NASA to be exploring the next
frontier. That is what our agency should be doing and I think
that is what our agency is focusing on doing. So I think the
commercial sector, particularly in the launch area, should be
able to support that activity so we can spend our effort either
on a more capable launch vehicle, like the SLS, or an exploring
mission, like Europa.
Now talking a little bit on technology, I want to add one
statement. When we landed Curiosity, of course I was proud of
the landing of Curiosity, and we were delighted that you and
your daughter----
Mr. Fattah. Yes.
Dr. Elachi [continuing]. Were there. But what I was
particularly proud of is all over it was written Made in the
U.S.A. Because almost every piece of it, we do not import this
stuff. We actually build it in the United States. So ever
dollar we spend in our space program is spent in the United
States for jobs, for developing technology, and so on. And the
critical element was investment in technology and enhancing our
capability to do these amazing things. These things do not
happen. And no commercial sector will invest in technology
which is needed 10, 15 years from now. And that is what NASA
should be doing. So I am a strong advocate of the technology
program for NASA. Because that is what enables the future for
us. And at the same time, to turn over the things that the
commercial sector can do to the commercial sector to do that.
And I think that is the NASA strategy that is being advocated
today.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you. And I want to thank the
chairman for his extraordinary leadership, not just in terms of
Europa. Because he has been I think a robust supporter of our
space effort. And we again are thankful that in the omnibus
that we were able to get a very good number on commercial crew
and space technology, technology, technology, technology. And I
brought my daughter out there because we wanted to, she is
interested in Cal Tech. So she is 17. She is honor roll, 99
percentile. It is only between the University of Texas and Cal
Tech. You know, who knows? Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. We have got two votes. And Mr. Honda would
like to come back. I would like to come back. So if we could
recess briefly, we will take these votes and then we will come
back and have a few more questions. So the committee will stand
in recess briefly. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Culberson. All right. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
The hearing will come back to order. We have finished up
our votes and I appreciate very much your patience with us
taking a brief recess while we finished up on the House floor.
I wonder if I could to ask Dr. Elachi in particular. Of
course, as you know, the fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Act
directed NASA to launch a mission to Europa with a lander in
order to confirm the presence of organics. If I could ask both
of you, first of all, how essential is that we land on the
surface in order to confirm the presence of organics?
Dr. Elachi. I think in order to make sure we have
confirmation, you really need to make direct measurements and
use it in a mass spectrometer to do that.
Mr. Culberson. On the surface?
Dr. Elachi. On the surface. We don't do that if there are
plumes. So the only way to make sure we do that is to land on
the surface and make direct measurement, take samples and make
direct measurement, because any other way you are going to be
still uncertain. So that is a direct, important thing.
The other part I want to emphasize is also you need to
learn how to land on the surface of Europa for the longer term
and if this was in our capability to do that. So clearly a
lander on the surface, in my mind, is a necessity in
understanding the oceans on Europa.
Mr. Culberson. Dr. Lunine.
Dr. Lunine. So I have participated in some of the
discussions on the lander payload and it is a very carefully
selected payload that is designed to give us the essential
information we really need to go the next step to look for
life, if in fact everything turns out to be positive.
And so one of the things that is essential about the lander
is the ability to sample deposits that are on the surface that
may be partially covered up that may not in fact be exposed to
the orbiter remote sensing. And so we want to have the
opportunity to use both the fly-by spacecraft and the lander
together to select the right landing site, to put the lander
there and then to sample the materials in situ.
And we may get lucky with that in situ analysis. I mean, we
may actually find evidence that the organic molecules are being
modified in some way by biological processes.
Mr. Culberson. So you would agree, the only way to be
certain is to land on the surface and actually test the ice
deposits on the surface, that is the only way to be sure?
Dr. Lunine. That is the only way to be sure, but it has got
to be done in concert with that fly-by spacecraft----
Mr. Culberson. Of course.
Dr. Lunine [continuing]. Because we need to understand what
the nature of the surface is at a level of resolution good
enough that a lander can be put in the right place.
Dr. Elachi. Actually, if you would let me add one thing.
When you look at the Decadal and what are the science that they
listed, we did generate a table which looked at what can the
orbiter do. And the orbiter can do the majority of the science,
but it cannot answer directly the question of the organic on
the surface. So that was a gap that the orbiter could not do
and that is why the lander is critical for this mission.
Mr. Culberson. And that is why, of course, as our bill
states, the goal of this mission is to achieve the scientific
objectives of the Decadal Survey, which as you have just
confirmed for the record has to include a lander if we are
going to answer that essential and most exciting question of
all, is there life on other worlds.
And if I could, Dr. Elachi, ask about when does NASA intend
to solicit instruments for the landers with an announcement of
opportunity in fiscal year 2016?
Dr. Elachi. OK. Basically, I mean, again, that is a
question NASA would need to answer, but NASA deserves credit,
they just sent an email to the broad science community inviting
people to submit that they would like to work on this science
definition team. And they stated in that letter that this is
for about three months where they would work with JPL, with
NASA on defining the payload. So they should be able to get
that work done, I would say, by early summer time frame. And
then NASA will have to go through its process.
So that is something that you need to address with NASA of
when will they issue that announcement of opportunity for the
instrument. In my mind, the earlier is the better because the
payload is the key driver for developing the lander, because we
can do a certain amount of work, but until we know what
instrument you need, how much samples you need to get, what
volume you need, it is hard to do the detail design. So it is
critical that the AO and the selection of the payload, is done
in the most expeditious way.
Mr. Culberson. Well, we will push NASA to make sure they
get this done as rapidly as possible. And I also hope that we
will see at least two ways to verify the organics with the mass
spectrometer and the Raman on the same lander. Because if we
are going to go all this way and make this exciting mission,
make sure that we actually are detecting organics, it makes
sense to double check it, doesn't it?
Dr. Elachi. Yes, I agree with you. And the design, the very
preliminary design that we present to NASA will accommodate at
least two in situ instruments, will accommodate motion monitor
to look at any vibration and will accommodate imaging.
Now, if NASA decide and the science group decide that they
need more instruments, we can do that, but that makes a lander
more and more complex. So that is a trade which have to be done
with the science community of what is an optimum payload which
enables us to answer the question, but also can be done with a
reasonable risk.
Mr. Culberson. And the payload will be comparable to that
which landed on Spirit and Opportunity on Mars in terms of the
weight and size?
Dr. Elachi. I don't know about the weight and size, but at
least one of the instruments, the Raman spectrometer, would be
based on heritage from Spirit--not Spirit, unfortunately, but
from Curiosity, we have a Raman spectrometer planned for Mars
2020, but I will let John tell you.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Dr. Lunine. Well, and I just wanted to add that you
mentioned having a mass spectrometer and Raman allows you to
have backup and have two ways of detecting the organics, the
Raman also gives you some information on structure that is
important that you may not get from the mass spectrometer, and
understanding aspects of the structure of the organics in
telling how fresh they are and where they come from. Were they
part of a biological process of some kind or were they not?
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Dr. Elachi. That combination will be very powerful.
Mr. Culberson. I will have a couple followups. I want to
recognize my good friend, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Through these discussions, I am sort of developing a
picture in my mind that one of the things we want to do is to
be able to understand through various techniques the
possibility of life, whether it is through indirect or direct
techniques. And also and prior to landing on the surface, it
seems to me that we need to know how firm or what the structure
is, so that it will sustain a landing. And then also, you know,
inserting ourselves on a planet, I am a little concerned about
contamination too.
So could you talk a little bit about the kinds of testing
that needs to be done? And I know that you talked about
handedness, that seems to be important, the issue of having
ability through the indirect detection of what processes that
you want to go through in order to see what is down there. And
the types of techniques, I think I heard fly-through, plumes,
things like that. Are these all necessary processes in order to
determine whether the surfaces can enable a landing of a craft
on the surface of the planet?
Dr. Lunine. Well, let me talk about the life test and then
I will ask Dr. Elachi to talk about the questions of certifying
the surface for a safe landing, which is really a different
subject.
So I think that the fly-by spacecraft will be able to
pretty quickly tell us the coarse essentials about
habitability. You know, does it see that there are deposits of
organics on the surface. It is not going to be able to tell us
in detail what the organics are, but it will tell us whether
there are carbon-bearing molecules near the fractures, for
example, which we don't know and Galileo was not able to tell
us.
Galileo was able to tell us that the ocean is there and
salty. There are indications of salt deposits on the surface,
but again Galileo couldn't tell us which kinds of salts. So we
really for Europa have this rudimentary information that I
think the fly-by spacecraft will very quickly develop into a
full profile of how habitable Europa really is.
And then of course the next step, both from the fly-by
spacecraft and from a lander, is to determine whether there is
biological activity. There are a number of ways to do that. Of
course direct detection of organisms requires potentially very
elaborate instrumentation. It is better to analyze if there are
fresh organics on the surface to look for evidence of a
preponderance of left-handed or a deficit of right-handed, or
vice versa, organic molecules, if there are amino acids. And in
general----
Mr. Honda. And could you explain----
Dr. Lunine. Yes?
Mr. Honda. Could you explain the difference and the
importance of?
Dr. Lunine. Yes. So life of course life on earth, it is all
biochemically the same, we have no other example of life. And
the amino acids that life uses, with only small exceptions, all
have a particular orientation or handedness, the way that the
carbon atoms are attached to the molecules themselves, and that
actually allows the amino acids when they are arrayed in the
chain to make a protein, to actually allow that chain to fold
properly to make the protein. If you had a mixture of the left-
handed and the mirror form, if you had a random assortment,
when they are arrayed on a chain, you don't get a protein.
Now, it doesn't matter if it is left-handed or right-
handed. It could be all right-handed or it could be all left-
handed, but it has got to be one or the other. And so
identifying, first of all, if there are amino acids and,
secondly, are they all left or all right, is one very powerful
example of a life test, a test for life.
Mr. Culberson. Chirality?
Dr. Lunine. That's chirality, exactly.
Do you want to talk about the surface?
Dr. Elachi. Yes. I think on the question of the safety of
landing on the surface, as I mentioned earlier, the orbiter is
going to be taking very high resolution imaging of the surface.
Now, remember, Europa is the size of our moon, so it is a big
satellite. So we will be taking the images to decide what areas
are scientifically valuable and safe to land.
In addition to that, as the lander is coming down, it will
have the capability of actually taking pictures as it is coming
down and move to make sure it is in a safe place. That
technique we are going to be demonstrating on Mars 2020, so we
will have it well understood.
And the third thing on top of that, the way we land, we are
putting the lander inside the pyramid similar to what we did
with Spirit opportunity and Pathfinder. So even if it lands on
the side or if there is a rock next to it, it can unfurl and
right itself up.
So these are three steps which will assure us that we will
be able to land safely on the surface.
Mr. Honda. To the chair. The reason I asked about having
this contamination connected to landing or fly-by or fly-
through, whatever the term is, I was trying to figure out if he
can determine the amino acid handedness through a fly-through,
so that you have that information prior to landing. I mean, are
there ways that you can do that?
Dr. Lunine. Well, the only way to do that would be if
Europa had a plume. If it has got a plume of material where you
have fresh material pouring out of the ocean that can be
sampled by instruments, potentially it could do that. However,
the Europa fly-by spacecraft doesn't actually have a device for
measuring chirality, and that is actually a fairly complex type
of instrument.
Mr. Honda. I'm sorry, measure what?
Dr. Lunine. To measure the left--excuse me, sorry--to
measure left versus right-handed, that is not part of the
payload. It can detect molecules, but it can't tell you what
the structure is in terms of left or right-handed. And that is
a type of instrument that requires some development, probably
should be on a lander.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. You would have to make that
measurement on the surface on the spot in order to be able to
determine the left or right-handedness?
Dr. Lunine. In fresh material that has not been damaged by
the radiation field.
Mr. Culberson. Right. And, I also understand from the
briefings that I have been given that the speed of fly-by is so
high that any organic material that might be in that plume
would be disintegrated by it. So another reason to land on the
surface is the organics in that plume when you fly through it
would probably disintegrate, as I recall this morning----
Mr. Honda. Well, Mr. Chairman, not having that experience
of hearing, is that plume created naturally or is that induced
through, you know, creating the plume ourselves?
Mr. Culberson. No, the plume is created naturally. It is
like Enceladus, the ocean is venting through cracks in the ice
into the lower pressure, because it is essentially a vacuum.
And we have seen it in Enceladus, detected a plume on Europa
once or twice from Hubble.
Dr. Elachi. Let me mention one thing. First, on Enceladus
we see the plumes coming regularly. So there you have
confidence and Jonathan has been thinking of how do you measure
that. On Europa we have not confirmed that there are plumes.
Now, you could think, well, I could impact the surface and
create the plume, but when you impact the surface you have to
do it at extremely high speed and that could create a lot of
damage for whatever is on the surface. I mean, damaging the
molecule you are trying to measure, because it is like a bullet
to do that.
So I am not sure that is a good or wise technique to do
that and we don't know if naturally there are plumes. So
clearly the best approach and the safest approach is to put a
lander, a soft lander on the surface, and drill below the
surface and make that measurement.
Mr. Culberson. And the pyramid you are discussing, it would
land similar to Spirit and Opportunity, there would be airbags
around the pyramid?
Dr. Elachi. I am not sure we will put the airbags, but it
would be very similar, the shape would be very similar, and we
are in the early stage of looking at the techniques. By
bringing it with a sky crane and being able to have control of
where we land, that addresses significantly the risk.
Mr. Culberson. Could you talk a little bit about what we
know about the ice? The surface is, it is a free-floating ice
shell, not sure how thick, but the age.
Dr. Lunine. This is a very interesting question. It is a
very young surface, there is only one really old, large crater
on one part of Europa. And there are places on the surface
where the crust may be as thin as a few hundred meters perhaps,
places where you see these cycloidal ridges that appear to be a
response to the tidal pull, the tidal stresses as Europa goes
around Jupiter, those are the places where the crust may be
very thin. There are other places, for example where this one
crater Pwyll is located where the crust appears to be thick, it
may be 10 or 20 kilometers thick.
So you have to imagine that, as you said, Mr. Chairman,
this free-floating ice shell just has a variation in thickness
as you go around Europa. And one of the important goals of this
mission is to determine, you know, the ice thickness in various
places and determine where the ocean is really closest to the
surface.
Mr. Culberson. And if the surface is that young, it
obviously implies that it is being continually replenished and
that that ice is diving down into the ocean and coming back up.
And because of the intense radiation, I think I have read that
the hydrogen atoms are being stripped away from the
H2O, which means it is oxygen-enriched ice going
down into the ocean and releasing that oxygen, so it is
plausible that that ocean has been oxygenated for billions of
years?
Dr. Lunine. Yes, this is a very interesting aspect of
Europa that this may in fact be a primary source of energy for
life are these oxygen atoms that have, as you said, the
hydrogen has been stripped and then these very oxidized
species, peroxides and so on, are being introduced into the
ocean. By one estimate and one paper I read, there may be as
much energy from that as we have in certain oxygen-rich aerobic
systems in the Earth's oceans.
Now, you wouldn't want to try to form life in that
environment, right? Because oxygen is a destroyer of organic
compounds. So we would also like to know whether there are
places in the deep ocean of Europa which are not exposed to
quite that much oxygen or at least were not in the past,
because in order to actually build these organic molecules
before life itself began, you would have had to have had a
relatively oxygen-free environment.
Mr. Culberson. I also understand from talking to Dr. Robert
Ballard that these mid-ocean ridges, which are not visible
here, the largest volcanic system on the Earth, the 40,000-mile
long mid-ocean ridge, that Dr. Ballard told us that for years
geologists couldn't figure out the chemistry of the Earth's
ocean, they didn't understand why it had the mixture of
chemicals that it did, that the rivers flowing into the ocean,
you couldn't account for the chemistry of the ocean just based
on rivers until they discovered these mid-ocean ridges. And Dr.
Ballard points out that the entire volume of Earth's oceans
circulate through those mid-ocean ridges every few million
years, he thinks maybe 4 to 6 million years, and that injects a
tremendous amount of chemicals into the earth's oceans, which
account, once they did that calculation, it matched perfectly
and it explained why the Earth's oceans have the level of salt
and other chemical elements within it.
And clearly wouldn't you say that is a reasonable analogy
to what we see in Europa where the silicate, you are detecting
silica in the plumes on Enceladus, almost certainly, you have
got a rocky bottom to the oceans of Europa, so is it reasonable
to assume that you have got similar circulation of the salt
water on Europa going through those volcanic black smokers, we
will probably have black smokers on the bottom of the oceans of
Europa as we see on earth?
Dr. Lunine. Yes, that is a very interesting question for
Europa. And the fact that it is a large body that has a large
rock core makes it likely that there is some sort of
hydrothermal circulation of water through the hot rock. Now,
whether it is a black smoker or some of these other types of
what are called off-axis hydrothermal systems that are a little
bit cooler is not really clear. And one of the goals of this
mission, by determining what are the kinds of salts that have
been deposited from the interior and what other kinds of
mineral evidence might there be on the surface, we might be
able to know what type of hydrothermal system is present.
On Enceladus, what is interesting is that the Cassini data
from the mass spectrometers are good enough that the pH, the
acidity of the ocean has been estimated from those data, and as
well the temperature in a very sort of crude way, from these
silica particles that have been sampled by Cassini. And those
data suggest that there is a hydrothermal system at the base of
the Enceladus ocean, and it is more like the low-temperature
hydrothermal systems on Earth that are off the mid-ocean ridge,
off of the axis. There is one called Lost City, for example,
and it has a temperature of about 50 Celsius and it has a high
pH, as Enceladus does. It has a different kind of chemistry and
that is what looks like might be happening at the base of the
Enceladus ocean.
So it will be very intriguing to see what is happening in
the Europa ocean, whether it is similar to that or more similar
to the higher temperature black smokers.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. OK. Leaving the planet and coming back to earth,
in your independent opinion, what is the estimated life-cycle
cost of the Europa orbiter mission both with or without a
proposed lander? And how soon do you believe a Europa orbiter
mission could be launched and what assumptions must be made to
support that launch date? And how long would inclusion of a
lander delay arrival of a spacecraft to Europa? I think you
alluded to that, including development time and transit time.
Dr. Elachi. Let me answer it first on the technical side.
On the technical side, the two are complementary, it won't
impact. We can move ahead with the orbiter on its present
schedule. At the end, the key driver is going to be the funding
for it. And that is what we are developing now to provide NASA
for the funding profile that is needed based on the direction
which came from your committee about when to do the launch. So
we would be providing that to NASA.
Now, originally, maybe your concern comes, originally we
were thinking of having the lander attached to the orbiter and,
therefore, the orbiter will have to wait for the lander to be
finished. That is not our plan now. We found that technically
that is not a good approach. So we will have the orbiter and
the lander as two separate spacecraft. And as I mentioned
earlier, three years from now we can decide do we launch them
together or do we launch them separately.
Now, for Jupiter, fortunately, we can go to Jupiter roughly
every year, about every 13 months. So you can plan it depending
on the readiness of the orbiter, the readiness of the lander,
the availability of the launch vehicle, but you have a shot
every year to actually do that, if we decide to do them
separate.
And so we are doing all these assessments, should they be
launched together or should we launch separate, but they will
be developed separately, so it won't impact the orbiter's
schedule.
Mr. Honda. And development time and transit time, it is
dependent on what our decisions are then?
Dr. Elachi. The time of development is, once you select a
payload, you need roughly about 6 to 7 years to be at the
launch pad. That is from our experience on Mars 2020, Cassini,
Galileo, all these missions. And if you try to do it much
shorter, that is not wise, because you are taking big risks. If
you wait longer then that it is not efficient, because you have
built your team and all the activity, if you start stretching
it, that is not the way to do things.
So really the driver is, the trigger point is, in my mind,
the selection of the payload, and then you can add 6 to 7
years, assuming funding are available, 6 to 7 years to be ready
to be on the launch pad.
Mr. Honda. I mean, the Chairman will be here more than 6 or
7 years, right?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Just to wrap up on Europa, I want to make
sure I understand that you have got an oxygenated ocean, this
obvious evidence of a lot of heat, probably circulation through
those volcanic ridges, and the ice would also protect that
ocean from asteroid impact and radiation, so a very stable and
secure environment for potentially life to not only begin, but
to then be sheltered for essentially the life of the moon; is
that accurate?
Dr. Lunine. As far as everything we know today, yes, that
is right. And what we don't know today is how much carbon and
nitrogen-bearing material is in Europa and we really need to
know that.
And if I may, Mr. Chairman, the first proposal that I wrote
for an instrument on a Europa mission was in 1999. And so some
of us have been waiting 17 years for a mission to get going,
and that was of course just two years after Galileo discovered
evidence for the ocean through its magnetometer. So, you know,
I have to say that it is past time to get to Europa, and the
sooner that we can get there to explore this incredibly
fascinating moon that may well hold life, the better.
Dr. Elachi. Let me add to what Jonathan said. So that
reflects that the science community have been thinking, so it
is well thought of what needs to be measured. And that is why
the Decadal indicated measurements which as of now can only be
done with a lander.
The other question on the radiation, I am not an expert,
but I ask people at JPL, all that you have to do is to go just
a few centimeters below the ice and you are somewhat safe from
radiation. That is why Jonathan emphasized that when we take
the samples, we need to drill a few centimeters, a few tens of
centimeters, so you get fresh ice coming from it which is not
bombarded by the radiation. So you don't have to drill too far
to actually find what we are looking for.
Mr. Culberson. And I want to stress too, of course, for the
record that this is obviously a keen interest of the committee,
of mine, but it is the top priority of the Decadal Survey. This
is something that we are pursuing, Mr. Honda, and the
subcommittee is supporting, because this is the consensus of
the scientific community in the Decadal Survey, correct, that
we need to go to Europa?
Dr. Lunine. Yes, that is correct, absolutely.
Dr. Elachi. Yes, correct.
Mr. Culberson. And I want to also, if I could, because the
other purpose of this hearing today and we will wrap up here in
a few minutes, but I want to lay the foundation for the future.
The idea of this hearing was to talk about the exploration of
these ocean worlds as a great opportunity to discover life
perhaps in our own backyard.
Talk to us about, if you could, as you mentioned, the
oceans of Enceladus, that is a free-floating ice shell as well?
Dr. Lunine. Yes, yes, it is a free-floating ice shell. It
is thicker, it is about 30 kilometers thick, as far as we can
tell. So we really are depending on the plume, sampling
material coming out through the fractures into space in order
to learn more about that ocean's habitability and the
possibility that life is present.
Mr. Culberson. And the water--go ahead. Sorry, Dr. Elachi.
Dr. Elachi. No, I just want to mention, you probably know
it, but to the credit of NASA they added Enceladus and Titan to
the potential targets for the New Frontier program. This it is
to look at an ocean program which involved Flagship mission,
New Frontier and Discovery. So NASA did add Titan and Enceladus
as potential candidates for the New Frontier mission. And
Discovery is a little bit harder, because the outer solar
system is pretty far away to do that.
Mr. Culberson. Right. And those of course would also be
prime candidates for launch on the SLS? They are smaller
spacecraft, but again to get there rapidly, you would need the
SLS?
Dr. Elachi. Again, I mean, the biggest benefit of the SLS
is the speed and that it can carry more mass. We are in the
process of thinking of ideas for the Titan mission and the
Enceladus, and Jonathan is a key player in both of them.
Depending on what the scientists come up with, that will lead
to what is the right launch vehicle.
Mr. Culberson. How deep is the ocean on Titan, do you
think, or is it a sea?
Dr. Lunine. Well, there is a liquid water ocean on Titan
and in fact the Cassini evidence is that it is also a decoupled
shell, but it is very deep. It is at least 60 kilometers and it
may be more like a hundred kilometers below the surface.
So of all three of those bodies, sampling material from the
Titan subsurface water ocean is going to be the most difficult
target. But there are also these hydrocarbon seas on the
surface and they may be an interesting target, and they are
exposed to the atmosphere, you can land on those.
