[House Report 106-1052]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 614
106th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 106-1052
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
for the
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
JANUARY 2, 2001
January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-008 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York RALPH M. HALL, Texas
LAMAR SMITH, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
NICK SMITH, Michigan ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
DAVE WELDON, Florida DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois NICK LAMPSON, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
KEVIN BRADY, Texas MARK UDALL, Colorado
MERRILL COOK, Utah DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
Washington MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
GARY G. MILLER, California JOE BACA, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South
Carolina
JACK METCALF, Washington
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Committee History................................................ 1
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science.... 11
1.1--P.L. 106-34, Fastener Quality Act Amendments Act of 1999
(H.R. 1183)................................................ 11
1.2--P.L. 106-65, National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (S. 1059)................................. 11
1.3--P.L. 106-82, To provide for the conveyance of certain
property from the United States to Stanislaus County,
California (H.R. 356)...................................... 29
1.4--P.L. 106-178, Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (H.R.
1883)...................................................... 30
1.5--P.L. 106-181, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (H.R. 1000/H.R. 1551, Civil
Aviation Research and Development Authorization Act of
1999)...................................................... 31
1.6--P.L. 106-193, Methane Hydrate Research and Development
Act of 2000 (H.R. 1753/S. 330)............................. 32
1.7--P.L. 106-224, Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(H.R. 2559/Title I--Biomass Research and Development Act of
2000 in S. 935, National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals
Act of 1999, as passed by the Senate, became Title III of
H.R. 2559)................................................. 34
1.8--P.L. 106-391, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of FY 2000, FY 2001, and
FY 2002 (H.R. 1654)........................................ 35
1.9--P.L. 106-398, National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2001 (H.R. 4205)............................... 36
1.10--P.L. 106-404, Technology Transfer Commercialization Act
of 2000 (H.R. 209)......................................... 41
1.11--P.L. 106-405, Commercial Space Transportation
Competitiveness Act of 2000 (H.R. 2607).................... 41
1.12--P.L. 106-503, An Act to authorize appropriations for
the United States Fire Administration, and for carrying out
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, for fiscal
years 2001, 2002, and 2003, and for other purposes (H.R.
1550/H.R. 1184 S. 1639, Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 2000)................................. 42
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on
Science........................................................ 45
2.1--Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and
Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1552). 45
2.2--National Weather Service and Related Agencies
Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1553)...................... 46
2.3--Department of Energy Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1655)........ 48
2.4--Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy
Technology Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1656)........... 50
2.5--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of
1999 (H.R. 1742)........................................... 53
2.6--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and
Radiation Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1743)............ 56
2.7--National Institute of Standards and Technology
Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1744)...................... 58
2.8--Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Act (H.R. 2086)................................ 58
2.9--Small Business Innovation Research Program
Reauthorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 2392)/Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001, conference report H. Rept. 106-
1033 (H.R. 4577)/Small Business Reauthorization Act (H.R.
5667)/Certified Development Company Program Improvements
Act of 2000 (H.R. 2614).................................... 60
2.10--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 2413).. 62
2.11--Apollo Exploration Award Act of 2000 (H.R. 2572)....... 63
2.12--To prevent the elimination of certain reports (H.R.
3904)...................................................... 63
2.13--To ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate
mechanisms to independently assess the effectiveness of its
policy and site performance in the areas of safeguards and
security and cyber security (H.R. 3906).................... 64
2.14--National Science Education Act (H.R. 4271)............. 65
2.15--Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 4429) 65
2.16--To designate the museum operated by the Secretary of
Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the American Museum of
Science and Energy, and for other purposes (H.R. 4940)/
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (H.R. 4577).......... 66
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the
Committee on Science........................................... 69
3.1--H. Res. 267, Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with regard to Shuttle Mission STS-93,
commanded by Col. Eileen Collins, the first female space
shuttle commander.......................................... 69
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee
Legislative Activities......................................... 71
4.1--Committee on Science.................................... 71
4.1(a) January 20, 1999--The Year 2000 Problem: Status
Report on the Federal, State, Local, and Foreign
Governments............................................ 71
4.1(b) March 17, 1999--Why and How You Should Learn Math
and Science............................................ 73
4.1(c) April 28, 1999--K-12 Math and Science Education:
What Is Being Done To Improve It?...................... 75
4.1(d) May 20, 1999--Security at the Department of
Energy: Who's Protecting the Nation's Secrets?......... 77
4.1(e) June 10, 1999--K-12 Math and Science Education--
Finding, Training and Keeping Good Teachers............ 78
4.1(f) June 29, 1999--The Rudman Report on Security
Problems at the Department of Energy................... 80
4.1(g) August 4, 1999--K-12 Math and Science Education--
Testing and Licensing Teachers......................... 81
4.1(h) March 22, 2000--EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or
Open Debate............................................ 82
4.1(i) April 12, 2000--NASA's Mars Program After The
Young Report, Part 1................................... 84
4.1(j) May 17, 2000--A Plan To Renew Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education In Kindergarten
Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4271, National Science
Education Enhancement Act.............................. 85
4.1(k) June 13, 2000--Reviewing Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education in Kindergarten
Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4272, National Science
Education Enhancement Act.............................. 86
4.1(l) June 20, 2000--NASA's Mars Program After The Young
Report, Part II........................................ 88
4.1(m) July 19, 2000--Encouraging Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education in Kindergarten
Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4273, National Science
Education Incentive Act................................ 89
4.1(n) September 27, 2000--Computer Security Lapses:
Should FAA Be Grounded?................................ 90
4.1(o) October 4, 2000--Intolerance at EPA: Harming
People, Harming Science?............................... 91
4.2--Subcommittee on Basic Research.......................... 93
4.2(a) February 23, 1999--National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program Reauthorization...................... 93
4.2(b) March 16, 1999--Information Technology for the
21st Century........................................... 95
4.2(c) March 23, 1999--The United States Fire
Administration Authorization for Fiscal Years 2000 and
2001................................................... 97
4.2(d) March 24, 1999--H.R. 749, The Home Page Tax Repeal
Act.................................................... 99
4.2(e) April 28, 1999--National Science Foundation Fiscal
Year 2000 Budget Request............................... 100
4.2(f) June 9, 1999--The U.S. Antarctic Research Program. 100
4.2(g) June 16, 1999--Tonadoes: Understanding, Modeling
and Forecasting Supercell Storms....................... 101
4.2(h) June 22, 1999--Nanotechnology: The State of Nano-
Science and Its Prospects for the Next Decade.......... 103
4.2(i) July 14, 1999--H.R. 2086, Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Act.... 104
4.2(j) July 29, 1999--Attracting A New Generation to Math
and Science: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in
Education and H.R. 1265, Mathematics and Science
Proficiency Partnership Act of 1999.................... 106
4.2(k) August 3, 1999--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab
to the Field to the Market Part I...................... 108
4.2(l) September 22, 1999--Overcoming Barriers to
Utilization of Technology in the Classroom............. 109
4.2(m) September 28, 1999--The Impact of Basic Research
on Technological Innnovation and National Prosperity... 111
4.2(n) October 5, 1999--Plant Genome Science: From the
Lab to the Field to the Market, Part II................ 112
4.2(o) October 19, 1999--Plant Genome Science: From the
Lab to the Field to the Market, Part III............... 114
4.2(p) October 20, 1999--The Turkey, Taiwan and Mexico
Earthquakes: Lessons Learned........................... 115
4.2(q) October 26, 1999--Education Research: Is What We
Don't Know Hurting Our Children?....................... 117
4.2(r) February 16, 2000--National Science Foundation FY
2001 Budget Authorization Request, Part I: Research and
Related Activities And Major Research Equipment........ 118
4.2(s) February 29, 2000--National Science Foundation FY
2001 Budget Authorization Request, Part II: Education
and Human Resources.................................... 119
4.2(t) March 15, 2000--National Science Foundation FY
2001 Budget Authorization Request, Part III: A View
From Outside NSF....................................... 120
4.2(u) May 9, 2000--The Internet, Distance Learning and
the Future of the Research University.................. 122
4.2(v) July 27, 2000--The State of Ocean And Marine
Science 4.2(w) September 12, 2000--Beyond Silicon-Based
Computing: Quantum and Molecular Computing............. 124
4.2(w) September 12, 2000--Beyond Silicon-Based
Computing: Quantum and Molecular Computing............. 125
4.2(x) October 4, 2000--Benchmarking U.S. Science: What
Can It Tell Us?........................................ 127
4.3--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.................. 128
4.3(a) February 24, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning,
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps...................... 128
4.3(b) March 3, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy Offices of
Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and
Environmental Management............................... 130
4.3(c) March 10, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy;
and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 132
4.3(d) March 18, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency
Research and Development............................... 134
4.3(e) March 24, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy Results Act
Implementation......................................... 136
4.3(f) April 14, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change
Budget Authorization Request........................... 138
4.3(g) April 15, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning,
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps...................... 139
4.3(h) May 12, 1999--S. 330 and H.R. 1753, Methane
Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999........... 141
4.3(i) June 16, 1999--Tornadoes: Understanding, Modeling
and Forecasting Supercell Storms....................... 144
4.3(j) June 17, 1999--EPA's High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemical Testing Program............................... 146
4.3(k) July 13, 1999--Restructuring the Department of
Energy................................................. 147
4.3(l) July 21, 1999--Reducing Sulfur in Gasoline and
Diesel Fuel............................................ 148
4.3(m) July 22, 1999--External Regulation of DOE
Facilities: Pilot Project Results...................... 150
4.3(n) September 14, 1999--Reformulated Gasoline, Part I. 152
4.3(o) September 30, 1999--Reformulated Gasoline, Part II 153
4.3(p) October 5, 1999--Fuels for the Future............. 155
4.3(q) October 6, 1999--Is CO2 A Pollutant and Does EPA
Have the Power to Regulate It?......................... 156
4.3(r) October 21, 1999--Superfund RD&D.................. 158
4.3(s) October 28, 1999--H.R. 2819, Biomass Research and
Development Act of 1999 and H.R. 2827, National
Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999............ 160
4.3(t) March 1, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of
Science, Environment, Safety and Health, and
Environmental Management............................... 162
4.3(u) March 9, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Climate Change
Budget Authorization Request........................... 163
4.3(v) March 16, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy,
and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology............. 164
4.3(w) March 23, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology Budget.......................... 165
4.3(x) March 29, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration......................................... 166
4.3(y) April 6, 2000--The Human Genome Project........... 167
4.3(z) July 13, 2000--Strengthening Science At The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency--National Research
Council Findings....................................... 168
4.3(aa) July 18, 2000--Reexamining The Scientific Basis
For The Linear No-Threshold Model Of Low-Dose Radiation 169
4.3(bb) July 25, 2000--Nuclear Energy's Role: Improving
U.S. Energy Security and Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.............................................. 170
4.3(cc) July 27, 2000--The State of Ocean and Marine
Science................................................ 171
4.4--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics................... 172
4.4(a) February 11, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA
Authorization, Part I.................................. 172
4.4(b) February 24, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA
Authorization, Part II................................. 174
4.4(c) February 25, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA
Authorization, Part III................................ 175
4.4(d) March 3, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA
Authorization, Part IV................................. 177
4.4(e) March 11, 1999--Fiscal Year 2000 NASA
Authorization, Part V.................................. 178
4.4(f) March 24, 1999--Range Modernization, Part I....... 181
4.4(g) April 21, 1999--U.S. Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness, Part I................................ 182
4.4(h) May 12, 1999--Y2K In Orbit: Impact on Satellites
and the Global Positioning System...................... 184
4.4(i) June 10, 1999--U.S. Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness, Part II............................... 186
4.4(j) June 29, 1999--Range Modernization, Part II....... 188
4.4(k) July 13, 1999--H.R. 1883, Iran Nonproliferation
Act of 1999............................................ 190
4.4(l) September 23, 1999--Space Shuttle Safety.......... 191
4.4(m) September 29, 1999--NASA's X-33 Program........... 193
4.4(n) October 13, 1999--Commercial Spaceplanes.......... 194
4.4(o) October 21, 1999--Safety and Performance Upgrades
to NASA's Space Shuttle................................ 196
4.4(p) October 27, 1999--Space Transportation
Architecture Studies: The Future of Earth-to-Orbit
Spaceflight............................................ 198
4.4(q) February 16, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 NASA
Authorization: NASA Posture............................ 200
4.4(r) March 16, 2000--NASA FY 2001 Budget Request for
Human Spaceflight...................................... 201
4.4(s) March 22, 2000--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request:
Life and Microgravity Research......................... 202
4.4(t) April 11, 2000--NASA's FY 2001 Budget Request:
Aero-Space Technology Enterprise....................... 203
4.4(u) May 10, 2000--FY 2001 Budget Request: NASA's Earth
Science Program........................................ 203
4.4(v) May 24, 2000--U.S. Bilateral Space Launch Trade
Agreements............................................. 204
4.4(w) July 18, 2000--Financing Commercial Space Ventures 205
4.4(x) September 7, 2000--The Technical Feasibility Of
Space Solar Power...................................... 206
4.4(y) September 13, 2000--The State Of NASA's Space
Science Enterprise..................................... 207
4.4(z) September 28, 2000--Range Privatization: How Fast,
How Soon and How Much?................................. 207
4.5--Subcommittee on Technology.............................. 208
4.5(a) February 11, 1999--Review of the Fiscal Year 2000
Budget Request for the Technology Administration....... 208
4.5(b) February 23, 1999--The Impact of Y2K: Can the
Postal service still deliver? Review of the Fiscal Year
2000 Budget Request for the Technology Administration.. 211
4.5(c) February 25, 1999--Unscrewing the Fastener Quality
Act.................................................... 212
4.5(d) March 2, 1999--Year 2000 Problem at the Department
of Defense: How Prepared Is Our Nation's Security?..... 215
4.5(e) March 4, 1999--Funding Requirements for FAA
Research and Development............................... 217
4.5(f) March 9, 1999--The Impact of Litigation on Fixing
Y2K.................................................... 219
4.5(g) March 15, 1999--Will Transportation and FAA Be
Ready for the Year 2000?............................... 220
4.5(h) April 13, 1999--Are The Federal Government's
Critical Programs Ready For January 1, 2000?........... 221
4.5(i) April 15, 1999--The Melissa Virus: Inoculating Our
Information Technology From Emerging Threats........... 224
4.5(j) April 21, 1999--Genetics Testing in the New
Millennium: Advances, Standards and Implications....... 225
4.5(k) May 12, 1999--Y2K in Orbit: Impact on Satellites
and the Global Positioning System...................... 227
4.5(l) May 20, 1999--Easing Traffic Congestion and
Improving Vehicle Safety: ITS and Transportation
Technology Solutions for the 21st Century.............. 229
4.5(m) June 17, 1999--Federal Research and Small
Business: A Review of the Small Business Innovation
Research Program....................................... 230
4.5(n) June 24, 1999--Federal Agencies Under Attack: Why
Are Government Websites Vulnerable?.................... 231
4.5(o) July 1, 1999--H.R. 2086, Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Act of
1999: Resources for IT Research........................ 233
4.5(p) August 4, 1999--The Computer Security Impact of
Y2K: Expanded Risks or Fraud?.......................... 234
4.5(q) September 9, 1999--FAA And Y2K: Will Air Travel Be
Stopped Or Significantly Delayed On January 1st And
Beyond?................................................ 236
4.5(r) September 14, 1999--National Technical Information
Service: A Review of the Department of Commerce's Plan
to Close the Agency.................................... 237
4.5(s) September 15, 1999--The Year 2000 Computer
Problem: Implications for International Travel......... 239
4.5(t) September 22, 1999--Overcoming Barriers to the
Utilization of Technology in the Classroom............. 239
4.5(u) September 23, 1999--Small Manufacturing and the
Challenges of the New Millennium....................... 241
4.5(v) September 30, 1999--A Review of H.R. 2413, the
Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999.............. 242
4.5(w) October 6, 1999--State of the States: Will Y2K
Disrupt Essential Services?............................ 244
4.5(x) October 22, 1999--Y2K and Nuclear Power: Will
Reactors React Responsibly?............................ 246
4.5(y) October 27, 1999--Competing in the New Millennium:
Challenges Facing Small Biotechnology Firms............ 247
4.5(z) October 29, 1999--Y2K And Contingency And Day 1
Plans: If Computers Fail, What Will You Do?............ 249
4.5(aa) November 4, 1999--Y2K Myths and Realities........ 249
4.5(bb) January 27, 2000--The Year 2000 Computer Problem:
Did The World Overreact and What Did We Learn?......... 251
4.5(cc) March 1, 2000--R&D To Improve Aviation Safety And
Efficiency: A Review Of The FAA Fiscal Year 2001
Funding Request For R&D................................ 253
4.5(dd) March 9, 2000--Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request
For The Technology Administration/National Institute of
Standards And Technology Including Computer Security
And E-Commerce Initiatives............................. 254
4.5(ee) March 15, 2000--Standards Conformity And The
Federal Government: A Review Of Section 12 Of P.L. 104-
113.................................................... 256
4.5(ff) March 30, 2000--The Changing Face of Healthcare
In The Electronic Age.................................. 257
4.5(gg) April 13, 2000--Wireless Internet Technologies... 259
4.5(hh) May 10, 2000--The Love Bug Virus: Protecting
Lovesick Computers From Malicious Attack............... 260
4.5(ii) May 23, 2000--Technology Transfer Challenges And
Partnerships: A Review Of The Department Of Commerce's
Biennial Report on Technology Transfer................. 262
4.5(jj) June 22, 2000--E-Commerce: A Review Of Standards
And Technology To Support Interoperability............. 263
4.5(kk) July 13, 2000--A Review Of The Morella Commission
Report: Recommendations To Attract More Women and
Minorities into Science, Engineering And Technology.... 264
4.5(ll) September 13, 2000--The Role Of Technical
Standards In Today's Society and in the Future......... 266
4.5(mm) October 5, 2000--Rural Access To Technology:
Connecting the Last American Frontier.................. 267
APPENDIX
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2000...... 269
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science for FY 2001...... 294
List of Publications of the Committee on Science (106th Congress) 334
Union Calendar No. 614
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-1052
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
_______
January 2, 2001.--Committee to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
The Committee on Science has its roots in the intense
reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik on October 4, 1957.
Early in 1958 Speaker Sam Rayburn convened the House of
Representatives, and the first order of the day was a
resolution offered by Majority Leader John McCormack of
Massachusetts. It read, ``Resolved that there is hereby created
a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration . . .''
The Select Committee performed its tasks with both speed
and skill by writing the Space Act creating the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and chartering the
permanent House Committee on Science and Astronautics, now
known as the Committee on Science, with a jurisdiction
comprising both science and space.
The Science and Astronautics Committee became the first
standing committee to be established in the House of
Representatives since 1946. It was also the first time since
1892 that the House and Senate acted to create a standing
committee in an entirely new area.
The Committee officially began on January 3, 1959, and on
its 20th Anniversary the Honorable Charles Mosher said, the
committee ``was born of an extraordinary House-Senate joint
leadership initiative, a determination to maintain American
preeminence in science and technology, . . .''
The formal jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
Astronautics included outer space--both exploration and
control--astronautical research and development, scientific
research and development, science scholarships, and legislation
relating to scientific agencies, especially the National Bureau
of Standards, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Council and
the National Science Foundation.
The Committee retained this jurisdiction from 1959 until
the end of the 93rd Congress in 1974. While the Committee's
original emphasis in 1959 was almost exclusively astronautics,
over this 15-year period the emphasis and workload expanded to
encompass scientific research and development in general.
In 1974, a Select Committee on Committees, after extensive
study, recommended several changes to the organization of the
House in H. Res. 988, including expanding the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Science and Astronautics, and changing its
name to the Committee on Science and Technology.
Jurisdiction over energy, environmental, atmospheric, civil
aviation R&D, and the National Weather Service issues was added
to the general realm of scientific research and development.
In addition to these legislative functions, the Committee
on Science and Technology was assigned a ``special oversight''
function, giving it the exclusive responsibility among all
Congressional standing committees to review and study, on a
continuing basis, all laws, programs and government activities
involving Federal nonmilitary research and development.
In 1977, with the abolition of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, the committee was further assigned jurisdiction
over civilian nuclear research and development thereby rounding
out its jurisdiction for all civilian energy R&D.
A committee's jurisdiction gives it both a mandate and a
focus. It is, however, the committee's chairman that gives it a
unique character. The Committee on Science and Technology has
had the good fortune to have eight very talented and distinctly
different chairmen, each very creative in his own way in
directing the committee's activities.
Congressman Overton Brooks was the Science and Astronautics
Committee's first chairman, and was a tireless worker on the
committee's behalf for the two and one-half years he served as
chairman.
When Brooks convened the first meeting of the new committee
in January of 1959, committee Member Ken Hechler recalled,
``There was a sense of destiny, a tingle of realization that
every member was embarking on a voyage of discovery, to learn
about the unknown, to point powerful telescopes toward the
cosmos and unlock secrets of the universe, and to take part in
a great experiment.'' With that spirit the committee began its
work.
Brooks worked to develop closer ties between the Congress
and the scientific community. On February 2, 1959, opening the
first official hearing of the new committee Chairman Brooks
said, ``Although perhaps the principal focus of the hearings
for the next several days will be on astronautics, it is
important to recognize that this committee is concerned with
scientific research across the board.'' And so, from the
beginning, the committee was concerned with the scope of its
vision.