Dr. Elachi. To answer your question, from the Cassini
mission we know those surface oceans, which are made of
hydrocarbon, are the size of the Great Lakes. So this is not
like a pond, but it is not a Pacific Ocean. But they are very
large lakes. And as Jonathan mentioned, the amount of
hydrocarbon which is in them exceed by how much for----
Dr. Lunine. Two orders of magnitude.
Dr. Elachi [continuing]. Two orders of magnitude how much
hydrocarbon there is. So that could be an indicator of some
exotic life, a different way of life.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda, dive in any time.
Mr. Honda. So I guess I will close with this question then.
With that discussion then, it sounds like there is that
possibility or have you thought about how we recycle the assets
that we are already developing or we will be using, would that
be recyclable and be able to continue to use as we seek out
other solar oceans?
And I guess the other would be, should we be looking at
building smaller fleets of assets, so that as we are pursuing
this project we could be thinking about in a parallel way
building smaller fleets to continue this search for ocean
worlds that are out there?
Dr. Elachi. I think what you said is the wisdom of having a
program. You need to think of all different elements to explore
Europa, Enceladus Titan, in similar ways that the Mars program
have been thinking about. And it could be a combination of
large spacecraft, small spacecraft, boats, balloons. So the
benefit of having a program is that you can do this kind of
thinking that you are mentioning.
And also it will allow us to build on, one mission building
on the prior mission, both from science, but also from hardware
as you develop things. So it is the same thing on Mars we built
up from Pathfinder to Spirit to Opportunity, then to Curiosity,
then to Mars 2020. And now we are looking at technology such as
little helicopters which can augment those measurements. And
that is enabled because we are thinking as a program, not one
mission at a time and then wait until we get the results from
it.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. If I could also to follow up, because I want
to talk a little bit about it before we wrap up, the purpose of
this hearing today is to talk about the next step and it is
developing a program like we had with the Mars mission. We have
discovered these oceans that exist in the outer solar system,
they are undoubtedly, probably very common throughout the
universe, and it is important that if we are going to discover
life, it is going to be in those oceans.
Talk first for a moment about, for example, what other
moons in the outer solar system do you think could have oceans
of water?
Dr. Lunine. Well, we have some evidence for an ocean in
Callisto, which is one of the other Galilean moons of Jupiter.
It might be a very thin ocean. It is somewhat mysterious that
it would have one, because it seems to be rather cold and dead,
but the evidence seems to be there.
Triton, which is a moon of Neptune, is very intriguing
because it's a large satellite, it was probably captured from
the kuiper belt, it is the size of Pluto, and it has some
activity on its surface. When Voyager 2 flew by in 1989, it
found that there were these plumes of material coming up that
deposit dark streaks across the surface. And while there are
some models that say that this is just driven by solar heating
of the surface, the fact that we don't see this on Pluto in the
same way suggests that maybe this is actually internal activity
that is being expressed at the surface.
So Triton is another object that might have an ocean. It is
a long way away. I mean, Neptune is at the edge of the solar
system.
Mr. Culberson. Any of the moons of Uranus indicate any
evidence of----
Dr. Lunine. We don't know, because, you know, Uranus is
tipped on its side. And so when Voyager 2 flew by Uranus, it
was essentially a bull's eye where the whole satellite orbits
were face-on. And the whole fly-by was quick, it was basically
through the target and the spacecraft had to look very quickly
and take a few pictures of each moon. We just don't know very
much at all about those moons and going back at some point and
understanding more about them is very interesting. They are
large, four of them are large, they might have oceans, but we
just don't have any evidence.
Mr. Culberson. So the ocean moon exploration program that
we have outlined in our bill will be obviously focused
initially, the first mission to Europa, Enceladus and Titan
would be the most immediate and obvious targets.
And what we learned from the New Horizons mission to Pluto,
large amounts of water in evidence there on Pluto too, isn't
it? Frozen obviously, but you found water on Pluto and that was
unexpected.
Dr. Lunine. So, well, Pluto, just based on its density, was
thought to be an ice-rock world. What is surprising about it is
that there is a lot of geology, that the ice itself seems to
have been modified by geologic processes. And there are
deposits on the surface of other ices, nitrogen ice, carbon
monoxide, methane, which themselves have been flowing across
the surface. So it is a very complicated world. The way it
looks geologically suggests that maybe in fact there is
activity inside Pluto that has heated it and melted the water
ice. Now, whether that is still going on today, we don't know.
But every place we go in the outer solar system is a
surprise. There is much more activity, there is much more
dynamism, if you will, in these bodies than I think any of us
would have predicted.
Mr. Culberson. The point I wanted to drive at is that
everywhere we look too out there, there is a lot of water.
Dr. Lunine. Absolutely, yes, there is a huge amount of
water in the outer solar system.
Mr. Honda. There has been some question about Earth
science----
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
Dr. Elachi. Clearly, I think as we develop an Ocean Worlds
program, we should be looking at what can we do also in our
oceans. And that is why Dr. Ballard has been involved in some
of these activities, because we can learn both ways. By
exploring our ocean, we can learn about oceans outside our
planet and vice versa.
I have been around in this business for 40 years and I
found many times as we develop things for planetary
exploration, the technology and the technique and the knowledge
are directly applicable back to our own planet. I started the
JPL to work on the Magellan mission which had an imaging radar
on it. Guess what? Now, imaging radars are being put in orbit
around earth based on some of that technology that we developed
for Magellan.
And I have no doubt, whatever we do on Europa and the
technology for submarines or drilling, will have some cross-
benefit with our own ocean and vice versa, because here we have
to develop robotic, small submarines which are capable of
making some very advanced measurement. I could see people
interested in having dozens of those being put in our own ocean
to study what is below the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. If I could, having the benefit of
your presence here, Dr. Elachi and Dr. Lunine, talk about the
far future, because one of the exciting things about this Ocean
Worlds Exploration Program is it will be laying the foundation
to develop the next generation of rocket propulsion and to take
NASA on to the next level, because when we do discover life in
another world, I think that will encourage the public to
support the level of funding NASA is going to need.
Let me ask first quickly about the work that NASA is doing
with the Department of Energy to support radio isotope power
systems, is the level of funding that we have in this year's
bill sufficient, and are you satisfied with the work that is
being done to increase the power output and to reduce the mass
and size?
Dr. Elachi. To the best of my knowledge, from what I have
been told, I think it is appropriate and an appropriate level,
but again that is a question that headquarters probably can
answer. But for our purpose, looking at the near-term mission
that we are discussing, I think what is available now and the
new production that DOE is doing are satisfactory for that.
Now, in the longer term when we start talking about a
lander to melt our way down below the surface, then that is why
I said it is important to put some work on the technology of
what is needed, so we can assess exactly how would you do it
and will we have enough radioactive material to do that.
Mr. Culberson. That would be the second mission to Europa
would be to get through the ice, this mission will involve some
artificial intelligence because of the distances involved. The
computers on board will have to make a lot of decisions on
their own as they are approaching the surface; is that correct?
Dr. Elachi. Absolutely. It has to be all done autonomously,
because it takes a couple of hours for the signal to go up and
down. So everything has to be done autonomously and that would
require the advances that you are talking about.
Mr. Culberson. And that second mission would require a heat
source sufficient for a submersible vehicle to melt through the
ice, drop out into that ocean, and then transmit images and
information back to the surface to tell us what is beneath that
ice and we hope reach the bottom of that ocean.
Dr. Elachi. Yes, that is correct. I mean, I don't know, but
depending how thick the ocean is.
Mr. Culberson. The ice, rather, yes.
Dr. Elachi. But for that mission you clearly need nuclear
capability, because it is going to require a long time. So the
lander that we are doing, that we are talking about now, the
precursor lander, that doesn't require a long time. It is
required to capture samples, make measurements. And the fact
that it is static, it is not a rover, most of the science can
be done in a couple weeks, therefore nuclear material is not
needed for the lifetime, it can be run with batteries. But as
we head toward drilling down, then I don't see any option other
than having nuclear to get enough power to be able to do that,
or energy to be able to do that.
Mr. Culberson. Let me wrap up with, talk about WFIRST and
looking out beyond our solar system to identify earth-like
planets around nearby stars and the chronograph that you are
developing in the Starshade, because it is extraordinarily
exciting and looking out into the future, the WFIRST is
essentially a flagship mission in terms of investment, that
would be second, then we do the Europa mission, and then the
next big mission would probably be WFIRST.
Could you tell Mr. Honda and I a little bit about the
WFIRST mission and its importance, coupled with Starshade, in
identifying and then spectrally analyzing the atmosphere of
earth-like planets around a nearby star?
Dr. Elachi. OK, let me mention on the techniques and then
Jonathan can add on the science.
WFIRST just passed its Phase A, so NASA is proceeding
through the process of doing that. The baseline mission, which
was a top priority with the astrophysics community, that
baseline mission focuses on two topics, dark energy, dark
matter, and on exoplanets. The mission now, the baseline,
include the chronograph inside the spacecraft itself. That
allow us to make certain measurement of detecting planet
directly by blocking the light from the star and be able to see
the planet, and it will detect planets of certain size and
distance.
We are working on technology, let me emphasize, it is
technology now, for a potential Starshade which will augment
the measurements which are being done by the chronograph. But
that technology, we need a couple of years to demonstrate fully
that technology and bring it to a level that detects Earth-size
objects. The Decadal can then assess the scientific value
versus the risk.
So we are moving ahead on the technology, but as of now the
baseline WFIRST mission only include the chronograph inside the
spacecraft.
Jonathan.
Dr. Lunine. Well, yes, I would only add that of course the
opportunity to be able to determine the composition of the
atmospheres of Earth-size planets around other stars is the
ultimate goal. And in a way this has already started, because
with Hubble and with Spitzer it has been possible to determine
the atmospheric composition of large planets, giant planets,
using the transit technique. And the James Webb Space Telescope
will extend that down to super-earths, objects that are two or
maybe three times the size of our own Earth. That will tell us
a lot already about whether these super earths are like our own
Earth in terms of atmospheric composition or perhaps are more
like Uranus and Neptune, small versions of those planets.
I mean, clearly beyond that, if we want to be able to
determine whether there really are habitable earths the size of
our own planet, we will have to take the next step and that
would have to be done beyond JWST, maybe with WFIRST, maybe
with something else.
Mr. Culberson. But you would be able to with WFIRST, the
chronograph that you already are developing, to be able to
directly image or be able to pick up the light of these
exoplanets and spectrographically analyze their atmospheres,
they could detect--and please for the record, I just want to
confirm, the smoking gun for life would be methane, oxygen
together?
Dr. Lunine. Well, yes, that would be the smoking gun. But
because I am not involved in WFIRST, I should ask Dr. Elachi to
describe the capability.
Mr. Culberson. Could WFIRST do that for us, Dr. Elachi, to
determine----
Dr. Elachi. My understanding and, again, you might want to
do a hearing on WFIRST, because I am not fully up to speed,--my
understanding is the chronograph will allow you to image
separate the light coming from the planet, mostly for planets
larger than Earth, but it was the chronograph. The Starshade
will bring you closer to Earth-size planets. How accurate the
spectroscopy can be done, that is something that I really can't
answer, that is not my expertise, and I think there are people
who can answer specifically that question.
But the key point I think you are making is we will be able
to separate the light of the planet from the light of the star
by using the chronograph and, as I said, the Starshade will
make it even closer to looking at Earth-size planets.
Mr. Culberson. We are about to wrap up, but I want to make
sure, I have this great opportunity, these two brilliant
scientists here with us today and with Dr. Elachi's imminent
retirement, I want to make sure I have got a chance to get this
on the record, that one of the goals of WFIRST is to not only
be able to directly image those exoplanets, but it would have
the ability from the briefing that I got at JPL, particularly
with Starshade because you don't lose any photons with
Starshade, to be able to spectrographically analyze that light
from that earth-like planet, it was my understanding from the
scientists that briefed me at JPL that they would be able to
see the spectrographic signature of methane and oxygen, they
would be able to see it.
Dr. Elachi. I think so. I really cannot tell you 100-
percent sure, but, yes, it will be able to do some
spectroscopic measurement.
Mr. Culberson. And perhaps even industrial pollution, we
will be able to see perhaps hydro fluorocarbons.
But nevertheless, that then leads to our kids and
grandkids, and I hope one of the legacies that I would like to
leave as the subcommittee chairman of this marvelous committee
and with your help, Mr. Honda, that not only have we then
discovered life in another world, we hope in Europa, identified
earth-like planets and picked up the spectrographic signature
of an atmosphere that contains methane and oxygen. But I hope
also finally, in conclusion, to ask about the development of
the next generation of rocket propulsion ion engines that would
be able to take a spacecraft to Alpha Centauri, which is about
four and a half light years away, and if we could achieve what
percent of the speed of light do you think is possible, two
percent, four percent, five percent perhaps?
Dr. Elachi. I don't know, because that requires some new
invention, but I was thinking about it as I was sitting here.
If I would have told my grandmother, and that is not very long
ago that I would be able to hop on a plane and fly to the
United States in 12 hours, she would have thought I am crazy.
But within a hundred years we have moved from being in
carriages to be able to travel across the country or across the
world. So I am sure our children will be smart enough to invent
some advanced technology for propulsion to do that.
Now we need to start making some investment. We don't have
an answer. I cannot tell you, if you do A, B, C, we will get to
one percent or two percent. But, also people think about it for
airplanes, it is by investing in the technology, we might get
some new inventions that will allow us to go to those kind of
speeds.
Mr. Culberson. I think Mr. Honda has a question.
Mr. Honda. What I am getting from the last conversation was
analyzing light and light sources is that----
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
Mr. Honda [continuing]. Will tell you the kinds of
composition of the atmosphere, because I know that planets do
not emit their own light. So I was just trying to understand
what we are saying here. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. And then just in conclusion, that is really
the final piece of this hearing----
Mr. Honda. There is no conclusion.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Was to really, I hope, as a
result of the time that I have got, if I have the privilege to
stay here as the chairman for that time period, we will have
laid the foundation not only to discover life in that other
world, but to have identified those earth-like planets around
other solar systems, and then develop the rocket technology so
that our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity
to be witness to the first interstellar missions to Alpha
Centauri. It may take 80 years or a hundred years to get there,
but perhaps today we have heard for the first time how we here
can lay the foundation stones for that to happen.
I want to thank you very, very much for your service to the
country----
Dr. Elachi. Thank you.
Dr. Culberson [continuing]. And for the time that you have
given us here today. And in particular, Dr. Elachi, thank you
for the extraordinary work that you have done for the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, for the nation, for NASA. The incredible
discoveries that have been made on your watch I don't think
would have been possible but for your leadership. You have
woven together the extraordinary talent of the scientists and
engineers at JPL, but also have been able to bring together the
political support that was so essential to make sure that these
magnificent missions were successful. And we will continue to
give you all the support that we can at JPL and NASA in
general.
And, Dr. Lunine, I want to thank you for being here as
well.
Dr. Lunine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 15, 2016.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
HON. CHARLES BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. I want to
welcome our witness, General Bolden, and thank you for your
service to the country, General Bolden. For your service to
NASA, to the space program, and for keeping us all safe and
free and strong for your service in the United States Marine
Corps as well. And this has just occurred to me, today may be
your last hearing here in front of us. I want to thank you very
much again for your service. And what a privilege it has been
for us to work with you, to help make sure the American space
program is the best in the world, has been, always will be.
This committee and the Congress has been committed to the
American space program. We and the Congress and the country
have given the space program all the support that you need. We
have often given you too much on your plate and not enough
money to do so. But in this year's 2016 appropriations bill, as
you know, we made certain that you for the first time have got
the resources you need to do what is on your plate to ensure
that we never surrender the high ground of outer space to any
other nation. And we will continue to do so. The Congress and
the country strongly support what you and your colleagues at
NASA are doing, General Bolden.
We today in our hearing are going to discuss the 2017
appropriations bill and what NASA's needs are for 2017. I am
actually going to minimize any discussion, frankly General
Bolden, of the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request
because quite frankly it is, I have to say that President
Obama's budget request is frankly almost embarrassing. We
cannot and will not even consider a budget request that would
ask this Congress to cut NASA's funding. We cannot consider a
budget request that contains $763 million in unauthorized
mandatory fees and taxes and things that just are not going to
happen.
We, all of us in this committee, admire you and the great
men and women at NASA immensely. We will certainly talk about
the President's budget request but it is not realistic. It is
not going to happen. And I cannot imagine anyone in this
Congress seriously considering it. And I am actually glad we
have got language in the 2016 appropriations bill and the 2015
bill and we will have it again in this bill that says no agency
of the Federal government can change any funding level for any
policy or program based on the President's budget request. That
the agencies have to follow the appropriations bill, because
that is what matters, it is the will of Congress as signed into
law by the President. And we know that, and you cannot really
comment on this, but I know you are as disappointed as we are
in the President's request. We love what you do at NASA and we
are going to be here to support you, sir. And we will make
certain that we are going to do our very best in this tough
budget environment to be sure that NASA has got the resources
that you need to do your job. Because, you know, the bottom
line is this request that we have received from the White House
is essentially a $1.023 billion cut to NASA's budget which is
just not going to happen. We are not going to let that happen.
We have in this budget year in the--you know, it really is
baffling. It is hard for me to find the words to describe it.
And it is not your fault, General Bolden. You do a superb job.
The men and women at NASA do a great job. But it is very
difficult for us to get our arms around the fact that the White
House would actually expect the Congress to cut NASA by over $1
billion and has not given us, not given you the support that
you need, sir.
Also I think it is important to note that NASA has just
accepted a new group of applications for just 14 spots in your
2017 class of astronauts, an indication of the level of support
the country has for the work that you do. They had over 18,300
applications for 14 spots as astronauts. That is a record that
surpasses the previous 1978 record of 8,000 applications. And
it is an indication, I think, of the level of support the
country has for the work that you do. Every time there is a new
space mission, a new landing, a new launch, the NASA website
becomes one of the most popular in the country. There is just a
tremendous amount of support out there for what you do. And it
just continues to be baffling to us as to why the Office of
Management and Budget refuses to give you the support that we
think you deserve.
But this subcommittee will make sure that you get the
resources that you need. Again, this is going to be a tough
budget year and we will be right there behind you, sir, every
step of the way. And before we proceed I would like to
recognize Mr. Honda for any remarks he would like to make.
Ranking Member Opening Remarks
Mr. Honda. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Administrator Bolden, and thank you for being here today. It is
good to see you again.
Let me just take a moment to thank you again for the great
visit we had a couple of weeks ago at NASA Ames. You and I
spent the better part of a day together, for me an
unprecedented over five hours. And that was really cool. And I
really appreciate the effort the Ames family went to to
accommodate the visit and highlight some of the amazing
groundbreaking work that the scientists and engineers are
performing at Ames in support of this mission, NASA's mission.
And Mr. Chairman, perhaps you and I can go on a tour of
NASA Johnson down near your home in Houston, Texas. I have
still been waiting for an invitation. But you know, I am
patient. Perhaps we can all organize a trip for the
subcommittee to Goddard or JPL. And I would love to meet more
of the NASA family and see firsthand some of the other great
work being performed around the country.
Administrator Bolden, as you know Chairman Culberson and I
share the same passion for science and I love it when he starts
talking about we are going to get you more money, we are going
to get you more money. He sounds just like a great Democrat,
you know? But actually this is not a partisan issue. It is
about a national priority and moving us forward in the whole
arena of knowledge and pursuing knowledge, that which we know
and that which we are seeking. So this passion is also evident
in last year's final budget that included the healthiest top
line NASA has seen in many years. And I just want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for that.
This year I am looking forward to building on our work from
last year and continuing robust support for NASA and a wide
variety of missions from exploring our neighboring worlds and
probing the creation of the universe, to improving our
understanding of our own planet and working with commercial
partners to strengthen America's presence in space and
supporting the burgeoning commercial space industry which is
constantly growing. That being said, I share my colleague's
frustrations with this year's proposed discretionary budget
from the President that recommends scaling back our support for
NASA by reducing NASA's discretionary top line by $1 billion. I
will be more accurate, the Chairman said $1.3 billion. And so
we are going to be working together on this. This is the time
to be investing in NASA, not selling it short. At the same
time, I must also urge my colleagues to support an overall
level of non-defense discretionary resources that would allow
us to provide a healthy budget for NASA overall.
Americans are really inspired by the successes and
breakthroughs of NASA and our commercial partners, be it the
amazing photos of Pluto captured by New Horizons, Scott Kelly's
triumphant year in space, or the successful first stage
landings of SpaceX and Blue Origin rockets. Americans are
captivated by space and NASA.
Movies like ``The Martian,'' ``Gravity,'' ``Interstellar,''
tap into this public support and help fan the flames of
support. And nothing highlights this more than the record
shattering, as it was said, 18,300 applicants who applied to
become a NASA astronaut last month. You said 14-point-what? How
many spots?
Mr. Culberson. Fourteen spots.
Mr. Honda. Fourteen spots. I thought you said 14.3, and I
was wondering who the 0.3 was going to be. And so what I will
be interested in is if there is a way we can get some
information on the demography of the applicants, who they are,
where they are from, you know, all that sort of interesting, as
an educator I would be interested in the source and where they
were coming from.
So I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning
and to learn more about NASA's programs and how NASA is going
to capitalize on this strong public interest and create the
most impactful and inspiring missions to both improve life on
Earth and push our frontiers further out into the cosmos.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Honda. General
Bolden, we really do appreciate your service. Thank you for
being here today. And without objection, your written statement
will be entered into the record in its entirety. And we welcome
your summary of your testimony. If you can do so within
approximately five minutes or so it would be great.
Administrator's Opening Remarks
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I will do my best. And Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is my extreme
pleasure and it is actually an honor for me to be here today to
discuss with you President Obama's $19 billion fiscal year 2017
budget request for NASA. And I, it is unusual for me to do
this. But because there are young students here, I want them to
go back understanding how this process works. And I think you
mischaracterize me when you say that I am disappointed in the
President's budget. I am not. I helped to craft it. And I am
very proud of that budget. And we will discuss in this hearing
how we got there and then the process that you all are going to
use to give us the funds that we finally get in appropriations.
Because what they should take away is that the President
proposes, which means it is a proposal, and the Congress
disposes, which means you all give us the money. And as you
said, that is what becomes the budget. So I did not want them
to go away thinking that the NASA Administrator was not happy
with the President's budget, because I am. We worked really
hard to bring you that budget. So now I have wasted a lot of my
time.
This request builds on the outstanding fiscal year 2016
NASA appropriation that this Congress gave us last year. And I
mean it when I say it was an outstanding budget. $19.3 billion
is not chump change. And we really want to be able to extend
what that budget allows us to do, and that was the way we
crafted the 2017 budget. I want to thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, personally for your leadership in crafting the 2016
budget.
So it is my honor to serve as the NASA Administrator
throughout the Obama administration. And as we submit what is
likely, as you mentioned, my final budget, I am also proud of
the many things this agency has accomplished on behalf of the
American people with the resources the President and Congress
have committed to us over the past seven years. Together we
have enabled our nation to continue leading the world in space
exploration and scientific discovery.
Two weeks ago American astronaut Scott Kelly returned home
from the International Space Station after 12 months working
off the Earth for the Earth. His year in space will pay
scientific and medical dividends for years to come, helping
pave the way for future astronauts to travel to Mars and
beyond. Commander Kelly significantly advanced our journey to
Mars and I trust that you join me in saluting his service to
our nation.
NASA is closer to sending American astronauts to Mars than
at any point in human history and this budget will keep us
moving forward. The support of this committee and Congress is
essential to this journey. The International Space Station is
the cornerstone of our exploration strategy. Thanks to the
determination and ingenuity of American industry, we have
returned Space Station cargo resupply launches to U.S. soil,
insourced jobs, and helped establish a new private market in
low Earth orbit. American companies are now ferrying supplies
to our astronauts on the Space Station from the United States
with Orbital ATK set to launch again later this month, in fact
next week, and SpaceX targeting a resupply mission in early
April, both from the Kennedy Space Center.