Overton Brooks died of a heart attack in September of 1961,
and the chairmanship of the committee was assumed by
Congressman George Miller of California.
Miller, a civil engineer, was unique among Members of
Congress who rarely come to the legislature with a technical or
scientific background. He had a deep interest in science, and
his influence was clearly apparent in the broadening of the
charter of the National Science Foundation and the
establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment. He
pioneered in building strong relationships with leaders of
science in other nations. This work developed the focus for a
new subcommittee established during his chairmanship, known as
the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development.
Just a few months before Miller became Chairman, President
John F. Kennedy announced to a joint session of Congress the
national commitment to land a man on the moon and return him
safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Thus, during
Miller's 11-year tenure as chairman, the committee directed its
main efforts toward the development of the space program.
Chairman Miller was not reelected in the election of 1972,
so in January of 1973, Olin E. Teague of Texas took over the
helm of the committee. Teague, a man of directness and
determination, was a highly decorated hero of the second World
War. He was a long-standing Member of Congress and Chairman of
the Veterans Committee before taking over the chairmanship of
the Science and Technology Committee.
Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, Teague chaired the
Science Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee, and in
that capacity firmly directed the efforts to send a man to the
moon.
As chairman of the committee, Teague placed heavy emphasis
on educating the Congress and the public on the practical value
of space. He also prodded NASA to focus on the industrial and
human applications of the space program.
One of Teague's first decisions as chairman was to set up a
subcommittee on energy. During his six-year leadership of the
committee, energy research and development became a major part
of the committee's responsibilities.
In 1976, Chairman Teague saw the fruition of three years of
intensive committee work to establish a permanent presence for
science in the White House. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy was established with a Director who would
also serve as the President's Science Advisor.
Throughout his leadership, he voiced constant concern that
the complicated technical issues the committee considered be
expressed in clear and simple terms so that Members of
Congress, as well as the general public, would understand the
issues.
After six years as Chairman, Teague retired from the
committee and the Congress due to serious health problems. He
was succeeded by Don Fuqua, a representative from northern
Florida.
Fuqua became Chairman on January 24, 1979, at the beginning
of the 96th Congress.
Don Fuqua came to the Congress after two terms in the
Florida State Legislature and was, at age 29, the youngest
Democrat in Congress when he was elected in 1962.
Fuqua's experience on the Committee dated back to the first
day of his Congressional service. Since 1963, he served as a
Member of the Committee's Manned Space Flight Subcommittee.
When Olin Teague became chairman of the full Committee in 1973,
Fuqua took Teague's place as chairman of the subcommittee.
As the subcommittee chairman he was responsible for major
development decisions on the Space Shuttle and the successful
Apollo-Soyuz link-up in space between American astronauts and
Soviet cosmonauts. Later, the subcommittee's responsibility was
expanded to cover all other NASA activities and was renamed the
Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.
As Chairman of the Committee, Fuqua's leadership could be
seen in the expansion of committee activities to include
technological innovation, science and math education, materials
policy, robotics, technical manpower, and nuclear waste
disposal. He worked to strengthen the committee's ties with the
scientific and technical communities to assure that the
committee was kept abreast of current developments, and could
better plan for the future.
During the 99th Congress, the Science and Technology
Committee, under Fuqua's chairmanship, carried out two
activities of special note.
The Committee initiated a study of the nation's science
policy encompassing the 40-year period between the end of the
second World War and the present. The intent was to identify
strengths and weaknesses in our nation's science network. At
the end of the 99th Congress, Chairman Fuqua issued a personal
compilation of essays and recommendations on American science
and science policy issues in the form of a Chairman's Report.
The second activity was a direct outgrowth of the Space
Shuttle ``Challenger'' accident of January 28, 1986. As part of
the committee's jurisdictional responsibility over all the NASA
programs and policies, a steering group of committee Members,
headed by Congressman Robert Roe, the ranking Majority Member,
conducted an intensive investigation of the Shuttle accident.
The committee's purpose and responsibility were not only the
specific concern for the safe and effective functioning of the
Space Shuttle program, but the larger objective of insuring
that NASA, as the nation's civilian space agency, maintain
organizational and programmatic excellence across the board.
Chairman Fuqua announced his retirement from the House of
Representatives at the termination of the 99th Congress. He
served 24 years on the Committee on Science and Technology and
8 years as its chairman.
Congressman Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, a long-time Member
of the Committee, became its new Chairman at the beginning of
the 100th Congress. Congressman Roe was trained as an engineer
and brought that broad knowledge and understanding to bear on
the Committee's issues from the first day of his tenure.
Congressman Roe's first official act as Chairman was to
request a change in the Committee's name from the Committee on
Science and Technology to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology. This change was designed not only to reflect the
Committee's broad space jurisdiction, but also to convey the
importance of space exploration and development to the Nation's
future.
In the 100th Congress, under Chairman Roe's stewardship,
the Committee kept close scrutiny over NASA's efforts to
redesign and reestablish the space shuttle program. The
successful launch of the Shuttle Discovery in September, 1988
marked America's return to space after 32 months without launch
capability.
The vulnerability of having the nation's launch capability
concentrated singularly in the Space Shuttle, and the rapid
increase of foreign competition in commercial space activities,
precipitated strong Committee action to help ensure the
competitive posture of the nation's emerging commercial launch
industry.
Chairman Roe's leadership to stabilize and direct the
nation's space program led to the Committee's first phase of
multi-year authorizations for research and development programs
with the advent of three year funding levels for the Space
Station.
Within the national movement to improve America's
technological competitiveness, Chairman Roe headed the
Committee's initiative to expand and redefine the mission of
the National Bureau of Standards * in order for it to aid
American industry in meeting global technological challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Now named the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) (P.L. 100-418, Title V, Part B, Subpart A, Sections 511 through
5163, enacted August 23, 1988)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Science Committee has a long tradition of alerting the
Congress and the Nation to new scientific and technological
opportunities that have the potential to create dramatic
economic or societal change. Among these have been recombinant
DNA research and supercomputer technology. In the 100th
Congress, Members of the Committee included the new
breakthroughs in superconductivity research in this category.
Several long-term efforts of the Committee came to fruition
during the 101st Congress. As the community of space-faring
nations expanded, and as space exploration and development
moved toward potential commercialization in some areas, the
need arose for legal certainty concerning intellectual property
rights in space. Legislation long advocated by the Science
Committee defining the ownership of inventions in outer space
became public law during this Congress.
Continuing the Committee's interest in long range energy
research programs for renewable and alternative energy sources,
a national hydrogen research and development program was
established to lead to economic production of hydrogen from
renewable resources and its use as an alternative fuel.
At the end of the 101st Congress, the House Democratic
Caucus voted Representative Roe Chairman of the Public Works
and Transportation Committee to fill the vacancy in that
Committee's Chairmanship.
The hallmark of Representative Roe's four-year tenure as
Chairman was his articulation of science, space, and technology
as the well-spring for generating the new wealth for America's
future economic growth and long-term security.
At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991,
Representative George E. Brown, Jr., of southern California
became the sixth Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee. Trained in industrial physics, Brown worked as a
civil engineer for many years before entering politics.
Elected to the Congress in 1962, Brown was a member of the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee since 1965. During his
more than two decade tenure on the Committee before becoming
its Chairman, he chaired subcommittees on the environment, on
research and technology, and on transportation and aviation
R&D.
Whether from his insightful leadership as a subcommittee
chairman or from the solitary summit of a futurist, Brown
brought a visionary perspective to the Committee's dialogue by
routinely presenting ideas far ahead of the mainstream agenda.
George Brown talked about conservation and renewable energy
sources, technology transfer, sustainable development,
environmental degradation, and an agency devoted to civilian
technology when there were few listeners and fewer converts. He
tenaciously stuck to these beliefs.
Consistent with his long-held conviction that the nation
needed a coherent technology policy, Brown's first action as
Chairman was to create a separate subcommittee for technology
and competitiveness issues. During his initial year as
Chairman, Brown developed an extensive technology initiative
which was endorsed by the House of Representatives in the final
days of the 102nd Congress. The work articulated Brown's
concept of a partnership between the public and private sectors
to improve the nation's competitiveness.
The culmination of the 102nd Congress saw Brown's
persistent efforts to redirect our national energy agenda come
to fruition. The first broad energy policy legislation enacted
in over a decade included a strong focus on conservation,
renewable energy sources, and the expanded use of non-petroleum
fuels, especially in motor vehicles.
In Brown's continuing concern to demonstrate the practical
application of advances in science and technology, he
instituted the first international video-conferenced meetings
in the U.S. Congress. In March of 1992, Members of the Science
Committee exchanged ideas on science and technology via
satellite with counterparts from the Commonwealth of
Independent States. This pilot program in the House of
Representatives resulted in a decision to establish permanent
in-house capacity for video-conferencing for the House.
As a final activity in the 102nd Congress, Brown issued a
Chairman's report on the federally funded research enterprise.
The work was intended to act as the starting point for a
comprehensive review and revision of federal science policy
currently in the planning stage.
The 1994 congressional elections turned over control of the
Congress to the Republican party. The House Republican
Conference acted to change official name of the Committee from
Science, Space, and Technology to the Committee on Science.
Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania became the Science Committee's
first Republican Chairman, and the seventh Committee chairman.
Walker had served on the Science Committee since his election
to Congress in 1976, and had been the Ranking Member since
1989.
Chairman Walker acted to streamline the subcommittee
structure from five to four subcommittees: Basic Research,
Energy and Environment, Space and Aeronautics, and Technology.
This action reflected the new Congress' mandate to increase
efficiency and cut expenses, and also reflected Walker's
personal desire to refocus the Committee's work. Due to the
reduction in the number of subcommittees and a sharper focus on
the issues, the number of hearings was reduced, while the
number of measures passed by the House and signed into law
increased.
Chairman Walker chose to use the Full Committee venue to
hold hearings exploring the role of science and technology in
the future. The first hearing, ``Is Today's Science Policy
Preparing Us for the Future?'' served as the basis for much of
the Committee's work during the 104th Congress.
For the first time in recent Science Committee history, the
Committee and House of Representatives passed authorizations
for every agency under the Committee's jurisdiction. To
preserve and enhance the core federal role of creating new
knowledge for the future, the Science Committee sought to
prioritize basic research policies. In order to do so, the
Committee took strong, unprecedented action by applying six
criteria to civilian R&D:
1. Federal R&D efforts should focus on long-term, non-
commercial R&D, leaving economic feasibility and
commercialization to the marketplace.
2. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused
to the agencies' missions.
3. Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-
house research to areas in which their technical expertise and
facilities have no peer and should contract out other research
to industry, private research foundations and universities.
4. The federal government should not fund research in areas
that are receiving, or should reasonably be expected to obtain,
funding from the private sector.
5. Revolutionary ideas and pioneering capabilities that
make possible the impossible should be pursued within
controlled, performance-based funding levels.
6. Federal R&D funding should not be carried out beyond
demonstration of technical feasibility. Significant additional
private investment should be required for economic feasibility,
commercial development, production and marketing.
The authorization bills produced by the Science Committee
reflected those standards, thereby protecting basic research
and emphasizing the importance of science as a national issue.
As an indication of the Science Committee's growing influence,
the recommendations and basic science programs were prioritized
accordingly.
During the 104th Congress, the Science Committee's
oversight efforts were focused on exploring ways to make
government more efficient; improve management of taxpayer
resources; expose waste, fraud and abuse, and give the United
States the technological edge into the 21st century.
The start of the 105th Congress brought a change in
leadership to the Committee. Congressman F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican representing the 9th District
of Wisconsin, became the eighth Chairman. Sensenbrenner had
been a member of the Committee on Science since 1981 and prior
to his appointment as Committee head, he served as Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership, the Committee on
Science worked in a bipartisan fashion to report out a
significant number of legislative initiatives focused on
advancing U.S. interests in research and development.
Throughout the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Science
Committee aggressively implemented the Government Performance
and Results Act (Results Act), legislation making federal
agencies accountable for the money they spend.
At the start of the 105th Congress, the Speaker of the
House charged the Committee on Science with the task of
developing a long-range science and technology policy. Chairman
Sensenbrenner appointed the Committee's Vice Chairman, Vernon
Ehlers, (R-MI) to lead a study of the current state of the
Nation's science and technology policy. The National Science
Policy Study, entitled ``Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New
National Science Policy'' was unveiled in September 1998 and
was endorsed by the Full House on Oct. 8, 1998, and serves as a
policy guide to the Committee, Congress and the scientific
community.
Chairman Sensenbrenner made oversight one of his top
priorities and as a result of the Committee's aggressive
agenda, Majority Leader Richard Armey recognized Chairman
Sensenbrenner for his outstanding oversight efforts with the
``Excellence in Programmatic Oversight Award''. The award is
presented to members who hold federal agencies and programs
accountable to American taxpayers.
The Science Committee played a crucial role in numerous
issues of national and international significance during
Chairman Sensenbrenner's tenure. Acting in accordance with the
Committee's jurisdiction over climate change issues, Chairman
Sensenbrenner was chosen by the Speaker of the House to lead
the U.S. delegation to the Kyoto (Dec. 97), Buenos Aires (Nov.
98), and The Hague (Nov. 2000) global warming conferences. As
any agreement would have to be ratified by the Senate and
implementing legislation approved by the House, the Science
Committee-led delegation provided important oversight of the
negotiations and guidance to the House leadership on global
warming negotiations. Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's
leadership, the Committee examined the science supporting the
Kyoto Protocol and the economic harm it could pose to the
Nation, as well as the science used to establish the regulatory
framework for ozone and air quality strategies.
Much of the world anxiously awaited midnight of January 1,
2000 to see if the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem would cause
the catastrophe that some had predicted. The Science Committee,
through the Subcommittee on Technology, Chaired by Constance
Morella (R-MD), held its first hearing on the Y2K problem in
1996 and held or participated in over 30 hearings on the
subject. The Committee's aggressive oversight pushed federal
agencies to meet their deadlines to ensure the safety and well
being of American citizens.
Over many years the Science Committee closely monitored
development of the International Space Station, and through its
efforts, and those of Chairman Sensenbrenner, forced the
Russian government to meet its obligations. In October of 2000,
a crew of American and Russian astronauts became the first
inhabitants of the space station. Chairman Sensenbrenner's main
concern with the space station was to ensure that cost and
schedule overruns were minimized. Through nine hearings on the
subject, the Chairman worked tirelessly on a bipartisan basis
to require the Administration and NASA to develop clear-cut
plans to deal with Russian non-performance and delays.
The Nation was also rocked by charges of espionage at one
of the country's premier national laboratories. The Department
of Energy lab at Los Alamos, NM was home to the government's
most prized and secret nuclear programs. Once it became
apparent that there was significant and credible evidence that
nuclear secrets had been stolen, Chairman Sensenbrenner began
investigating the implications these security breaches might
have on national security and the state of science at our
Nation's labs.
The Committee's oversight agenda also played a crucial role
in promoting sound science and fiscal responsibility throughout
the federal government. Chairman Sensenbrenner initiated an
investigation into allegations of intolerance and
discrimination at the Environmental Protection Agency and
introduced legislation to hold agencies accountable for such
actions. Sensenbrenner also shed light on severe cost and
schedule overruns at the Department of Energy's National
Ignition Facility. This project is expected to take six years
longer than planned at an extra cost to the taxpayers of $2
billion. Additionally, Chairman Sensenbrenner fought a proposed
tax on the Spallation Neutron Source facility by the State of
Tennessee. The Chairman's oversight of this issue saved Federal
taxpayer's tens of millions of dollars.
Aggressive oversight is only one part of the picture.
During Chairman Sensenbrenner's tenure, funding for civilian
federal R&D increased by 39%. Funding for the National Science
Foundation increased 23%, including its highest ever
appropriation in FY2001. The Science Committee also passed
legislation introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner through the
House to authorize nearly $7 billion for information technology
(IT) R&D throughout the federal government. Chairman
Sensenbrenner also successfully pushed for passage of a NASA
authorization bill--the first such authorization since 1992.
Chairman Sensenbrenner made cutting waste, fraud and abuse
in federal agencies a top priority. At the same time, funding
for Federal R&D steadily increased during his tenure. This
combination of fiscal responsibility and a steady, solid
investment in Federal R&D served to ensure a solid foundation
for the scientific community at the beginning of the new
millennium. The Science Committee is justifiably proud of these
accomplishments, and as it enters its sixth decade of existence
it looks forward to working with our Nation's research and
development communities to continue to promote sound science
policy.
Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
During the 106th Congress, 94 bills were referred to the
Committee on Science; 26 bills were reported or discharged by
the Committee; 21 of those measures passed the House; committee
interests were conferenced in 4 bills; and 12 measures were
enacted.
1.1--P.L. 106-34, FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999 (H.R.
1183)
Background and summary of legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1183 is to amend the Fastener Quality
Act of 1990 (FQA) to strengthen the protection against the sale
of mismarked, misrepresented, and counterfeit fasteners and to
eliminate unnecessary requirements, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1183 modifies the Fastener Quality Act of 1990 (FQA)
to recognize new quality practices in the fastener industry,
focuses on assuring public safety, and imposes the least
possible additional burdens on an already regulated industry.
To that end, H.R. 1183 fights fraud by clarifying that anyone
intentionally misrepresenting the strength or other
characteristics of a fastener is subject to the criminal
penalties and civil remedies of the Act; ensures accountability
by requiring that virtually all fasteners sold in commerce to
be marked with the registered trademark of their manufacturer;
reduces the burdensome paperwork requirements of the Act by
allowing documents to be stored and transmitted in electronic
format; and, recognizes industry's growing utilization of
improved quality assurance and management systems by allowing
fasteners manufactured in accordance with certain quality
assurance systems to be deemed in compliance with the
requirements of the Act. The automotive, aerospace and heavy
equipment manufacturers project the legislation will save over
$1 billion annually in unnecessary federal regulations.
Legislative history
On March 25, 1998, the Full Committee marked up H.R. 1183,
which was introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner. The legislation
was adopted, as amended, by a voice vote, and ordered reported
by a voice vote.
1.2--P.L. 106-65, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2000 (S. 1059) (SECTIONS 3141-3148, 3150, 3156, 3164, 3174, AND TITLE
XXXII OF S. 1059, PUBLIC LAW 106-65)
Background and summary of legislation
On July 1, 1999, the Speaker appointed Science Committee
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43), and
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Ranking Minority Member
Jerry F. Costello (IL-12) as additional conferees to S. 1059,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
for consideration of Sections 1049, 3151-53, and 3155-65 of the
Senate bill, and Sections 3167, 3170, 3184, 3188-90, and 3191
of the House amendment and modifications committed to
conference. These conference committee deliberations, contained
in H. Rept. 106-301 (Conference Report to accompany S. 1059),
resulted in the enactment of Sections 1062, 3141-3148, 3150,
3156, 3164, 3174, and Title XXXII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65),
which was signed into law by the President on October 5, 1999.
Descriptions of these provisions follow.
Section 1062--Assessment of electromagnetic spectrum
reallocation
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 1049) that
would require that any system licensed to operate on portions
of the frequency spectrum currently used by the Department of
Defense (DOD) be designed in such a way as to ensure that it
neither interferes with, nor receives interference from, the
military systems of the DOD that are operating in those bands.
The provision would further require that any costs associated
with the redesign of military systems for the purpose of moving
them from a frequency for use by another system, public or
private, be paid by the entity whose system or systems are
displacing the military system.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that authorizes the
surrender of frequencies where DOD currently has the primary
assignment, only if the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Commerce,
jointly certify to Congress that the surrender of such portions
of the spectrum will not degrade essential military capability.
Alternative frequencies, with the necessary comparable
technical characteristics, would have to be identified and made
available to the DOD, if necessary, to restore the essential
military capability that will be lost as a result of the
surrender of the original spectrum. Essential military
capability is that capability provided by the use or planned
use of that portion of the spectrum, as of the date of the
proposed allocation. In addition, the provision would require
that 8 MHz that were identified for auction in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 be reassigned to the Federal Government for
primary use by the DOD. The conferees urge the Secretary of
Defense to share such frequencies with state and local
government public safety radio services, to the extent that
such sharing will not result in harmful interference between
the DOD systems and the public safety systems proposed for
operation on those frequencies. This provision does not
otherwise change the requirement for the Federal Communications
Commission to auction the remaining frequencies that were
identified for reallocation pursuant to the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 or the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
The provision further provides for an interagency review,
assessment and report to Congress and the President on the
progress made in implementation of national spectrum planning,
the reallocation of Federal Government spectrum to non-Federal
use, and the implications of such reallocations to the affected
Federal agencies, which would include the effects of the
reallocation on critical military and intelligence
capabilities, civil space programs, and other Federal
Government systems used to protect public safety.
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Safeguards, Security, and
Counterintelligence
Section 3141--Short title
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3151) that
would cite the title of subtitle D as ``Safeguards, Security,
and Counterintelligence at Department of Energy Facilities.''
The House amendment contained a provision (Section 3181) that
would cite the title of subtitle F as ``The National Security
Information Protection Improvement Act.''
The House receded.
Section 3142--Commission on Safeguards, Security, and
Counterintelligence at Department of Energy facilities
The Senate bill included a provision (Section 3152) that
would repeal Sections 3161 and 3162(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), to
eliminate the requirement for the Department of Energy (DOE)
Security Management Board. The provision creates a permanent,
independent Commission on Safeguards, Security, and
Counterintelligence at DOE Facilities to assess the adequacy of
safeguards, security, and counterintelligence at such
facilities. The provision requires the Commission to assess
specifically the adequacy of: (1) safeguards, security, and
counterintelligence programs, plans, and budgets of each DOE
headquarters program element and each DOE field office; (2)
capabilities and skills within DOE Headquarters and field
organizations; and (3) all relevant DOE guidance, including DOE
Orders, Presidential Decision Directives, and the Design Threat
Basis document. The provision requires the Commission to make
recommendations regarding any changes in security or
counterintelligence policies and procedures necessary to
balance risk and capability in order to deter or react to
credible threats.
The provision requires the Commission to be composed of
nine members serving four-year, staggered terms. The provision
further requires that appointments be made not later than 60
days after enactment of the provision, as follows: two by the
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, in
consultation with the ranking member of that Committee; one by
the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate, in consultation with the Chairman of that Committee;
two by the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives, in consultation with the ranking
member of that Committee; one by the ranking member of the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, in
consultation with the Chairman of that Committee; one by the
Secretary of Defense; one by the DCI; and one by the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The provision
also requires that: (1) the chairman of the Commission be
designated from among the members of the Commission by the
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives; (2) the Commission
submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than
February 15 of each year, an annual activities, findings, and
recommendations report; and (3) the report include any
recommendations for legislative and administrative action.
The House amendment contained no similar provision, and the
House receded.
The conferees recommended that of the funds authorized to
be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2000 by Sections 3101 and 3103,
not more than $1.0 million be available to the Commission.
Section 3143--Background investigations of certain personnel at
Department of Energy facilities
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3153) that
would require the conduct of a full background investigation,
meeting the requirements of Section 145 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 of any DOE employee or any DOE contractor employee
whose duties or assignments are required to be carried out in
physical proximity to locations where Restricted Data or
Formerly Restricted Data may be located or who has regular
access to locations where Restricted Data is located. The
provision would require the Secretary to meet requirements of
this provision one year from the date of enactment of this
provision. The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that limits such
requirements to DOE and DOE contractor employees who work at a
nuclear weapons laboratory or a nuclear weapons production
facility.
The conferees understood that this requirement will result
in increased costs to the DOE. In order to address this need,
the conferees recommended an increase to the budget request for
security investigations, as discussed elsewhere in this Act.
Section 3144--Conduct of security clearances
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3163) that
would require that any background investigation on an
individual seeking a security clearance for access to
Restricted Data be conducted by the FBI. The provision would
require the Director of the FBI to comply with this requirement
within one year. The provision would further require the
Director to submit to the congressional defense committees, the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives a report on the implementation of this
provision, not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The House amendment contained no similar provision, and the
House receded with an amendment that limits the requirement to
those DOE employees and DOE contractor employees who work in a
program designated by the Secretary of Energy as special access
or personnel assurance and accountability programs. The
provision requires the Director, within 18 months of the date
of enactment of this Act, to comply with this requirement. The
provision also modifies the report requirement by requiring an
assessment of the capability of the FBI to carry out this
provision, an estimate of the additional resources that would
be required, and the extent that contractor personnel would be
utilized.
Section 3145--Protection of classified information during laboratory-
to-laboratory exchanges
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3164) that
would require the Secretary of Energy to ensure that all DOE
employees and DOE contractor employees who participate in
laboratory-to-laboratory cooperative activities are fully
trained in matters related to the protection of classified
information and potential espionage and counterintelligence
threats. The provision would further authorize the Secretary to
create a pool of counterintelligence experts to be available to
accompany DOE-sponsored delegations overseas with the purpose
of identifying and mitigating potential espionage threats.
The House amendment contained no similar provision, and the
House receded.
Section 3146--Restrictions on access to national laboratories by
foreign visitors from sensitive countries
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3156) that
would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any funds
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
the DOE by Section 3101 or 3103 of the Senate bill for
conducting a cooperative program (including studies and
planning) with the People's Republic of China, Nations of the
Former Soviet Union, or any nation designated as a sensitive
nation by the Secretary of State beginning on the date that is
45 days after the date of enactment of this provision and
continuing until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary
of Energy, the DCI, and the Director of the FBI individually
submit a certification that such programs: (1) are compliant
with DOE orders, regulations, and policies relating to
counterintelligence, safeguards and security, and personnel
assurance program matters; (2) are compliant with Presidential
Decision Directives and other regulations relating to
counterintelligence and safeguards and security matters; (3)
include adequate protections against inadvertent release of
Restricted Data, National Security Information, or any other
information that might harm the interests of the United States;
and (4) do not represent an undue risk to the national security
interests of the United States. The provision would require
that the certification be provided to the congressional defense
committees, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate,
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House
of Representatives. The prohibition would not apply to ongoing
activities carried out under title III of this Act relating to
cooperative threat reduction with states of the former Soviet
Union or to programs carried out pursuant to a provision noted
elsewhere in this Act for the materials protection control and
accounting program of the DOE, but would apply to the Nuclear
Cities Initiative and Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section
3190) that would require the Secretary of Energy to complete a
background review on any individual who is a citizen or agent
of a nation designated by the Secretary as sensitive before
such an individual would be permitted access to a DOE national
laboratory. The provision would prohibit any individual who is
a citizen or agent of a nation designated as sensitive by the
Secretary from entering a DOE national laboratory, beginning 30
days after the date of enactment of this Section and continuing
until 45 days after the date that the DOE Director of
Counterintelligence, with the concurrence of the Director of
the FBI, certifies that all appropriate measures are in place
to prevent espionage or intelligence gathering activities by a
sensitive nation. The provision would authorize the Secretary
to waive the prohibition on any individual if the Secretary
determines it is in the national security interests of the
United States. The prohibition would not apply to any
individual who is an employee or assignee as of the date of
enactment of this provision, who has undergone a background
review as required by this provision, or who is the
representative of a nation that has entered into an agreement
with the United States and the admittance of that nation to the
DOE laboratory is deemed by the Secretary to be in the
interests of the United States.
The Senate receded with an amendment that requires the
Secretary to complete a background review on any individual who
is a citizen or agent of a nation designated by the Secretary
as sensitive before such an individual would be permitted
access to a facility of a DOE national laboratory other than
areas where access is provided to the general public. The
amendment prohibits any individual who is a citizen or agent of
a nation designated as sensitive by the Secretary from entering
a DOE national laboratory other than areas accessible to the
general public, beginning 30 days after the date of enactment
of this Section and continuing until 45 days after the date
that the DOE Director of Counterintelligence, the Director of
the FBI, and the DCI individually submits a certification that
the foreign visitors program at the national laboratories: (1)
includes all appropriate measures to prevent espionage or
intelligence gathering activities by a sensitive nation; (2)
are compliant with DOE orders, regulations, and policies
relating to counterintelligence, safeguards and security, and
personnel assurance program matters; (3) are compliant with
Presidential Decision Directives and other regulations relating
to counterintelligence and safeguards and security matters; (4)
include adequate protections against inadvertent release of
Restricted Data, National Security Information, or any other
information that might harm the interests of the United States;
and (5) do not represent an undue risk to the national security
interests of the United States. The provision also authorizes
the Secretary to waive the prohibition on any individual or
delegation if the Secretary determines it is in the national
security interests of the United States to grant the waiver.
The prohibition does not apply to any individual who is an
employee or assignee of the DOE or a DOE contractor as of the
date of enactment of this provision and who has undergone a
background review as required by this provision. In addition,
the provision exempts from the moratorium activities relating
to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program or Materials
Protection Control and Accounting Program.
Section 3147--Department of Energy regulations relating to the
safeguarding and security of restricted data
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3155) that
would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a) by
inserting a new Section that would authorize the assessment of
civil penalties of not more than $100,000 per incidence for any
person who violates an applicable DOE rule, regulation, or
order related to safeguarding or securing Restricted Data. The
provision would further authorize the Secretary of Energy to
assess monetary penalties against DOE contractors for any
violation of a law, regulation, or DOE Order relating to the
protection of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section
3167) that would authorize identical penalties, but would
eliminate an exemption in current law which would otherwise
have prohibited assessing such penalties against certain non-
profit contractors conducting work on behalf of the DOE.
The Senate receded with an amendment that limits the amount
of any penalties that could be levied against the non-profit
contractors to not more than the total fee earned by such
contractors in a given fiscal year. The amendment would not
allow the assessment of any penalties against such non-profit
contractors until they entered into a new contractual agreement
with the DOE.
The conferees were concerned that lax management by both
the DOE and its management and operating contractors has led to
increased risks to U.S. national security. The conferees did
not view this action as a precedent for any future actions or
discussion that may occur in the coming deliberations on
extension of the Price-Anderson Act. The conferees believed
that protection of classified information and materials is
wholly within the control of such contractors and that all DOE
contractors, including non-profit entities, should be
accountable in this area.
Section 3148--Increased penalties for misuse of restricted data
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3157) that
would modify the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2274) by
doubling the penalties for release or misuse of Restricted
Data.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section
3189) that would increase by twenty times the penalties for
release of Restricted Data.
The Senate receded with an amendment that would increase by
five times the penalties for release of Restricted Data.
Section 3150--Notice to congressional committees of certain security
and counterintelligence failures within nuclear energy defense
programs
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3162) that
would require the Secretary of Energy, after consultation with
the DCI and the Director of the FBI, to notify the
congressional defense committees of each serious security or
counterintelligence failure at a DOE facility that the
Secretary considers likely to cause significant harm or damage
to the national security interests of the United States. The
provision would require the Secretary to submit such notice not
later than 30 days after learning of the failure. The provision
would also require the Senate and the House of Representatives
to establish procedures to protect any classified or law
enforcement information included in such notice.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (Section
3166) that would require the Secretary of Energy to notify the
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives whenever the Secretary has any knowledge that
classified information relating to military applications of
nuclear energy has been disclosed in an unauthorized manner to
a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The House receded with an amendment that requires the
Secretary, after consultation with the Director of CIA and the
Director of the FBI, to notify the Armed Services Committees of
the Senate and the House of Representatives of each security or
counterintelligence failure or compromise of classified
information at a DOE facility or a facility operated by a DOE
contractor that the Secretary considers likely to cause
significant harm or damage to the national security interests
of the United States. The provision requires the Secretary to
submit such notice not later than 30 days after learning of the
failure. The provision also requires the Senate and the House
of Representatives to establish procedures to protect any
classified or law enforcement information included in such
notice.
The conferees noted that the Armed Services Committees of
the Senate and the House of Representatives are the committees
of Congress with primary oversight of atomic energy defense
activities of the DOE. As such, the conferees believed it is
necessary that the two committees be kept fully informed of any
counterintelligence or security failure or a serious compromise
of classified information to a foreign power, either through
espionage or through willful or accidental release by a U.S.
citizen. This information is essential in order that the
committees can effectively carry out appropriate oversight
activities and determine if such a disclosure of classified
information caused significant damage to U.S. national security
interests. The conferees further noted that nothing in this
provision shall be construed to modify or supercede any other
requirement to report on intelligence-related issues to the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House or
Representatives.
Section 3156--Definition of restricted data
The Senate bill contained a provision (Section 3165) that
would define Restricted Data for the purposes of subtitle D of
the Senate bill. The House amendment contained no similar
provision, and the House receded.
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to Personnel
Section 3164--Whistleblower Protection Program
The Senate bill included a provision (Section 3160) that
would require the Secretary of Energy to establish a
whistleblower protection program to ensure that no DOE employee
or DOE contractor employee may be discharged, demoted, or
otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing
information relating to the protection of classified
information which the employee reasonably believes to provide
direct and specific evidence of a violation of any Federal law,
gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, abuse of
authority, or a false statement to Congress on a material fact.
The provision would protect such disclosures of information
only if they are made to a Federal entity designated by the
Secretary of Energy to receive such information, the FBI, the
Inspector General of the DOE, or a member of a committee of
Congress having primary responsibility for oversight of the
department, agency, element of the Federal Government to which
the information relates, an employee of a committee of Congress
having primary responsibility for oversight of the department,
agency, or element of the Federal Government to which the
information relates and who holds an appropriate security
clearance for access to the information.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that requires the
Secretary of Energy, acting through the Inspector General, to
provide assistance and guidance to each protected individual
who seeks to make a protected disclosure under this Section to
include: (1) identifying the persons or entities to which a
disclosure may be made; (2) advising individuals on the steps
to be taken to protect the security of the information to be
disclosed; (3) taking appropriate actions to protect the
identity of that individual throughout that disclosure; and (4)
taking appropriate actions to coordinate that disclosure with
any other Federal agency or agencies in which the information
originated. The provision also requires the Secretary to notify
individuals of their rights under this Section.
The provision further requires the DOE Office of Hearings
and Appeals to review any complaint submitted by a DOE employee
or DOE contractor employee who alleges that the employee has
been discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as
a reprisal for disclosing information relating to the
protection of classified information which the employee
reasonably believes to provide direct and specific evidence of
a violation of any Federal law, gross mismanagement, a gross
waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a false statement to
Congress on a material fact. The provision requires that the
information must have been disclosed pursuant to procedures
established by the DOE Inspector General to protect the
security of the information to be disclosed. The Office of
Hearings and Appeals would be required to investigate all such
complaints that are determined to be not frivolous. The
provision also requires the Office of Hearings and Appeals to
provide an annual report on all such investigations and a
summary of the results of such investigations to the
congressional defense committees. In addition, the provision
requires the Secretary to take remedial action when
appropriate, and it requires the Secretary to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees describing how the
program would be implemented.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 3174--Sense of Congress regarding technology transfer
coordination for Department of Energy national laboratories
The House amendment contained a provision (Section 3170)
that would require the Secretary of Energy to ensure for the
Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that: (1) technology
transfer policies in patenting, licensing, and
commercialization are consistent with other DOE sites; (2) the
contractor operating the laboratory make available to aggrieved
private-sector entities expedited alternative dispute
resolution procedures, including binding and non-binding
procedures, to resolve commercialization, license, or patent
disputes where the contractor is alleged to be at fault; (3)
the alternative dispute resolution procedure to be utilized in
any disputes be chosen jointly by the Secretary, the site
contractor, and the aggrieved party; (4) the contractor submit
an annual report to the Secretary regarding technology transfer
successes, current technology transfer disputes involving the
laboratory, and progress toward resolving such disputes; and
(5) training of laboratory personnel responsible for patenting,
licensing, and commercialization activities is adequate to
ensure such employees are knowledgeable of appropriate legal,
procedural, and ethical standards.
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate receded with an amendment that expresses a sense
of Congress that technology transfer policies in patenting,
licensing, and commercialization at DOE national laboratories
should be consistent and that training of laboratory personnel
responsible for patenting, licensing, and commercialization
activities be adequate to ensure such employees are
knowledgeable of appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical
standards.
TITLE XXXII--NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The House amendment contained a provision (Section 3165)
that would require the Secretary of Energy to assign to the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs direct
authority over, and responsibility for, the nuclear weapons
production facilities and national laboratories with respect to
strategic management, policy development and guidance, budget
guidance and formulation, resource requirements determinations
and allocations, administration of contracts, environmental
safety and health operations, integrated safety and management,
safeguard and security operations, and relations with
government agencies. The provision would also establish that
certain nuclear weapons production facilities, national
laboratories, and operations offices report directly to the
Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. The provision would
further allow the Assistant Secretary to delegate to such
operations offices a number of support functions, including
operational activities, program execution, personnel,
contracting and procurement, facility operations oversight, and
integration of production and research activities.
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate receded with an amendment that would
substantially reorganize the national security programs of the
DOE.
The conferees noted that the Select Committee on U.S.
National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
People's Republic of China (known as the Cox Committee)
concluded that Chinese espionage efforts had successfully
gathered sensitive information related to U.S. nuclear weapons
designs. The conferees further noted that the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), chaired by former
Senator Warren Rudman, after reviewing the security failures at
DOE, concluded that the root causes of the counterintelligence
failures pertained to poor organization and a failure of
accountability. The PFIAB noted that many previous efforts to
improve organization and accountability at DOE had failed, and
concluded that ``. . . the Department of Energy is a
dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of
reforming itself.''
To correct these systemic problems, the conferees agreed to
establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
a semi-autonomous agency within the DOE that would be
responsible for nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear
propulsion, defense nuclear nonproliferation, and fissile
material disposition; establish security, counterintelligence,
and intelligence offices; and prescribe personnel, budgeting,
and other management practices for the NNSA.
Section 3201--Short title
Section 3201 provides that this title may be cited as the
``National Nuclear Security Administration Act''.
Section 3202--Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of Department of
Energy
Section 3202 amends the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7132) to establish in the DOE an Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security appointed by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate. The Under Secretary--who is to have an extensive
background in national security, organizational management, and
appropriate technical fields; and be well qualified to manage
the nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and materials
disposition programs of the NNSA in a manner that advances and
protects the U.S. national security--serves as the
Administrator for Nuclear Security under the NNSA Act. As
Administrator, the Under Secretary is subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Energy. Such
authority, direction, and control can only be delegated to the
Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Section 3203--Establishment of policy for National Nuclear Security
Administration
Section 3203 provides that the Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security, shall be
responsible for establishing policy for the NNSA. The Secretary
may direct DOE officials who are not within the NNSA to review
programs and activities of the Administration and to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding administration of
those programs.
Section 3204--Organization of Department of Energy counter-intelligence
and intelligence programs and activities
Section 3204 amends the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7101) to specify that the Secretary of Energy shall be
responsible for developing, and promulgating the security,
counterintelligence, and intelligence policies of the DOE. This
provision also establishes the DOE Offices of
Counterintelligence and Intelligence.
The Director of the DOE Office of Counterintelligence is to
be a member of the Senior Executive Service and is responsible
for establishing policy for counterintelligence programs and
activities at DOE facilities in order to reduce the threat of
disclosure of classified and other sensitive information at the
facilities. The provision also requires the Director of the
Office of Counterintelligence to report on the status and the
effectiveness of the counterintelligence programs at facilities
of the DOE during the preceding year. In addition, the Director
of each DOE National Laboratory must certify in writing to the
Director of the Office of Counterintelligence whether that
Laboratory is in full compliance with all DOE security
requirements and, if not, what measures are being taken to
bring that Laboratory into compliance and a schedule for
implementing those measures.
The Director of the DOE Office of Intelligence is to be a
member of the Senior Executive Service and is responsible for
the programs and activities of the DOE relating to the analysis
of intelligence with respect to nuclear weapons and materials
and energy security.
Subtitle A--Establishment and Organization
Section 3211--Establishment and mission
Section 3211 establishes within the DOE a separately
organized agency known as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). The NNSA's mission is to: (1) Enhance
U.S. national security through the military application of
nuclear energy; (2) maintain and enhance the safety,
reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test,
in order to meet national security requirements; (3) provide
the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear
propulsion plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation
of those plants; (4) promote international nuclear safety and
nonproliferation; (5) reduce global danger from weapons of mass
destruction; and (6) support U.S. leadership in science and
technology.
This provision also requires that the Administrator ensure
that all operations and activities of the Administration are
consistent with the principles of environmental protection and
the safety and health of the public and the Administration's
workforce.
Section 3212--Administrator for Nuclear Security
Section 3212 establishes the Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security as the Administrator for the NNSA. The Administrator
has authority over and is responsible for all programs and
activities of the Administration, except for the functions of
the Office of Naval Reactors as specified in Executive Order
12344, including the following: (1) Strategic management; (2)
policy development and guidance; (3) budget formulation,
guidance, and execution, and other financial matters; (4)
resource requirements determination and allocation; (5) program
management and direction; (6) safeguards and security; (7)
emergency management; (8) integrated safety management; (9)
environment, safety, and health operations; (10) administration
of contracts, including the management and operations of the
nuclear weapons production facilities and the national security
laboratories; (11) intelligence; (12) counterintelligence; (13)
personnel, including the selection, appointment, distribution,
supervision, establishing of compensation, and separation of
personnel in accordance with subtitle C of this title; (14)
procurement of services of experts and consultants in
accordance with Section 3109 of title 5, U.S. Code; (15) legal
matters; (16) legislative affairs; (17) public affairs; and
(18) liaison with other elements of the DOE and with other
Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, and the
public. The Administrator may establish Administration-specific
policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary.
Section 3213--Status of administration and contractor personnel within
the Department of Energy
Section 3213 makes each officer or employee of the
Administration, in carrying out the functions of the
Administration, subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the Administrator, the Secretary of Energy acting
through the Administrator, or the Administrator's designee
within the Administration. Officers or employees of the
Administration are not responsible to, or subject to the
authority, direction, or control of any other officer, agent,
or employee of the DOE. The provision also stipulates that each
officer or employee of a contractor of the Administration is
not responsible to, or subject to the authority, direction, or
control of any other officer, agent, or employee of the DOE who
is not an employee of the Administration, with the exception of
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Section 3214--Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs
Section 3214 establishes the position of Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs within the NNSA, subject to
appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. The provision makes the Deputy Administrator
responsible for maintaining and enhancing the safety,
reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile. The head of each national security laboratory and
nuclear weapons production facility must report to the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs, consistent with applicable
contractual obligations.