In July Orbital will conduct a return to flight mission
from the Wallops Flight Facility. Thanks to the
administration's decision to invest in American industry and to
this committee's full funding in last year's budget, Boeing and
SpaceX continue to make great progress toward certification in
2017 to safely transport our astronauts to the Space Station
from U.S. soil, ending our sole reliance on Russia once and for
all.
NASA is making significant progress on the journey to Mars,
developing our newest, most powerful rocket ever built, the
Space Launch System, and the Orion Crew Vehicle as part of a
sustainable and affordable deep space exploration system. This
budget supports the Agency's baseline commitment for an
uncrewed test flight of SLS and Orion in 2018 and a crewed
flight by 2023. With additional funding provided by Congress,
the teams are working toward an earlier launch date for the
first crewed mission and are already designing and procuring
long lead hardware for subsequent missions.
The budget also increases funding for habitation systems
development, a key component of our stepping stone strategy to
send humans to Mars.
The President's budget funds a robust science program with
dozens of operating missions studying our solar system, the
universe, and the most important planet in our solar system,
Earth. This coming July 4th, Independence Day, the Juno
spacecraft will orbit Jupiter while the Cassini spacecraft will
prepare to execute its dramatic grand finale orbits of Saturn.
OSIRIS-REx will launch to a near-Earth asteroid to collect
samples for return to Earth in 2023. In 2017 and 2018 NASA will
launch seven exciting space science missions, including the
James Webb Space Telescope. Before we send humans to Mars
robots are paving the way, with Mars InSight now targeted for
launch in 2018. Another Mars rover set to launch in 2020,
joining the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers now exploring the
red planet, and work underway to define the next Mars mission
for 2022.
We are formulating missions to explore Jupiter's moon
Europa, as well as WFIRST, designed to study dark energy,
perform galactic and extragalactic surveys, and explore
exoplanets.
We are accelerating the building of LANDSAT 9 as part of
our sustainable land imaging architecture to continue our over
40-year record of high quality measurement of Earth's land
cover.
NASA technology drives exploration. With this request, NASA
will continue to conduct rapid development and incorporation of
transformative space technologies to enable future human and
robotic missions, increase capabilities of other U.S. agencies,
and address aerospace industry challenges. Space technology
investments will ensure that we continue to lead the world in
exploration and scientific discovery.
NASA's aeronautics program advances U.S. global leadership
by developing and transferring key enabling technologies to
make aviation safer, more efficient, and more environmentally
friendly. With this request, NASA aeronautics is ready to take
the next step to develop and fly X-plane demonstrators in
partnership with industry and academia, including ultra-
efficient subsonic transport experimental aircraft and the
world's first low boom supersonic flight demonstrator.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the strong and consistent
support we have received from this committee. I look forward to
your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OUTER PLANETS AND OCEAN WORLDS
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, General Bolden. We appreciate the
fact that the budget does indeed include an Outer Planets and
Ocean Worlds exploration program. That is something that these
young people in the audience and around the country are going
to become increasingly excited about as they discover that
there are indeed water worlds out there that have probably some
of the best potential for us finding life on another world. And
I am very pleased to see that the budget request does
acknowledge that. We in the Congress included in the 2016 bill,
created an Ocean Worlds program for that reason and have
focused on the Europa mission in particular as the first one to
fly because of the recommendations of the decadal survey of
planetary sciences.
For the young people in the audience and anyone listening,
every ten years, General, the scientific community gets
together at the National Academies and develop a 10-year plan
looking forward to decide what are the most important missions
that should be flown in heliophysics and studying the sun, or
studying the Earth, and studying the planets, and then looking
out beyond our own solar system. And that decadal survey is a
good road map for the next 10 years. And in our 2016 bill I
made sure we included in our 2016 bill guidance to NASA to look
to those decadal surveys in each one of those areas as kind of
a blueprint of where NASA should go over the next decade. And
that blueprint for the planetary scientists listed the Mars
mission 2020 as No. 1, to cache samples from the surface and
retrieve them later. That mission has been funded and is going
to be done. And their number two priority this decade, and
their top priority last decade, was the mission to Europa.
Because that moon contains at least two to three times more
salt water than there is on Earth, it has all the basic
ingredients for life to be present. And so we are very
supportive of the work that NASA is doing to send an orbiter
and a lander to Europa to find out whether or not there are
organic molecules in that ocean. And could you comment,
General, on your feelings about the decadal survey
recommendation? Do you agree with the decadal survey
recommendation that the Europa mission is important?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman I am, having talked to Steve
Squyres who chaired the latest planetary decadal, I agree with
the priorities that they set. And one of the things that I was
most impressed with was the fact that he really looked hard at
cost. And so, you know, I think that they are projects that can
be done. And that is why we have sent Mars 2020 and a sample
return as number one in compliance with the decadal survey and
we are now trying to formulate the mission to Europa. And I
assume we will talk a little bit more about that as the hearing
goes on.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. You know, the Congress gives you
direction.
EUROPA MISSION
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. That is actually the one mission it is
illegal for NASA not to fly, is the Europa mission, because it
is so important that we find out whether or not we are alone in
the universe, and then it will also help I think galvanize the
public. One of the reasons I have been so interested in this
mission is not only has it been, in the decadal survey it was
the top priority last decade and the last NASA administrator,
your predecessors neglected it. It was cast by the wayside. And
this time we want to make sure it is done. So it is a directive
from the Congress to make sure this mission is flown and we
made sure you have got the resources to do it. And right now I
know that design work is going forward on the lander, correct?
And----
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, we have a total effort going
on on the Europa mission entirely, which is orbiter and lander.
I think you and I have discussed this before. My strong
recommendation to the committee and my strong recommendation to
the community would be that we separate an orbiter from a
lander in order to optimize our chances of being successful
with both. When we look at the Mars program as a model, before
we landed, we actually landed Mariner 4 in 1965 and it was 11
years later when we put Viking 1 and 2 on the surface of Mars.
And that was for a very good reason, the fact that we just did
not know the Martian surface and we wanted to make sure that we
understood it fully. We are in the same situation with Europa.
We want to make sure that we characterize the surface of the
moon prior to deciding on a place that we are going to put a
lander. We are definitely working on a lander. But, you know,
my strong recommendation would be that we separate a lander
from an orbiter in the mission. But that remains to be done. We
expect that we will be at preliminary design review in 2018.
And at that time it will say whether or not we have a lander
and an orbiter together, it will say what kind of launch
vehicle we use, and the like. So we are responding to the
direction from the Congress.
Mr. Culberson. Good. Thank you, sir. And I understand what
you are saying and appreciate the fact that your scientists are
looking at, engineers, right now whether to launch the lander
separately and, you know, the orbiter would obviously go first.
And I understand what you are saying. The discussions are
ongoing right now----
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. About whether or not you want
to put the lander on the same rocket or launch it separately.
It may indeed be, I think you are probably right, it may be a
good idea to launch them on two separate SLS rockets so that
the orbiter goes first in order to scout the surface, as
Mariner 4 did. Mariner 4 was of course a fly by, and then they
did orbiters, and then landed second. So that is the direction
the Europa mission is taking. I think that is a very good idea.
And as always, your folks at the flight centers do a terrific
job.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Mr. Culberson. I am particularly impressed with the work
that the flight centers, for example, the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory is a Federally funded research and development
center and Johns Hopkins University has a similar arrangement
with----
General Bolden. APL, Applied Physics Laboratory.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. APL, Applied Physics Lab.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. And they do a superb job. And you have the
universities that are essentially running the flight center and
they are in a five-year contract, I think, with NASA and they
are reviewed every five years. I am keenly interested in trying
to find a way to replicate that model for some of the other
flight centers to get the young people involved, the university
communities, scientists, engineers, graduate students involved
in helping these NASA flight centers. From your perspective I
really would love to have your thoughts, General----
General Bolden. You are going to get me in trouble, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. How would, it is difficult with
the human space flight program. I think that is very different.
That is a real challenge. But when it comes to, for example,
Ames in Mr. Honda's district, with all those great universities
right there, Stanford and others right here, the Glenn Flight
Center in Ohio, could you give us your thoughts on how we could
think about looking into the future transitioning perhaps Ames,
and to let maybe have Stanford and some of the other great
universities in the area bid on adopting Ames, taking over
Ames, and running it like a Federally funded research and
development center like JPL, like Cal Tech does JPL. How can we
replicate that model at some of the other flight centers and
what are your thoughts on that?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I, you know, the National
Academies have done studies on this in the past. We have
actually done studies and based on the information that I have,
mainly to include information yesterday from my deputy who
served on National Academy boards that looked at this, I would
not recommend that NASA go the model of, you know, of more than
one FFRDC. The examples you gave, Ames does an incredible job
right now of engaging the students, both undergraduate,
graduate, and post-grad on the campus of Stanford and other
neighboring universities. Right now if you go out to the Ames
Astrobiology Center you will be introduced to something called
the biobrick. And that is the result of collaboration between
students at Stanford University and people at the Ames
Astrobiology Center. And that is what we are going to use when
we go to the surface of Mars. So it is a study that probably
needs to be done again. But based on my limited knowledge and
what I have read from the Academies and others, I would be
leery of trying to assign more than the FFRDC that we have
right now for NASA.
Mr. Culberson. Why?
General Bolden. Well I have served on the advisory
committee for Lawrence Livermore Lab. And one of the things
that frustrated me was the fact that it did not get along with
its sister labs. Each lab is an entity unto its own. They are
run by a contractor. There is no single mission. I would really
defer to the Secretary of Energy, because he lives and breathes
with FFRDCs everyday. That is the bulk of his centers are that
way. And I just found, you know, as the NASA administrator when
I set a mission for the agency and I bring all the center
directors together and say, okay look, I want to hear
everybody's opinion, I want to hear all dissenting opinions,
and after that I am going to make a decision. And we are going
in that direction. The journey to Mars, for example. You could
not do that with a bunch of FFRDCs. Because they operate
independently. They do not have any single person like the NASA
administrator who says you are going to do this. They are all
set up for different things. That would be my, you know, my
opinion, my humble opinion.
EARTH SCIENCE PROGRAMS
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can continue
this discussion. This is the first I have heard of it and it is
kind of an interesting question. But it is one that came out of
right field for me. So we will talk about that.
General Bolden, as you know I am a strong supporter of
NASA's Earth Science program, although not everyone in Congress
is of the same view of NASA's Earth Science. Could you please
talk about some of the ways in which NASA's Earth Science
program benefits American private sector enterprises and the
nation as a whole? And what returns are we getting on this
investment? And in terms of the Agency's Earth Science
portfolio, what role does airborne science play? And in the
interest of the recent announcement of the Earth Venture
instrument program and the use of CubeSat and SmallSat, what
role do you see these two entities playing in earth science?
General Bolden. Congressman Honda, when I think about the
value of earth science in the way you phrase your question, it
has enormous both economic and strategic value. And I will try
to give you a couple of examples. For example, we have the
GRACE mission right now and SMAP. And I hate using acronyms but
I will. I could read you the long name but it will not make any
difference. But both of them look at water on the planet. GRACE
uses gravity to determine the amount of water in reservoirs and
underground aquifers and the like. And then SMAP is actually
looking at soil moisture for its primary part. Those have
provided useful information to farmers, to decision makers,
particularly out in the west right now as they go through
droughts. John Deere Corporation is working with us, looking at
the potential to use GRACE and SMAP data in some of the work
that they do. A lot of farmers today follow a model that was
developed in Israel, something that is called drip irrigation.
Where satellites feed data down to the ground, it goes into a
computer, the computer says, okay, the ground is nice and moist
today, do not need to water. Tomorrow the satellite may come
over and say, it is really dry, you need some water. And the
computer determines how much, and it turns on the drip system
and it goes right into the root system of the plants or the
vines if it is a vineyard out in southern California, you know,
in the valley where most of our wine is done.
UAVSAR, since you mentioned airborne Earth obs, UAVSAR is a
series of, it is a synthetic aperture radar that we can put on
a number of NASA airplanes. And that has been used, it was used
in the Gulf during the BP oil spill years ago. It has now been,
we are trying to deploy it at the request of FEMA and the
National Weather Service to look at levies and to look at some
of the other structures in east Texas and Louisiana resulting
in the floods, trying to help decision makers to understand
what to do. So all of those things are the use of NASA assets
for economic and strategic value. Not to mention Landsat, which
we actually build Landsat for USGS, for the U.S. Geological
Survey in the Department of the Interior. But it is through
that 43-year program now that we have had the most robust land
imaging system I think in the world.
NASA AERONAUTICS
Mr. Honda. OK. Thank you. Very quickly, the aeronautics
program, as you know, is the first A in NASA. And it comprises
the work that NASA has been doing for a long time now. But
given the size of the program relative to other NASA
directorates, it does not usually get the same level of public
attention as other programs do. I would like to focus some
attention on this important work. Can you talk a little bit
about some of the ways in which the work of the aeronautics
directorate and the funding that you are requesting for it, how
can it help enhance our competitiveness in aviation, create
jobs here, some of the other benefits that personally I am
looking for, too----
General Bolden. Well as a former Marine Corps pilot, since
I do not fly anymore, I am partial toward the first A, the big
A in NASA, which is aeronautics. And I am very proud to say
that over the period of time that I have been the NASA
administrator we have taken a crawl, walk, run. But thanks to
the committee, again, we have funding in the NASA budget. And
the President is proposing in the 2017 budget additional
funding that will allow us to get into our New Aviation
Horizons program, a program that came about as a result of
revamping our aeronautics strategic plan in 2014. And in
looking with industry and academia at six strategic thrust
areas that we want to do in aeronautics.
I think every member of the committee should have a little
flyer like this, and I apologize that I do not have one of
these for Europa. But we talk about Europa a lot and we do not
talk about aeronautics. So that is why I chose to focus on
aeronautics and I will hopefully get it to the students back
here. But it talks real quickly about the New Aviation Horizons
program whereby NASA, for the first time in decades, is
actually going to be able to engage in building experimental
airplanes again. What we call X-planes, but they are flight
demonstrators.
The top ones for us right now, and it is just because
industry is so far along on wanting to build a supersonic
transport that the first one out of the chute is going to be
the low boom supersonic demonstrator that will allow us to give
data to the FAA so they can change the regulations that today
prohibit supersonic flight over ground. Another one is hybrid
electric propulsion. So that will actually save fuel, be much
more efficient if you will. We are looking at a hybrid wing
body. All of these things will help industry and we think it
will help the airline industry, for example, to save as much as
$225 billion over the next 25 years as a result of the work
that we at NASA have been doing with the aviation industry.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Mr. Jolly.
LAUNCH COMPLEX 39A
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,
thank you for being here. A couple of quick questions, first
one about Kennedy Space Center. A couple of years back NASA
moved to move the launch complex 39A over to private vendors,
if you will, for I guess the comprehensive suite of management.
Can you update us on that? And on the competition for
infrastructure if you will? And whether or not that has slowed
SLS or not?
General Bolden. It has had no effect on SLS whatsoever. And
I think the reference you make to 39A is, that is the historic
launch pad from which Neil Armstrong and his crew launched.
When we phased the Shuttle out we determined that we did not
need two full launch complexes. And rather than mothball 39A we
made the decision that in our ongoing effort to try to
commercialize as much as possible we would compete that. I know
there were several companies that competed. SpaceX was finally
awarded a long term lease for 39A. I have not physically seen
it myself but everybody that tells me says that it has
undergone a complete revision and it is incredible. That is
where they intend to launch the Falcon Heavy later this year,
we hope. In the meantime we have continued our work on SLS and
Orion. And I would invite anybody who wants to go to Michoud
down in Louisiana, or go to the Cape if you want to see Orion.
We actually have, we completed the welds on the first crew
module for Orion that will fly on EM-1, an uncrewed flight. But
that is done. We are continuing to work on Orion. It is on
schedule. SLS, we are actually producing barrel sections that
go in the core stage of SLS down at Michoud. We just last week
at Stennis fired a full 500-second firing on one of the RS-25
engines that is going to go in the cluster of four for SLS. And
we are about to start testing on the engines that will be used
for EM-2. We have test fired the SRB, the solid rocket booster
for EM-1 out in Utah and we have another test firing coming up
this spring. So I do not, you know, our work with commercial
entities has actually enhanced our work with SLS and Orion
because it has freed us up from having to worry about providing
access to low Earth orbit. I know Mr. Kilmer is really
interested in commercial space flight and stuff.
Mr. Jolly. Sure. Sure.
General Bolden. It is the partnership between commercial
and government that has actually allowed us to focus on SLS,
Orion, and deep space exploration while industry and
entrepreneurs take over access to low Earth orbit.
Mr. Jolly. So it has been a success at 39A without any
delay in operations?
General Bolden. There has been, I would have to ask Elon
about whether or not he thinks there has been no delay.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
General Bolden. As far as I know, we have not delayed him.
He is not moving as fast as I think he thought he was, since he
had actually said they were going to launch last year. But they
are doing very well by all our measures that we can see.
ENHANCED UPPER STAGE
Mr. Jolly. All right. You mentioned EM-1. On EM-2 in 2021
we provided funding through this committee for enhanced upper
stage in last year's bill and it is not in your request I
believe?
General Bolden. It is not in the 2017 request--however we
continue to work on the exploration upper stage as a part of
the 2016 appropriations. And because we really want to fly the
exploration upper stage as quickly as we can. And we will, as I
explained to the chairman, our hope is that we will be able to
work with the committees in the final determination. Because as
I said again, it is you that decide what the ultimate
appropriation is. And so--but we are working on the exploration
upper stage, although we did not fund it, because we had to
prioritize and we want to keep moving. We are actually looking
at, we look at the SLS and Orion as part of a program.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
General Bolden. Everybody gets stuck on EM-1 and EM-2 and
we are busy worrying about this ten-year period of time that we
are going to be operating in cislunar space. And we will need
multiple vehicles, many more than EM-1 and EM-2. So that is
what we are focused on.
Mr. Jolly. But to achieve the EUS larger capacity for EM-2,
there would need to be 2017 funding, right?
General Bolden. You know, I----
Mr. Jolly. I understand it is not in your request. But if
there is no funding there in 2017, does that disrupt the
ability to then have the EUS in the EM-2 in 2021?
General Bolden. Let me go, I will take it for the record.
Because I want to give you a thorough answer. It would cause
us, as you said, to interrupt the flow of the production of the
exploration upper stage. But based on the budget that we
submitted, we think we have a way to still produce the
exploration upper stage for EM-2, which is what we would like
to do.
Mr. Jolly. EM-2, OK.
General Bolden. But we need to work with the committee, the
appropriations committees, to make sure that we are getting the
funding that would be necessary to do that.
Mr. Jolly. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 APPROPRIATIONS DIRECTION
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jolly. General Bolden, just
if I could very quickly, to be sure that you all are following,
NASA is following the appropriations bill.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. OK.
General Bolden. We are, and that is what I meant, Mr.
Chairman. We are working on the 2016 appropriation.
Mr. Culberson. You are working, exactly. That is very
important. Because over the years that I have had the privilege
to serve on this subcommittee, I got so frustrated with
predecessors, the previous President, not just this President
but previous Presidents, who did not give NASA the attention
that you deserve, the support that you deserve. The President
would come out with a budget and NASA and every other agency
would just change direction and start following the budget
request instead of the appropriations bill. And I got so
frustrated with it. Because it is damaging to the exploration
upper stage, to these incredibly expensive and complicated
spacecraft and rocket programs for the agency, all these fine
men and women who have devoted their lives to building these
rockets and spacecraft, to change course and start following
the President's budget.
This is a very important point I just want to drive home,
is that the--I am pleased to hear you say you are following the
appropriations bill. Because I put statutory language in last
year's bill and this one that says literally no agency can
change any program, policy, you cannot change funding levels
for any program or policy based on the President's budget. You
have to follow the appropriations bill. And you are following
the appropriations bill?
General Bolden. We are following the 2016 appropriations
presently, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. So the budget recommendation for
the President is simply a recommendation for our discussion. As
long as you follow the appropriations bill, we are good.
Mr. Honda. Well that is the law.
Mr. Culberson. That is the law. Right. But it is so
frustrating to see the agency change course----
Mr. Honda. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. When we love you, we are
devoted to you, and we want you to stay the course and follow
the 2016 appropriations bill. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
NEW SPACE COMPANIES
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman. I was just observing, it
is nice to have an agency come in where they are told they are
loved. So congratulations.
General Bolden. I am all in.
Mr. Kilmer. So thanks for being with us. You correctly
observed my zeal for some of the exciting work being done by
innovative entrepreneurial companies, a lot in my neck of the
woods which is getting a reputation as sort of the Silicon
Valley of space. But my interest goes beyond the parochial. It
is excitement about the work that is being done, from building
rockets and launching satellites, to Earth imaging and remote
sensing, to even some further out there ideas, including mining
of asteroids and sending tourists to space. You know, I think
there is a lot of innovation and technical development that is
happening and it can lead to a lot of good American jobs. I
guess--and not to mention the fact that it can bring down some
of the costs associated with NASA's mission.
I guess I just want to get a sense from you of how should
NASA leverage these new space companies, both to encourage
growth of the industry but also to maximize the bang for the
buck for what NASA spends on exploration and discovery in
space? And also if you can give a sense of do you have the
direction and the authority and the resources you need for
those kinds of partnerships with the private industry?
General Bolden. Mr. Kilmer, you know, thanks to this
committee and the Congress and the appropriations funding in
2016, the one area where we were lacking was Commercial Crew.
And thanks to the appropriations in 2016 we are now stepping it
up and catching up. And both of our providers, Boeing and
SpaceX, are telling us that they will be ready for their
certification next year, 2017.
In a case that is close to home to you, what our process
allows us to do in working with industry and academia is it is
not one size fits all. So we have the ability to use Space Act
Agreements which are a form of contract; it is other
transactional authority. It is not a real hard contract, where
they have to follow FAR, the Federal acquisition regulation.
Blue Origin, for example, they are where they are today in the
development of the BE-4 and the BE-3 engines that are probably
going to enable us to free ourselves from the RD-180; they are
three years down the road because of the work that they did
with us through a Space Act Agreement at Stennis in testing
components of those engines. They did not test the whole engine
because they do not need to. They have got their own test
facility. The same thing with SpaceX, Orbital, you look at
companies, some enter into contracts with us and others just
want to do a little bit. So I think that is the way we have
leveraged the ability of the, you know, the commercial
providers.
As I mentioned to Mr. Jolly in his question, it has freed
NASA up to do exploration. To do the big things that
governments have to do. You know, a lot of stuff we do you
cannot expect a private company, even with a billionaire
leader, to accept the risk for some of the what seems to be
crazy stuff we do every once in a while. It is only a
government organization that should do that.
NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE SPACE MISSIONS
Mr. Kilmer. I want to focus some attention on sort of a
specific issue with regard to new technologies and some of the
work being done by private industry. It is undoubtedly
expensive to send supplies and equipment into orbit, it is also
not easy, let alone sending those supplies all the way to Mars.
And you have seen companies develop ways to do everything from
mining minerals and other resources such as water from
asteroids and incorporate 3D printing technologies into space
systems so that large bulky components can actually get
manufactured in space instead of trying to fit those pieces
into rockets. Which I think is amazing and innovative and out
of the box. So how does and how should NASA partner with these
innovative companies to incorporate these new technologies into
planning for future space missions? You know, and is NASA
working with industry partners to develop these new
technologies, for example solar electric propulsion to
transport cargo and equipment beyond Earth orbit?