Section 3215--Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Section 3215 establishes the position of Deputy
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation within the
NNSA subject to appointment by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate. The provision makes the Deputy
Administrator responsible for preventing the spread of
materials, technology, and expertise relating to weapons of
mass destruction; and for eliminating inventories of surplus
fissile material.
Section 3216--Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors
Section 3216 establishes the position of Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors. The director of the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program, provided for under the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Executive Order, shall serve as the Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors. The provision assigns to the
Deputy Administrator the responsibilities, authorities, and
accountability for all functions of the Office of Naval
Reactors.
Section 3217--General Counsel
Section 3217 establishes a General Counsel for the
Administration.
Section 3218--Staff of Administration
Section 3218 requires the Administrator to maintain within
the Administration sufficient staff to assist him or her in
carrying out the duties of that position. The Administrator is
to assign to the staff responsibility for the functions of
personnel, legislative affairs, public affairs, and liaison
with other elements of the DOE, other Federal agencies, and the
public.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Security
Section 3231--Protection of national security information
Section 3231 requires the Administrator, subject to the
approval of the Secretary of Energy, to establish policies and
procedures to ensure maximum protection to classified
information in the possession of the Administration. The
Administrator must establish procedures requiring personnel of
the Administration to report to the Administrator on
significant violations of law or executive order relating to
the management of classified information.
Section 3232--Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence and an
Office of Defense Nuclear Security
Section 3232 establishes an Office of Defense Nuclear
Counterintelligence and an Office of Defense Nuclear Security
within the NNSA. The Offices is to be headed by a Chief of
Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence and a Chief of Defense
Nuclear Security.
The Chief of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence is to
report to the Administrator and is to implement
counterintelligence policies directed by the Secretary and the
Administrator. This Chief is to develop programs for the
Administration to prevent the disclosure of classified or
sensitive information, and is to develop and administer
personnel assurance programs within the Administration.
The Chief of Defense Nuclear Security reports to the
Administrator and implements security policies directed by the
Secretary and the Administrator. This Chief is responsible for
the development and implementation of security programs for the
Administration including the protection, control, and
accounting of nuclear materials and the physical security and
cybersecurity for all facilities of the Administration.
Section 3233--Counterintelligence programs
Section 3233 requires the Administrator to establish and
maintain a counterintelligence program at each laboratory or
production facility. The Administrator is required to assign an
employee of the Office of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence
to each facility at which Restricted Data is located, other
than a laboratory or a production facility. This employee is to
assess counterintelligence and security matters at the
facility.
Section 3234--Procedures relating to access by individuals to
classified areas and information of Administration
Section 3234 requires the Administrator to establish
procedures to ensure that individuals are not permitted
unescorted access to any classified area, or access to
classified information, of the Administration until security
clearances are verified.
Section 3235--Government access to information of Administration
computers
Section 3235 requires the Administrator to establish
procedures to govern access to all information on
Administration computers. These procedures provide that any
individual who has access to information on an Administration
computer be required, as a condition of such access, to provide
to the Administrator written consent permitting access by an
authorized investigative agency to any Administration computer.
In addition, the provision stipulates that, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no user of an Administration computer
shall have any expectation of privacy in the use of that
computer.
Section 3236--Congressional oversight of special access programs
Section 3236 requires the Administrator to submit an annual
report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the
Administration's special access programs. Each annual report
shall contain budgetary information for special access programs
and a brief discussion of each program. This provision also
required an annual report on the new special access programs
with a justification for designating the program as special
access, and an identification of existing programs or
technologies that are similar to the subject of the new special
access program. A new special access program is not allowed to
begin until 30 days after House and Senate Committees on Armed
Services have been notified that a new special access program
is about to be initiated. The provision also requires a report
to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 14 days before
any special access program is declassified.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Personnel
Section 3241--Authority to establish certain scientific, engineering,
and technical positions
Section 3241 provides the NNSA Administrator authority to
establish up to 300 scientific, engineering, and technical
positions, hire qualified personnel to fill those positions,
and set appropriate compensation levels.
Section 3242--Voluntary early retirement authority
Section 3242 provides the Secretary of Energy temporary
authority to offer voluntary early retirement to not more than
600 DOE employees affected by the establishment of the NNSA.
Section 3243--Severance pay
Section 3243 provides the Secretary of Energy authority to
pay severance pay in one lump sum to those DOE employees
entitled to severance pay as a result of the establishment of
the NNSA.
Section 3244--Combined coverage of health care benefits
Section 3244 provides the Secretary of Energy authority to
continue to pay the government's share of health insurance
premiums to those DOE employees who are involuntarily separated
as a result of the establishment of the NNSA.
Subtitle D--Budget and Financial Management
Section 3251--Separate treatment on budget
Section 3251 requires the President to submit the NNSA
budget separately within the amounts requested for the DOE. The
Section also requires that the budget justification materials
submitted to Congress in support of the budget be specified in
individual program elements.
Section 3252--Planning, programming, and budgeting
Section 3252 requires the Administrator to establish a
sound planning, programming, and budgeting process for the
activities of the Administration using funds that are available
for obligation for a limited number of years.
Section 3253--Future-years nuclear security program
Section 3253 requires the Administrator to submit a future-
year nuclear security program containing the estimated
expenditures necessary to support the programs, projects, and
activities of the Administration for a five-year period and the
anticipated workload requirements for each Administration site
during the period of the plan. It also requires that the
Administrator submit materials detailing how the funds
identified for each program element in the weapons activities
budget will help ensure the reliability and safety of the
nuclear weapons stockpile.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 3261--Environmental protection, safety, and health requirements
Section 3261 requires the Administrator to ensure that
Administration operations comply with applicable environmental,
safety and health statutes and to develop procedures for
meeting such requirements. The provision also provides that the
Secretary of Energy continues to have overall authority and
oversight responsibility to ensure that such compliance occurs.
Section 3262--Compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation
Section 3262 requires the Administrator to establish
procedures that ensure that Administration activities are
operated in full compliance with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation.
Section 3263--Sharing of technology with Department of Defense
Section 3263 requires the Administrator, in cooperation
with the Secretary of Defense, to establish procedures that
allow for the sharing of technology and expertise between the
Administration and the Department of Defense.
Section 3264--Use of capabilities of National Security Laboratories by
entities outside Administration
Section 3264 requires the Administrator to establish
procedures that, consistent with the national security mission
of the Administration, make the capabilities of the national
security laboratories available to elements of the DOE that are
not part of the Administration, other Federal agencies and
other entities.
Subtitle F--Definitions
Section 3281--Definitions
Section 3281 defines the terms: (1) ``national security
laboratory'' to mean (A) Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, New Mexico; (B) Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Livermore, California; and (C)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California;
(2) ``nuclear weapons production facility'' to mean (A) the
Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri; (B) the Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, Texas; (C) the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; (D)
The tritium operations facilities at the Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina; (E) the Nevada Test Site, Nevada; and
(F) any DOE facility that the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Administrator and the Congress,
determines to be consistent with the Administration's mission;
(3) ``classified information'' to mean any information that has
been determined pursuant to Executive Order No. 12333 of
December 4, 1981 (50 U.S.C. 401 note), Executive Order No.
12958 of April 17, 1995 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or successor
orders, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure
and that is so designated; (4) ``Restricted Data'' to have the
meaning given such term in Section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)); and (5) ``congressional
defense committees'' to mean--(A) the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Subtitle G--Amendatory Provisions, Transition Provisions, and Effective
Dates
Section 3291--Functions transferred
Section 3291 transfers to the Administrator all national
security functions and activities performed immediately before
the date of the enactment of this Act by the following elements
of the DOE: (1) the Office of Defense Programs; (2) The Office
of Nonproliferation and National Security; (3) The Office of
Fissile Materials Disposition; (4) the nuclear weapons
production facilities; (5) the national security laboratories;
and (6) the Office of Naval Reactors. The Secretary of Energy
may transfer to the Administrator any other facility, mission,
or function that the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator and Congress, determines to be consistent with
the mission of the Administration. And the Secretary of Energy
is permitted to transfer environmental and waste management
activities to other elements of the Department.
Section 3292--Transfer of funds and employees
Section 3292 requires the Secretary of Energy to transfer
to the Administration the balance of funding associated with
the functions transferred to the Administration, as well as the
employees necessary to carry out those functions.
Section 3293--Pay levels
Section 3293 establishes the compensation for the Under
Secretary for Nuclear Security at executive level III and
establishes the compensation for Deputy Administrators of the
Administration at executive level IV.
Section 3294--Conforming amendments
Section 3294 makes conforming changes to the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, the DOE Organization Act, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-60), and
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201).
Section 3295--Transition provisions
Section 3295 sets dates by which the Administration has to
come into compliance with the provisions of title 32 of this
Act. The Administrator is required: (1) to comply with the
financial and fiscal management principles specified in Section
3252 by October 1, 2000, and to report to the Armed Services
Committees of the House and the Senate by January 1, 2000 on a
plan to achieve that compliance; (2) to submit the first future
year nuclear security program required in Section 3253 with the
FY 2001 budget; and (3) to comply with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation specified in Section 3263 by October 1, 2000 and
report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees by
January 1, 2000 on a plan to achieve that compliance.
Section 3296--Applicability of preexisting laws and regulations
Section 3296 establishes that all provisions of law and
regulations in effect immediately before the effective date of
title 32 of this Act remain in force unless otherwise
specified.
Section 3297--Report containing implementation plan of Secretary of
Energy
Section 3297 requires the Secretary to submit to the House
and Senate Armed Services Committees a report containing the
Secretary's plan for the implementation of the provisions of
this title.
Section 3298--Classification in United States Code
Section 3298 establishes a new chapter of title 50 for the
provisions of title 32 of this Act.
Section 3299--Effective dates
Section 3299 establishes March 1, 2000 as the effective
date of the provisions of title 32, except for Sections 3202,
3204, 3251, 3295, and 3297, which become effective upon the
date of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, implementation of
this title is to begin immediately upon enactment so as to
ensure that the period between enactment of this Act and the
effective date of this title shall serve as a transition period
to achieve full compliance of the requirements of this title no
later than March 1, 2000.
1.3--P.L. 106-82, To provide for the conveyance of certain property
from the United States to Stanislaus County, California (H.R. 356)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 356, To provide for the conveyance of certain property
from the United States to Stanislaus County, California, was
introduced to transfer excess federal property at the NASA Ames
Research Center (CA) to the county government of Stanislaus
County. The bill transferred approximately 1528 acres of the
Crows Landing facility to the county for county purposes, while
maintaining federal responsibility for addressing any
environmental cleanup necessitated by prior federal activities.
NASA further retains the right to use the property for aviation
purposes.
Legislative history
The bill was introduced on January 19, 1999 by
Representative Gary Condit, whose district includes the
aforementioned property. It was referred to the Committee on
Science's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics the same day.
The Subcommittee recommended adoption after a legislative
markup on July 29, 1999. The Committee on Science further
recommended adoption by the House of Representatives following
a legislative markup on September 9, 1999. The House passed the
bill under suspension of the rules on October 4, 1999. The
Senate adopted the measure by unanimous consent on October 13,
1999 and the President signed the bill into law on October 27,
1999.
1.4--P.L. 106-178, Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (H.R. 1883)
Background and summary of legislation
The Iran Nonproliferation Act was introduced to improve
intelligence reporting on Iran's proliferation activities
between the Executive and Legislative branches and to reduce
the ability of Iran to acquire weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles.
Given open testimony from the intelligence community that
Iran's efforts to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of
mass destruction are being assisted by elements of the Russian
aerospace industry, Section 6 of the bill prohibits NASA from
purchasing any goods and services from the Russian Aviation and
Space Agency until the President certifies that: It is the
policy of the Russian government to prevent illicit technology
transfer to Iran; that the Russian government is taking active
measures to prevent such transfers; and that the Russian
Aviation and Space Agency and all entities under its
jurisdiction have not, in the prior year, engaged in any
illicit transfers of technology to Iran.
Exceptions are made for emergency situations in which the
lives of ISS crewmembers are in imminent danger and for the
Service Module.
Legislative history
The bill was principally drafted in the Committee on
International Relations with support from the Committee on
Science. International Relations Committee Chairman Gilman
introduced H.R. 1883 on May 20, 1999 with Chairman
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Berman as original co-
sponsors. Eventually, the bill had 229 co-sponsors from both
sides of the aisle.
H.R. 1883 was referred jointly to the Committees on
International Relations and the Science Committee on May 20,
2000. The Committee on International Relations held a markup
session and ordered the bill reported, amended, by the Yeas and
Nays: 33-0 on September 9, 1999. The Committee on Science
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
on June 4, 1999. The subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held
a markup session and forwarded the bill to the Science
Committee, amended, by the Yeas and Nays: 19-3 on July 29,
2000. The Science Committee then held a markup session and
ordered the bill reported, as amended, to the House on
September 9, 1999 by the Yeas and Nays: 41-0. On September 14,
2000 H. Rept. 106-315, Part I was reported to the House and the
House passed the bill under suspension of the rules, as
amended, by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 419-0 (Roll No.
409), at which time it was sent to the Senate. On February 24,
2000 the Senate passed the bill with an amendment by a Yea-Nay
vote of 98-0 (Record Vote Number: 12). The House agreed to the
Senate amendments by the Yeas and Nays: 420-0 (Roll No. 28) on
March 1, 2000. The President signed the bill and it became
Public Law 106-178 on March 14, 2000.
1.5--P.L. 106-181, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21st Century (H.R. 1000/H.R. 1551, Civil Aviation Research and
Development Authorization Act of 1999)
Background and summary of legislation
The purpose of H.R. 1551 is to authorize the Federal
Aviation Administration to conduct research and development
activities for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. The projects improve
the national airspace system by increasing its safety,
security, capacity, and productivity to meet the expected air
traffic demands of the future.
H.R. 1551, the Civil Aviation Research and Development
Authorization Act of 1999, was introduced by the Chairwoman of
the Technology Subcommittee, Ms. Connie Morella, and Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. James Barcia.
The agency's R&D efforts develop and validate the
technology and knowledge required for the FAA to ensure the
safety, efficiency, and security of our national air
transportation system. Today, the system is under heavy
pressure to keep pace with the rising aviation demands of the
coming century.
During floor consideration of H.R. 1551, a Manager's
Amendment offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner that was crafted in
consultation with the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee eliminated certain provisions of H.R. 1551 that were
already authorized through the House passage of H.R. 1000, the
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. As
amended by the Manager's Amendment, H.R. 1551 authorizes $208
million in FY 2000 and $223 million in FY 2001 for the FAA to
conduct research and development in the areas of air traffic
management, communications, navigation, weather, aircraft
safety, system security, airport technology and human factors.
The legislation fully funded the Administration's FY 2000
request and allowed a modest, but necessary increase of three
percent over the FY 1999 enacted funding level for the various
research and development activities.
Consistent with the Administration's request, H.R. 1551
authorized $16 million in FY 2000 and $30 million in FY 2001 to
carry out the Safe Flight 21 operational evaluation project.
This support came after the FAA, under pressure from the
Science Committee, scaled-back the project's size, achieved
industry consensus and support, and provided the Committee with
a better accounting of the projects role in achieving the
agency's efficiency goals for the 21st Century.
Recognizing that our nation's commercial aircraft fleet
continues to age, H.R. 1551 included a provision directing the
FAA to expand its current aging aircraft R&D efforts to include
non-structural components. Also, H.R. 1551 included important
oversight provisions to ensure that our nation's investments in
aviation research and development are effectively utilized. For
instance, Section 5 of the legislation requires the FAA to work
cooperatively with NASA to jointly prepare and transmit to
Congress an integrated civil aviation safety R&D plan that
clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the two
agencies. Section 4 amends the current law to require the FAA
to develop a National Aviation Research Plan in accordance with
the Government Performance and Results Act. Finally, H.R. 1551
ensured accountability and public access to award information
by requiring the FAA to post the abstracts related to all R&D
grants and awards on the agency's Internet home page.
Many of the provisions of H.R. 1551 were included in P.L.
106-181, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21st Century. In particular, Title IX of the Act
authorizes $224 million in FY 2000, $237 million in FY 2001,
and $249 million in FY 2002 for FAA's Research, Engineering and
Development projects and activities.
Legislative history
On April 29, 1999, the Full Committee marked up the
legislation (H.R. 1551), which was introduced by the
Subcommittee Chairwoman, Mrs. Connie Morella. The legislation
was adopted, as amended, by a voice vote, and ordered reported,
by a voice vote.
On September 15, 1999 The House adopted the amendment in
the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union and passed H.R. 1551
unanimously by a voice vote.
Provisions of H.R. 1551 were incorporated into P.L. 106-
181, ``The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21st Century.''
1.6--P.L. 106-193, Methane Research and Development Act of 2000 (H.R.
1753/S. 330)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 1753, the Methane Research and Development Act of
2000, was introduced by Representative Michael F. Doyle (PA-18)
on May 11, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Within the Science
Committee, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment on May 11, and within the Resources Committee, it
was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources on May 21.
Legislative history
The Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment marked-
up the bill on May 12, 1999, and forwarded it to the Full
Science Committee (amended) by voice vote. The Full Science
Committee marked-up the bill on September 9 and ordered it to
be reported (amended) by Voice Vote. On October 13, 1999, the
Science Committee filed H. Rept. 106-377, Part 1.
The Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
held a hearing on H.R. 1753 on May 25, 1999. The Full Resources
Committee marked-up the bill on June 30 and ordered it to be
reported (amended) by Voice Vote. On October 18, 1999, the
Resources Committee filed H. Rept. 106-377, Part 2.
The House passed H.R. 1753 under suspension of the rules on
October 26, 1999, by Voice Vote, and the bill was received in
the Senate on October 27, 1999. On November 19, the Senate
passed the bill with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. On
April 3, 2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment with an
amendment pursuant to H. Res. 453, and passed the bill under
suspension of the rules by Voice Vote. On April 13, the Senate
agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendments by
Unanimous Consent. The President signed H.R. 1753 into law on
May 2, 2000 (Public Law 106-193).
As enacted, the legislation directs the Secretary of
Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy, to commence a methane hydrate research and development
(R&D) program.
Section 3 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to award
program grants or contracts (based on a competitive merit-based
process), or enter into cooperative agreements with
institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises.
Section 3 also directs the Secretary to establish a panel
to: (1) provide advice on applications of methane hydrates and
priorities for the program; and (2) report to Congress on the
impact on global climate change from methane hydrate formation
and degassing and the consumption of natural gas produced from
such hydrates. It limits to five percent the amount of program
funding that can be used for administrative expense and
prohibits the use of program funding for building construction,
and requires the Secretary, in awarding such grants or
contracts or entering into such cooperative agreements, to: (1)
facilitate and develop partnerships among government, industry,
and institutions of higher education; (2) undertake programs to
develop basic information necessary for promoting long-term
interest in methane hydrate resources as an energy source; (3)
ensure that the data and information developed through the
program are accessible and widely disseminated; (4) promote
cooperation among agencies that are developing technologies
that may hold promise for methane hydrate resource development;
and (5) report annually to Congress on accomplishments.
Section 4 amends the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970
to: (1) redefine ``marine mineral resource'' to include methane
hydrate (for the purposes of the marine mineral resources
research program); and (2) define ``methane hydrate.''
Section 5 authorizes appropriations for FY 2002 through
2005: $5.0 million for FY 2001; $7.5 million for FY 2002; $11.0
million for FY 2003; and $12.0 million for each of FY 2004 and
FY 2005.
Section 6 sunsets the methane hydrate R&D program after the
end of FY 2005, and Section 7 instructs the Secretary to enter
into an agreement with the National Research Council for a
study and report to Congress on the progress made under the
methane hydrate R&D program, together with any recommendations
for future methane hydrate R&D needs.
Finally, Section 8 requires the Secretary to provide to the
House Committee on Science any report or study prepared at the
direction of any congressional committee.
1.7--P.L. 106-224, Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 2559/
Title I--Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 in S. 935,
National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999, as passed by the
Senate, became Title III of H.R. 2559)
Background and summary of legislation
The Biomass Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000,
which was signed into law by the President on June 22, 2000,
combines features of three separate bills that were referred to
the Committee on Science: Title I of S. 935 and H.R. 2827, the
National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999; and H.R.
2819, the Biomass Research and Development Act of 1999.
As enacted, the legislation includes the following
provisions.
Section 301 cites Title III as the ``Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000'' (hereafter, ``Act'').
Section 302 lists 13 findings, and Section 303 defines ten
terms.
Section 304 mandates cooperation and coordination between
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy with
respect to policies and procedures that promote R&D leading to
the production of biobased industrial products. In order to
facilitate this cooperation and coordination, a senior official
in each of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and DOE is
to be designated as a ``point of contact.'' The points of
contact are to assist in arranging interlaboratory and site-
specific supplemental agreements for research, development, and
demonstration projects relating to biobased industrial
products; serve as cochairpersons of the Biomass Research and
Development Board; administer the Initiative; and respond in
writing to each recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
Section 305 requires the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture to jointly establish the Biomass Research and
Development Board to coordinate programs within and among
departments and agencies of the Federal Government for the
purpose of promoting the use of biobased industrial products.
This Board is to supercede the Interagency Council on Biobased
Products and Bioenergy established by Executive Order 13134.
This section also specifies the Board's membership, duties,
funding, and frequency of meetings.