General Bolden. We are. And another example I will give you
is for the mission to Mars. The solar electric propulsion
powered vehicle that is going to carry cargo. Or for our
Asteroid Redirect Mission. That is going to be a robotic
vehicle that is going to go to the asteroid to get a big
boulder. We are not developing game changing solar cells
because we are partnering with industry. There are a few
companies, and I will not bother to name them, but most are out
in Southern California, others are different places, who are
doing game changing solar cells. Our job is to try to figure
out how to package that. How to put a giant solar array that is
using this high energy solar cell, how do we package it and put
it into the nose cone of a spacecraft? So that is they way we
are leveraging, letting them do the development of the game
changing technology that way. And our job is to fit it into a
spacecraft.
If I go back to Blue Origin again, they are using 3D
printing to produce engine parts. SpaceX is using 3D printing
to produce engine parts. We are using 3D printing on the
International Space Station now to produce tools. They are
prototype. They are not metal tools yet because we have not
figured out how to do metal in the microgravity environment of
space yet because we still have to feed ribbons. We have got to
figure out a way to contain powders that you would do if you
are going to do something like inconel or stainless steel. But
we are working with industry hand in glove. And I think if you
go into some of our laboratories, or we would like to see it in
some of their factories but we do not do it yet, you will see
them side by side with us in trying to get to the places we
want to go.
Mr. Kilmer. Terrific. Thank you. Thank you, chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Palazzo.
NASA'S MISSIONS
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, it is great
to see you again.
General Bolden. Good to see you, Marine.
Mr. Palazzo. You tried to get rid of me but you could not.
I just went from one committee to the other.
General Bolden. Sure.
Mr. Palazzo. I just wish we could have gotten the 2015
authorization taken care of. But----
General Bolden. That would have been nice.
Mr. Palazzo. We did. The House did its business. The
Senate, of course, was absent. We will just leave it at that.
But anyway, it has been a great pleasure working with you to
help NASA create a roadmap and rein in their focus so that we
could pursue the mission to Mars and direct our resources and
our energies towards that. As you shared with my previous
committee and with this committee, that, you know, maintaining
America's leadership in space is a priority of yours as it is
ours and the chairman's. And we all look forward to the day
where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets
from American soil. And so we are excited. And you referenced
the students in here. I think they are going to be very excited
just following the mission for us to get there.
But I would like to start off with a question and it is in
regard to--well, let us just say you know NASA is the only
Federal agency tasked with space exploration. Is there any
other Federal agency tasked with that mission in its charter?
General Bolden. Human space exploration, none. DOD does a
little bit of space exploration and----
Mr. Palazzo. For other purposes.
General Bolden [continuing]. For other purposes.
Mr. Palazzo. Right, civilian purposes.
General Bolden. We are the primary, we are the civil, the
only civil agency tasked with space exploration.
Mr. Palazzo. And of course it is important that we focus on
commercial crew and cargos. You have testified today and
previously that it frees NASA up to focus on the exciting stuff
of deep space exploration. And I understand that. But yet every
time we look at a budget I see the earth sciences budget
increasing and I see the space exploration budget decreasing
for NASA. And of course it is Congress that comes in and helps
plus up the space exploration budget. So when there are 13
other Federal agencies tasked with climate science, do you
think it is the best use of NASA's money to put into earth
sciences? Or would it be better to focus on, you know,
commercial crew, cargo, and deep space exploration?
General Bolden. Mr. Palazzo, one of our charges in the
original NASA Space Act of 1958 is to take care of the Earth.
And so it has always been a responsibility of ours to provide
cutting edge technology that can be used by other agencies. We
do not do weather. You know, we do not do global warming. We
just do data. And as I mentioned before, for 43 years we have
produced every successful Landsat satellite that has been used
by the U.S. Geological Survey. We produce the satellite, check
it out, and give it to them. And then we do not do anything
after that. So it is our responsibility to the taxpayer to
provide that type of cutting edge technology that can answer
some of the questions about our changing climate for them.
I do not think it detracts from our ability to explore at
all. In fact, it enhances our ability to explore because, you
know, the chairman can teach me on this. He knows a lot more
about it than I do. We believe we all started from one thing at
the time of the big bang. And you know, we want to understand
what is happening to Mars. We want to understand what is
happening to other planets so that we understand our own planet
better. But we do have to understand what I consider to be the
most important planet in the world, which is Earth. And that is
what NASA does, is----
Mr. Palazzo. And I appreciate that. And that is why, you
know, focusing on Mars and other planets would be planetary
sciences and not Earth sciences. And I understand, but you
know, 13 other Federal agencies are spending billions and
billions of dollars. I just wish we could take----
General Bolden. They do not do it as well as we do.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, yes. And I wish we would just take the
billions of dollars that we spend on it and put it into deep
space exploration.
My next question would be, and then this is just out of
curiosity, are there any, are you aware of any nation state
that has any possible lunar ambitions, whether going there, I
know China recently sent a rover. But are they looking to build
any type of capacity possibly on the Moon?
General Bolden. We are hopeful that a number of our
partners, our international partners, are hopeful of putting
things and people on the surface of the Moon. We are going to
spend ten years in cislunar space, operating in the vicinity of
the Moon, beginning in 2018 when we launch SLS and Orion. That
will be the beginning of, we have this phrase, we call it the
Proving Ground. And a lot of people do not like it. But it says
very simply we are going to spend the decade of the twenties
with humans back in cislunar space. We are not ready to go to
Mars yet. And so our hope is that over the period of time we
will be able to collaborate with some of our international
partners to get them to share the load of getting humans back
to the surface of the Moon. Others talk about wanting to do a
lander. The European Space Agency talks about a Moon village.
It is a concept, but it is a great concept when you talk about
it. But we have to lead. And leading does not mean we have to
do everything. We have to encourage them, support them, so that
they can do it. So there are any number of other nations that
have a strong interest in going and doing research on the Moon.
Mr. Palazzo. Right. And I hope those nations are friendly
to America.
General Bolden. They are all very friendly.
Mr. Palazzo. The ones we are talking about, right.
General Bolden. The ones we are talking about.
SPACE DEBRIS
Mr. Palazzo. The ones we are not talking about, I am not so
sure.
In 2007 a certain nation state decided out of their
infinite wisdom they were going to blow up a satellite in space
creating a lot of space debris. I think at last count we try to
track 500,000 pieces of space debris that orbit our Earth. How
does that affect space travel and how does it affect the assets
that are so critical to our day to day lives, the quality of
our life, our military, our communications, our banking, our
financial, healthcare?
General Bolden. Congressman Palazzo, just like----
Mr. Palazzo. What are we doing about it?
General Bolden. China, you are talking about the ASAT test
that China did. While that was intentional, you know, we had
two satellites, two commercial satellites that ran into each
other and created the same kind of debris that that did.
Anything where two bodies come together in space and collide,
whether it is intentional or otherwise, is bad for low Earth
orbit. We are trying to work with a number of our international
partners on what we call mitigation of orbital debris. That
means that when we build a satellite it has to have enough fuel
that it will not orbit after it is finished with its lifetime.
It will not just stay down there in low Earth orbit and become
a target for something. It will either be purposefully
deorbited into the ocean and destruct or we will move it into a
higher orbit where it will stay for hundreds of years and be
out of the way of everybody.
What we are not working on, because DOD, the intelligence
agency, NASA, all understand the critical need for coming up
with a means to do orbital debris removal. No one today has an
active program in orbital debris removal, although some of our
international partners would like to do that. That is what they
want to focus on. So we have got to do more.
Mr. Palazzo. Could you real quickly just emphasize the
dangers that space debris provides to our Space Station, our
space travel, and other very expensive assets in space?
General Bolden. A fleck of paint coming at the right angle
toward the International Space Station would be disastrous.
That is how, you know, it is a big space so I do not want to
panic anybody. The U.S. Air Force out in Colorado Springs,
along with us, we track as much as we, we track thousands of
particles, pieces of orbital debris. And so every once in a
while we have to maneuver the International Space Station in
order to avoid that. You are right.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator.
NASA INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
Mr. Culberson. General Bolden, real quickly, when you
mention international partners, what countries are you thinking
about, present and future international partners?
General Bolden. We have about 15 partners on the
International Space Station today. If you are talking about
aeronautics we have 26 partners in something called the
International Federation of Aeronautics Research. And so there
are a lot; we have more than 800 signed agreements today with
more than 120 nations in the world. So NASA is the world leader
when it comes to aeronautics, science, and exploration.
Mr. Culberson. I just want to be sure we are not talking
about the Chinese.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, whenever we do anything with
the Chinese, as I think you and the committee are aware, we
submit a certification to you and to the Senate Appropriations
Committee listing every individual that is going to be in the
meeting, what the subject is going to be. We go through an
enormous database----
Mr. Culberson. Right, and we clear that with the FBI.
General Bolden. We clear----
Mr. Culberson. We want to keep that contact very, very
limited.
General Bolden. I just did not want to mislead anyone
that----
Mr. Culberson. Because they are not our friend.
General Bolden [continuing]. Yes, sir, that we do not do
anything with the Chinese. When we do, though, we certify as
required by law that the folks that we are working with are not
engaged in human rights violations, are not engaged in
terrorism, and there is going to be no exchange of technology.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
General Bolden. And we have lived by that.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Administrator, it is good to see you.
General Bolden. Great to see you, sir.
How is Overbrook?
NASA RECRUITMENT
Mr. Fattah. Overbrook High is doing very, very well, mainly
because of your visit. You know, the science program is much
more aggressive, but it is the alma mater of Guion Bluford, and
NASA holds a special place. Not just there, but there was a
time when over 3,000 engineers worked right at GE Re-entry
right there in West Philadelphia.
So, let me just first of all thank you for your leadership.
It has been extraordinary. We have worked together on a lot of
things, but particularly I am pleased to see the commercial
crew and cargo program going well and I appreciate your
comments earlier that this worked and working with the private
sector, you have a Philadelphia firm that is working with NASA
now on new space uniforms for your astronauts. That this
commercial partnership is critical and NASA being able to focus
in on the things that we cannot do in the private sector and
there is not a profit center for as of yet.
I have spent some time, as the chairman is aware, you know,
making sure we understand this. So, I was at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory on my last visit. I had my wife with me and we had a
great time learning about the great work that is being done,
and particularly, looking at some of their science stuff and
some of the other work that they are doing.
You talked about the Space Act Agreement. I want to thank
you for the partnership with the Boys and Girls Club of
America. I am meeting with them later on today. And this
worked, and the 4,000 centers--clubs around the country,
getting our young people interested in space and science is
critically important and we have quite a partnership now of
FIRST Robotics, because at some point we have to understand,
you know, the Europeans and the Russians just in the last few
days, have launched a non-manned mission to Mars, right;
looking at methane and looking at some of the questions about
life or the potential for life.
And NASA is the premier leader in the world because of the
team you have and we have to be able to replenish that team,
and so we need young people who are going to focus on this. I
have talked to the chairman about this and it is very, very
important that we not miss the boat in terms of the critical
skill shortage that is going to materialize even more so at our
national labs, at NASA, at--you know, in terms of our nuclear
enterprise. These are areas--we do not have to worry about the
Chinese. We can only have American citizens do this work. The
problem is we do not have enough of them in the pipeline that
are going to be in a position to do this work, so the last
thing we want to do is have made all these investments and then
to fall short on the baton pass to the next generation of
leaders. So it is very, very important.
I want to thank you for the leadership that you have put
in. You know, we talk about the, you know, the rocket ships and
all this, but your presence at a school like Overbrook, your
presence talking to young people--and your team, I came over
and met--witnessed your manager's meeting, in which you place
in every single part of the agency, a premium on making sure
that they are working to get people ready to take on the work
and the leadership at NASA.
I wish you would just take a few minutes and talk about
this part of your mission.
General Bolden. One of the things that I think everybody
knows is we have been the best place to work in the Federal
government in the large-agency category for the last four years
and it primarily comes, I think, because of our mid-level
managers and leaders, and it is the way that we push employee
engagement, making sure that, one, they emphasize the critical
importance of diversity, which means numbers, but that in
itself is not as important as inclusion. If there is a woman in
the room, or there is a minority in the room and nobody let's
them say anything, they may as well not even be there. So
inclusion becomes the most important part of the D and I that
we do. We put a lot of emphasis on it. We have a D and I
partnership, that is all the leadership of the agency and we
come together several times a year to talk about how we promote
diversity and inclusion in the agency.
And I think, you know, we try to pass that on when we go
out and--every time I talk to young people I try to explain to
them that, you know, they got to get used to being in a room
where everybody doesn't look like them, because that is the
world and they have got to be able to sit in a room where
everybody doesn't think like them and they have got to be able
to give them the respect of at least----
Mr. Fattah. I thought the chairman and I were like kissing
cousins or something. I mean we look almost identical, right?
General Bolden. Well--but that is sort of it. Employee
engagement, I think, is the key for--people that ask about
secret sauce. There is no secret sauce; it is our mid-level
leaders who actually are the ones who touch and feel our
employees every single day and try to impress them.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you and thank you for your
extraordinary career in public service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Ms. Roby.
EM-1 AND EM-2 LAUNCH DATES
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Bolden, for being here. Thanks for being in front
of our committee and all you do to advance our nation's future
in space.
I am also glad that you and NASA officials, earlier this
year, announced Todd May the official director of Marshall
Space Flight Center in Alabama. Marshall plays a major role in
NASA, as you know, and has a great impact on my home state. It
employees almost 6,000 civil service and contractor employees
with an estimated $3.8 billion in economic output and $96
million in state and local tax revenues.
Just last week, NASA Day was held in my hometown of
Montgomery where Todd May and his team from Marshall spread the
word about the importance of Alabama's role in NASA--with NASA.
NASA's Journey to Mars runs through Alabama, are the words
that Director May--and I could not agree more--those are the
words that he used, and so with that, I want to touch on Space
Launch System and the Orion spacecraft. I know you talked to
Mr. Jolly a little bit about this; there are suppliers in all
50 states that contribute to SLS and that shows a national
effort to deep-space exploration.
And in the fiscal year 2016, NASA asked for $1.3 billion
for SLS, and Congress, led by this subcommittee, made it to $2
billion, which was enacted into law. And this year, the
president's request calls for $1.31 billion, and so, wouldn't
you guess that Congress, again led by our fearless chairman
here, this subcommittee would get funding upwards of $2.8
billion for this fiscal year. That is what we need, and I want
to ask you to contribute to the conversation that your agency
does project when we will reach EM-1 in 2018.
But the question is, do you actually think that we can meet
this launch date with the funding request of the President,
rather than what we hope to achieve here on this subcommittee?
General Bolden. Yes, ma'am. There is no doubt in my mind
that we will fly EM-1 in 2018; that is what the President's
budget supported and that is how we picked it.
And, in fact, going back to something that Mr. Jolly said,
and I should correct one thing, 2023 is the Agency's commitment
date to EM-2, and that is based on the President's budget run
out. That is not based on appropriations. So, 2021 is a date
that we said, you know, we would hope to launch, if instead of
the run out that comes from the President's budget, we got----
Mrs. Roby. Well, do you think that is likely to occur at
the trajectory of the President's budget request?
General Bolden. The President's budget, we will launch in
2023 and that is----
Mrs. Roby. Oh, I was asking about 2021. If Congress were to
increase the funding to the levels that----
General Bolden. I don't, you know, I try not to get into
conjecture. If Congress increases the budget, we will use it to
buy down risks. We will go out and procure advanced parts that
we will need for later on in the program.
The discussion we had a little bit earlier was that we are
actually looking at supporting a program and not just the first
two flights. So, if we got more money, we may actually go out
and get long lead items that would have no effect whatsoever on
EM-1 or EM-2.
What I cannot do is bring EM-2 forward, put all the money
into that, have no long lead items and have no program. So, it
is--I trust my--people like Todd May and his team to tell me
what they need and when they need it.
What would really help is even appropriations, not--it is
important to have magnitude, but it is also--it is invaluable,
for those of you who have been in business, to be able to
follow a funding curve that lets you have a development
program. We have never done that. NASA's funding curve has
always been a flat line; that is not a development program. And
we have people like Todd and his team that take a flat, non-
development program curve and make it work.
So, I am saying a lot to say that 2023 is the date to which
we committed and we will make that date on the President's
submission for 2017. If we get more money, we will buy down
risks. We will do long lead items, and we believe that would
enable us to launch sometime earlier, but I don't--you know, I
will let Bill Gerstenmaier and his team come back and talk
about what those specific dates are.
Mrs. Roby. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. To follow-up on Ms. Roby's question, she is
correct; we are, all of us, strong supporters of getting the
SLS Program up and running as quickly as possible, but you said
you are doing a run out? Your estimates on when you could
launch are based on the President's budget?
General Bolden. We look at----
Mr. Culberson. You really cannot use that; that is just
simply a recommendation. What matters is the appropriations.
General Bolden. You are absolutely right. The spending this
year is determined by the appropriations we get. You know, in
my world, then I have to pick and choose some amount of
funding, and so I pick what we assume the run out on our budget
is going to be--it will get us to 2030; that is impossible to
think that----
Mr. Culberson. Based on the President's recommendation?
General Bolden. Based on the President's out year budget,
yes.
But we state--Mr. Chairman, we state that very clearly,
that based on the President's budget request at our key
decision point where we made our official announcement about
the date for launch and the cost for the vehicle, that very
clearly states that that is based on the President's budget
request, not on a single year's appropriation. And we also, as
I just said to Mr. Jolly and Mrs. Roby, if the Congress chooses
to fund us at a higher level, that conceivably draws the launch
date in, but not necessarily.
It depends on--because we are talking about a program, you
know, and we want to purchase long lead items. We want to do
EUS.
Mr. Culberson. Well, it is hard to be critical of this good
man because he is a Marine and a good soldier.
General Bolden. No, Mr. Chairman. That is----
Mr. Culberson. No, but you are following the President--I
understand you are--you know, you have to follow what the
President's recommended, but I just want to make sure----
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Ms. Roby's right; we are going to get you
the funding that you need to make sure that SLS is taken care
of. You can launch then on--you are expecting that you will be
able to launch in 2018 for EM----
General Bolden. 2018 for EM-1 and 2023 for EM-2.
Mr. Chairman, you know, you have to understand when we put
a lot of these budgets together, we were under sequester. We
are still under sequester. That is not done yet. You know, it
would be nice for me to pretend that the Congress has solved
the sequester question. So, the President's 2017 budget is
optimistic, if you compared that with what we would get under
sequester. So, I am taking an optimistic view at being able to
develop a program. We need to get our financial house in order.
I agree with you.
NASA PROGRAM STABILITY
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Talk to us a little bit about
stability and certainty and predictability. What would be some
of the things that, for example, the NASA authorization bill,
that Mr. Palazzo mentioned from his work on the Science
Committee. I have been keenly interested in this and Chairman
Smith has been very supportive of legislation that my
predecessor, Frank Wolf, and I developed to try to give NASA a
greater certainty and predictability and stability in your out
years----
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. So you could plan for the
future.
What are some of the things--for example, multiyear
procurement, I understand you already have the ability to do
multiyear procurement. And what could the--what can you do and
what can the Congress do to support you in that effort to give
the agency greater stability from year to year, so you are not
doing----
General Bolden. You really want my answer, sir?
Mr. Culberson. I do, thank you.
General Bolden. If the Congress were to do one single thing
that would dramatically increase the stability that this agency
and every other agency of the Federal government, it would be
multiyear funding. You know, one-year budgets, they don't--they
make life miserable for American industry, for our workers, for
everybody. If the Congress--if the Authorization Committee
wanted to do one thing, just one thing that would dramatically
change the way that this country operates and competes, it
would be one-year funding.
Mr. Culberson. And you, of course, already have the
authority to do multiyear procurement, however, on the big
rocket systems and spacecraft.
General Bolden. Well, you know, we get two-year money and
we get that kind of money. That is not the same as multiyear
funding, where instead of giving me a one-year budget, you give
me a budget for five years.
Mr. Honda. You asked him the question, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden. You are not about to do that because----
Mr. Culberson. But I want to find out within the existing
boundaries of law----
General Bolden. Ms. Roby is smiling at me because she
won't argue with the chairman.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Until we have a new
authorization.
Mr. Honda. We know what the law is, Mr. Chairman. The law
and the process is: The President proposes and we dispose----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. And that is the law.
Mr. Culberson. But I mean in terms of multiyear
procurement. I am talking about greater stability for the
future----
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, that is the----
General Bolden. That was my one--you asked me for one thing
that the Congress--that the Authorization Committee could do.
The Authorization Committee--should I be quiet?
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
General Bolden. No. You asked me about authorizers.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Sure. Yes. Yes.
General Bolden. Because, as I understand it, the way this
thing works is, in a perfect world, the authorizers give you
guidance. They give you a roadmap and then you fund it. That
almost never works.
You know I have been a NASA administrator for six years. I
think I have had two authorization bills, maybe three.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, it has been very frustrating, because
the House, as Mr. Palazzo says, we do our part----
General Bolden. I share your frustration, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. But they disappear in the
Senate.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. So that--but you would be able to, as you
mentioned, do advanced procurement of critical components.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. If you already got that authority----
General Bolden. That would be incredible.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. If we gave you the funding
necessary, for example, on SLS, as you said to Ms. Roby, you
could do advancement procurement of critical core components.
That is done in the Virginia-class nuclear submarine program,
for example.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. The Navy will buy components of the nuclear
reactors in advance----
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. In order to help make sure that
they have got some stability over multiple years.
Let me ask very quickly, when, this year, will you-- before
I pass it to Mr. Honda--to follow up, one last question on the
Europa mission, when over the next few months will you be
announcing an announcement of opportunity for the science
instruments to be included on the lander for Europa?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, that is--that won't happen
this year. You know, we have to decide, first of all--I think I
mentioned earlier that I--and I will--let me take it for the
record, because I do not want to misspeak, because I know you
have information from JPL and others and I do not want to get
cross-wise with the guys that work for me.
Mr. Culberson. Take that for the record. Let's do that for
the record.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda.
EUROPA MISSIONS
Mr. Honda. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back a little bit on my questions on--that
deals with Europa and the astrobiology missions in our solar
system. Two weeks ago we had the pleasure, through Chairman
Culberson's leadership, of hosting a very interesting hearing
on exploring the water worlds of our outer solar system. It
started with the Jovian moon of Europa. I am also very pleased
that the Science Mission Director had recently recognized other
water worlds, including Enceladus, with potentially interesting
astrobiology, and opened a New Frontiers competition to look
into exploring these worlds, as well.
As part of the discussion with Dr. Elachi and Dr. Lunine,
we heard that signs of life and searching for planetary
habitability--see, I can say that word today; I fell over that
word last time--for life are two different things. We heard
that a planned orbiter and potential lander will analyze
habitability of Europa, which is quite different from detecting
life or signs of life.
So, does life impact your--is searching for signs of life a
goal of the Europa orbiter mission and what would be required
to actually search for life and not just for habitability, but
with the orbiter?
General Bolden. This is out of my league, but as I
understand it, when we search for signs of life, like the James
Webb Space Telescope will help us do, in a lot of the
exoplanets and planets orbiting other suns in other solar
systems in other galaxies, we are looking for the basic
constituents of life, something that could produce microbes,
oxygen, hydrogen, potassium. We can do that remotely, but when
you are searching for life, itself, there is nothing like, as
the chairman says, putting a lander down there and having them
go out and touch and feel and get a sample. And is that really
a microbe or is that just a disparate collection of the
components of microbial life?
So, when people ask me all the time, why don't we just do
robotic exploration? Robotic exploration is great, but at some
point, you need to put a human into the environment so that we
can determine whether we are looking at disparate pieces of
life or whether we are actually looking at life, itself.
Mr. Honda. Does that have to do with--I guess what I heard
your term was----
General Bolden. And the disclaimer I made, Mr. Honda, was I
do not know what I am talking about. You know, I am telling you
what my chief scientists and others tell me.