Section 306 establishes the Biomass Research and
Development Technical Advisory Committee, which is to supercede
the Advisory Committee on Biobased Products and Bioenergy
established by Executive Order 13134. This section also
specifies the Advisory Committee's membership and appointment
process, duties, coordination, frequency of meetings, and
terms. With respect to terms, members of the Advisory Committee
shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, except that: (1) \1/
3\ of the members initially appointed shall be appointed for a
term of 1 year; and (2) \1/3\ of the members initially
appointed shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
Section 307 requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Energy, acting through their respective points of contact and
in consultation with the Biomass Research and Development
Board, to establish and carry out a Biomass R&D Initiative
under which competitively awarded grants, contracts, and other
financial assistance are provided to, or entered into with,
eligible entities to carry out research, development, and
demonstration on biobased industrial products. Other provisions
of Section 307 address the purposes of grants, contracts, and
other financial assistance under this section; eligible
entities; uses of grants, contract, and assistance; technology
and information transfer to agricultural users; and
authorization of appropriations. In particular, Section 307(f)
authorizes USDA $49.0 million for each of FYs 2000 through
2005, which is in addition to funds appropriated for biomass
R&D under the general authority of the Secretary of Energy (and
which may also be used to carry out the Act).
Section 308 authorizes the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture to provide administrative support and funds of DOE
and USDA to the Board and the Advisory Committee as are
necessary to enable them to carry out this Act. Not more than 4
percent of the amount appropriated for each fiscal year may be
used to pay the administrative costs of carrying out this Act.
Section 309 requires that an initial report be jointly
submitted to Congress by the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Energy within 180 days of enactment of the Act and that an
annual report be submitted to Congress for each fiscal year for
which funds are made available.
Finally, Section 310 terminates the authority under this
Act on December 31, 2005.
1.8--P.L. 106-391, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002 (H.R. 1654)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Act of 2000 authorizes funding for NASA's
activities in fiscal years (FY) 2000, 2001, and 2002. H.R. 1654
authorized $13.601 billion for FY 2000, $14.184 billion for FY
2001 and $14.625 billion for FY 2002. The FY 2000 authorization
was at the level of the appropriation. The President requested
$14.035 billion for NASA in FY 2001 and $14.465 billion for
NASA in FY 2002. The bill's highlights are summarized below.
Provides a $25.0 billion cost cap for
International Space Station (ISS) development and a $17.7
billion cost cap for Space Shuttle launch costs in connection
with ISS to control cost growth. The cost cap does not apply to
operations, research, or crew return activities after ISS
completion. An additional contingency fund of $5 billion for
ISS and $3.5 billion for Space Shuttle is authorized to provide
flexibility in case of an emergency or other unusual
circumstance.
Directs NASA to establish a non-governmental
organization (NGO) to manage research and commercial activities
on the ISS after it is completed to improve scientific utility
of the Space Station.
Prohibits NASA from spending funds to design,
procure, or develop an inflatable space module to replace
currently planned and already-built ISS components. Technical,
cost, and schedule uncertainties with inflatable technology
make it prohibitively risky to substitute into the current ISS
design. The provision, however, does not preclude NASA from
leasing a commercially developed inflatable structure as long
as it costs the same or less than the current design, does not
cause a schedule delay, or increase safety risks. Includes
initiatives encouraging the NASA administrator to seek
reduction in Space Station utilization rights for International
Partners that willfully violate any of their commitments to the
program. Provides for equitable utilization of the ISS in
accordance with the ISS Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA).
Authorizes a 2.5% increase in funding in FY 2001
and FY 2002 for Science, Aeronautics and Technology, such as
Space Science, Life & Microgravity, Earth Science, Aero-Space
Technology, and Academic Programs. Increases funding for Life &
Microgravity Research: +10.8% in FY 2001 and +14.5% in FY 2002.
Authorizes $290 million in FY 2001 and $610 million in FY 2002
for the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program.
Authorizes $492 million in FY 2001 for Space Shuttle safety and
performance upgrades. Also, the bill directs NASA to conduct a
study to assess the relative priority of Shuttle upgrades which
are under consideration. Directs NASA to conduct a study to
assess the readiness of the scientific community to use the
Space Station for life and microgravity research.
Legislative history
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California introduced H.R.
1654 on May 5, 1999. The bill was cosponsored by Congressman
George E. Brown, of California, Congressman Merrill Cook of
Utah, Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina, Congressman
Gary Miller of California, Congressman George R. Nethercutt,
Jr. of Washington, and Congressman Dave Weldon of Florida.
The Committee on Science held a markup session of H.R. 1654
on May 13, 1999 and ordered the legislation reported as
amended. The report was filed on May 18, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-
145). H.R. 1654 was passed by the House of Representatives on
May 19, 1999 by a recorded vote: 259--168 (Roll no. 139). On
November 5, 1999 the Senate passed H.R. 1654 with an amendment
by unanimous consent. The House and Senate negotiated a
compromise of the bill in conference and filed conference
report H. Rept. 106-843 on September 12, 2000. The House agreed
to the conference report on September 14, 2000 by the Yeas and
Nays: 399--17 (Roll no. 475) and the Senate agreed to the
conference report by unanimous consent on October 13, 2000. On
October 30, 2000 H.R. 1654 was signed by the President and
became Public Law 106-391.
1.9--P.L. 106-398, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (H.R. 4205/H.R. 5408) (Sections 1061-1065, 3161-
3165, 3196 and 3197 of H.R. 5408)
Background and summary of legislation
On July 27, 2000, the Speaker appointed Science Committee
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43), and
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Ranking Minority Member
Bart Gordon (TN-12) as additional conferees to H.R. 4205, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, for
consideration of Sections 1402, 1403, 3161-3167, 3169, and 3176
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference.
The Speaker also appointed Subcommittee on Technology
Chairman Constance A. Morella (MD-8) in lieu of Mr. Calvert for
consideration of Sections 1402, 1403, and 3176 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference. These
conference committee deliberations, contained in H. Rept. 106-
945 (Enactment of Provisions of H.R. 5408, the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4205), resulted in the
enactment of Sections 1061-1065, 3161-3165, 3196 and 3197 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), which was signed into
law by the President on October 30, 2000. Descriptions of these
provisions follow.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle G--Government Information Security Reform
Sections 1061-1065 address Government information security
reform.
The Senate amendment contained a series of provisions
(Sections 1401-1405) that would provide for reform of Federal
information security practices.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would simplify
audit and evaluation requirements and would clarify the roles
and responsibilities of the Department of Defense (DOD).
The amendment would establish a new subchapter of title 44,
United States Code, addressing the responsibilities of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Federal agencies--
including the National Institute of Science and Technology--in
the area of information security. This new subchapter would
remain in effect for two years after the effective date of the
provision. The amendment would provide specific guidance on the
responsibilities of certain agencies including the DOD. The
amendment would also address the relationship between the
defense information assurance program established under section
2224, title 10, United States Code, and the government-wide
information security program.
The conferees noted that the conference agreement would
provide the DOD authority to implement its own information
assurance policy in accordance with the requirements of section
2224, title 10, United States Code. The amendment would require
the Director of OMB to delegate policy and oversight authority
with regard to national security systems, classified systems,
and other critical information systems of the Department of
Defense and Intelligence Community to the Secretary of Defense,
the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and, if designated
by the President, an additional agency head. These agencies
would be directed to develop their own information security
policies, principles, standards, and guidelines. For the DOD,
these policies, principles, standards and guidelines would be
required to cover the full range of information assurance
issues addressed in section 2224 of title 10, United States
Code.
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle E--National Laboratories Partnership Improvement
Section 3161--Technology Infrastructure Pilot Program
The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 3163)
that would authorize the Secretary of Energy to obligate up to
$10.0 million per year for a three-year period to establish the
Technology Infrastructure Pilot Program. The pilot program
would promote establishment of technology partnership clusters
in the vicinity of certain DOE laboratories and plants. The
provision would authorize each such DOE site to expend
available funds to carry out cooperative activities with local
businesses, universities, research organizations, or state,
local, and tribal governments.
The House had no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would authorize
the Administrator of the NNSA to obligate up to $5.0 million
during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to carry out the pilot
program.
The conferees were concerned that technology partnerships
within the Office of Defense Programs have not been well
managed in the past nor have they resulted in significant
return on investment. Nevertheless, the conferees recognized
that public-private collaborations may, if properly focused and
managed, result in the development of commercially viable
technologies that support the core nuclear weapons and nuclear
nonproliferation missions of the NNSA. The Technology
Infrastructure Pilot Program will allow the NNSA laboratories
and facilities to explore new ways to collaborate with private
entities in research, training, and shared facilities to
enhance these core NNSA missions. The conferees noted that
technology networks of this kind have proven successful in the
private sector. The conferees further noted that the provision
would not preclude the possibility of subsequent authorizations
in appropriate circumstances.
Section 3162--Report on small business participation in National
Nuclear Security Administration activities
The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3164)
that would require each laboratory to establish a small
business advocacy and assistance program to increase the
participation of small businesses in all contracting aspects at
the laboratory. The provision would also require each
laboratory to establish a small business assistance program to
help local small businesses obtain more subcontracts at the
laboratory and improve the commercial value of their products
and services.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to report to the congressional defense committees not
later than February 15, 2001, regarding the effectiveness of
NNSA small business programs, recommendations on how to improve
them, and any legislative changes required to implement such
improvements.
Section 3163--Study and report related to improving mission
effectiveness, partnerships, and technology transfer at
national security laboratories and nuclear weapons production
facilities
The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3166)
that would require the Secretary of Energy to direct the
Laboratory Operations Board (LOB) to study and to report on the
possible benefits of and need for policies and procedures to
facilitate the transfer of scientific, technical and
professional personnel among national security laboratories and
facilities. The LOB would be required to report on the possible
benefits of and need for changes in the following: (1) the
indemnification requirements for patents or other intellectual
property licensed from a laboratory or facility; (2) the
royalty and fee schedules and types of compensation that may be
used for patents or other intellectual property licensed to a
small business concern from a DOE National Laboratory or
facility; (3) the licensing procedures and requirements for
patents and other intellectual property, including preferences
for small businesses started by former laboratory or facility
employees who invented the patented technology or other
intellectual property; (4) the infringement and protections
available to small businesses that have received patents or
other intellectual property from a laboratory or facility; (5)
the advance funding requirements for a small business that
funds a project at a DOE laboratory or facility through a
Funds-In-Agreement; (6) the intellectual property rights
allocated to a business that funds a project at a laboratory or
facility through a Funds-In-Agreement; and (7) the policies on
royalty payments to inventors employed by a contractor-operated
DOE laboratory or facility, including those for inventions made
under a Funds-In-Agreement.
The LOB would be required to report to the Secretary not
later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
The Secretary would be required to transmit the report to
Congress not later than one month after receiving the report of
the LOB concurrent with the submission of the report of the
Secretary shall provide recommendations regarding appropriate
action and legislative proposals.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would require the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to prepare and to submit the
report related to the national security laboratories and
facilities. The amendment would also require the report to
include the advantages and disadvantages of providing the NNSA
Administrator with special contracting authority, such as
``other transactions'' authority.
Section 3165--Definitions
The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3162)
that would define the terms referenced in subtitle E of this
Act.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would define the
terms ``national security laboratory'' and ``nuclear weapons
production facility'' as they are defined in section 3281 of
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law
106-65).
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 3196--Cooperative research and development agreements for
government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories
The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3176)
that would amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710) to streamline the approval process for
cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA) at
government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities by
authorizing Federal agencies to substitute an annual strategic
plan for individual joint work statements. The provision would,
for a period of five years after the date of enactment of this
Act, authorize the waiver of any license retained by the
government if the retention of that license would inhibit
commercialization of an invention that would otherwise serve an
important Federal mission. The provision would further
streamline the CRADA process for GOCO facilities by authorizing
Federal agencies to permit routine CRADAs to be negotiated and
signed by GOCO employees.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would limit the
applicability of the license waiver provision to the activities
of the NNSA laboratories, and would require a report on all
license waivers.
Section 3197--Office of Arctic Energy
The Senate amendment contained a provision (Section 3169)
that would establish the Office of Arctic Energy Research.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House receded with an amendment that would provide the
Secretary of Energy with discretionary authority to establish
the Office of Arctic Energy Research.
Legislative provisions not adopted
Short Title--The Senate amendment contained a provision
(Section 3161) that would cite the subtitle E of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 as the National
Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate receded.
Technology Partnerships Ombudsman--The Senate amendment
contained a provision (Section 3165) that would require each
DOE laboratory to establish a technology partnership ombudsman
to resolve complaints from outside organizations regarding
patents, technology licenses, and other issues.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate receded.
Other Transactions Authority--The Senate amendment
contained a provision (Section 3167) that would authorize the
Secretary of Energy to permit the award contracts on a non-
competitive basis, commonly known as ``other transactions''
authority.
The House bill contained no similar provision. The Senate
receded.
The conferees noted that a report on ``other transactions''
authority is required elsewhere in this conference agreement.
1.10--p.l. 106-404, technology transfer commercialization act of 2000
(h.r. 209)
Background and summary of legislation
The purpose of H.R. 209 is to promote partnerships with
Federal laboratories through the commercialization of
government-owned inventions by reforming technology licensing
authorities under the Bayh-Dole Act and by permitting
laboratories to bring already existing government inventions
into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA),
among other purposes.
H.R. 209 provides parallel authorities to those currently
in place under the Bayh-Dole Act for licensing university or
university-operated Federal laboratory inventions. The bill
also amends the Stevenson-Wydler Act, as amended, to allow
Federal laboratories to include already existing patented
inventions into a cooperative research and development
agreement (CRADA).
Thus, agencies would be provided with two important new
tools for effectively commercializing on-the-shelf Federally
owned technologies--either licensing them as stand-alone
inventions, under the bill's revised authorities of Section 209
of the Bayh-Dole Act, or including them as part of a larger
package under a CRADA.
H.R. 209 also relaxes the public notification requirements
removes language that currently results in delays of at least
five months before a license can be formally granted.
Additionally, the bill simplifies the requirement for the
submission of a marketing and business plan for the invention.
According to testimony from the Technology Subcommittee
hearings, these requirements and its potential to delay the
process have been great disincentives for the commercializing
of on-the-shelf government inventions.
Legislative history
Congresswoman Constance A. Morella of Maryland introduced
H.R. 209 on January 6, 1999 in the 106th Congress. On March 25,
1999, the Science Committee considered H.R. 209. The Committee
adopted an en bloc amendment and ordered H.R. 209 reported, as
a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice
vote.
On October 5, 2000, H.R. 209 was passed by the Senate under
unanimous consent with an amendment.
On October 10, 2000, the House approved the legislation
sending it to the President to become law.
1.11--P.L. 106-405, COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION COMPETITIVENESS Act
of 2000 (H.R. 2607)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 2607, the Commercial Space Transportation
Competitiveness Act of 1999, authorizes funding for the Offices
of Advanced Space Transportation and Space Commerce in the
Departments of Transportation and Commerce, respectively.
Moreover, the bill extends commercial launch indemnification
through the end of calendar 2004. It further requires a report
from the Secretary of Transportation reviewing alternative
liability risk-sharing regimes for the U.S. government and the
U.S. space launch industry. The bill has been identified by the
private sector as its top priority for maintaining U.S.
competitiveness vis-a-vis launch competition from other
countries.
Legislative history
Chairman Rohrabacher introduced the bill on July 26, 1999.
The bill acquired 11 co-sponsors, including the ranking
minority member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
and two other Democrats. After referral to the Committee on
Science and its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the
Subcommittee marked the legislation up and recommended its
adoption on July 29, 1999. On October 4, 1999, the House of
Representatives considered the bill under the suspension of
rules and passed it.
On October 19, 1999, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On October
13, 2000, Senator McCain laid a substitute before the Senate
for consideration under unanimous consent. Senate Amendment
4321 to H.R. 2607 was adopted by unanimous consent on October
13, 2000 and the bill was referred back the House of
Representatives. On October 17, 2000 the bill was considered
and adopted by the House of Representatives under a suspension
of the rules. The bill was presented to the President on
October 20, 2000 and signed into law by him on November 1,
2000.
1.12--P.L. 106-503, TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES
FIRE ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR CARRYING OUT THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
REDUCTION ACT OF 1977, FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001, 2002, AND 2003, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES (H.R. 1550/H.R. 1184/S. 1639)
Background and summary of legislation
Title I: United States Fire Administration.--Title I
authorizes: $44.8 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 ($25
million below the requested level); $47.8 million for FY 2002;
and $50.0 million for FY 2003. Of the total authorized over the
three years, $9.75 million has been set aside for research,
$750,000 for outsourcing of data analysis, and $21.0 million
for anti-terrorism training. Title I also requires the Fire
Administration to certify that funds obligated in FY 2002 are
consistent with the strategic plan required in the bill. In
addition to the increased authorizations for research funding,
Title I also requires USFA to establish research priorities and
to develop a plan for implementing a research agenda.
Title I also directs USFA to: make available to State and
local fire and emergency services information on excess federal
equipment and on setting up cooperative agreements with federal
facilities, such as military bases; conduct an assessment of
the need for additional counter-terrorism training for
emergency responders; review the content and delivery of the
curriculum offered by the National Fire Academy; post abstracts
of research grants it awards on its Internet home page, and
allows, as in the Senate bill, up to $1.0 million in funds to
be used for fire safety research at the Worcester Polytechnic
Institute.
In addition, Title I: repeals obsolete references and
sections of statute authorizing USFA; repeals a provision in
law that exempts federally-funded housing built in New York
City from sprinkler requirements; and, in accordance with the
amended Senate bill, makes technical changes to the U.S. Code
relating to the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation.
Title II: Earthquake Hazards Reduction.--Four agencies
participate in NEHRP--the Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the
National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). For FY 2001, Title II of
H.R. 1550 authorizes the requested level of $104.1 million for
base earthquake activities in these agencies, including
specific authorizations for USGS for the Global Seismic Network
and the Real-Time Seismic Warning System. For each of FYs 2002
and 2003, Title II authorizes increases to the base program of
4.25 percent. For FY 2002, Title II authorizes $108.5 million;
for FY 2003, $113.1 million.
In addition, Title II includes multi-year authorizations
for two new projects, each of which grew out of congressional
direction in the last NEHRP bill and were included in H.R.
1184. The Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring
System (ANSRMS) will update the Nation's existing seismic
monitoring network, which is based on 30-year-old technology.
Title II authorizes $170.8 million over FYs 2002 through 2006
for the U.S. Geological Survey for equipment, and a further
$14.8 million over two years for the incremental costs of
system operation.
The George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES)--named after the late Ranking
Minority Member of the Science Committee--will link more than
30 earthquake engineering research facilities and upgrade and
expand major earthquake testing facilities. Title II provides
NSF with a four-year authorization (FYs 2001 through 2004)
totaling $74.1 million for this program.
Finally, Title II authorizes funding for studying the New
Madrid fault and a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee at the U.S. Geological Survey, requires greater
inter-agency co-ordination in formulating the Program's budget,
requests a report on how the Program meets the needs of at-risk
populations, and repeals obsolete provisions of the statute.
Legislative history
On October 27, 2000, the House passed H. Res. 655 on a
recorded vote of 384 to 5. H. Res. 655 provided technical
corrections to H.R. 1550 and S. 1639 as amended by the Senate.
The resolution also reflected a compromise between comparable
bills in the House (H.R. 1550 and H.R. 1184) and Senate (S.
1639) and incorporated these two bills in Titles I and II,
respectively, of H.R. 1550.
On October 31, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House
amendment to H.R. 1550. H.R. 1550 was signed into law on
November 13, 2000.
U.S. Fire Administration.--The Subcommittee on Basic
Research of the Committee on Science held a hearing on March
23, 1999 to hear testimony on the Administration's Fiscal Year
2000 budget request for USFA and to examine issues related to a
two-year authorization for the agency.
On April 26, 1999, Mr. Nick Smith (MI), Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Basic Research, joined by Ms. Johnson of (TX),
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research,
introduced H.R. 1550, the Fire Administration Authorization Act
of 1999, a bill to authorize appropriations for USFA for Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 1550 on Thursday, April
29, 1999. H.R. 1550, as amended, was passed by the Committee by
voice vote (Report No. 106-133).
H.R. 1550 passed the House under Suspension of the Rules on
May 11, 1999 on a recorded vote of 417 to 3.
Earthquakes Hazards Reduction.--The Subcommittee on Basic
Research of the Committee on Science held a hearing on February
23, 1999 to hear testimony on the Administration's FY 2000
budget request for NEHRP and to examine issues related to a
two-year authorization for the Program.
H.R. 1184, a bill to authorize appropriations for carrying
out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for FYs 2000
and 2001 and for other purposes, was introduced on March 18,
1999 by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Basic Research, joined by Representative Constance Morella,
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology.
The Committee met to consider H.R. 1184 on March 25, 1999.
H.R. 1184, as amended, was passed by the Committee by voice
vote (Report No. 106-99 Part 1).
H.R. 1184, with a ``Buy American'' amendment offered by
Representative Jim Traficant, was passed by the House on April
21, 1999 on a recorded vote of 414 to 3.
Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science
2.1--Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and Development
Programs Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1552)
Background and summary of legislation
The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs
authorized in H.R. 1553 at hearings held on February 24 and
April 15, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1552,
the Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and
Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999, on April 26,
1999, and the bill was referred to the House Committee on
Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1552 on
April 29, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported,
amended, by Voice Vote, on April 29, and reported the measure
to the House with written report, H. Rept. 106-987, Part I, on
October 18, 2000.
The House Committee on Resources referred H.R. 1552 to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans on
April 27, 1999. The Subcommittee considered the measure on May
6, and forwarded it to the Full Resources Committee, amended,
by Voice Vote, on May 6, 1999. The Full Resources Committee met
to consider H.R. 1552 on June 30, 1999. The Committee on
Resources ordered the bill reported, amended, by Voice Vote, on
June 30.
As reported by the Science Committee, Sections 3 through 7
of H.R. 1552 authorize a total of $373,392,000 for each of FYs
2000 and 2001 for the NOAA and National Science Foundation
(NSF), including: (1) $200,343,000 for each of FYs 2000 and
2001 for National Ocean Service (NOS); (2) $44,320,000 for each
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA's OAR; (3) $63,769,000 for each
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA Program Support; (4) $5,717,000
for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA Facilities; (5)
$9,243,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NOAA Fleet
Maintenance, Planning and Replacement; and (6) $50,000,000 for
each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NSF Fleet Maintenance, Planning
and Replacement.
In addition, Section 7 also directs the NSF to develop a
strategy for meeting such requirements and other Federal marine
research and related environmental research and development
requirements, considering all options, including methods of
acquiring vessel services, remote sensing, and any other
possible means.
Section 8 directs the Secretary of Commerce to enter into
contracts, including multiyear contracts, subject to certain
requirements, for the use of vessels to conduct marine research
and related environmental research and development activities,
monitoring, enforcement, and management (with exceptions), and
to acquire other data necessary for carrying out the NOAA's
missions. It prohibits the Secretary from entering into any
contract for the construction, lease-purchase, upgrade, or
service life extension of any vessel, directs the Secretary to
use excess capacity of University-National Oceanographic
Laboratory System vessels where appropriate, and permits the
Secretary to enter into memoranda of agreement with the
operators of these vessels for carrying out such requirement.
Section 9 repeals the NOAA Fleet Modernization Act.
Section 10 directs the NOAA Administrator to make available
through NOAA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the
bill.
Section 11 of the bill requires the NOAA Administrator to
exclude from consideration for grant agreements made after FY
1999 under the activities for which funds are authorized under
the bill, any person who received funds (other than due to
membership in a class specified by law for which assistance is
awarded to class members according to a formula) appropriated
for a fiscal year after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from
any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected
to a competitive, merit-based award process. It also makes such
exclusion effective for a period of five years after receipt of
such Federal funds.
2.2--National Weather Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of
1999 (H.R. 1553)
Background and summary of legislation
The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs
authorized in H.R. 1553 at a hearing held on February 24, 1999.
Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman
Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1553, the National Weather
Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999, on
April 26, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House
Committee on Science.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1553 on
April 29, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported,
amended, on April 16, and reported the measure to the House
with written report, H. Rept. 106-146, on May 18, 1999.
The House passed H.R. 1553, amended, on May 19, 1999, and
the bill was received in the Senate on May 20, 1999, and was
referred immediately to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
As passed by the House, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of H.R. 1553
authorize a total of $1,391,418,000 for FY 2000 and
$1,458,552,000 for FY 2001 for a number of National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs, including: (1)
$687,529,000 for FY 2000 and $688,017,000 for FY 2001 for the
National Weather Service (NWS); $183,290,000 for FY 2000 and
$187,410,000 for FY 2001 for Atmospheric Research within the
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); (3)
$516,749,000 for FY 2000 and $579,275,000 for FY 2001 for the
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
(NESDIS); and (5) $3,850,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for
Facilities.
In addition, Section 3 of the bill revises requirements for
the Secretary of Commerce's duties with respect to the NWS to
include responsibilities for: (1) serving as the sole official
source of weather and flood warnings; (2) issuing storm
warnings; (3) collecting, exchanging, and distributing
meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data
and information; (4) preparing hydrometeorological guidance and
core forecast information; and (5) issuing marine and aviation
forecasts and warnings. It bars the NWS from providing or
assisting other entities to provide a service that is currently
provided or can be provided by commercial enterprise, unless:
(1) the service provides vital weather warnings and forecasts
for the protection of life and property of the general public;
or (2) the U.S. Government is obligated to provide such service
under international aviation agreements to provide
meteorological services and exchange meteorological
information. Section 3 also directs the Secretary to report to
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, And Transportation of the
Senate detailing all NWS activities which do not conform to
requirements of the bill and outlining a timetable for their
termination. And it expresses the sense of the Congress that
NWS must fully take into account the dangerous and life
threatening nature of weather patterns in Wind Zone IV,
otherwise known as tornado alley, before making any
determination to close any of its local weather service
offices.
Section 7 of the bill requires the NOAA Administrator to
exclude from consideration for grant agreements made after FY
1999, under the activities for which funds are authorized under
the bill, any person who received funds (other than due to
membership in a class specified by law for which assistance is
awarded to class members according to a formula) appropriated
for a fiscal year after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from
any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected
to a competitive, merit-based award process. It also makes such
exclusion effective for a period of five years after receipt of
such Federal funds.
Section 8 directs the NOAA Administrator to make available
through NOAA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the
bill.
Section 9 prohibits any funds authorized pursuant to the
bill from being expended by an entity unless such entity
agrees, in expending such assistance, to comply with the Act of
March 3, 1933, known as the Buy American Act.
Section 10 expresses the sense of the Congress that
entities receiving any equipment or products that may be
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
under the bill should, in expending such assistance, purchase
only American-made equipment and products. It also requires the
Secretary to provide a notice describing such statement to each
recipient of such assistance.
Section 11 prohibits any person who has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency to have intentionally
affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription or
any inscription with the same meaning to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in the United
States, from receiving any contract or subcontract made with
funds provided pursuant to the bill, pursuant to debarment,
suspension, and ineligibility procedures.
2.3--Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1655)
Background and summary of legislation
The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs
authorized in H.R. 1655 at hearings held on March 3, March 10,
March 24, and April 14, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced
H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy [DOE] Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, on
May 3, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House Committee
on Science.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1656 on May
25, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by
a Yea and Nay Vote of 31 to 1, on May 25, 1999, and reported
the measure to the House with written report, H. Rept. 106-243,
on July 20, 2000.
The House considered H.R. 1655 on September 15, 1999, and
passed the bill, amended, by Voice Vote. H.R. 1655 was received
in the Senate on September 16, 1999, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
As passed by the House, Section 3 of H.R. 1655 authorizes
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for DOE civilian
energy and scientific RD&D and related commercial application
of energy technology programs, projects, and activities
$4,115,506,000 for FY 2000 and $4,242,665,110 for FY 2001, of
which: (1) $482,266,000 for FY 2000 and $504,595,630 for FY
2001 is for Energy Supply; (2) $2,657,761,000 for FY 2000 and
$2,691,465,000 for FY 2001 is for Science; (3) $397,564,000 for
FY 2000 and $427,102,000 for FY 2001 is for Fossil Energy R&D;
and (4) $577,915,000 for FY 2000 and $619,502,480 for FY 2001
is for Energy Conservation R&D.
Section 4 directs the Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, to commence a program of
gas hydrate energy and scientific and environmental research
and development. It also authorizes $5.0 million for FY 2000
and $7.5 million for FY 2001 for grants to, or contracts or
cooperative agreements with, institutions of higher education
and industrial enterprises to carry out gas hydrate research,
development, and demonstration programs.
Section 5 requires notice to specified congressional
committees before any major reorganization of any DOE civilian
energy or scientific research, development, or demonstration or
related commercial application of energy technology program.
Section 6 permits DOE to provide funding, with respect to
programs and activities described by the bill, only for
technologies and processes that can be reasonably expected to
yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or
performance of the technology or process. It also prohibits the
Secretary, as part of the test and demonstration Parallex
Project, from selecting a route for the transportation of Mixed
Oxide Fuel from Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Chalk River, Canada,
without issuing a rule based on the record after an opportunity
for agency hearing.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 set forth specified prohibitions and
congressional reporting requirements for projects that exceed
certain cost limits, including general plant projects,
construction projects and those relating to conceptual or
construction design.
Section 10 prohibits the obligation of funds for
construction of a specified project at the Spallation Neutron
Source at the Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee until: (1) the
Secretary certifies that senior project management positions
for the project have been filled by qualified individuals and
provides information regarding costs, milestones, laboratory
obligations, and management structure; and (2) the Comptroller
General reports to Congress that the estimated tax
reimbursements that DOE would pay to its contractors as a cost
of constructing the project in Tennessee would be no more than
the reimbursements it would pay if the same project were
constructed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in
California, the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, the
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, or the Brookhaven
National Laboratory in New York. It also requires the Secretary
to report annually to Congress on such project as part of DOE's
budget submission.
In addition, Section 10 prohibits the use of funds
authorized by the bill for: (1) U.S. participation in
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Engineering
Design Activities; (2) the salaries of specified DOE Office of
Science directors unless such individuals hold postgraduate
degrees in science or engineering; and (3) grants or contracts
awarded by DOE to a trade association on a noncompetitive
basis. It reduces each of the amounts authorized by the bill
for FY 2000 by: (1) one percent; and (2) 0.7674 percent, with
each such reduction representing a reduction in travel costs.
It also reduces each of the amounts authorized for FY 2000
administrative expenses proportionately to achieve additional
savings of $30 million, and limits travel costs to one percent
of the total amounts of funds authorized.
Section 11 prohibits the use of funds authorized for
programs under the bill to award management and operating
contracts for federally owned or operated DOE civilian energy
laboratories on a noncompetitive basis.
Section 12 prohibits the use of funds authorized for
programs under the bill to award or modify a DOE contract in a
manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation
unless the Secretary grants a waiver to allow for such
deviations.
Section 13 prohibits the use of funds authorized to be
appropriated by the bill by DOE to prepare or initiate Requests
for Proposals for programs under the bill not specifically
authorized by Congress.
Section 14 prohibits the use of funds authorized to be
appropriated by the bill to produce or provide articles or
services for purposes of selling them to a person outside the
Federal Government unless the Secretary determines that such
articles or services are not available from a U.S. commercial
source.
Section 15 excludes from consideration for grant agreements
for programs described by the bill made by DOE after FY 1999
any person who received funds appropriated for a fiscal year
after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from any Federal funding
source for a program that was not subjected to a competitive,
merit-based award process. It also makes such exclusions
effective for a period of five years after the person receives
such Federal funds.
Section 16 requires the Secretary to make available through
the DOE's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the
bill.
Section 17 bars the Secretary from admitting to any
classified area of a federally owned or operated nonmilitary
energy laboratory any individual who is a citizen of a nation
that is named on the DOE List of Sensitive Countries. It
authorizes waivers of such prohibition on a case-by-case basis
with respect to individuals whose admission is determined to be
necessary for the furtherance of U.S. civilian science
interests. It also sets forth congressional notification and
certification procedures with respect to such waivers, and
makes this section inapplicable to specified facilities.
Section 18 prohibits any funds authorized pursuant to the
bill from being expended by an entity unless such entity
agrees, in expending such assistance, to comply with the Act of
March 3, 1933, known as the Buy American Act.
Section 19 expresses the sense of the Congress that
entities receiving any equipment or products that may be
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
under the bill should, in expending such assistance, purchase
only American-made equipment and products. It also requires the
Secretary to provide each recipient of such assistance a notice
describing such statement.
Section 20 prohibits any person who has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency to have intentionally
affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription or
any inscription with the same meaning to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in the United
States, from receiving any contract or subcontract made with
funds provided pursuant to the bill, pursuant to debarment,
suspension, and ineligibility procedures.
Section 21 requires the Secretary to commence a program of
R&D on the technology necessary to achieve on-site
transmutation of nuclear waste into nonradioactive substances,
and authorizes $2.0 million for FY 2000 and $4.0 million in FY
2001 for grants or contracts to, or cooperative agreements
with, institutions of higher education and industrial
enterprises to carry out such program. It also bars the
Secretary from supporting a technology that involves the
isolation of plutonium or uranium.
Section 22 expresses the sense of the Congress that DOE
should increase its efforts to recruit and employ qualified
minorities for carrying out research and development functions.
2.4--Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology
Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1656)
Background and summary of legislation
The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs
authorized in H.R. 1656 at hearings held on March 3, March 10,
March 24, and April 14, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced
H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy [DOE] Commercial
Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999, on
May 3, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House Committee
on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Commerce, and
Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1656 on May
26, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by
Voice Vote, on May 26, 1999, and reported the measure to the
House with written report, H. Rept. 106-492, Part 1, on March
6, 2000.
Within the Committee on Commerce, H.R. 1656 was referred to
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on May 17, 1999. The
Committee was discharged from further consideration of the bill
on June 9, 2000.
Within the Committee on Education and the Workforce, H.R.
1656 was referred to the Subcommittee on Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections on May 21, 1999. The Committee was also
discharged from further consideration of the bill on June 9,
2000.
As reported, Section 3 of H.R. 1656 authorizes for DOE
civilian commercial application of energy technology and
related energy and scientific RD&D programs, projects, and
activities $702,759,000 for FY 2000 and $711,746,890 for FY
2001, to remain available through the end of FY 2002, of which:
(1) $309,662,000 for FY 2000 and $306,857,000 for FY 2001 is
for Energy Supply; (2) $330,934,000 for FY 2000 and
$340,862,000 for FY 2001 is for Non-Defense Environmental
Management; (3) $10,000,000 for FY 2000 and $10,300,000 for FY
2001 is for Fossil Energy R&D; and (4) $52,163,000 for FY 2000
and $53,727,890 for FY 2001 is for Energy Conservation R&D.
Section 4 authorizes reprogramming of DOE funds for any
authorized DOE civilian energy or scientific research,
development, or demonstration or commercial application of
energy technology programs, projects, or activities, subject to
certain reporting requirements. It also requires notice to
specified congressional committees before any major
reorganization of any DOE civilian program.
Section 5 permits DOE to provide funding, with respect to
programs and activities described by the bill, only for
technologies or processes that can be reasonably expected to
yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or
performance of the technology or process.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 set forth specified prohibitions and
congressional reporting requirements for projects that exceed
certain cost limits, including general plant projects,
construction projects and those relating to conceptual or
construction design.
Section 9 prohibits the use of funds in the Clean Coal
Technology Reserve to initiate or carry out a clean coal
technology energy demonstration project based outside the
United States. It also bars the use of funds authorized by the
bill for grants or contracts awarded by DOE to a trade
association on a noncompetitive basis.
Section 10 prohibits the use of funds to award management
and operating contracts for federally owned or operated
nonmilitary DOE energy laboratories on a noncompetitive basis.
Section 11 prohibits the use of funds to award or modify a
DOE contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary grants a waiver.
Section 12 prohibits the use of funds by DOE to prepare or
initiate Requests for Proposals for DOE civilian programs not
specifically authorized by Congress.
Section 13 prohibits the use of funds for DOE civilian
programs to produce or provide articles or services for
purposes of selling them to a person outside the Federal
Government, unless the Secretary determines that such articles
or services are not available from a U.S. commercial source. It
also exempts from the prohibition on such sale the transmission
and sale of electricity by any Federal Power Marketing
Administration.
Section 14 excludes from consideration for grant agreements
for DOE civilian programs described by the bill after FY 1999
any person who received funds appropriated for a fiscal year
after FY 1999 under a grant agreement from any Federal funding
source for a program that was not subjected to a competitive,
merit-based award process. It makes such exclusions effective
for a period of five years after the person receives such
Federal funds.
Section 15 terminates DOE regulatory or enforcement
authority, effective January 1, 2000, with respect to Federal,
State, and local environmental, safety, and health requirements
at any federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy
laboratory. In addition, Section 15:
Requires DOE to retain such authority at any
such laboratory to the extent that no other agency has
such authority;
Directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), effective January 1, 2000, to assume DOE
regulatory and enforcement authorities under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 with regard to federally owned or
operated nonmilitary energy laboratories;
Provides that contractors operating such
facilities shall not be responsible for the costs of
decommissioning them;
Prohibits enforcement actions against such
contractors for violations of NRC decommissioning
requirements if the violation is the result of a DOE
failure to authorize or fund decommissioning
activities;
Requires the NRC and DOE to enter into a
memorandum of understanding establishing
decommissioning requirements for such laboratories;
Directs the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), effective January 1, 2000, to
assume DOE regulatory and enforcement responsibilities
relating to matters covered by the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 with regard to all federally
owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories;
Requires the NRC and OSHA to enter into a
memorandum of understanding to govern their respective
authorities over occupational safety and health hazards
at such laboratories;
Absolves a DOE contractor operating a
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy
laboratory of liability for civil penalties under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Occupational Health
and Safety Act of 1970 for any actions taken before
October 1, 2000, pursuant to the transfer of regulatory
and enforcement responsibilities required by the bill;
and
Requires the Secretary to: (1) continue to
indemnify such laboratories in accordance with the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and (2) transmit a plan for
termination of DOE's regulatory and enforcement
responsibilities for such laboratories to specified
congressional committees.
Section 16 directs the Secretary to make available through
the DOE Internet home page abstracts relating to all research
grants and awards made with funds authorized by the bill.
Section 17 declares a moratorium on the Foreign Visitors
Program, during which the Secretary may not, until certain
counterintelligence and safeguards and security measures are
fully implemented, admit any citizen of a nation named on the
current DOE List of Sensitive Countries to certain DOE-owned
classified laboratory facilities. It also requires the Director
of the FBI and the Secretary to transmit jointly to certain
congressional committees an annual report on
counterintelligence and safeguards and security activities at
DOE laboratories.
Section 18 instructs the Secretary to ensure: (1)
consistency of technology transfer policies and procedures with
respect to patenting, licensing, and commercialization; (2)
availability of alternative modes of dispute resolution,
mediation, and negotiation with respect to technology transfer
and intellectual property matters; (3) annual reports to the
Secretary on technology transfer and intellectual property
successes, disputes, and subsequent resolution; and (4)
laboratory personnel training on legal, procedural, and ethical
issues affecting patenting, licensing, and commercialization
activities.
Section 19 amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to set
forth civil monetary penalties for violations of DOE
regulations regarding security of classified or sensitive
information or data.
Section 20 directs the Secretary to establish a
whistleblower protection program to ensure against reprisal
actions against a DOE or contractor employee for disclosing
evidence of a certain violations.
Section 21 sets forth procedural guidelines governing the
investigation and remediation of alleged reprisals for
disclosure of certain information to Congress.
2.5--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development
and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1742)
Background and summary of legislation
The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs
authorized in H.R. 1742 at hearings held on March 18, 1999.
Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman
Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1742, the Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA] Office of Research and Development
[ORD] and Science Advisory Board [SAB] Authorization Act of
1999, on May 10, 1999, and the bill was referred to the House
Committee on Science.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1743 on May
26, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by
Voice Vote, on May 26, 1999, and reported the measure to the
House with written report, H. Rept. 106-511, on March 6, 2000.
As reported, Section 3 of H.R. 1743 authorizes to be
appropriated to the EPA Administrator for ORD environmental R&D
and scientific RD&D programs $504,022,100 for FY 2000 and
$519,940,600 for FY 2001, to remain available until expended,
of which: (1) $2,000,000 for FY 2000 and $2,000,000 for FY 2001
shall be for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research
Center; (2) $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $5,000,000 for FY 2001
shall be for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center; and (3) $1,000,000 for FY 2000 shall be for a field-
scale environmental R&D project at an existing site for
remediation of soils contaminated by recalcitrant hydrocarbon
and lead contaminants. In addition, Section 6 of the bill
authorizes to be appropriated to the EPA Administrator for SAB
activities $2,636,200 for FY 2000 and $2,768,000 for FY 2001,
to remain available until expended.
Section 4 establishes the EPA Assistant Administrator for
ORD as EPA's chief scientific official in charge of the
Agency's environmental R&D and scientific RD&D strategic
planning. It also requires the EPA Assistant Administrator for
ORD to review all EPA environmental R&D and scientific RD&D
programs to ensure that the RD&D is of high quality and does
not duplicate other Agency programs, and to report annually to
Congress on such programs that are not of high quality or that
duplicate other programs;
Section 5 ensures that fellowship awards to students
selected under the STAR Graduate Student Fellowship Program are
used to support only scientific research that furthers the
mission of the ORD;
Section 6 strengthens and institutionalizes the role of the
SAB in analyzing and evaluating EPA's current and planned
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs and associated
budgets;
Section 7 limits the amounts of funds that may be
reprogrammed.
Section 8 requires the EPA Administrator to provide to the
Congress at the same time as the budget request submission a
detailed budget justification for programs, projects and
activities authorized by the bill.
Section 9 provides that not more than one percent of the
funds authorized by the bill may be used either directly or
indirectly to fund travel costs of the Agency or travel costs
for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency. As
part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the
Congress, the Administrator must submit a report to the
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the
House, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that identifies: (1)
the estimated amount of travel costs by the Agency and for
persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency for the
fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as for the two
previous years; (2) the major purposes for such travel; and (3)
the sources of funds for such travel. In addition, Section 9
provides that no funds authorized by the bill may be used
either directly or indirectly to fund a grant, contract,
subcontract or any other form of financial assistance awarded
by the Agency to a trade association on a noncompetitive basis.
As part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the
Congress, the Administrator shall also submit a report to the
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the
House, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that shall identify:
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the Agency to
trade associations, by trade association, for the fiscal year
of such budget submission, as well as for the two previous
fiscal years; (2) the services either provided or to be
provided by each such trade association; and (3) the sources of
funds for services provided by each such trade association.
Section 9 also provides that none of the funds authorized by
the bill may be used to propose or issue rules, regulations,
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation of, or in
preparation for implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol.
Subsection 10 requires that the Agency only provide funding
for scientific demonstration projects of the ORD or the SAB for
technologies or processes that can be reasonably expected to
yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or
performance of the technology or process.
Subsection 11 prohibits the use of funds authorized by the
bill may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of ORD
or SAB in a manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition
Regulation unless the EPA Administrator grants, on a case-by-
case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. The
Administrator may not delegate the authority to grant such a
waiver. It also requires that at least 60 days before a
contract award, amendment, or modification for which the
Administrator intends to grant such a waiver, the Administrator
shall submit to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, a report notifying the committees
of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Subsection 12 prohibits the Agency from using funds
authorized by the bill to prepare or initiate Request for
Proposals for a program, project or activity if Congress has
not specifically authorized the program, project or activity.
Section 13 prohibits the use of funds authorized under the
bill by any program, project or activity of ORD or SAB to
produce or provide articles or services for the purpose of
selling to a person outside the Federal Government, unless the
Administrator determines that comparable articles or services
are no available from a commercial source in the United States.
Section 14 excludes from consideration for grant agreements
made after 1999 by the ORD or the SAB for a period of five
years--under the programs, projects and activities for which
funds are authorized under the bill--any person who received
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based
award process, except as specifically authorized by the bill.
Section 15 requires the EPA Administrator to make available
through EPA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the
bill.
2.6--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation
Authorization Act of 1999 (H.R. 1743)
Background and summary of legislation
The Subcommittee heard testimony relevant to the programs
authorized in H.R. 1743 at hearings held on March 18 and April
14, 1999. Subsequently, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Chairman Ken Calvert (CA-43) introduced H.R. 1743, the
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation
Authorization Act of 1999 on May 10, 1999, and the bill was
referred to the House Committee on Science.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1743 on May
26, 1999. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by
Voice Vote, on May 26, 1999, and reported the measure to the
House with written report, H. Rept. 106-511, on March 6, 2000.
As reported, Section 3 of H.R. 1743 authorizes to be
appropriated to the EPA Administrator for the OAR for
environmental R&D and scientific and energy RD&D and commercial
application of energy technology programs $230,116,100 for
fiscal year (FY) 2000 and $237,019,600 for FY 2001, to remain
available until expended, of which: (1) $124,282,600 for FY
2000 and $128,011,100 for FY 2001 shall be for Science; and (2)
$105,833,500 for FY 2000 and $109,008,500 for FY 2001 shall be
for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, including: (A)
$39,964,000 for FY 2000 and $41,162,900 for FY 2001 for
Buildings; (B) $32,702,500 for FY 2000 and $33,683,600 for FY
2001 for Transportation; (C) $19,158,000 for FY 2000 and
$19,732,740 for FY 2001 for Industry; (D) $3,400,000 for FY
2000 and $3,502,000 for FY 2001 for Carbon Removal; (E)
$2,987,000 for FY 2000 and $3,076,600 for FY 2001 for State and
Local Climate; and (F) $7,622,000 for FY 2000 and $7,850,660
for FY 2001 for International Capacity Building. It also
prohibits the obligation of any amounts authorized until 30
days after the Administrator submits to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate, a report detailing for all ORD
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs, projects and
activities, by appropriation goal and objectives, for FY 2000
and each of the previous two FYs--(1) a description of, and
funding requested or allocated for, each such program, project
and activity; (2) an identification of all recipients of funds
to conduct such programs, projects and activities; and (3) an
estimate of the amounts to be expended by each recipient of
funds identified in (2).
Section 4 limits the amounts of funds that may be
reprogrammed.
Section 5 requires the EPA Administrator to provide to the
Congress at the same time as the budget request submission a
detailed budget justification for programs, projects and
activities authorized by the bill.
Section 6 provides that not more than one percent of the
funds authorized by the bill may be used either directly or
indirectly to fund travel costs of the Agency or travel costs
for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency. As
part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the
Congress, the Administrator must submit a report to the
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the
House, and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that identifies--(1)
the estimated amount of travel costs by the Agency and for
persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency for the
fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as for the two
previous years; (2) the major purposes for such travel; and (3)
the sources of funds for such travel. In addition, Section 6
provides that no funds authorized by the bill may be used
either directly or indirectly to fund a grant, contract,
subcontract or any other form of financial assistance awarded
by the Agency to a trade association on a noncompetitive basis.
As part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the
Congress, the Administrator shall also submit a report to the
Committee on Science and Committee on Appropriations of the
House, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that shall identify:
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the Agency to
trade associations, by trade association, for the fiscal year
of such budget submission, as well as for the two previous
fiscal years; (2) the services either provided or to be
provided by each such trade association; and (3) the sources of
funds for services provided by each such trade association.
Section 6 also provides that none of the funds authorized by
the bill may be used to propose or issue rules, regulations,
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation of, or in
preparation for implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol.
Subsection 7 requires that the Agency only provide funding
for scientific or energy or commercial application of energy
technology demonstration programs of the OAR for technologies
or processes that can be reasonably expected to yield new,
measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or performance of
the technology or process.
Section 8 prohibits the use of funds authorized by the bill
to be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of OAR in a
manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation
unless the Administrator grants, on a case-by-case basis, a
waiver to allow for such a deviation. The EPA Administrator may
not delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
Subsection 9 prohibits the Agency from using funds
authorized by the bill to prepare or initiate Request for
Proposals for a program, project or activity if Congress has
not specifically authorized the program, project or activity.
Section 10 prohibits the use of funds authorized under the
bill by any program, project or activity of OAR to produce or
provide articles or services for the purpose of selling to a
person outside the Federal Government, unless the Administrator
determines that comparable articles or services are not
available from a commercial source in the U.S.
Section 11 excludes from consideration for grant agreements
made after 1999 by the ORD or the SAB for a period of five
years-under the programs, projects and activities for which
funds are authorized under the bill--any person who received
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based
award process, except as specifically authorized by the bill.
Section 12 requires the EPA Administrator to make available
through EPA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the
bill.
2.7--National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act
of 1999 (H.R. 1744)
Background and summary of legislation
Congresswoman Constance Morella introduced H.R. 1744 to the
House. Its mission is to promote economic growth by working
with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements and
standards. As the Nation's arbiter of standards, NIST enables
our country's businesses to engage each other in commerce and
participate in the global marketplace. H.R. 1744 authorizes a
total of $693,413,000 in FY 2000 and $586,252,000 in FY 2001
for NIST to carry-out its mission. Specific provisions of the
legislation are as follows:
H.R. 1744 authorizes $274,513,000 for NIST
laboratory functions in FY 2000 and $285,152,000 in FY 2001.
H.R. 1744 authorizes $5,100,000 for the Baldrige
National Quality Program in both FY 2000 and FY 2001.
H.R. 1744 authorizes $106,800,000 for construction
and maintenance improvements in FY 2000 and $31,800,000 in FY
2001.
H.R. 1744 authorizes $7,500,000 for the Under
Secretary for Technology and the Office of Technology Policy in
both FY 2000 and FY 2001.
H.R. 1744 authorizes $106,800,000 for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnerships Program in both FY 2000
and FY 2001.
H.R. 1744 authorizes $190,700,000 for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) in FY 2000 and $149,900,000 in FY
2001.
H.R. 1744 authorizes $2,000,000 for the National
Technical Information Service in FY 2000.
H.R. 1744 increases the ATP match requirement to 60 percent
for non-small business grant recipients and joint ventures and
stipulates that grants can only be awarded to projects that
would not proceed in a timely manner without federal
assistance.
H.R. 1744 was referred to the committee on May 5, 1999.
Committee consideration and mark-up session was held on May 26,
1999.
2.8--Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act
(H.R. 2086/H.R. 4940)
Background and summary of legislation
On June 9, 1999, Committee on Science Chairman F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. introduced H.R. 2086, the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD).
NITRD is a five-year authorization bill that would amend the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and return the Federal
Government's emphasis on IT funding to basic research. This
bipartisan legislation was introduced with 25 co-sponsors and
was drafted to reinvigorate basic research programs in IT under
the jurisdiction of the Science Committee.
The purpose of H.R. 2086 is to authorize appropriations for
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 for networking and information
technology research and development at the National Science
Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and Environmental Protection Agency.
On February 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2086 by voice
vote. Language was introduced on the House floor to authorize
NIH IT R&D. The Senate took no action on H.R. 2086. With the
exception of some increased funding for the Department of
Energy requested by the Senate, Title II of H.R. 4940 is
virtually identical to H.R. 2086. H.R. 4940 passed the House by
voice vote on October 24, 2000.
For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, H.R. 4940 authorizes a
total of $7.4 billion for the six agencies participating in the
High-Performance Computing and Communications, Next Generation
Internet (NGI), and new NITRD programs. For the programs within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, H.R. 4940 nearly
doubles IT funding over the five- year authorization of the
bill. Total funding authorizations, agencies and programs are
as follows:
$4,082.7 million for NSF, including:
--$155 million for large grants of up to $1
million for high-end computing, software, and
networking research;
--$250 million for information technology
research centers;
--$385 million for terascale computing;
--$95 million for universities to establish
internship programs for research at private
companies;
--$56 million for educational technology
research; and
--$50 million for the NGI program;
$903 million for DOE (including $30 million
for the NGI program);
$1,048.4 million for NASA (including $20
million for the NGI program);
$73 million for NIST (including $11
million for the NGI program);
$71.7 million for NOAA; and
$22.3 million for EPA.
New Large Research Grants--H.R. 4940 establishes a new pool
of grant funding at NSF. These grants are limited to long-term,
basic IT research with priority given to research which helps
address issues related to high-end computing, software, social
and economic consequences of IT, and network stability,
fragility, security (including privacy) and scalability. All
grants are required to be peer reviewed by panels that include
private sector representatives.
IT Research Centers--H.R. 4940 sets aside $250 million for
the establishment of IT centers of six or more researchers
entering into multi-disciplinary collaborations for large-
scale, long-term basic IT research projects.
Education and Training--H.R. 4940 establishes a $95 million
program to award grants to college students (including
community college students) to create for-credit IT industry
internship programs at two and four year colleges and fund
NSF's Advanced Technology Education program to improve
education in fields related to IT. To participate in the
internship program, a company must commit to providing 50
percent of the cost of the internship.
Hardware Acquisition--H.R. 4940 authorizes NSF to
administer a new combined terascale computing acquisition
program. The program is authorized a total of $385 million,
which will be allocated in an open competition by NSF. Awardees
must agree to integrate with the existing Advanced Partnership
for Advanced Computational Infrastructure program and give
access to NITRD research grant recipients.
2.9--SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
1999 (H.R. 2392)/CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, CONFERENCE
REPORT H. REPT. 106-1033 (H.R. 4577)/SMALL BUSINESS REAUTHORIZATION ACT
(H.R. 5667)/CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF
2000 (H.R. 2614)
The Small Business Innovation Research Program
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 2392) was introduced on June
30, 1999, and referred to the House Committees on Small
Business and Science. Both Committees held hearings and the
House Committee on Small Business reported H.R. 2392 on
September 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-329). In the interest of
moving the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives
promptly, the Committee on Science agreed not to exercise its
right to report the legislation, provided that the House
Committee on Small Business agreed to add the selected portions
of the Science Committee version of the legislation, as
Sections 8 through 11 on the House Floor. H.R. 2392 passed the
House without further amendment on September 27. The Science
Committee provisions were explained in floor statements by
Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Morella, and Mark Udall.
Variations of the bill (involving small business
reauthorizations; the SBIR language remained the same) had been
volleyed between the House and Senate, including incorporation
into the H.R. 2614 conference report, The Certified Development
Company Program Improvements Act of 2000 (the tax relief
package). It passed the House on October 26, 2000 and was
considered (did not pass) by the Senate on October 30. Final
passage occurred when H.R. 5667, the Small Business
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (title I incorporated a version of
H.R. 2392) was incorporated into the Conference Report (H.
Rept. 106-1033) of H.R. 4577, FY 2001 Labor, Health, and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (final omnibus appropriations act).
The following provisions of H.R. 2392 (conference report
section number of H.R. 5667) are incorporated into the
conference report of H.R. 4577:
Section 3 (103) extends the SBIR program through fiscal
year 2008.
Section 4 (104) requires the report SBA submits to Congress
be sent to the Committee on Science. The report is currently
received only by the House and Senate Small Business
Committees.
Section 6 (110) modifies SBIR policy directives. The
modifications clarify that: (1) follow-on phase III procurement
contracts with an SBIR company may include procurement of
products, services, research, or any combination intended for
use by the Federal government; (2) a commercialization plan for
all applications of second phase awards moving towards
commercialization be added; (3) agencies must report annually
to the SBA administrator on why, if they pursued research,
development, or production as a result of an SBIR award, they
did not use the small business awardee.
Section 7 (106) insures that agencies in the SBIR program
will submit as part of their annual performance plan under the
Government Performance and Results Act, a section on the SBIR
program. This report is also to be submitted to the Committee
on Science, and the House and Senate Small Business Committees.
Section 8 (107) establishes a public and private database
for purposes of evaluating the SBIR program. It was understood
by the three committees that the SBA collection of data on SBIR
was incomplete. To address this concern, H.R. 2392 specifies
certain criteria that are to be collected, such as names of the
company, amounts of awards, and sales. The committees also
understand that the commercialization data will be difficult,
but nevertheless needed to evaluate the commercialization
requirement under the statute.
Section 9 (108) requires a report by the National Research
Council to be submitted to Congress three years after it is
commissioned, and updated 6 years thereafter. The report is
designed to evaluate the SBIR program to date. The NRC is
directed to evaluate how the SBIR program has stimulated
technological innovation and used small businesses to meet
Federal research and development needs.
Section 10 (109) requires the agencies to inform SBA how
they calculate their extramural budgets. An agencies extramural
budget is the budget from which SBIR funds are derived. Over
the years, it has come to the attention of the committees that
agencies have different methods of calculating their extramural
budgets for purposes of submission to OMB and purposes of SBIR.
This provision should clarify how each agency is performing
their calculations.
Section 11 (111) establishes the Federal State and
Technology Partnership Program. This is a five-year competitive
matching grant program to encourage states to promote the
development of high-technology small businesses.
Section 12 (112) establishes a mentoring network designed
to bring together organizations and small businesses familiar
with the SBIR program with small businesses interested in
participating in SBIR. It creates a database of small
businesses willing to act as mentors in this capacity.
Section 13 (113) requires SBA to simplify the SBIR
reporting requirements to reduce the burden on small
businesses.
Section 14 (114) extends through fiscal year 2005, section
501(b)(2) of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997,
and section 9(s) of the Small Business Act. These provisions
are designed to increase the participation of rural small
businesses in the SBIR program.
2.10--Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 2413)
Background and summary of legislation
The purpose of H.R. 2413 is to update the Computer Security
Act of 1987 to improve computer security for federal civilian
agencies and the private sector.
H.R. 2413 provides for greater security for the federal
civilian agencies that base their procurement decisions for
computer security hardware and software on NIST standards. The
legislation also promotes the use of commercially available
products and encourages an open exchange of information between
NIST and the private sector. The legislation authorizes a total
of $8,980,000 in FY 2001 and $9,560,000 in FY 2002.
Specifically, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000:
Requires NIST to encourage the acquisition of
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products to meet civilian
agency computer security needs. This measure should reduce the
costs of computer security technologies for federal agencies.
Enhances the role of the independent Computer
System Security and Privacy Advisory Board in NIST's decision-
making process by requiring the Board, which is made up of
representatives from industry, federal agencies and other
external organizations, to make formal recommendations
regarding proposed security standards and provide guidance to
NIST on emerging computer security issues.
Clarifies that NIST standards and guidelines are
to be used for the acquisition of computer security
technologies for the Federal Government and are not intended as
restrictions on the production or use of encryption or
electronic authentication technologies by the private sector.
Updates the Computer Security Act by including
references to computer networking which has become an
increasingly important component of the Federal Government
information technology system.
Establishes a new computer science fellowship
program for graduate and undergraduate students studying
computer security. The bill sets aside $500,000 for the first
year and $500,000 for the second year, to enable NIST to
finance computer security fellowships under an existing NIST
grant program.
Requires the National Research Council (NRC) to
conduct a study to assess issues associated with electronic
authentication technologies.
Requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to
actively promote the use of technologies by the Federal
Government that will enhance the security of federal
communications networks and information in electronic form; to
establish a clearinghouse of information available to the
public on information security threats; and to promote the
development of market driven consensus standards-based
infrastructures that will enable more widespread use of
encryption and electronic authentication technologies for
confidentiality and authentication.
On Wednesday, October 20, 1999, the Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Technology convened to mark up H.R. 2413, The
Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999, to enhance the
ability of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to improve computer security.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000, the Committee on Science
convened to mark up H.R. 2413. An amendment offered by Mrs.
Morella and Mr. Barcia was offered and adopted by a voice vote.
With a quorum present, Chairman Sensenbrenner moved that H.R.
2413, as amended be reported. The motion was adopted by a voice
vote.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2000 the House voted to Suspend the
Rules and pass H.R. 2413 as amended. The motion was agreed to
by a voice vote.
2.11--Apollo Exploration Award Act of 2000 (H.R. 2572)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 2572, the Apollo Exploration Award Act of 2000,
expresses the sense of Congress that the American people should
provide a tribute to each of the Apollo astronauts to recognize
and commemorate their bravery, substantial scientific and
technical accomplishments, and unique contributions to American
and world history.
The bill requires the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to design and present an
Apollo Exploration Award, commemorating the accomplishments of
the astronauts who flew in the Apollo program and makes a lunar
rock sample its central feature. It prohibits the use of the
award for monetary gain or profit or its transfer outside of
the astronaut's family.
Finally, to protect the taxpayer's interest in the lunar
sample, the bill provides for recall of a lunar sample
contained in the award if the Administrator determines that
such sample is required for scientific purposes.
The bill was introduced by Congressman Mark Souder on July
20, 1999 and eventually acquired 34 co-sponsors from both
parties. It was referred to the Committee on Science on the
same day. The Committee discharged the bill and the House of
Representatives considered it under suspension of the rules on
September 26, 2000. At the conclusion of the debate, the yeas
and nays were ordered. The vote was tallied with 419 in favor
and none against (Roll Call No. 490.)
The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on September
27, 2000.
2.12--To prevent the elimination of certain reports (H.R. 3904)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 3904, a bill to prevent the elimination of certain
reports, passed the House on April 3, 2000. The bill prohibits
the application of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset
Act of 1995 with respect to 30 specified reports under the
jurisdiction of the Science Committee, including certain
reports from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the National Science Foundation, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Under the Federal Reports
Elimination Act, thousands of reports submitted to Congress by
the Administration are to be eliminated. H.R. 3904 exempts 30
of the hundreds of reports under the Science Committee's
jurisdiction considered to be the most relevant to the
Committee's oversight function. Other Committees in Congress
have taken similar action with similar bills.
The bill was referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee on April 4, 2000 where it awaits action.
2.13--To ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate
mechanisms to independently assess the effectiveness of its policy and
site performance in the areas of safeguards and security and cyber
security (H.R. 3906)
Background and summary of legislation
Representative Tom Bliley (VA-7) introduced H.R. 3906 on
March 14, 2000, and it was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services,
and Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Within the Committee on Commerce, H.R. 3906 was referred to
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on March 21, which held a
hearing on March 22. The Subcommittee considered the measure on
April 12, and forwarded it to the Full Commerce Committee,
amended, by Voice Vote. The Full Commerce Committee met to
consider H.R. 3906 on May 17. The Committee ordered the bill
reported, amended, by Voice Vote, on May 17, and reported the
measure to the House with written report, H. Rept. 106-696,
Part 1, on June 23, 2000.
The Committee on Armed Services met to consider H.R. 3906
on May 28. The Committee ordered the bill reported, amended, by
Voice Vote, on May 28, and reported the measure to the House
with written report, H. Rept. 106-696, Part 2, on July 12,
2000.
Within the Committee on Science, H.R. 3906 was referred to
the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 21. Both
the Subcommittee and the Full Science Committed were discharged
from further consideration of the bill on June 23, 2000.
As introduced, H.R. 3906 establishes an ``Office of
Independent Security Oversight'' within DOE that reports
directly to the Secretary of Energy and that is responsible
for: (1) the independent evaluation of safeguards and security
policies, practices, and programs throughout the DOE (including
the NNSA); and (2) the independent evaluation of the
effectiveness of classified and unclassified computer security
policies and programs throughout DOE (including the NNSA).
The bill also requires that the Office conduct evaluations
every 18 months and conduct follow-up reviews to ensure that
corrective actions for security problems are effective. The
Office is to issue annual reports to Congress before each
February 15 summarizing its prior calendar year activities.