Mr. Honda. Being a science teacher, though--because a lot
of times it is better for me to learn how to ask a question and
not know the answer.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Honda. But this whole term handedness of amino acids,
is that part of the effort to look at, perhaps other kinds of
missions or concepts for the--to get engaged in?
General Bolden. You talked about earlier, you and Mr.
Kilmer, talked about CubeSats, MicroSats and the like, concepts
for the future. When you talk about both, looking for signs of
life in and evidence of life are, for example, on future
missions to Europa or Enceladus or some of these other moons
that have the geysers, the geyser activity, is to fly, you
know, a SmallSat or a CubeSat through a geyser where it gets
wet. That will tell you whether there is life there.
And, you know, when we talk about future Europa missions,
that is what you would hope you will do. You get the guys out
of JPL started and they can tell you all kinds of stuff, but it
doesn't happen overnight, the way that they sometimes would
like to have us believe. It is a slow----
Mr. Honda. A lot of discussions around that and when we
did talk about geysers, it was clear that there were natural-
occurring geysers and then there is a--we can impose or create
geysers through impacts. Is that something that----
General Bolden. I will have to take that for the record,
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. OK.
General Bolden. You know, one of the reasons we want to do
a very serious study of Europa, for example, with orbiters is
because we believe it will take us two years to completely map
the surface. You know, you don't do one orbit and you are
happy; it is probably two years.
Mr. Honda. Sure.
General Bolden. And that way, we will be able to find out
where is the ice thickest? Where is it thinnest? Where is it
most like will to--if you are going to artificially try to
produce an opening for water to come up, where is it most
likely able to do that?
Mr. Honda. Yes.
General Bolden. The other thing about Europa that is, at
least I think I understand this, is that some other moons, some
of the other icy moons have geysers with regularity, that are
predictable. So, you know, you can schedule when you are going
to fly through that. And we haven't had--to my knowledge, we
haven't had that benefit from Europa yet. You know, we see them
sometimes, but we don't--they don't occur with regularity like
Old Faithful out in Yellowstone. Is that where Old Faithful is?
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Mr. Honda. Well, and another way of looking at future
funding and how we could look at robust funding and take
advantage of the kinds of things that we develop at NASA, the
term technology transfer is something that is very important--
--
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. In terms of what we do, and as in
how this could be--this technology transfer could be
commercialized into the commercial arena. So, you know, taking
these kinds of technologies and transferring them can provide a
lot of jobs and a lot of activities, sometimes beyond what we
really would be able to imagine.
Can you talk a little bit about the Technology Transfer
Program and explain to me the funding levels that have occurred
over time; will this decline or remain the same? It appears
that it is declining, and it seems like this is something that
we really should be paying attention to, to make sure that we
really do, plus-up with the kinds of investments we make in
research and development at NASA.
General Bolden. I will take it for the record to get you
specific numbers, but I seem to recall that when you look at
what we are doing now to measure our effectiveness in
technology transfer, for example, the Office of Chief
Technologist and the science technology--the Space Technology
Mission Directorate, between the two of them, we now have a
technology transfer database so that we can go in and we can
see which technologies have made it to the--into industry or
academia or into entrepreneurs.
One of the global ideas about the success of technology
transfer is our Spinoffs books that we produce every year, that
lists thousands of technologies that have been spun off from
work that NASA has done, but that is not a sufficient way to be
able to track, to give you metrics on your technology transfer.
So, the fact that we have produced this database and that we
now keep it better than we ever did before leads me to believe
that we are putting more money into technology transfer. But I
will get you the data. I will take that for the record.
Mr. Honda. This will be the last part of this question
round. It seems to me the kind of wealth that we can realize
from technology transfer should be something that we should
track because it gives us a sense in the future that the
investment we are making now will pay off in the long run; not
only for the projects that we are planning for, but for the
general economy of our country.
And if that pencils out the way I think it should, there
should be more attention being paid, as the chairman would like
to see, on the kinds of things that we do. It enhances our
life. It enhances the quality of your life and it probably
provides a lot of different kinds of aspects that we haven't
even thought of, and it takes Moore's Law a little further out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman--oh, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
give you this. It is something that reminds me of my visit to
NASA.
Mr. Culberson. I recognize that, right?
Mr. Honda. I think it sits on one of the things that we are
looking at.
Mr. Culberson. Well, no; that is the Johnson Space Center.
Thank you. Thank you, Mike.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just one very quick top-line question. One of the
justifications for moving to commercial providers for crew and
cargo to station was to essentially spendless or achieve
certain efficiencies and savings, so that then you could focus
on other activities. Are we spending less? Have we achieved
savings?
General Bolden. I would say we are, sir. I can, you know, I
will take it for the record to get you the specific data on
comparative costs between what NASA was paying in the days of
the space shuttle program when we had to provide all the
infrastructure and everything.
Mr. Jolly. OK.
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Jolly. That is it. Easy question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From previous hearings in the authorizing committee, there
was some focus on the safety and security of our proprietary
information. It seems like laptops were sneaking out of the
building, personnel, foreign nationals were carrying
information out. And it was addressed, of course. We tried to
look into, you know, whether those responsible were actually
punished and I won't go into that, you know, hopefully they
were. But it seemed to be that if the security managers or if
the managers of the facilities are not taking the security
seriously, because you scientists want to go do scientific
stuff, so it comes down to the managers in HR and I guess
others to, you know, actually make sure they are taking this
kind of stuff seriously.
Because we worked very hard coming up with this proprietary
information and we spend a lot of money to do it and it helps
America maintain its competitive edge, the last thing we want
it to do is walk out the door. Because, again, we know some
nation states out there that just love for us to spend all our
money, do all the hard work, and they just want to steal what
we come up with to help them then take jobs away from America.
How has the culture changed and have you seen this all the
way down to the Center level where our managers are taking this
seriously? And, if they are not, why are they still managing
these facilities?
General Bolden. Mr. Palazzo, I think, you know, as I said,
everything is a long slog. Since when you were on the
authorization committee, you may remember that as a result of
several incidents we brought in NAPA to do a study on our
Foreign National Access Management Program. They gave us 27
recommendations to date, we have closed 22 of those
recommendations.
We also got audits from the GAO and the IG, and we have
worked on those. We now have a full-fledged Foreign National
Access Management Program where the program manager stood up.
NAPA has just finished a revisit, they have come back and
done an update visit on our program, and we are working right
now with them on their draft to make sure that we understand
what the recommendations are going to be. But the preliminary
indication is that we will get a good grade, that they are
satisfied with the success that we have done in incorporating
this.
We have emphasized export control, we have emphasized the
need to follow ITAR. We have now an export control manual that
is accessible by all members of the NASA family and
contractors.
We now have training in our regular training program such
that each NASA employee is required to undergo annual training
on Foreign National Access Management, on export control.
We have a counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, face-to-
face meeting among all of our NASA Center folk, we do that
every year. Last year we did it at the Johnson Space Center in
November. I went to that meeting. Also present at the meeting
were senior officials from the FBI and a number of other
intelligence agencies. They presented to us, they presented
some of the training.
And going back to the certification of Chinese when we work
with them, it is my intention to visit with Director Comey at
the FBI to make sure that the certification process that we
have in place meets his approval and that, you know, he is
happy with the way we are doing it.
So I would say that if you go down to the bottom of the
rung, you will find that people, they understand the importance
of control of our vital resources and protection of our
classified and sensitive information. So I think we have done
quite a bit.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, Administrator, I am glad you are taking
it a lot more serious. You know, in the private sector, if an
employee allows a laptop to walk off with 10,000 of their
employees' sensitive information, that employee is likely going
to be fired.
And so, I mean, it seems like throughout the Federal
government, not just, you know, NASA, but there is not a lot of
accountability. And of course when you see agency heads
committing all kind of awful stuff, then, you know, it is kind
of hard to punish the people down beneath them, but this is
important stuff. Proprietary information to allow America to
maintain its competitive edge, to maintain our leadership in
space, you know, a slap on the wrist. And I am going off on
some other agencies. There needs to be some teeth in holding
people accountable for what they do.
And, Administrator, I will also mention a very successful
500-second RS-25 flight engine test at Stennis Space Center.
Mr. Chairman, if you have not been to Stennis Space Center,
it is an open invitation. I would love to host you for a day
and hopefully we can coordinate it around a test. Who knew NASA
could make it rain and they do that with some of their engine
tests.
And of course the whole committee is invited as well, Mr.
Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
General Bolden. Thank you very much.
FOREIGN NATIONAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Palazzo is right, it is extraordinarily
important to protecting the nation's space program and our
technology from penetration by foreign agents, it is very
important. And I know there was a problem at Ames, for example,
and letting foreign nationals come into the facility.
So you mentioned, General Bolden, I heard you say Foreign
National Access Management. I hope you have got procedures in
place to essentially keep foreign nationals out of NASA Flight
Centers and they don't get access to----
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I cannot stand here and say
that is true, that is not true. We have foreign nationals who
operate on NASA facilities every day, we have foreign nationals
who may actually be NASA employees like every other agency of
the Federal Government.
Mr. Culberson. Well, in particular the Chinese.
General Bolden. So I understand what you----
Mr. Culberson. The Chinese are the ones we are most
concerned about.
General Bolden. The Chinese, that is different, yes.
Mr. Culberson. So no Chinese foreign nationals are getting
access to NASA Flight Centers or computers?
General Bolden. No foreign nationals are getting
unauthorized access to any classified material, sensitive
material. No, none, zero.
Mr. Culberson. OK, thank you.
General Bolden. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear,
no unauthorized access. Any time anyone who is not an American,
in fact even American citizens have to go through a very
stringent process to be allowed to have access to classified
and sensitive material. That program is much more robust for a
foreign national.
So I just don't want to lead you to believe that we have
put a wall up and only Americans are going into bases.
Mr. Culberson. But the ones we are most concerned about are
the Chinese.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Because the Chinese space program is owned
lock, stock and barrel, controlled by the People's Liberation
Army. It is a military program designed to help them better
target their ICBMs at the United States and they have a long
history of stealing our technology. And it is just unacceptable
the level of cyber theft and espionage the Chinese have been
engaged.
And our predecessor, Frank Wolf, very wisely and with a lot
of foresight, included language in our bill which we have kept
and strengthened, that in Section 531, General Bolden, governs
NASA's bilateral activities with China.
And I wanted to ask, if you could, sir, to please explain
the process that NASA uses to ensure compliance with Section
531, which in part states that NASA must certify that these
bilateral activities, these meetings, pose no risk of
technology transfer or other information with national security
or economic security implications to China or to a Chinese-
owned company. How does NASA ensure compliance?
General Bolden. Yes, sir, and I made reference to this a
little bit earlier. In order to follow the law pursuant to
Section 531, we actually use an independent third party tool to
execute our foreign national investigations. The tool is called
Visual Compliance and that allows us to look at, among other
databases, but there are five FBI databases, there are several
Department of Treasury databases, those from the Department of
Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, the State
Department, Arms Export Control Department lists, and on and on
and on. And so that is the process that we use for every single
person that I put on a certification letter to you.
And as a result of some additional direction that came in
Section 531, I now also provide a copy of that certification
letter to the Director of the FBI, it goes via email
transmission to--it doesn't go to Director Comey personally,
but it goes to his executive secretary and it goes to the
Section Chief of the FBI headquarters Counterintelligence
Division, who right now is Mr. Crouch.
And as I said, my intent some time after this hearing is to
actually sit down or at least, maybe not sit down, but talk to
Director Comey and make sure that this process that I just
explained to you meets the requirements and the needs of the
FBI, so that they can feel that what we are certifying is in
fact accurate.
Mr. Culberson. Right, because the reason that new language
was added was to be sure that you are not just telling the FBI,
but that you are involving them. That we want you to be able to
get back from them and for them to be able to tell you this
looks like it is okay or that is not okay.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Let me ask, if I could--well, let me go to
Mr. Honda, I have gone over a little bit.
ARC JETS
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Two things. When we were at NASA we visited a gadget into
which we climbed, it is called the Arc Jet. And the function of
that is to determine pressure andtemperature of reentry of
capsules and missiles, for that matter. And I understood that
is probably the most unique piece of equipment that we have,
but it isalso that we are far behind in keeping it up and
maintaining it.
And I just wondered whether if these Arc Jets are not
capable of recreating the actual temperature and pressure that
we anticipate, then how are we going to be able to ensure that
that facility will be upgraded so that the return will be safe
for reentry of our astronauts in the capsule.
General Bolden. Mr. Honda, you give me an opportunity to
talk about something that is near and dear to my heart. The Arc
Jet about which you speak, in basic terms, it is a wind tunnel.
And it is a wind tunnel that we generate incredible heat inside
it.
Mr. Honda. Ten thousand degrees.
General Bolden. So we are looking at thousands of degrees.
And we are looking at the ability of a nose cap, for example,
or something, the nose of a missile, to be able to withstand
the heat and pressure of reentry.
The upgrade on the Arc Jet facility comes under a portion
of our budget that is called Construction of Facilities and
Environmental Compliance and Restoration, and that just happens
to be a part of the budget that both the Congress and the
Administration like to use as a bank to which they can go. So I
would say when----
Mr. Honda. Could you say that again?
General Bolden. I have used the term bank. It is a place--
--
Mr. Honda. It is a fund that we go to.
General Bolden. It is a fund that everybody likes to go to
because it is, quote-unquote, ``not important.'' It is very
important. It is because in that fund it is where safety and
mission assurance, engineering, construction of facilities,
upgrade to facilities is all book kept, and salaries.
And so when we take money from Safety, Security, and
Missions Services (SSMS), when we go into that fund to take out
a few million dollars, then what we have to do, what Mr. Eugene
Tu out at Ames has to do is decide, okay, I am going to delay
upgrade on the Arc Jet facility for one more year because I do
not have the money to do that.
Mr. Honda. This has some relationship to our discussion
about multiple-year funding and multiple-year procurement.
Multiple-year procurement requires that we have the funds
so that we can lay it out there in the future for that one
year's allotment. Multiple year means that, you know, we can
have some certainty that we can have a budget that we can count
on so that Dr. Tu will be able to keep this Arc Jet performing
at a place where we can assure that the reentry of our capsules
will be tested in an appropriate way.
And so I think that it is a small piece, but without
properly maintaining it and keeping it up to date, we get to
Mars and we come back, if we come back and we hit that
atmosphere and that is the piece that is messed up, I think it
would be, you know, that is the one piece that we have to
really pay attention to, even though the budget may not be--it
is a budget that we keep dipping into to say, oh, we will take
care of it later. But, you know, if we want to anticipate
astronauts coming back and not watching them burn up on
reentry, then we have to take care of that regardless of what
kind of funding mechanism we have.
So I just wanted to make that point.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
COMMERCIAL CREW SAFETY
Mr. Honda. And connected to that, we talk about
commercialization too. There have been a couple of commercial
cargo explosions. And what are some of the things that we are
doing to make sure that when we do send astronauts up using
commercial launches, what are we doing as NASA to ensure that
those astronauts that we do send up are going to be safe and
that their launches are going to be safe in two years?
General Bolden. Mr. Honda, just as we did from both, in
fact all three, we had three cargo mishaps, we lost a Progress
vehicle, we lost a Dragon, and we lost a Cygnus all in a 12-
month period of time. From each of the accidents, we had NASA
personnel who were part of the accident investigation team. We
either did our own supplemental investigation in addition to
being part of the team or in the case of the SpaceX accident,
since they have a number of different contracts with us and
they have ongoing launches, not just for space station, then we
are constantly involved with them.
But in all three cases we were able to satisfy ourselves
that we understood what the root cause of the accident was,
that they were taking appropriate actions to ensure that that
cause was taken care of, was corrected or remedied, and that we
would be able to go fly again.
I think everybody knows, we accept more risk with cargo
than we will ever do with crew. So we already, you step up your
safety requirements, if you will, your criteria for a human-
rated launch much more than you do for a cargo launch.
But we feel that we have the correct amount of insight and
in some cases oversight with both Boeing and SpaceX right now
to ensure--I will say Boeing, SpaceX and the Orion Program
team, because they are all three the same in our eyes. We are
going to have astronauts on all three vehicles and so they have
to have the same level of safety and mission assurance, and we
have to have the same amount of visibility into all three
before we will launch.
ROLE OF AERONAUTICS CORPORATIONS
Mr. Honda. And if I may, what role, if any, does Aerospace
Industries have----
General Bolden. The corporation?
Mr. Honda. Corporation.
General Bolden. Aerospace is an FFRDC for the U.S. Air
Force and they are--I have the Office of Safety and Mission
Assurance and I think that Aerospace is in fact effectively the
Office of Safety and Mission Assurance for the Air Force in
most of their missile launches. I could be incorrect, but that
is the way that I look at them.
And so we consult with Aerospace frequently, because with
SpaceX again as an example, because both the Air Force and NASA
use SpaceX, our Safety and Mission Assurance organization and
our Office of Chief Engineer work hand in glove with Aerospace
all the time, because sometimes neither of those three
organizations has the sufficient number of people to cover
everything. So Aerospace may cover something and debrief us, we
may cover something and debrief them, but they work together
all the time.
The present CEO of Aerospace, Dr. Wanda Austin, hosts a
safety quality summit, I think it is twice a year. And Robert
Lightfoot, who is the senior civil servant in NASA, he is the
associate administrator or in a civilian company he would be
called the chief operating officer, Robert attends that summit
each year along with some of the folk from our Safety and
Mission Assurance organization and the Chief Engineer's Office.
And so that there is constant interchange of ideas and
experience with Aerospace, but they are not technically in our
chain of command, if you will.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
FLAT BUDGETS
Mr. Palazzo. Well, Mr. Chairman, real quick. You know, we
are talking, you mentioned flat budgets and it is kind of bad
that NASA has been stuck on flat budgets. And our facilities
directors, and as well as NASA and the administration, have
done a good job with the flat budgets that we have given. And
that just makes me want to make a few comments.
One, you know, we are $19 trillion in debt as a nation, but
I don't think NASA's spending on deep-space exploration and
low-earth orbit is what is driving those deficits, nor is our
Department of Defense spending, investing in our men and women
in uniform so they too can have the tools and training to do
their job and come back home to their loved ones, but it is the
out-of-control mandatory spending.
And in Congress, I mean, I know that NASA can't fix it,
this Administrator can't fix that or others, but the American
people should be demanding of Congress that we rein in the out-
of-control spending, but we don't even have a vote on it
because it is on autopilot, it is mandatory. And it is sad,
because it is keeping us from doing the hard things at NASA,
the great things, and funding, you know, not only just NASA,
but also our military at levels that we need to to secure our
nation.
So I hope one day we have that conversation and we can get
past it, because we have got to curb the $19 trillion or we
won't be having too many fun discussions on funding NASA's
future ambitions. There won't be a Mars trip, there won't be a
back-to-the-moon, there won't be America's leadership in space.
We will be challenged and we don't know how we will come out if
we don't fix our national debt.
And if we start today, then it is achievable. If we keep
kicking the can down the road until tomorrow, it just gets
harder and harder and harder.
So that was just more of a comment than anything, because
that is something that is always, you know, keeping many of us
up at night.
And again, Administrator, we appreciate your career in the
United States Marine Corps, as well as at NASA.
General Bolden. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you.
General Bolden. Semper Fi.
Mr. Palazzo. Semper Fi.
COMMERCIAL CREW MILESTONES
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Administrator Bolden, just a couple more followups.
On the commercial crew program, I wanted to ask if any of
the fiscal year 2016 milestones slipped into 2017 or beyond on
commercial crew.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will take that for the
record.
To my knowledge, none have slipped that we didn't ask to be
slipped for one reason or another, or that we didn't
coordinate, you know, with the providers to slip it, because it
would be--but I will take that for the record.
Mr. Culberson. Which milestones do you recall----
General Bolden. That is why I said I don't----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Slipped?
General Bolden. I don't think any slipped, but that is why
I said, you know, when you talk about, sometimes people use the
term slip when in fact we purposely moved something to a later
date to accommodate some other test.
So what I would like to do, if it is okay with you, is to
take it for the record----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
General Bolden [continuing]. And then tell you how any
milestones that were scheduled to be done in 2016 are now being
done in 2017 and why.
NEXT GENERATIONS ROCKET PROPULSION
Mr. Culberson. I wanted to also ask about the next
generation rocket propulsion.
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. As you look into the future, and the one
aspect of the asteroid mission that I think is particularly
exciting is the development of the next-generation rocket
propulsion, so I want to ask about NASA's work on not only
solar electric, nuclear electric, but then also ask about the
level of plutonium that you have available.
There is only, as I understand it, about 35 kilograms
currently or 77 pounds of plutonium-238 set aside for NASA
missions, and this will only support about two or three NASA
missions through the middle of the 2020s.
Are you satisfied with the level of funding that you have
to understand that the Department of Energy has wanted NASA to
take the lead on this? We made sure that you had funding for
plutonium-238 production in your 2016 bill.
What do you need from this committee and the Congress in
order to make sure that you have got a sufficient supply of
plutonium-238 for future missions and which missions do you
expect to use plutonium for beyond the 2020, Mars 2020?
General Bolden. As my memory serves me, Mr. Chairman, we
have sufficient funding and sufficient sources of plutonium for
the missions that are in NASA's plan right now, Mars 2020 being
the next mission that will require nuclear fuel.
And in a conversation with Dr. Grunsfeld, the head of the
Science Mission Directorate, yesterday when we were talking
about Juno that arrives at Jupiter here on Independence Day,
you probably know that Juno is not nuclear-powered. Juno is
powered by solar arrays, new-generation solar arrays, giant
ones. But according to Dr. Grunsfeld yesterday, it is because
of the work that we did on Juno and the success of those solar
arrays that our team, along with JPL, is now leaning toward
solar electric propulsion--solar power, not solar electric
propulsion, solar power for Europa, which would mean that we
would not need nuclear power for the Europa mission.
But that again, as I mentioned, you know, we won't know
that until 2018 when we get to preliminary design review and
finish out the formulation of the mission, but that is where it
is leaning right now.
Mr. Culberson. If you could, talk to us about the next
generation of rocket propulsion. What do you envision being
developed to succeed chemical propulsion and what are you doing
today to develop that next generation?
General Bolden. When people ask me about going to Mars and
what are the challenges, I tell them radiation is one, time is
another one. So we need game-changing propulsion, game-changing
in-space propulsion.
We are now funding at a very low level development or
research on what we call low-grade nuclear fuel, so that we do
not have to go through the complicated process that we do now
to get, you know, the type of enriched fuel that we use today.
That holds out some hope.
There are other systems. People are looking at advanced
solar electric propulsion. You have people like Dr. Franklin
Chang Diaz has a rocket that is called VASIMR, it is variable
specific-impulsed thrust, which is a constantly thrusting ion
engine, you know, that we are funding. We are funding the
upgrade of a laboratory where he is doing testing now to just
see if he can get it ground tested and then we will go see what
happens after that.
That type of propulsion systems bode well for the future.
But nuclear electric I think is the one that most people tell
me is probably going to be what we need, but we have got to get
the fuel issue solved first, you know. But we are making slow
progress.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Honda.
SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been learning quite a bit over the past few weeks. I
would like to get some of your thoughts on the comments that
were made about Space Launch System a couple years ago by a
gentleman by the name of Chris Kraft, NASA's first flight
director. He said that the operating costs of SLS, quote,
``will eat NASA alive.'' He lamented that while other existing
rockets had become reliable through frequent use, the SLS will
not achieve that level of reliability because, in his view, we
won't be able to afford to launch it more than once a year, if
that.
On the subject of future human space flight, missions to
deep space, Mr. Kraft has also questioned why we cannot use our
existing launch vehicle capabilities and put vehicles in space
in pieces like we did with the space station.
So two questions. How do you respond to these sorts of
concerns about the Space Launch System? And what is NASA doing
to work with industry and Government partners to develop the
spectrum of missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2 to fully utilize this
enormous national asset that will be coming on line in only a
few short years?
General Bolden. Mr. Honda, you know, Dr. Kraft is a role
model and a mentor for me. He was my Center Director when I
first became an astronaut and went to the Johnson Space Center.
He is an incredible human being. From Virginia Tech, by the
way. I did not know that until a short time ago. We always
think about everybody comes from Harvard and Stanford and
stuff. It is a pretty good institution down there in
Blacksburg.
But his statement about SLS is, I think, and I cannot speak
for Dr. Kraft, I think a lot of people's statements like that
are based on how we operated when they were in charge or when
they were around, that is a long time ago. SLS represents the
best technology that we have today to leave the planet.
I think most people would tell you, we don't have a way
other than chemical propulsion today to get off the planet, and
we would probably always want to use something like an SLS.
When you talk about the Europa mission, and while I am not
making a commitment to you, Mr. Chairman, I want you to
understand what I am saying here, SLS, it represents an
incredible promise and potential not just to human space
flight, but to scientific space flight.
You know, the reason we are all attracted to SLS for our
Europa mission or any outer planets mission is because, you
know, 9 years to get somewhere or 8 years to get somewhere or 7
years, that is a long time. The team, it is hard to hold then
intact, you are paying for them. It is much cheaper if we can
use, if it turns out that SLS is able to be used for a Europa
mission, we are talking about a 2\1/2\ year mission. You know,
that is 5 years we have saved in transit time, in salaries, in
keeping a team enthused, you know, not shutting the vehicle
down the way we did with New Horizons.
There are a lot of good reasons to do it, but that is not a
commitment to SLS. I want to make sure you understand that, Mr.
Chairman. You told me to make sure it happens, I am trying.
But in response to that, even if it is in the law, if I
found that it were not the right thing to do, I would come to
you and say, Mr. Chairman, can we review this policy, because
that is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer.
So we are following the law and we will always follow the
law, but sometimes things change and you go back and you revise
the law. It is like our Constitution, that is why we have
amendments. We find that the Founding Fathers were not the
brilliant, maybe they were not as smart as we thought they were
the first time around or something like that. I don't know.
Mr. Honda. Of course, based on history too.
General Bolden. That is exactly right. Yes, exactly.
Mr. Honda. I just needed to ask the question, just to clear
up some of the questions I had in my mind.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Honda. And I think that the explanation is----
General Bolden. And I hope I answered the question.
Mr. Honda. No, no.
General Bolden. Because Dr. Kraft is----
Mr. Honda. No, I get what you are saying.
General Bolden [continuing]. Way more brilliant than I am
and knows this stuff a lot better than I do, but I have the
advantage of a team around me that he didn't have.
Mr. Honda. Sure.
General Bolden. You have to remember, most of us forget, I
have a very mature leadership team. When Dr. Kraft was in
Mission Control and when he led the Johnson Space Center and we
went to the moon, most of the people were 20 years old. They
didn't know anything.
Mr. Honda. Well, that is the difference like between myself
and my son. When I launched an airplane, it was made out of
balsa wood and I pushed it off, he uses a battery now and he
has got all kinds of things at hand.
So I just wanted some sort of clarification in my mind.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Chairman's Closing Remarks
Mr. Culberson. Well, General Bolden, we want to thank you
again for your service to the country and for the service you
have given to NASA, the leadership. It has been a privilege for
us to work with you. And we will have a number of questions
that we will submit for the record, sir.
But again, from the bottom of our heart, we genuinely
appreciate your service to the country. And this subcommittee
and the Congress strongly supports the men and women at NASA
and we will do everything we can to make sure you have got the
resources you need to achieve all that is on your plate, and to
ensure that the American space program is the very best in the
world bar none.
General Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, sir.
The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
HON. FRANCE A. CORDOVA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. We are pleased
to have with us this morning the Director of the National
Science Foundation, Dr. France Cordova. And we thank you very
much for your service to the country, Dr. Cordova. We have on
this committee a long history of strong bipartisan support for
the work that the National Science Foundation does and a
commitment to make sure the United States maintains its
leadership in scientific research and the role that you play is
absolutely essential.
We have a very difficult budget year but we are going to
continue to do everything that we can to ensure that you and
the scientists that work under the peer review grant process
that you oversee have the resources that you need to maintain
American leadership in scientific research.
We have before us the President's 2017 budget request,
which is about $7.6 billion, an increase of $101 million, or
about 1 percent above the current fiscal year. And
unfortunately the President's budget request includes about
$400 million in new unauthorized mandatory funding from a
variety of sources that are all just not going to happen. It is
a difficulty that every agency that is presenting their budgets
this year to the Appropriations Committee face. You are not
alone in this. And I know this budget did not come from you
personally. I understand that you made recommendations to the
Office of Management and Budget. They include these extraneous
recommendations, the taxes and fee increases and speculative
sources of funding for the future that are just simply not
going to happen. We had this dilemma with the Administrator of
NASA. And we are devoted to NASA and the National Science
Foundation. But these mandatory funding increases are simply
not going to happen. And it makes it more difficult for the
Appropriations Committee to do our work, to support you and
help you in an extraordinarily difficult budget year. It
complicates things tremendously when the President submits a
budget request both for NASA and the National Science
Foundation that he knows will never get enacted, that includes
funding sources that are utterly unrealistic and improbable. It
puts us in an even deeper hole than we are. But we are going to
work together. Mr. Honda and I are both, the full subcommittee
is committed to work with you and to help you do what you need
to do.
I know Mr. Honda joins me in congratulating you and your
partners at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and others on the extraordinary
discovery that you have made recently using the Laser
Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory in confirming the
existence of gravitational waves that I know some of the
scientists were up here a couple of weeks ago and my day was
just berserk. I am sorry I did not get a chance to meet them
personally. But I am looking forward to visiting with them, as
I know Mr. Honda is, to hear firsthand about their discovery.
We would love to hear you talk a little bit about that today,
if you could. In fact, this is something that was theorized by
Albert Einstein about a hundred years ago.
In fact the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observatory was a project that was originally supported by this
subcommittee under the leadership of Chairman Livingston and
Chairman Rogers. And that work took many years. It requires an
investment that the seed has to be planted in the ground and
nurtured and carefully supported by subsequent Congresses and
subsequent Directors of the National Science Foundation to make
sure that they come to fruition. And we will certainly do our
part, as I know you will as well. We really do congratulate you
and all of the researchers who are involved in this
extraordinary achievement.
The National Science Foundation's annual budget represents
about 60 percent of the total Federal budget for basic research
conducted at U.S. colleges and universities, excluding medical
research that is supported by the National Institutes of
Health. In many fields the National Science Foundation is the
primary source of Federal academic support for scientific
research. So we want to add while we wholeheartedly support
research and the sciences we of course also need to be
exceptionally good stewards of our constituents' hard earned
tax dollars and be very careful and frugal about how they are
spent. And we are just delighted to have you here with us today
and thank you very much for your service. And I want to
recognize Mr. Honda for any remarks he would like to make.
Thank you.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Dr.
Cordova, and thank you for being here today. So I am really
looking forward to your testimony and learning more about the
great programs that NSF has. As a former science teacher and a
representative for Silicon Valley, I know well the tremendous
value that NSF has for us. And NSF is known as the great
fundamental research venture capitalist for the United States.
So NSF supports ideas and research that is on the cutting edge
and often has no clear application beyond the pursuit of
scientific knowledge.
By investing in a broad range of ideas you never know which
ones are going to come up and pan out and end up having
enormous implications for society and impact to our economy,
such as the recent discovery probably changed a lot of rules in
physics.
These breakthroughs then trigger commercial investments in
R&D to develop an idea and bring it to market. This one-two
punch of NSF investment in the fundamental research followed by
commercial R&D investments in ideas when they have potential
market implications is a proven recipe for success.
If it were not for the broad initial investment in the
fundamental research by NSF, then this innovative cycle from
lab to market would grind to a halt. The NSF is directly
fueling our future innovative economy and is making sure that
the next breakthrough technologies that lead to the next
Silicon Valleys happen right here in the United States.
The thing about fundamental research is you never know
which idea is going to end up becoming the next 3D printer or
the next silicon wafer or the next new fuel cell or the next
detected gravity waves. This is why the NSF needs the freedom
to invest across all of the sciences without interference. It
is critical that politics not be allowed to insert itself into
the process and deem that some sciences are not in the national
interest and therefore we will not invest in them. All science
is in the national interest and all science contributes to an
innovative environment from which the next breakthroughs will
come. All science rises and falls together in a connected web
and we in Congress should not constrain our scientists, our
innovators, and our economy by arbitrarily choosing not to
invest in certain fields. If we did that we would never have
been able to help fund NSF on the gravitational waves.
The National Science Foundation is a direct investment in
the future, strength, and vitality of our nation. Companies
from my district, like NVIDIA, Google, Apple, and the Silicon
Valley Leadership Group are taking it upon themselves to
advocate for robust support for the National Science Foundation
across all of the fields not just research that directly
corresponds to their business. Because they appreciate that it
is across all the environment that is innovative, fosters that
web and that vitality through the NSF that feeds directly into
the ideas and talented employees that their companies need to
survive.
Our NSF model has been so successful that countries around
the world from Germany to Japan to China have copied the model
and are investing heavily in their NSFs. The world's economy is
more and more dependent on innovation and as a nation we need
to be invested heavily in the National Science Foundation and
fundamental research in order to secure a competitive edge in
the future economy. This is why I am also disappointed in the
President's budget proposal, but in also ignoring the mandatory
spending this budget only asks for a 1.3 percent increase. This
is subinflation and is not enough. The world is investing
heavily in fundamental research across all of the disciplines
and so must we.
So I look forward to working with you and Chairman
Culberson to find the money to fully support it, that sounds
good, does it not? Find the money to support the NSF and
continue to grow our innovative environment in the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Honda. And Director
Cordova, your written statement will, without objection, be
entered into the record in its entirety. And if we could we
would welcome your summary of your testimony and if you could
keep it within five minutes we would be very grateful. Thank
you very much.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you very much, Chairman Culberson and
Ranking Member Honda, Mr. Kilmer, and all the members of the
staff. Good morning. And I must say Chairman Culberson and
Ranking Member Honda that your words about NSF and its
importance to the competitiveness of our country are music to
our ears. They are just very, very important. So thank you very
much for recognizing that and so stating.
I am very pleased to testify today on behalf of the
National Science Foundation's fiscal year 2017 budget
submission. In my written testimony I have addressed specific
aspects of our budget request. NSF believes that this budget
comprises a strong request that is responsive to both the
national interest in science and science in the national
interest. In my oral testimony I will discuss the recent
discovery that you both mentioned that highlights the role of
the National Science Foundation and the rewards of fundamental
research.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in early February I participated
in the historic announcement of the first observation of
gravitational waves by NSF's Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or LIGO. This observation is a
sterling example of how and why NSF exists.
Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space
time, arriving at the Earth from cataclysmic events in the
distant universe. Although Albert Einstein predicted their
existence in 1916 their direct observation was a daunting,
seeming impossible task. Einstein himself thought so.
Nonetheless technological innovation combined with sound
theoretical underpinnings were so tantalizing that NSF began
funding research in this area in the 1970s. In the 1980s NSF
committed to a full-blown observatory with two widely separated
sites for positive confirmation of any detection. LIGO in fact
was the first of what we call the MREFC projects, or Major
Research Equipment Facilities Construction projects for NSF,
and it prompted highly productive discussions with Congress.
Even though NSF had never funded to that date anything on such
a scale, the potential for transformative science was worth it.
With the National Science Board's approval and Congress'
support, NSF built LIGO, one of the most precise scientific
instruments ever developed, able to monitor the Earth's
expansion and contraction to a tiny fraction of the width of
the nucleus of an atom. This is a feat comparable to measuring
the distance between our sun and the nearest star to about the
width of a human hair. The detection of a gravitational wave
was made a mere four days after turning on this advanced
instrument. That wave arose in the final fraction of a second
during a merger of two massive black holes approximately 1.3
billion years ago.
More than a thousand scientists worked in the LIGO
scientific collaboration at universities around the states and
in 14 other countries. I am pleased to add that nearly half of
those scientists are from institutions and states represented
by your subcommittee.
This discovery is truly a beginning, not an end. It
confirms a major prediction of Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity, marks the birth of gravitational wave astronomy, an
entirely new way of looking at the universe. This historic
achievement illustrates the importance of the National Science
Foundation and really exemplifies its role in advancing
discovery. The majesty of exploring our universe motivates such
ambitious experiments but as with all fundamental science it
also offers other benefits that are important to the nation.
For example, the science will advance education, inspiring
students and developing the work force our society requires. I
think that just as NASA's Moon shot enticed me and so many
others of my generation to become scientists, so too will the
LIGO result attract young people into science.
The fruits of NSF supported research drive our economy,
enhance our security, and ensure our global leadership. As you
know, basic research is uncertain and risky, but it can be
revolutionary. LIGO is a striking example, but not the only
one. Nobel Prizes that mark transformative discoveries, in
fact, have been awarded to 217 researchers funded by the
National Science Foundation. Fundamental research has
transformed our world and will continue to change it in ways
that we have not yet imagined.
Mr. Chairman, the budget request before you builds on the
Foundation's strong success as the place where discovery and
discoverers begin. Our 6.7 percent, or $500 million, increase
will place special emphasis on the early career researchers
needed to realize tomorrow's breakthroughs. With the fiscal
year 2017 request we will be able to fund nearly a thousand
early career faculty.
NSF always seeks ways to quicken the pace of discovery. Key
to this is enabling early investigators to sustain momentum
from their graduate training by investing in them early in
their faculty appointments. This strategy would be a
downpayment on sustaining our nation's long term
competitiveness.
NSF funds thousands of small steps, some more successful
than others. Einstein said, ``One should not pursue goals that
are easily achieved. One must develop an instinct for what one
can just barely achieve through one's greatest efforts.'' This
was also the advice I got as a graduate student, aim high for
understanding the really big stuff.
With your continued support NSF looks forward to making
further discoveries like the one I just discussed that advance
our understanding of the origin and evolution of our universe
and everything within it, including ourselves.
This concludes my testimony and I will be pleased to answer
any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE OBSERVATORY
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Cordova. The LIGO
gravitational-wave experiment that you just talked about, were
you able to tell the direction from which the wave came or
where the black hole merger occurred?
Dr. Cordova. Only very approximately because there are just
two facilities, the one in Hanford, Washington and the other in
Livingston, Louisiana. And so with just two we could describe a
very large arc on the sky where the source could come from. So
it excluded a large portion of the sky but it was not a small
enough positioning to be able to really say with any
definiteness where the source came from. So that is why we need
other observatories. And you might know that there is a
gravitational wave observatory that is coming online in Italy
towards the end of this year and there are others in the early
stages in Japan and even India has expressed a desire to be
involved. So the more that we have widely distributed around
the globe the more precise the positioning will be able to be
done. It is just triangulation, basically, and we need more.
Mr. Culberson. How do they work? And what was the U.S.
investment in the LIGO?
Dr. Cordova. The U.S. investment over all time and it has
been a long time, four decades, is about $1.1 billion. And we
have had contributions of approximately $400 million from the
14 other countries I mentioned. And that has paid for the
facilities themselves, so that is between $400 million and $500
million. And the rest has been to fund all the people involved
for that very long time.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. How does it work? And what are the
implications of the discovery for what we know about the
universe and how it works? Why is it important?
Dr. Cordova. Why is it important? We want to understand at
a very fundamental level the forces of nature and what was
responsible for the origin and evolution of the universe and
everything within it, including life itself. And we understand
very well some aspects of the forces that exist, like
electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force. We
understand gravity. But we do not have a unified theory of how
all these forces work together. And this has been a pursuit
that even Einstein thought about a lot, of how to unify gravity
with the quantum mechanics that was just being developed around
that time, around the 1920s and 1930s. And so there have been a
number of theories, including string theory, that have tried to
develop a unified theory that understands gravity and the other
forces and quantum mechanics all together as one coherent
theory to explain our universe. But that still is a mystery out
there, like so many other mysteries we have.
So what this gravitational wave detection does is it opens
a new way of observing the universe, namely the gravitational
wave spectrum, which we hope, because of the precision of
technology now in the new facilities I mentioned coming online,
and improvements in our own facilities because that is surely
coming as well, will become as well-developed as the
electromagnetic spectrum for observation. We think of x-rays
and gamma rays at the high frequency end of the electromagnetic
spectrum, and then optical and ultraviolet radiation in the
middle frequencies, the ones we are more sensitive to with our
eyes, and then the long wavelength low frequency
electromagnetic radiation like infrared and radio waves. So
that is a very well explored spectrum. And as you know, NASA
has pioneered it up in space above the atmosphere. But we have
not similarly been able to exploit the gravitational wave
spectrum because we just have not had to date the technology
that is required.
LIGO observes in a certain frequency regime, obviously one
that can detect giant colliding black holes and we hope also
supernova remnants. But gravitational observatories in space
and observatories like the South Pole telescope can observe
other parts that are at lower frequencies of the Gravitational-
Wave spectrum. And hopefully we can put together a coherent
picture of sources that we may not even know exist eventually
with more detectors.
Mr. Culberson. When were gamma rays and x-rays first
detected?
Dr. Cordova. They were detected really with the space
program, the advent of the space program. So actually----
Mr. Culberson. But x-rays were first seen over 100 years
ago.
Dr. Cordova. Well x-rays detected, yes, here with radium
and other elements that produce x-rays. But not x-rays from the
universe. That is what I thought you meant.
Mr. Culberson. Correct.
Dr. Cordova. But x-rays obviously, and Madame Curie, and
many others were involved, and Rontgen, and other scientists.
So that was way back a couple of hundred years ago.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Dr. Cordova. Absolutely. But it was not until we got
rockets----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. And then satellites above the
atmosphere we could detect them from----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, I just mentioned it because what an
extraordinarily exciting time to be alive when you can begin to
discuss here the concept of a gravitational wave spectrum.
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson. That is an extraordinary concept and very
exciting to be alive at this moment in history. And for us to
be able to help make sure this continues, that we continue to
expand the width of our ability to perceive and detect
gravitational waves. Now we are starting with obviously the
brightest and the biggest source of gravitational waves and it
is just an extraordinary discovery and we congratulate you. And
who knows, maybe with the work that we do in expanding
America's space program maybe we can eventually have a GRACE
type spacecraft using lasers and we can go to the outer solar
system and we can expand your gravitational wave detection
using lasers similar to the GRACE spacecraft measuring the
distance between the spacecraft here at Earth and then far out
in the solar system to measure the, did you say the width of an
atom?
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Is the detection capability of the LIGO?
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. And that is what enables you to see----
Dr. Cordova. Yes, of actually a proton, one ten-thousandth
the size of the width of a proton. Very, very sensitive, very
tiny deviation in the fabric of space time.
Mr. Culberson. The distance between these two observational
points deep within the Earth, I understand they are very deep
in the ground?
Dr. Cordova. No, these are not. We would like to invite the
committee to come and see the facility.
Mr. Culberson. I am thinking about the neutrinos. This is,
I am thinking about neutrinos.
Dr. Cordova. You are thinking about the neutrinos. But
these are above the ground facilities. The one in Japan is
going to be underground, but ours are not. You can visit them
and walk the length of the facilities, which is about four
kilometers, each arm is. There are beautiful facilities in
Louisiana. I have been to both facilities, and by the way, the
one in Louisiana has a tremendous education visitors center. So
the public can learn about what gravitational waves are and how
the interferometer works and it has many different hands-on
experiments for the public.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Mr. Honda.
DIRECTORATE-LEVEL FUNDING
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And maybe that is what
we need, take our subcommittee there on our next trip. And
thank you again for being here. My question is last year we
heard concerns from NSF, the National Science Board, and the
broad science and higher education communities about Congress
appropriating specific funding levels for each of the six NSF
research directorates. Could you speak a little about this type
of directorate level micromanaging and what impact does this
have on NSF's ability to set priorities and fund the best
science proposals? And then what would be lost if NSF had less
flexibility within the research and related activities account?
And lastly, how does NSF determine the funding levels for the
six science directorates within the R&D activities account?
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Mr. Honda. As you know, we very
much value the opportunity to have science set the priorities
for what we do. We think that is the healthiest way to ensure
discoveries at the frontiers have this input from the science
community. So let me start with how we set our priorities.
We have, as you know, a very vigorous science and
engineering community, which is very diverse. And they come
together in workshops and in decadal committees to help set
priorities. They come together under the aegis of the National
Academies of Science.
Mr. Honda. Excuse me. Decadal meaning every----
Dr. Cordova. Every ten years, yes. And they come together
through their scientific societies, through the academies, and
through our advisory committees, each directorate has such a
committee too. So we take all this input and so that is the
bottoms-up priority setting. And as you know, in some areas
they are very clear about what is of the highest priority for
making great advances for the next decade. And we generally
follow suit. We try to adapt our budget request to follow the
highest priorities in science.
Of course it is a very careful balancing act. We never
know, as your own remark said when you opened, Mr. Honda, you
never know where the next big discovery is going to come from.
We fund all of science and engineering so we try to have a very
balanced portfolio approach to what we fund and how we look at
these priorities set by all the different communities.
We put them together in a budget that is carefully reviewed
by our leadership of these different directorates and by their
advisory committees. And it is eventually judged by the
community themselves what that budget request is going to look
like. And we are hopeful that it is interdisciplinary enough to
allow the flexibility for discoveries to be made that are very
surprising. Sometimes we know what we are after, like detecting
a gravitational wave, and sometimes these discoveries are
amazing and we absolutely cannot predict where they come from.
So our major concerns regarding the designation of funding
amounts within the Research and Related Activities account,
which embraces the six directorates, are that it would
undermine the cooperation that we see across our organizational
units that is a defining characteristic of our current budget
development process. And it would jeopardize the agency's
flexibility to pursue promising emerging opportunities, and it
would minimize the value of input from the scientific community
through these different processes.
We think if we did have specific directorate level funding,
it would make the whole process very highly politicized and we
would lack a reliable mechanism for incorporating expert advice
into science and our legislators would be. Instead of the
science community coming together with proposals on what is of
the highest priority from all the different disciplines, they
would go directly to you and insist that their science was the
highest priority. And it would be a very unstable way of
funding science because when one committee is here and helping,
and then it changes over and we have new people in the
legislature, we could have ups and downs in funding that would
make it very unstable to have consistent funding for science.
So for all those reasons we think it is really not a good
idea and not supported by the science community to have
directorate-level specific funding by directorates.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being
here. I have got a series of kind of unrelated questions. The
first one is ATE. Can you maybe touch on the trend line with
ATE? The value of supporting community colleges and the
contribution they might provide? How that fits into the broader
basic research portfolio?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, Mr. Jolly. And hello, I am glad you are
here. The Advanced Technological Education program is a very
important way of embracing all the talent that is in our
community colleges and ensuring that they are part of enhancing
the STEM workforce. That is the short answer. We are just very
concerned that we want to be inclusive, that is the main thing
that NSF is concerned about. And to welcome all comers into
potential science and engineering careers. And to also become
science literate. There are a lot of opportunities in the
workforce that are not only being a professor in a university
that are extremely important in this highly technological
society.
So the ATE program, I believe our request is something like
$66 million for this year. It is just a very important part of
our portfolio.
Mr. Jolly. Is that fairly level funded? And I apologize for
asking.
Dr. Cordova. Yes. Yes, it is. I have the person, Joan
Ferrini-Mundy----
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Who is, yes, that is what I
remember. The actuals are in 2013 it was $63 million, and as I
said today it is $66 million. So I would consider that fairly
level funding.
Mr. Jolly. Sure. Very good. And thank you for your
commitment to that. You know, it is, quite often we hear about
the additional need not just for well educated tech supporters
to support perhaps the basic researchers, but also the
contribution they make in a lot of communities like mine to
advanced manufacturing and a manufacturing sector that is
coming to rely on more and more educated tech graduates, if you
will, that can support that. So ATE clearly contributes to it.
NEW MANDATORY FUNDING
Second question, again I am going to jump around a little
bit, the $400 million in new mandatory spending. Can you, and I
apologize if the chairman has addressed this, can you address
that request? You know, mandatory kind of jumps off the page--
--
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Jolly [continuing]. When you see it in a budget
request.
Dr. Cordova. Right. Well I would like to take a different
approach than the chairman took. And just to let you know, the
chairman basically said we were not likely to get mandatory
funding. But what the important thing is, if we were to get it,
what we would use it for.
Mr. Jolly. Is it creating stability? I mean, I know on the
investigator side one of the issues is always stability of
funding. But why mandatory?
Dr. Cordova. It is stability funding. Our funding success
rate, let us call it, the number of proposals that are
successful as a fraction of the folks that are proposing them,
has gone down in the last couple of decades from something like
40 percent to 20 percent overall. So that is a huge drop. And I
know part of it of course is increasing the numbers of
proposals, but that is after all what we are trying to do as a
country, namely, get people more involved in making
discoveries, discoveries that can lead to innovation. And so
regarding the $400 million, we found when we did analysis of
this statistic that it is actually the early investigators,
that is those within a dozen years of their Ph.D., who have the
lowest success rates. And that is for a variety of reasons.
They are early. They are first-timers. They may not know all
the ropes. It is a very vulnerable stage of their career----
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Because it is one where they
could make the Nobel Prize discovery; they have got young,
creative minds. And by not getting their proposal accepted,
they could go in another direction and we could lose them to
the science and engineering workforce. And so what we would do
is direct that $400 million towards increasing the success rate
of early investigators with a special emphasis on data-
intensive training. Because we believe that understanding data,
big data analysis and data science, is just so important to the
future of our country in all fields.
DIRECTORATE-LEVEL FUNDING
Mr. Jolly. And one last question. And I know you addressed
Mr. Honda's question about directorate specific funding. And
look, I do not think we need to bring politics into science.
And on my side of the aisle I am one that is happy to accept
science. But in a, kind of lay terms to ask the question, is
the concern over directorate specific funding because there is
political interests in the administration that are different
than those that might be in the Congress? Or is it because you
want the discretion to allocate funding where you think the
likelihood of the greatest breakthroughs are?
Do you understand the difference in that? For instance,
there are certain priorities of the President that might be
different than the Congress, and he has that prerogative to do
so. So is that what you are trying to protect? Those political
and policy priorities? Or is it protecting the discretion to
pursue certain breakthrough areas?
Dr. Cordova. It is the latter, for sure. You know, if you
just look at the levels of the funding for the different
disciplines you can see that there is enormous difference
between, say, math and physical sciences, which is at the high
end, and social and behavioral sciences, which is the low end.
Mr. Jolly. OK.
Dr. Cordova. With the science community and all of us
coming together and over time, there is priority. But the
priority is set by the potential for breakthrough and by the
needs of communities. I mean, one can argue that some do not
need big facilities, big telescopes, big ships and so forth.
Mr. Jolly. Sure. OK. Thank you, and I know my time is up. I
yield back.
Mr. Honda. Would the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, if he would
yield for a second just to clarify the reason for my question,
and it is a good one, because it is the pressure that
individual policy makers may face also from----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. The different communities, science
communities, come to us first or, you know, lobby us before we
move forward any issues on policy or funding. And if the
scientific community can get together and do that among
themselves rather than the industries, they can do it with the
scientists, or if they do it with us I think it is like putting
the cart before the horse. And it is an undue pressure I think
that we do not need to have until we hear from the science
community. That was the reason for my question. Thank you for
that question.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer.
WORKFORCE AND COMPETITIVENESS
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for being back
with us. I have got a couple of questions that are mostly
focused on issues around workforce and our competitiveness. And
the first gets at kind of broad issues around digital literacy.
I think increasingly the capacity of people who are entering
the workforce to use technology to solve problems by applying
basic digital skills and use of the internet is increasingly
important. And yet in 2013 the OECD conducted a study that
found that American young adults ranked near the bottom for
using digital skills to solve problems. And I am worried about
what that means in terms of our ongoing competitiveness. So I
wanted to get a sense from you of how you think we can improve
disparities around the use of digital literacy, around digital
literacy? And can you talk to me about how NSF approaches these
issues and whether NSF ever teams up with organizations like
the National Academy of Sciences to develop policy
recommendations and whether there would be an openness to doing
that regarding how to increase access to digital literacy and
curriculum and some of those broader issues?
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Sure.
Dr. Cordova. Well first of all, NSF definitely would agree
that digital literacy is very, very important. We do team up
with the National Academy. We do ask them to do many different
studies and we think this is a very important area. We would
welcome teaming with them.
We also, yesterday I met with the Secretary, Dr. King, of
Education and we talked about this very subject in the context
of a new program that we are funding together called Computer
Science for All. You may have heard of it. We are just rolling
it out. And Computer Science for All is about involving K
through 12 more in computer science. And this is just getting
going but we talked specifically about digital literacy and how
important it is for teachers, too, and maybe some extra teacher
training during summer months, should they wish, would also
help and how that could help with digital literacy in schools.
And then the last thing is NSF just announced a new program
called INCLUDES. Its goal is to increase the access to everyone
and specifically women and underrepresented minorities, lower
socioeconomic students, that do not presently have access to
STEM fields including computer science. And we just put out a
call. I sent a letter to every university chancellor, and
college president in the country, asking them for innovative
proposals of how to do this. How to reach out in broad
partnerships with the community and really move the needle on
participation in STEM. So I see opportunities for innovation,
including digital literacy, in that program as well.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that. And that is certainly an
important issue in my neck of the woods. I also along those
lines wanted to ask about workforce around addressing
cybersecurity. And I know the President recently outlined a
cybersecurity national action plan and a piece of that was
focused around cybersecurity workforce. The plan describes
efforts to improve cybersecurity education programs by
developing cybersecurity curriculum and expanding scholarship
programs. And I know that NSF already leads the Cyber Corps
scholarship program. So I wanted to get a sense of what role
the NSF is going to have in implementing the President's plan
and specifically given your relationship with some of the
higher education stakeholders do you see NSF as being able to
assist in both the development and roll out of a cybersecurity
curriculum and providing a link between stakeholders in
government and academia and industry?
Dr. Cordova. Yes. We think this is a very important program
and opportunity. I believe we have something like $20 million
extra in our request for the Cybersecurity Scholarships for
Service program. I think what we are going to be emphasizing is
how we can provide education and training for a reserve corps
of the folks that do get these scholarships so that they can be
called upon for service to agencies, others that need
cybersecurity specialists. So that is where our money is going
to go, to what kind of a program can we develop for a reserve.
And as far as working with universities, I have had a
number of university presidents in my office who have described
new curriculum. They are already on board. More recently the
President of Stanford, John Hennessy, was describing a new
curriculum at Stanford, but several others as well, that is
focused on cybersecurity for students. So I think the
combination of us providing scholarships with just the desire
on the part of students. We are experiencing, our advisory
committee to computer science tells me, a tidal wave of
students interested in computer science in general and
cybersecurity of course is a really important part of that.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DECADAL SURVEYS
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Kilmer. Dr.
Cordova, if I could I wanted to follow up on the, I have always
been a big fan of the decadal surveys when it comes to NASA.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. I have included language in our bill this
year to encourage NASA to follow the recommendations of the
decadal survey in each of the major survey areas and am
delighted to hear that you have got a similar process that I
look forward to learning more about. But if you could just
reiterate some of what you said to Mr. Jolly and describe for
us how is their decadal survey process at the National Science
Foundation? And how do they map out a blueprint for the decade
ahead for the type of research that you need to do?
Dr. Cordova. OK. So the----
Mr. Culberson. What did you mean when you said there was a
decadal survey?
Dr. Cordova. The decadal surveys are not for each agency.
Really they are subject matter surveys and they apply to all
the agencies that are engaged in funding that subject matter.
So if you take astronomy and astrophysics, so I am really
familiar with this one since I am an astrophysicist, and I
participated in past decadal surveys for that field.
So they would put on the table the priorities of the
community, independent of whether they could or should be
funded by NASA or NSF or NOAA, USGS.
Mr. Culberson. Sure, that makes sense.
Dr. Cordova. Then we look at those priorities, we say what
best matches what our specific mission and our facilities are?
So in astronomy and astrophysics the kind of rough way of
saying it is we mainly do stuff on the ground, whereas NASA is
mainly focused on space. There are collaborations, of course,
with both. And so in the most recent astronomy survey the LSST
was named as the number one priority in the decadal survey.
Mr. Culberson. Synoptic----
Dr. Cordova. That is the Large Survey Synoptic Telescope.
NSF is funding that one. It is a ground based telescope. It is
being constructed in Chile. And so that is an example. And
there would be other recommendations for NASA and so forth.
Mr. Culberson. Do you then meet with NASA officials and
decide who is going to take what piece? Or do you collaborate
with NASA, for example?
Dr. Cordova. No, NASA has other inputs as well that will be
focused on NASA missions and will be priorities specifically
for space. There are places where we are funding things
together. But they would be like NASA utilization: to support
its space missions they would be using some telescopes on the
ground.
I wanted to mention another example, which is the ocean
sciences decadal survey. That is a survey that we just got the
results from about a year ago January. And there were
recommendations for balancing infrastructure with PI science,
individual investigators and so on. And their recommendation
was that, because we had previously had on the table maybe
building three new research vessels, was to do two vessels so
we could lower the infrastructure and operating costs and focus
the rest of the budget on individual investigator science.
Mr. Culberson. Also produced by the National Academy?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, it was sponsored by the National Academy.
But when you say produced, we and other agencies fund the
National Academies to do studies. OK? So that is the way it
works.
Mr. Culberson. So then do you collaborate with NOAA, for
example, to decide what portion of the oceanographic decadal
that they will fund and follow versus the portions you----
Dr. Cordova. Well I do not know how NOAA does it. They will
have these decadal----
Mr. Culberson. You do not talk to them?
Dr. Cordova. We do. In fact we have a committee that we co-
chair, an infrastructure committee. It is called the
Interagency Working Group for Facilities and Infrastructure
that NSF and NOAA co-chair, I believe. And this sets out the
priorities for using all scientific inputs for the academic
research fleets, actually for the whole Federal research fleet.
And they produce a report every three years and I believe one
is almost ready for Congress. It is about to be released. And
so that will talk about specific things for NOAA, specific
items for NSF, and ONR, and so forth. But yes, there is a lot
of collaboration. It is just that we need to appreciate that we
have different missions.
Mr. Culberson. Correct. Of course.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. But there is no formal standardized
procedure to collaborate with either NOAA or NASA to decide
what portion of the decadal you are going to work on versus
NASA or NOAA?
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. It sounds like it is sort of an informal
process.
Dr. Cordova. It is very collaborative and these working
groups they have written a very elaborate report. So I think I
would call it formal----
Mr. Culberson. OK.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. In that sense.
Mr. Culberson. The reason I ask is I want also to avoid
directorate level funding.
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson. I think it is important that we not insert--
--
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Political agendas from either
end of the political spectrum, from any part of the political
spectrum, in the work that the scientific community does. But I
am very impressed with the work of the decadal survey that the
National Academies have done in their decadal surveys. And that
is why I included language in our 2016 bill to ensure that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, we gave them
direction to follow the decadal recommendations because of the
superb quality of the work. It is a blueprint for the next
decade.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. It allows us as members of Congress----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. To recognize what the
priorities are of the scientific community in their best
objective judgment and fund those priorities and make sure that
they are carried out. Because these discoveries, as the
gravitational wave discovery, has taken a couple of decades to
achieve.
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson. These are long term, very expensive, very
difficult achievements that we cannot always be sure----
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. When we make the investment at
the front end where it is going to wind up at the back end.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. And we do need to keep political judgment
out of the work that you do as much as possible. I mean, there
is a lot of concern on our side, for example, we do not want
for example the climate change work that is being done to be
driven by political agenda from either direction. We just want
the facts, as Joe Friday said, on Dragnet. We just want the
facts so we can make----
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. It is our job as policy makers
to make good decisions based on accurate, objective, factual
data. That is all we are looking for. So the decadal survey is
of keen interest to me and I am glad Mr. Jolly asked the
question. Because that was something I intended to pursue with
you separately and privately and I am glad he brought it up.
Because we need to have, I think, a decadal survey, or find a
way to have a decadal survey for the National Science
Foundation, as NASA has for the space program, so we can see as
policy makers what the next decade----
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What the needs are for the next
decade--
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What amount of money will be
necessary. Frankly I would love to also, I have been working
with Mr. Fattah and Mr. Honda, all the members of this
subcommittee, I really want to cut the Office of Management and
Budget out of the loop for NASA and the National Science
Foundation. I do not think the bean counters, the bureaucratic
bean counters at OMB should be substituting their judgment for
the work that you do or the work that NASA does. They ought to
be able to give us an accurate, honest assessment----
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Of what your needs are----
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And what the, you should be
able to tell us directly what your financial needs are so we
can fund those based on a blueprint from the National Academy
of Sciences in a decadal survey format so we can make an
honest, objective assessment of what the needs are and then
fund those and then get out of the way. And just the facts,
ma'am, as Joe Friday said. I am there. I am with you, 110
percent, and want us to get there.
So anyway, I did not mean to take so much time. I am going
to pass it to Mr. Fattah. But do be thinking about how do we
create a decadal survey type program? And if it is already
there, obviously for astrophysics, heliophysics----
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. The planetary sciences, you
know, terrestrial and outer planets, how do we divide that up,
then? How do we make sure that there is a formal process in
place where you are handling portions of those decadals that
already exist? What kind of decadal do we need to create for
the National Science Foundation in general for the hard
sciences, math, you know, the-- oh excuse me, I have got to go
back to Mr. Honda. Forgive me. But nevertheless, be thinking
about it. Because I really think it is important that we have
objective peer reviewed scientific recommendations for this
committee and the Congress that give us just the facts so we
can then make the policy decisions about what money is
necessary to be sure America preserves its leadership role in
space and scientific research. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Sergeant Friday.
Mr. Culberson. Sergeant? I like that. Sergeant Friday,
everyone.
Mr. Honda. I still remember Jack Webb.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND GEOSCIENCE FUNDING
Mr. Honda. Dr. Cordova, I think there is a lack of
understanding about what sort of research is funded by social
science directorate. Much of this research has an impact on
issues as broad as national security, responses to major
disasters, and strategies to save taxpayers money. And,
briefly, can you give us some examples of ways that social and
behavioral science funding is researching problems?
And let me hook up with the second part of my question.
Geoscience funding is important to the training of many
researchers in the academic field, I also understand that many
industries in areas as broad as energy exploration,
construction, and risk mitigation depend on NSF funded training
for their employees.
Can you tell us about the importance of geoscience funding
to the private sector? It is sort of a follow up on all this
discussion about the directorate, but I wanted to break out the
social and behavioral science and the earth science.
Dr. Cordova. Sure. Well, I think you all know that the
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate is the
smallest, lowest funded of our research directorates;
representing under five percent of the total of NSF's research
and related activities account.
But its significance, its importance, to all the other
fields belies that fact because we think that almost every area
of science is increasingly dependent on social sciences coming
into the picture to help make decisions, evaluations,
assessments, and optimization of very important decisions.
For example, in how technology is used. As technology
becomes more complex, it is increasingly important to have a
social science component. Not just how it is used, but why and
what kind of decisions have to be made. Also in public health,
including personalized medicine, there are social science
questions about how people are going to adapt to this, and what
kind of decisions people have to make.
There are questions in energy independence, questions in
cyber security--another committee had a hearing on this
recently and it was discussed that half of the problem in cyber
security is a social science problem--how systems are made more
secure, and we protect our privacy and all, depends on people.
And so understanding this, and how human beings behave in
context, is important to understanding how to make ourselves
more secure.
You asked for some examples. In social science I think
there is a famous example of auction of the wireless spectrum,
which is now a $60 billion industry, and the FCC has really
benefitted from algorithms that were developed by our social
scientists that are applied to the auctioning now.
Another area where social science has really helped us is
matching algorithms to support kidney and other organ
exchanges. Our social scientists have strategies for assigning
students to public schools in urban settings. Those are three
examples that are very important social science contributions.
And I think that, for me, it is very interesting that in
all of our new initiatives that we have put forward, whether it
is in risks and preparations for earthquakes and disasters, or
our food, water, energy, nexus programs, or understanding the
brain, that social science plays an enormous role together with
the other sciences in making progress in science in these
fields.
And the final example for social and behavioral sciences is
in measurement and data linkage and integration. The Department
of Defense has said, in its operation relevance document, that
the fusion of both hard and soft forms of data is critical. The
ability to fuse intelligence data with social media, mass
media, and behavioral survey data is critical to forming a more
comprehensive situational awareness.
For the geosciences, it could not be more important to
understand everything about our planet, including the oceans,
which is so important to our economy. It is important to our
understanding our climate, it is important to understanding
life itself because we suspect that the origins of life may be
in our oceans, and we study extremophiles, very unusual
organisms that live on the bottom of the ocean floor that can
tell us a lot about how life evolved.
We study, of course, geology, and rocks, and minerals, and
earthquakes. I mean, the planet comprises so much from the
bottoms of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere that just has
so many mysteries that we do not understand. And we have a big
emphasis, of course, on planetary science, NASA does as well,
but in order to understand other moons and planets we have to
understand our own planet a lot better. So for human viability
as well as our understanding of our solar system and planets
and beyond, we really need to understand the geosciences.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. [Audio malfunction in
hearing room.]
FOOD, ENERGY, AND WATER RESEARCH
Ms. Roby. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Cordova, for being here
today. My home state of Alabama, in the district that I
represent in particular, agriculture is the number one
industry. And so there is a pressing need to understand the
connectedness of food, and energy, and water, and of particular
interest is the production, resilience, safety and security of
food, energy, and water resources. And so I continue to make
the point that agriculture is a major part of our national
security.
Farmers, and those in the agriculture industry, must
provide not only the food for the nation, but the entire world.
And from the recent droughts and heavy rains throughout the
U.S. to global market fluctuations and the corresponding
impacts on water, our food production and the energy sector is
an example of these challenges.
And so in your budget request, you outline $62.18 million
for the innovations at the nexus of food, energy, and water
systems. And so I would love for you to explain to me how this
program, the first of its kind, will study the
interconnectedness of food, energy, and water, and how do you
plan to help educate and disseminate the results of your work?
Dr. Cordova. Thank you. Yes, it is a problem in many areas
of the country including Alabama, like the American Southwest
with its droughts and all, and in many places of the world.
So we started with our SEES program, which dealt with those
resources, food, water, and energy, separately and we learned
from those that you really have to--and that program is winding
down this year--we learned from that program--which has been
funded the last several years--that we really have to think of
food, water, and energy as a total system.
You know, of course, water can produce energy and it also
can consume energy, and food uses energy and water. We now
have, with our revolution and capability in computer sciences--
specifically data analysis and computer simulation--the ability
to put together a more holistic picture of how all these
quantities are dependent on each other and what kind of trade-
offs can be made.
So there will be basic research that is done under food,
energy, water, and understanding these connections better. And
there will also be a lot more attention to computer simulation
and modeling, and more attention to how one optimizes the
decisions one has to make. So let me give you a very specific
example to put some concreteness to it.
I was at a university where we funded a decision center,
and it is in a middle of an area that has a lot of water
shortage problems, has a nuclear power plant to boot, close by
which needs water for cooling, it is in a big agricultural
area, and it has to worry about both the aquifer as well as
ground water that comes from another state.
So it wants to produce food, it wants to use water for all
these different purposes. Every county in the state has
slightly different needs depending on whether it has a strong
aquifer that can last for some time, or it is getting water
from another state and having to pay for it. How do you put all
that together to make a model to optimize the decisions that
mayors and elected officials, county officials, have to make?
And so they have all come together. It is a partnership of
the whole state with the university leading it in order to do
computer modeling on when and what situations of drought or
more water, rainfall and all, one would be using one resource
versus another resource. That is just one example.
Ms. Roby. Sure. And then the second part of the question
is, how do you disseminate this information once you begin to
see the fruits of the research, and educate the very people
that you just alluded to?
Dr. Cordova. Right. Well, there are several ways to do
that. One is the scientists themselves are good at having
workshops, and I attended one in D.C. not more than a month ago
on food, energy, and water. And they have all these great
scientific proposals that they are asking NSF and others to
fund, and I think they will make a lot of progress.
And so then the next step in getting that information out
is to make sure that we do a good job of disseminating results.
And, frankly, you have hit on a very important point, Ms. Roby,
a lot of what we learn, we learn as scientists and we share it
with other scientists. But especially in this area, and also
risk and resilience where we are trying to have people be safer
when they have disasters and be more prepared and utilize those
results, is really going to depend on more communication.
So I am hopeful that we will, through all the social media
that is available to us, put a real emphasis on communicating
our results in very clear ways so that the public can use it.
In this field, you learn more all the time, the more research
you do. But the results we do have, and what we are learning
from it, need to be put out to the public more. So thank you
for underscoring that.
Ms. Roby. Absolutely. And, Mr. Chairman, that is certainly
our responsibility to continue to follow up with you as you do
reach some conclusions, and ensure that Alabama's farmers, and
those that utilize these resources, have the ability to benefit
from the research that you have done. So----
Dr. Cordova. Now the nation does have strong agriculture
schools, a lot of our universities do, and they are the best,
historically, from the old land grant concept, at getting out
words to farmers and all. This would be a very good avenue also
through their engagement with communities. And I know Alabama
does as well.
Ms. Roby. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Ms. Roby.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, again.
Dr. Cordova. Hello.
NEUROSCIENCE FUNDING
Mr. Fattah. I was at a hearing a few minutes before I
arrived here with my colleague from Alabama, where we had Dr.
Francis Collins in front of the Labor and Health Education
Committee, but it is a pleasure to again thank you for your
tremendous leadership as a public spirited scientist in leading
the most important basic science organization in the world.
I am interested in a couple of things. One is, I am
interested, first and foremost, of course, around my number one
priority, the work you are doing in terms of neuroscience. And
in particular not just what you propose in this year's budget,
but how the work that you are doing in partnership with the
national labs around the creation of what we have called a
National Brain Observatory, how that work is going on.
And then finally, I am interested in the efforts at the
agency to continue to engage women in the sciences through
making adjustments that have been done in terms of the grant
process so that we don't lose women to other activities in
their lives, like developing families and so on, but that we
keep them, even as they go through these various phases,
engaged in--the National Science Foundation, I think, has taken
a fairly revolutionary approach to this, and I want you maybe
to share a little with the committee on that.
Dr. Cordova. All right. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. So you
might know that NSF has doubled its investments in research on
the brain from $71 million to $147 million between the years
2012 to 2016. And we think that on a percentage basis, that is
very, very responsive when compared with others. Our current
roadmap for understanding the brain extends to fiscal year
2017, and we are going to spend much of this year assessing the
investments we have made to determine which ones yield the most
impactful science.
And this gets back to Ms. Roby's question too, indirectly,
at some point you have to evaluate and assess what you have
done, gather people around that understanding, and decide what
directions to go next. When I get to your women example and
inclusion of women, I will use that as another example, but let
me continue on the brain for a bit.
In fiscal year 2016, Congress added $3 million to our
request budget to fund this effort that you described. And NSF
has supported and attended several workshops to determine how
the neuroscience community would envision and benefit from a
collective approach. Through these activities, the six research
directorates--that is all of our directorates--released a Dear
Colleague Letter just recently in the last few days called a
Phased Approach for Developing a National Research
Infrastructure for Neuroscience. We will see what that call
brings out. And this articulates a vision for an effort that is
supported across all our disciplines.
So we have been successful in formulating a strategy, and
there is strong convergence for this vision. We are excited to
finish our analysis and let you know where we see the real
strength and new directions. As we go towards new programs on
the brain, we want to learn from what we have invested in the
past few years.
And on women. We have had a program for some time that is
called ADVANCE, which is specific funding to universities to
increase the progress of women through academic science
careers. It has been very, very successful. That is, women
starting out as assistant professors and how do you give them
the encouragement, the mentorship, the funding in order for
them to be successful as scientists, engineers, and then end up
as full professors and leaders. And we have many metrics we can
share with you that--how successful that has been.
I think, in my mind, the most successful part of that has
been insisting on institutional commitment, because once you
get the whole institution engaged from the very top--and I, as
president of Purdue University, was the PI on our ADVANCE
grant--that sends a big message to the whole university that
this is something that the leadership cares about.
So we translate that aspect of it to a new program that you
alluded to called INCLUDES. And we just put out the Dear
Colleague Letter on INCLUDES. Again, I sent a letter to all the
presidents and chancellors of universities asking them to be
the PIs to make this an institutional commitment, and its goal
is increasing the number of women and underrepresented
minorities, the disabled, all people who are not part of the
current statistics about who is in the science and engineering
workforce, through really innovative programs.
And the other thing that we have learned from past programs
we have done on broadening participation, is how important
partnerships are with the broader community. This cannot be
something that is done in one department of one college of one
university; it has to be something that is done in a regional
sense using what they call collective impact: the whole
community really cares about this and comes together, all the
way from K through 12, the community colleges definitely.
And some university presidents, Mr. Fattah, have a real
vision about how to embrace community college students in this.
Because some of our very brightest, but let's say financially
handicapped students, end up in community colleges because that
is where the resources are, and they are close to home, and so
we want to engage them in this. So you can see that I have some
passion around this and I am really hoping for some innovation
in this space to do things more differently than we have done
in the past.
Mr. Fattah. Well, I know that the whole committee wants to
work with you in this regard. Our country, in terms of
production of people with terminal degrees, would be at a
standstill except for the inclusion of women who are now
earning terminal degrees in a variety of disciplines, that
heretofore had not been the case. If we are going to compete
with big and populated nations like India and China, we cannot
leave people on the bench that need to be in the game. So thank
you very much.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Jolly.
DISASTER RESILIENCE RESEARCH
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Couple of quick
questions on the disaster resilience research you are doing, a
little bit of that portfolio. And I am particularly interested
that, if you can discuss it generally, but on the
infrastructure side if there are areas of pursuit that NSF is
pursuing or following?
Dr. Cordova. I would have to get back to you on that. I do
not know what, in detail, what kind of infrastructure. I know
that our engineering directorate is very involved in this
together with our geosciences directorate. And so part of this
is about identifying risk and part of it is how we can become
more resilient.
I know our computer sciences directorate is also very
involved and they are doing modeling on what we know and how to
improve our knowledge ahead of time for disasters. And our
social and behavioral sciences is telling us how people can
adapt their behaviors to impending disasters, or ones that have
already happened, in order to save lives. I know we fund drone-
like things to go into disaster areas.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Jolly. Sure, sure.
Dr. Cordova. But as far as other forms of infrastructure, I
just don't know what that would be.
Mr. Jolly. OK. If you could, and no rush.
Dr. Cordova. Sure.
Mr. Jolly. It is from within the portfolio, specifically in
the infrastructure area. And I know infrastructure a lot is
connected communities and IT and so forth. But my district, in
particular, it is one county, it is a peninsula, we are ground
zero for everything from flood insurance to other issues
related to being essentially at sea level.
And so much of what is debated regarding climate change,
and what is the appropriate response to that, ultimately that
response ends up resting on some very small municipalities and
local jurisdictions that have to address infrastructure issues
from underground and utilities to whether you use cement or
asphalt on the roads, to whatever those issues might be. So I
would be curious if, within the portfolio, there are advances,
or at least areas of pursuit, within what I would call hardened
infrastructure or actual infrastructure.
Dr. Cordova. Right. What I would surmise--and this goes
back to the Chairman's comments about cooperation with other
agencies, because this is certainly an area where a number of
agencies are engaged--is that we do the basic research on
understanding the phenomenon, and doing the modeling and the
simulation, and we would translate that understanding to
agencies that are more engaged in actually building things.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova. And so that's what I would----
Mr. Jolly. No, and I understand the role of basic insurance
and I understand modeling of extreme events, but as it
translates then into basic--or into applied and actual,
ultimately, products, that hardened infrastructure in a
community like ours. Those are areas of strong interest.
And, again, I use the asphalt/cement example because it was
a recent conversation I had about the cost benefit of roads and
infrastructures using cement as opposed to asphalt and the
ability to withstand certain environmental events, if you will,
what it means for infrastructure. And decisions that local
cities, counties, municipalities are able to make in the long
run. Ultimately, what you are doing on the basic side advances
their ability to make decisions years from now.
Dr. Cordova. And the evaluation of what kind of cement or
asphalt to use, right?
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova. And we do fund centers on optimization of
materials, on optimization of power and different power
supplies, and so forth. But we do not actually make the
things----
Mr. Jolly. Of course.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. And then others.
Mr. Jolly. Fully appreciate that. But to know that there is
basic science research in that field is, frankly, very
encouraging for a community that is coastal. And real quickly,
I know my time is almost up. If you could elaborate at all on
the two research vessels----
RESEARCH VESSELS
Dr. Cordova. Sure.
Mr. Jolly [continuing]. And the type of ocean research that
might support.
Dr. Cordova. Yes. Well, so I alluded earlier to an
interagency working group on facilities and infrastructure for
the ocean sciences. And we presently have something on the
order of 30, or 30 and a few, vessels that are in the academic
fleet, and that is not NSF alone, we just have a small portion
of that, but everybody, agencies, academic institutions, and so
on. That number is going to go down over the next decade or
two--two decades, to about 18 vessels, so about half. So we
start out about 35 and it is down to about 18.
The vessels that we have are very old and they are just
falling apart, and some of them are sold off for other uses,
and some of them are scrapped. And so this interagency group is
always looking ahead, in the planning sense that the Chairman
alluded to, with how do you plan for the next decade. What kind
of vessels do we really need?
So we have come up with these smaller research vessels,
which are very efficient, can do observations more quickly,
scientific observations, and are less costly than other bigger
ships that are not so nimble, and these will be able to do
many, many deployments out into the ocean, and many different
types of science.
We had a decadal review from the ocean sciences that said
that we should build two of these in order to replace a number
of research vessels. So that is in our 2017 budget is to get
started with those two research vessels. They are more near-
the-coastline-type vessels, and they will be deployed as needed
around our coastline, because there's only two of them.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Honda.
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND BIG DATA
Mr. Honda. Let me just say this has been really
interesting. I appreciate that. Dr. Cordova, advanced computing
has played an essential role in powering science and innovation
across disciplines and industries, and I commend the
administration for pushing advanced computing forward through
the national strategic computing initiative to ensure we have
the next generation tools, and ecosystem needed to continue
world leadership on this.
It is my understanding that the NSF plays a key role in
this initiative, researching new technologies, training future
developers and users, and supporting computing infrastructure
to enable groundbreaking discoveries across science and
engineering. What are your plans to ensure NSF continues to
fulfill these critical roles as the U.S. moves forward in the
next generation of advanced computing?
Dr. Cordova. Mr. Honda, we have a very vibrant computer and
computing and information science and engineering directorate,
and they have been supporting high performance computing and
its evolution, incorporating newer technology and newer ways of
handling software for a very long time.
We believe that--let me put it this way. When I look over
NSF and what are the really new things, new contributions, that
we can make to the nation, I think you hit on an area that is
at the core of everything that we do, and it is going to make
just a tremendous difference.
We already have, of course, with NSF Net, which followed
ARPANET, made a transformation in taking something that was
very localized for a specific group of people and making it
available nationwide. NSF was a seminal part of the whole
computer infrastructure revolution, and we have kept up with
that kind of profile by funding really powerful supercomputers
across the nation: Texas, like the one at UT Austin, Stampede,
and the Blue Waters at the University of Illinois, and Comet in
San Diego, all around the nation, Wyoming, and so forth, each
of which has a different capability, a different way of
functioning, and, therefore, different access by the scientific
community, depending on what their scientific question, what
their goal is.
And so these are very, very utilized--in fact, hard to keep
up with the demand on these--that the real feature of these is
that they incorporate the newest technology, the newest
software platforms. They are always evolving because we have
very, very smart people in the computer community that come
together constantly and have new ways of making operations much
more efficient. Presently under review are a couple of
supercomputers and how to refurbish them and go to the next
level. And so I think we are very much leading this field and
being led by scientists in this.
And one of the other really encouraging things to see is
that our facilities can be made better by advanced computing,
and we have brought together--again with the science
community's leadership--groups of people from very different
fields to talk about how we can have platforms that are more
common and that are shared in order to make our facilities,
like NEON, LSST, the solar observatory, all the big facilities
that we have, to make them function faster and more optimally
and have access for the community.
As you know, big data is just getting more and more
important, and it presents opportunities for discoveries in
itself, and so we are right on that frontier. We just funded a
half dozen big data centers across the country, and so that's
another approach besides building the computers themselves is
to have approaches to analyzing and extracting maximum
information from all the big data that is being generated, by
us and everybody else.
I think you can sense the excitement that we have for this.
It is a very exciting frontier, and I have really challenged
the computer directorate to come up with some big, bold ideas
for the next decade that will be transformative in the
architecture of the software that will be embraced to do big
data faster and to be on top of the very latest developments in
this. You know we can't use last century's architecture
anymore, we have to really look everywhere for the latest
developments.
Mr. Honda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FUNDING RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Dr. Cordova, I am aware that National Science Foundation,
under your leadership, has implemented new policies to clarify
that the abstract for an award must serve the public--as the
public justification for NSF funding by articulating how the
project serves the national interest and that NSF has also
issued a resolution in May 2015 that strongly endorses the
principle that all foundation funded research and education
must further the national interest by contributing to the
foundation's mission.
Could you explain to us what processes NSF has implemented
to ensure that all grants funded are in the national interest?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have done several things
in the past year and a half or so. But let me start with the
establishing language for the National Science Foundation,
which is our mission. And that is a mission by definition, as
we were established by Congress, to serve the national
interest; so the language says ``to promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; to secure the national defense and for other
purposes.'' So all NSF funded research and education must
further the national interest by contributing to that mission,
NSF's mission.
I have taken several steps to ensure that the national
interest permeates NSF and our peer review process to make it
more explicit. More than a year ago, I implemented a written
policy for NSF staff. So this would be in what is a manual that
our program officers use to ensure that every award includes,
``a non-technical description of the project, which explains
the project's significance and importance.'' This description
also serves as a public justification for NSF funding by
articulating how the project serves the national interest, as
stated by NSF's mission ``to promote the progress of science,''
and so on.
And in January, our public guidance was updated to conform
with the established policy by requiring that, ``an NSF award
abstract with its title is an NSF document that describes the
project, and justifies the expenditure of Federal funds, by
articulating how the project serves the national interest.'' So
those words ``serve the national interest,'' are both in the
policy for internal guidance to our program officers and in the
external guidance to the community. In fact, I released what we
call important notices to the community every so often, and one
called Number 137, was to all the presidents of universities
reminding them of just the language that I said.
In addition, we have made a number of changes. We are right
on top of how the titles should be written and we have done
statistics on how many titles have changed to make it clear
that they serve the national interest; and the abstracts too.
And let me give you just one statistic. This past year, our
review showed that the titles of 24 percent of our proposals
were changed in order to make them clearer, and many more, a
fraction-wise, of the abstracts because we now have a new rule
that an abstract has to have a non-technical paragraph as well
as a technical paragraph.
And the non-technical paragraph addresses the justification
that follows our solicitation requirements. I want to say, on
the solicitation requirements--because it is very, very
interesting with respect to the bill--that every solicitation
says that the proposal will be judged on intellectual merit, so
that is serving the progress of science--that is the scientific
argument--and that it will be justified on the basis of broader
impact. And we actually define in the solicitation what broader
impact means.
We have ten things listed under broader impact; eight of
those things are listed in the bill itself. So we are already
including, in our language for the solicitation, all of those
things in the bill, plus a couple more on education and the
STEM workforce that are not included in the bill, as a
justification. And so I think all those things, the guidance,
the policy, the changes, the cooperation of all the staff, and
the solicitation announcement itself, has all the elements that
are in the bill.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Honda.
SUBAWARDS
Mr. Honda. The NSF makes awards for large [indiscernible]
projects, and awards are numerous sub-awards to the communities
responsible for various parts of the project, and, the costs of
those sub-awards are often the most significant cost of the
project.
What is NSF doing to monitor such sub-awards to ensure that
Federal requirements are being followed that costs incurred are
reasonable, allowable, and allocable? And sub-awards typically
constitute a substantial portion of award costs, sometimes as
much as 80 percent, I understand. So when it conducts cost
audits, will NSF commit to examining the costs of both the
awardee and any of the sub-awardees?
Dr. Cordova. I can get back to you with more detail on the
specific sub-awards. I know for the overall awards that we are
about to do incurred costs audits and all.
Mr. Honda. I would appreciate that.
Dr. Cordova. But I would like to get back to you on the
specific sub-award question.
[The information follows:]
subawardee costs
NSF has not conducted its own incurred cost audits to date. The
NSF's Office of Inspector General (OIG) auditors along with audit
support from the Defense Contract Audit Agency have reviewed subawardee
expenditures during their audits of NSF prime awardees. A number of OIG
audit reports issued between FY2010 and FY2016 have included a review
of subawardee costs that has resulted in questioned subawardee costs.
As the NSF starts to procure its own incurred cost audits in the
future, NSF will develop a methodology to determine when subaward
incurred costs should be reviewed.
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Mr. Honda. Thank you. Science has become very--as you have
been explaining all this morning--have become very multi-
disciplinarian in nature, and I believe the NSF recognizes that
many of the proposal receives combine elements of multiple
scientific disciplines. And when Mr. Fattah was here, he talked
about neural research also, and it sort of reminded me that
that is part of the social sciences in terms of how people
think and they determine policies.
And I am just of diverging a little bit from my core, my
question, but it seems to me that when we look at these kinds
of things, and we look at our--the way we do studies, that it
is important that we have women involved because if it is
purely men, we tend to think in certain ways with certain
structures and certain biases, if you will, much of it is
learned.
And so having this diversity of thinkers and folks who are
present makes a big difference, I think, in the total outcome.
But in terms of the multiple scientific disciplines, can you
give the subcommittee a few examples, particular where
proposals combine elements of physical, chemical, biological,
and computer sciences with social behavioral sciences?
Dr. Cordova. Uh-huh. And you said very, very well, Mr.
Honda, the importance of diversity. Big business has stepped up
and said how important it is to our economic health to have a
diverse work force. And, as you know, industry is very
concerned about having more women in leadership positions,
specifically.
And certainly in science, it is just tremendously important
that we include the different approaches of people in order to
do very innovative and new things, and not just be doing what
we have been doing in the past.
So your question is about examples. We have--I mentioned
already our food, energy, water initiative, which includes many
directorates in it, and that has a big social science component
in it for-- and as Ms. Roby was saying, how do you assess what
you have learned? How do you get the information out? What do
people do with the information? And is that enough? Is that
enough to change things and to really optimize our use of these
very precious resources and how they are interdependent?
I mentioned our initiative on risk and resilience, and how
important it is to have social scientists assess--well, it is
great to know a tornado is coming, and even something about its
probable pathway and intensity, but if people do not know what
they should do, and when they should do it, and how to respond
afterwards, then lives can be lost. And many assessments have
shown that, in the case of disasters, new knowledge is not
necessarily saving lives, but it is new understanding of what
to do with that knowledge that can save lives.
We have programs I have not mentioned. Programs like our
BioMaPS program, which is an interdisciplinary opportunity
between our biological directorate and our math and physical
sciences--that is the MaPS part of it--to do projects in
synthetic biology to understand materials better, especially to
develop biologically inspired new materials, would be one
example.
And there--I think social science also has a role to play,
and I have seen it at universities, actually be a part of such
collaborations to assess how can technology be used to benefit
us rather than be used in ways that are potentially harmful.
And students now at some universities are being required to
take ethics courses so that they can help make those kind of
decisions.
As I said earlier, I think social sciences is permeating
the ways that we think about just about everything that is a
grand challenge that has to do with people. And so I expect
that it is going to become even more important to our portfolio
in the future than it is now.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
I will do one more set of questions and I believe we need
to wrap up. Mr. Honda has a commitment. And I do want to focus,
if I could, Dr. Cordova, on the National Ecological Observatory
Network. Last year, NSF identified an $80 million cost overrun
for the NEON project. And as a result, as required by the NSF,
NEON will de-scope the project, which includes decreasing the
number of sites from 106 to 82, and I know you have also
brought on new management.
If the network is not entirely built, why do you need $65
million additional funding for operations, especially if the
network is going to include nearly 25 percent fewer sites than
originally planned? And what steps has NSF taken to ensure the
program is, quite frankly, properly run, and that you have got
a greater degree of rigor in management, and to prevent cost
overruns?
Dr. Cordova. Uh-huh. Well, as you know, the whole process
of having opportunity for entities to propose for new
management was because we didn't think things were headed in
the right direction because of scheduling and cost overruns.
And there were, of course, potential schedule and especially
potential cost overruns. The schedule is related to cost, and
it looked like the schedule was getting out of hand.
And so we had a very intensive process, and we selected a
new management entity, Battelle. We have signed an initial
agreement, an initial award, to them that was just put into
place last Friday so they can assume management responsibility
for the project. There will be a 90-day transition period where
the final costs to construct and operate NEON will be
negotiated between Battelle and the National Science
Foundation.
And that has always been the plan--to get them on board as
soon as possible because, in their proposal, they have new
ideas about how to accelerate the scheduling and, thereby, it
may not cost as much. So it is just essential to get them going
as soon as possible, but we also have to give them the
opportunity to really understand the full cost.
As far as the science is concerned, when we realized last
spring/summer that we were facing a potential $80 million cost
overrun, we asked the advisory committee to the biology
directorate to stand up a task force, if you will, a
subcommittee, under their aegis, of top scientists. I mean,
these are National Academy standing scientists from around the
country to come together and to look at what was proposed
originally for NEON and what the budget constraints and all
were now, and that we did not want to have a cost overrun, and
considering that there was a de-scoping plan on the table,
could they assess the de-scoped plan and let us know whether
there was a lot of transformative science to be had with the
de-scoped plan.
And so they did that. They did that on an amazingly short
time scale, which just shows the power of the science community
to come together and to quickly do such an important
assessment. And they came back, and they said that absolutely
that they thought that great science could be achieved with the
proposed de-scoping from the number of sites that you
mentioned, but no more de-scoping because we do have to
preserve the original mission of NEON.
And so we think that by accelerating schedule and also--
just to go back to the discussion about computers, and Mr.
Honda's questions about how we were involving the best
computational capabilities--we think by revolutionizing the
computer approaches to this observatory as well, that we can
also realize some efficiency in gains.
And so, you know, time will out: we will find out how well
we have done, but we think that Battelle has produced an
exceptional proposal in every aspect, including involving the
science community. And we have very high hopes, and with our
very close involvement--and believe me, I have weekly meetings
with my senior staff on NEON--that this is an all-hands effort
to make sure that this problem is resolved in short order of
any potential overruns, and that this program delivers
incredible value to the public.
Mr. Culberson. So in addition to weekly meetings, what
other steps have you formally instituted to be sure that you
have got the proper oversight to ensure that Battelle is not--
you do not have the same problem you did before with the other
management?
Dr. Cordova. Yes. Yes, very good. So a number of changes
have been made in the project management at NSF. We have a new
program officer, and that person then reports to a project
leader who has all the certifications, is very, very competent
in project management. We have transferred the location of the
oversight of the project from the main office of biology to the
biological infrastructure division where it can be treated as
any other project and real project management can be assumed.
I have to say, our large facility office has been splendid
under the leadership of Matt Hawkins, and they have hired more
people who are certified to help not only with NEON, but with
all of our large facilities. We have not talked in this hearing
about the NAPA report. As you know, the National Academy of
Public Administration gave us a report of recommendations for
improving our oversight and management of large facilities, and
we have also had biweekly meetings on implementing that plan.
So we are going to, in some sense, adopt every
recommendation. Maybe not to the letter, some will be complex
and challenging, but we intend to--we have adopted their
recommendations as a whole. And those really apply to NEON as
well. So we have a lot of changes.
And the last thing I will say is that what I was most
concerned with is oversight up to the level of the Director. I
want to know what is going on. We are a de-centralized, for the
most part, institution. So you can think of a university where
the colleges have a lot of decentralization: we are a lot like
that.
Through this effort, we are trying to more centralize the
things that really affect the entire agency, like large
facilities. And so you will see at the end of the day, not
today, not tomorrow, but certainly in the next several months,
because we have groups working outside, external groups, doing
studies of what kind of oversight and internal management
structure is optimum, to make sure that everyone knows what
everyone else is doing, what's going on more broadly.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Dr. Cordova.
Do have one more question?
Mr. Honda. Just one last.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF RESEARCHERS
Mr. Honda. You mentioned NAPA and--thank you, Mr. Chairman
for the last opportunity. But very quickly, I have been reading
some articles for the past few months and there have been a
number of examples of women in science coming forward to bring
to life cases of sexual harassment by professors on women
researchers. And the three basic questions as to what is NSF
doing to combat such harassment in the research community?
Should the NSF give grants to researchers who have been found
guilty of sexual harassment? And can NSF do more to change this
kind of a culture? And I know it is a very sensitive question,
but I think it is a----
Dr. Cordova. A very important one.
Mr. Honda. It is a situation that needs to be discussed, I
think, publicly when we talk about everything else. We talk
about diversity and women's input, and things like that.
Dr. Cordova. Right.
Mr. Honda. I think that that reading, as sensitive as it
is, I would like to know what your response.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you for the discussion of this issue.
NSF and NASA have put out recent statements about sexual
harassment and how we view this, so that is on our website, and
we take a very strong position as does NASA. And we do say what
our expectations are, and then we say that in principle, if
universities--you know, we don't make individual grants, we
make the grant to the university and then they fund the
person--but that if universities do not take this seriously, we
have the option to withdraw their funding. So that is one step
we have done.
And another step is that in every case that where NSF is
the funder, that we are working, as we really always have,
through our office of diversity and inclusion, and with the
Department of Education, because they have a lot of
jurisdiction in this matter. And, by the way, I mentioned that
I talked with Secretary King yesterday, and this was an issue I
also brought up to him. And I think you are going to see more
interaction on this issue with Department of Education as well.
So we take these cases very seriously. As you know, there
are privacy laws that are involved, so we have to, you know, be
careful about what we say goes out there. But each case is
taken on its own merits, or demerits, and we are making
adjudications--as far as our role allows us--with the
Department of Education on what we can do to show how serious
we are to universities and other entities we fund.
And the last thing, I think this is very important, is that
the National Science and Technology Council has a committee on
science, which I cochair with Francis Collins at NIH and Jo
Handelsman at OSTP. And we, at our March 31st meeting of this
month, we will take this up as one of the main issues and I
will lead the discussion, so that everyone knows how seriously
we take this.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. I hope your policy is zero tolerance.
Dr. Cordova. Yes, of course. But I meant the role as far as
what kind of punishments would be meted out, that sort of
thing, but, of course, it is. And it has affected women
tremendously.
Mr. Culberson. It is terrific that you are focusing on this
and ensuring that everyone is treated with professionalism,
respect, and courtesy. Thank you very much for your service to
the country. We will have a series of questions we will submit
for the record. I ask you to respond to in writing, and with
greater specificity. But above all, we thank you for your
service. And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Bolden, Hon. Charles............................................. 124
Cordova, Hon. France............................................. 207
Elachi, Charles.................................................. 69
Lunine, Jonathan................................................. 76
Pritzker, Hon. Penny............................................. 1