Subsequently, the Secretary is to issue an annual report to
Congress before each March 15 that responds to the Office's
annual report that is to include, among other things, ``an
explanation for any failure on the part of the DOE to complete
effectively corrective actions recommended by the Office in its
previous annual reports. The Office's Director is also required
to issue a ``Special Report'' immediately to the Secretary and
to Congress whenever the Director ``becomes aware of
particularly serious or flagrant problems or deficiencies
relating to the security programs, practices, or operations of
the Department of Energy,'' and the Secretary is required to
respond to Congress within seven calendar days after receiving
the Director's Special Report ``on the corrective actions taken
to address such problems.''
Finally, H.R. 3906 prohibits the Secretary from altering,
modifying, or otherwise changing the substance of any testimony
or briefing to Members or Committees of Congress or their
staffs, or from delaying any such testimony or briefing.
2.14--National Science Education Act (H.R. 4271)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 4271, the National Science Education Act, focuses on
improving the science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
(SMET) education initiatives of the National Science Foundation
(NSF). H.R. 4271 authorizes the National Science Foundation to
make grants to schools for various activities, including: (1)
SMET master teacher programs in the K-8 grades; (2)
partnerships with private industry to encourage students to
pursue careers in information technology; (3) dissemination of
information to high schools regarding prerequisites to
postsecondary SMET education teacher training; (4) teacher
technology professional development; and (5) distance learning
grants.
H.R. 4271 also authorizes the NSF to provide scholarships
to: (1) outstanding teachers to participate in scientific
research; and (2) prospective teachers who have majored in
science, mathematics, or engineering to fulfill academic
requirements necessary to become certified as teachers.
The bill also requires: (1) the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to catalog the federal SMET education
programs, review and evaluate the programs, develop a plan for
interagency coordination, and monitor the plan's
implementation; (2) the National Science Foundation and the
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering to evaluate
studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom;
and (3) the National Science Foundation to convene a conference
to bring together private sector participants in SMET
education.
H.R. 4271 was introduced by Mr. Ehlers et al on April 13,
2000, reported by the Committee on Science on September 6,
2000, and discharged by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce on September 21, 2000. The House of Representatives
took up the bill under suspension of the rules on October 24,
2000. H.R. 4271 failed under suspension of the rules by a vote
of 215 yeas to 156 nays.
2.15--Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000 (H.R. 4429)
Background and summary of legislation
The purpose of H.R. 4429 is to require the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to assist
small and medium-sized manufacturers to successfully integrate
and utilize electronic commerce technologies and business
practices, and to authorize NIST to assess critical enterprise
integration standards and implementation activities for major
manufacturing industries and to develop a plan for enterprise
integration for each major manufacturing industry.
On July 26, 2000, the Committee on Science convened to
mark-up H.R. 4429, The Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of
2000. A substitute amendment was offered and adopted by voice
vote. No additional amendments were offered to the substitute.
With a quorum present, Mr. Hall moved that H.R. 4429, as
amended, be reported. The motion was adopted by a voice vote.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2000, H.R. 4429 passed the House
under Suspension of the Rules by a voice vote.
2.16--To designate the museum operated by the Secretary of Energy in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the American Museum of Science and Energy, and
for other purposes (H.R. 4940)/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001
(H.R. 4577)
Background and summary of legislation
H.R. 4940 was introduced by Representative Zach Wamp (TN-3)
on July 24, 2000. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Science, and within the Science Committee, it was referred to
the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on August 2. The
Subcommittee discharged the bill on September 21, 2000, and by
the Committee on October 24.
The House passed H.R. 4940, amended, under suspension of
the rules on October 24, 2000, by Voice Vote, and the bill was
received in the Senate on October 24, 1999. On October 25, the
Senate passed the bill with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The House passed H.R. 1733 under suspension of the rules on
October 26, 1999, by Voice Vote, and the bill was received in
the Senate on October 27, 1999. On November 19, the Senate
passed the bill with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. On
April 3, 2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment with an
amendment pursuant to H. Res. 453, and passed the bill under
suspension of the rules by Voice Vote. On April 13, the Senate
agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendments by
Unanimous Consent. The President signed H.R. 1753 into law on
May 2, 2000 (Public Law 106-193).
H.R. 4940, as introduced, allows the American Museum of
Science and Energy (ASME) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to perform
functions necessary to its existence, including soliciting
donations, distributing information, and collecting fees, in
order to cover the costs of the museum. It also authorizes the
Secretary of Energy to recruit and train volunteers for the
museum. (Under current law, the funds raised by the ASME
foundation board would have to be returned to the Treasury and
would not be captured for the operations of the Museum. H.R.
4940 is modeled after similar legislation that was passed in
the 1992-1993 DOD Authorization bill pertaining to the National
Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico that the DOE
operates.)
The amended version of H.R. 4940 passed by the House
contained two titles. Title I is the original text of the bill,
as introduced. With the exception of some increased funding for
the DOE requested by the Senate, Title II is virtually
identical to H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD), which was
introduced on June 9, 1999, by Science Committee Chairman F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI-9), and passed by the House,
amended, by Voice Vote on February 15, 2000. NITRD amends the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and returns the Federal
Government's emphasis of information technology (IT) funding to
basic research. It authorizes $7.4 billion in appropriations
for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 for networking and
information technology R&D, including Next Generation Internet
(NGI), and new NITRD programs at several locations including
the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), DOE, National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), NOAA, EPA, and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).
$4,082.7 million for NSF, including:
--$155 million for large grants of up to $1 million
for high-end computing, software, and networking
research;
--$250 million for information technology research
centers;
--$385 million for terascale computing;
--$95 million for universities to establish
internship programs for research at private companies;
--$56 million for educational technology research;
and
--$50 million for the NGI program;
$903 million for DOE (including $30 million for
the NGI program);
$1,048.4 million for NASA (including $20 million
for the NGI program);
$73 million for NIST (including $11 million for
the NGI program);
$71.7 million for NOAA;
$22.3 million for EPA; and
$1.2 billion for NIH.
It also establishes a new pool of grant funding at NSF to
address issues related to high-end computing, software, social
and economic consequences of IT, and network stability,
fragility, security (including privacy) and scalability; sets
aside $250 million for the establishment of IT centers of six
or more researchers entering into multi-disciplinary
collaborations for large-scale, long-term basic IT research
projects; establishes a $95 million program to award grants to
college students (including community college students) to
create for-credit IT industry internships programs at two and
four year colleges; and authorizes NSF to administer a new $385
million program for combined terascale computing acquisition.
H.R. 4940 became Title IV of H.R. 5666, A bill making
miscellaneous appropriations for fiscal year ending September
30, 2001, which was incorporated in H. Rept. 106-1033, the
conference report on H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2001. The House and Senate agreed to the conference report
on December 15, 2000--clearing the measure for the President.
Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on
Science
3.1--H.Res. 267, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
with regard to Shuttle Mission STS-93, commanded by Col. Eileen
Collins, the first female space shuttle commander
Background and summary of legislation
A Space Shuttle mission, STS-93, was launched on July 22,
1999 to deploy the Chandra X-Ray Telescope with Colonel Eileen
Collins (USAF) in command, the first shuttle mission ever
commanded by a woman. The resolution congratulates the crew of
Shuttle Mission STS-93 and honors Colonel Collins on being the
first female commander of a United States space shuttle;
recognizes the important contribution Colonel Collins has made
to the United States space program and to the advancement of
women in science; and invites Colonel Collins and the crew of
STS-93 to the United States Capitol to be honored and
recognized by the House of Representatives for their
achievements.
The resolution was introduced on July 27, 1999, the day
STS-93 returned to Earth, by Representative Constance Morella
and referred to the Committee on Science. It eventually
acquired eight co-sponsors.
The House considered the resolution on August 2, 1999 under
suspension of the rules. The House of Representatives adopted
the measure on a voice vote on August 2, 1999.
Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the
Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee Legislative
Activities
4.1--Committee on Science
4.1(a)--The Year 2000 Problem: Status Report on the Federal, State,
Local, and Foreign Governments
January 20, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-42
Background
On January 20, 2000 the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``The Year 2000 Problem: Status Report On The Federal, State,
Local, And Foreign Governments.'' The hearing presented John
Koskinen with the opportunity to report to the House on the
status of the Executive Branch's Year 2000 efforts. He also
provided an assessment of the council's work with State and
local governments, as well as its work with foreign nations. In
addition, the committee received testimony from the National
Intelligence Council which, along with representatives of the
Central Intelligence Agency, provided a declassified assessment
of the status of Year 2000 efforts among foreign governments. A
representative of the U.S. General Accounting Office also
reported on the issue.
Witnesses included: Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman,
President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion; Dr. Lawrence
K. Gershwin, Ph.D., National Intelligence Officer for Science
and Technology, National Intelligence Council accompanied by
Norman Green, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Science
and Technology, National Intelligence Council; and Mr. Joel
Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information Management
Division, General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
Mr. John Koskinen, Chairman, President's Council on the
Year 2000 Conversion, stated that, ``According to the most
recent OMB report released last month, 61% of all Federal
mission-critical systems are now Y2K compliant-more than double
the 27% compliant a year ago. These systems have been tested
and implemented and will be able to accurately process data
through the transition from 1999 into the Year 2000. The report
also states that, of critical systems requiring repair work,
90% have been fixed and are now being tested.'' The President
has established an ambitious goal of having 100% of
government's mission-critical systems Y2K compliant by March
31, 1999--well ahead of any private sector system remediation
schedules. Although much work remains, we expect that over 80%
of the Government's mission-critical systems will meet the
March goal, and monthly benchmarks with a timetable for
completing the work will be available for every system still
being tested or implemented.
Mr. Koskinen expects that all of the Government's critical
systems will be Y2K compliant before January 1, 2000.'' States
administer over 160 Federal programs--that is, Unemployment
Insurance, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. Generally, most States
are making good progress in remediating their systems. A
handful of States report that they have not yet completed their
critical systems. Mr. Koskinen is increasingly confident that
there will be no large-scale national disruptions in key
infrastructure areas, in particular, telecommunications and
electric power. Banks are well prepared--96% of the Nation's
depository institutions are on track to meet regulators goal of
completing Y2K work by June 1999.
Furthermore, Mr. Koskinen claimed that smaller government
entities and small businesses are at greatest risk of having
Y2K problems. Mr. Koskinen believes it necessary to provide the
public with clear and candid information about the status of
Year 2000 activities at the Federal, State, local levels and
the private sector.
Dr. Lawrence K. Gershwin, Ph.D., National Intelligence
Officer for Science and Technology, National Intelligence
Council accompanied by Norman Green, Deputy National
Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology, National
Intelligence Council testified that the Y2k situation is very
fluid, his assessments could change significantly over the next
several months as more information becomes available. The
Gartner Group estimates global expenditures could be about one
to two trillion dollars. ``Governments in many countries have
begun to plan seriously for Y2K remediation only within the
last year, some only in the last few months, and some continue
to significantly underestimate the cost and time requirements
for remediation and, more importantly, testing. Because so many
countries are way behind, testing of fixes will come late, and
unanticipated problems typically arise in that phase.'' Larger
institutions, particularly in the financial sectors, are most
advanced in Y2K remediation; small and medium-size entities
trail in every sector worldwide.
Dr. Gershwin also stated that most countries have failed to
address the embedded processor issue. The lowest level of
preparedness is evident in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin
America, the Middle East, Africa and several Asian countries,
including China. Widespread Y2K failures in the Winter of 1999-
2000 in Russia and Ukraine could have major humanitarian
consequences. Concerns include problems with computer-
controlled systems and subsystems within power distribution
systems and nuclear power generation stations leading to
reactor shutdowns. ``While the lines of authority for China's
Y2K effort have been established, its late start in addressing
Y2K issues suggests Beijing will fail to solve many of its Y2K
problems in the limited time remaining, and will probably
experience failures in key sectors such as telecommunications,
electric power, and banking.'' Dr. Gershwin does not see a
problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically
being launched or nuclear weapons going off due to Y2K
failures.
Dr. Gershwin adds that, ``Significant oil exporters to the
United States and the global market include a number of
countries--Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Angola,
and Gabon--that are lagging in their Y2K failures.'' Multi-
national corporations in oil-producing countries are highly
dependent on ports, ocean shipping, and domestic
infrastructures. ``Foreign officials and companies are looking
to the West, particularly, the United States for help.'' Thus,
worldwide litigation issues are already part of the Y2K scene.
Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information
Management Division, General Accounting Office stated that,
``As of mid-November 1998, four of the twenty-four major
departments and agencies (17%) reported that they had not
completed assessing their mission-critical systems to be
repaired--over a year behind OMB's government-wide target of
June, 1997; 16 of the 24 major departments and agencies (67%)
reported that they had not completed renovating their mission-
critical systems to be repaired--several weeks after OMB's
government-wide deadline of September 1998; and, 6 of the 24
major departments and agencies (25%) reported that they had
validated 50% or fewer of their mission-critical systems to be
repaired. OMB's government-wide target to complete validation
is January 1999.'' As of November 1998, many agencies had not
competed inventorying and or assessing their telecommunications
or embedded systems.
In addition, reviews show uneven Federal agency progress.
Recommendations have centered on project planning, priority
setting, data exchanges, testing and business continuity and
contingency planning. According to OMB, all agencies are
required to independently verify their validation process to
provide a check that their mission-critical systems will be
ready for year 2000. He recommends that the President's Council
continue to aggressively pursue readiness information in areas
in which it is lacking, that is, the railroad industry, health
sector and local law enforcement. The Council may want to
consider legislative remedies such as requiring disclosure of
Year 2000 readiness data should the use of associations to
voluntarily collect information not yield necessary
information. The Council should also consider requesting that
national associations publicly disclose companies that have
responded to surveys. The Council could prioritize trade and
commerce activities critical to the nation's well-being, that
is, oil, food, pharmaceuticals, as well as identify options to
be obtain through alternative avenues.
4.1(b)--Why and How You Should Learn Math and Science
March 17, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-21
Background
On Wednesday, March 17, 1999 at 10:00 a.m., the Science
Committee held a hearing on the importance of science and math
education from preschool through high school, and how it can be
improved. This was the first in a series of hearings on science
and math education issues to be conducted by the Committee
during the 106th Congress. The Committee is planning a
comprehensive examination of current science and math
education, the future of science and math education, and
reforms that may be necessary to ensure graduates are well
prepared to be productive members of American society. The
purpose of this first hearing was to discuss the directions in
which science and math education may be heading in the next
century, to develop a general understanding of why there is an
increasing need for competent science and math education, and
to help identify what needs to be undertaken to ensure that
American students have the background to be competent employees
in the workplace, smart consumers in the marketplace, and
contributing citizens of our nation in the 21st Century.
Witnesses before the Committee included: Dr. Vera Rubin,
Member, National Science Board; Dr. Rodger Bybee, Executive
Director and Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Associate Executive
Director, Center for Science, Math and Engineering Education;
Amy Kaslow, Senior Fellow, Council on Competitiveness; Dr.
Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of
Science; and John Harrison, CEO, Ecutel.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Rubin opened her testimony by reviewing ``Preparing our
Children: Math and Science Education in the National
Interest,'' a report recently released by the National Science
Board, which is the result of a year-long study of the
disappointing TIMSS results. Because of the high incidence of
students changing schools, the report concludes that it is
imperative to develop national strategies to improve K-12
teaching and learning of math and science. Three areas of
particular importance to improving education are: (1) a
consensus on content for each grade level, with instructional
materials that promote thinking and problem-solving and
creatively use technology; (2) widely-shared standards in
teacher preparation, licensing, and professional development;
and (3) an increased congruence between high school graduation
requirements and undergraduate performance demands. She
concluded her testimony by adding that research into each of
these areas should be the basis for reform.
Dr. Bybee opened his testimony by stating the importance of
learning the abilities of scientific inquiry. These skills help
students learn other disciplines. The skills include
identifying questions that guide an investigation; designing
and conducting an investigation; gathering and analyzing data;
developing descriptions, explanations and predictions using
evidence; thinking critically and logically to establish a
relationship between evidence and an explanation; and
communicating procedures and explanations. He continued that
the first thing to do to be sure that students learn these
skills is to teach them through ``hands-on'' methods. He stated
that this education is possible only with curriculum materials
that emphasize the abilities of scientific inquiry and
teachers, who possess, understand and implement these
abilities. Dr. Bybee concluded by emphasizing the need for
public support for teaching science as inquiry as a valued
goal.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy opened her testimony by adding the skills
learned through mathematics also benefit students in areas
outside of this discipline. She stated that mathematics calls
for students to pose questions; to collect, organize and
represent data to answer those questions; to interpret data;
and to develop and evaluate inferences and predictions.
Mathematics teaches students to reason; to communicate
unambiguously; to assess claims; to detect fallacies; to
evaluate risks; and to analyze evidence. She concluded her
testimony by stating that we need research into the learning of
math and science that focuses on particular curricular and
teaching approaches. Finally, she stated that we need research
about teacher learning and development.
Ms. Kaslow opened her testimony by explaining that her
remarks are based on a Council project that examined what
happens when the K-12 education system fails to deliver on the
basics. She testified that the United States' workforce is
experiencing an acute skills shortage and that many prospective
and existing workers do not have the skills necessary for the
jobs being created. Without a significant boost in the quality
of math and science education, Ms. Kaslow concluded, American
workers will not be able to become competitive in the
international economy.
Dr. Malcom opened her testimony by stating that advanced
scientific quantitative and technical skills have become
indispensable not just in technologically-related jobs, but
also in many other areas of the workforce and in society in
general. Society has been revolutionized so that everyday
living requires the skills, knowledge and understanding
commensurate with a math and science education. Dr. Malcom
closed her testimony by stating that because the majority of
the U.S. population is beyond the educational system, it is not
just improving schools that is necessary, but also relying on
media and other avenues to relay needed information.
Mr. Harrison opened his testimony by stating that a lack of
stringent math and science education is contributing to many
American job applicants being unqualified for positions with
Ecutel and like technology companies. He described the
situation being faced by Ecutel in illustrating a national
problem: American applicants without competitive skills;
positions unfilled or filled by foreign workers; and,
subsequently, funds diverted from investment, marketing and job
creation to immigration fees for foreign workers, thereby
allowing Ecutel to make much less of an impact on the economy
than it otherwise could. He concluded his testimony by
emphasizing the need for improving the quality of math and
science education.
4.1(c)--K-12 Math and Science Education: What Is Being Done To Improve
It?
April 28, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-34
Background
On Wednesday, April 28, 1999 at 9:30 a.m., the Committee on
Science held a hearing to survey current K-12 math and science
curricular programs. This was the second in a series of
hearings on science and mathematics education issues being
conducted by the Committee during the 106th Congress. The
purpose of this second hearing was to determine what curricular
programs are currently available through the Federal Government
and private organizations to school districts and teachers;
which programs are being utilized; which ones have proven
successful and why; what teaching methods associated with the
various curricular programs are effectual, and the degree of
impact teacher training has upon the success of individual
programs. In addition, the hearing examined what level of
coordination between various agencies of the Federal government
is standard practice. Finally, it also looked at the current
and future goals of the agencies and other program sponsors.
Witnesses before the Committee included: The Honorable Rita
Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; Ms. Judith
Johnson, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of Education; The Honorable
Daniel Goldin, Administrator, NASA; Dr. Gerry Wheeler,
Executive Director, National Science Teachers Association; Mr.
Gordon Ambach, Executive Director, Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Summary of the hearing
Dr. Colwell opened her testimony by explaining the central
concepts of NSF education programs. First, partnerships that
pull in all stakeholders are vital to the success of any
education program. Secondly, NSF seeks quality for education
programs, which is ensured through such means as peer-review.
Dr. Colwell also testified to the priorities within NSF for the
future of education programs. The first priority is building
better links with NSF research programs in K-12 education.
Next, she indicated that NSF hopes to promote new strategies
and collaborations for teacher preparation. Finally, NSF is
prioritizing increased emphasis on research into learning. She
concluded her testimony by stating that closer ties in the
future between science and education agencies will lead to
opportunities to improve K-12 math and science education.
Ms. Johnson opened her testimony by explaining that the
TIMSS results have disclosed that students who have well-
trained teachers and content-rich curricula can demonstrate
high levels of achievement. She continued by emphasizing three
key principles of the Department of Education's efforts in math
and science education. First, challenging curricula should be
encouraged for all children and the DoEd is disseminating
information on education resources via the Internet. Secondly,
high-quality teaching should be supported. Finally, a research
and evaluation database should be built. She ended her
testimony by concluding that a high quality education in math
and science is the means to young people reaching their
potential.
Mr. Goldin opened his testimony by emphasizing the critical
nature of educational success to the future. To these ends,
NASA both directly funds education programs and is beginning to
embed education in all NASA programs. As an example, Mr. Goldin
relayed the story of a child who was transformed from a gang
member to a college hopeful through participation in a science
competition. He concluded his testimony by expressing his
frustration at the funding cutbacks that are preventing more
emphasis on education programs.
Dr. Wheeler opened his testimony by explaining that there
are numerous supplementary curriculum programs, but very few
year-long programs in K-12 science education. He commented that
most of these programs were created before the release of
standards, thus presenting a challenge to the implementation of
such standards. He testified that several groups are producing
curriculum materials: professional societies and other non-
profit groups, federal agencies, and the states through the
utilization of textbooks as the base for teaching science. Dr.
Wheeler concluded his testimony by emphasizing the need for
support for teachers, including classroom materials and
professional development.
Mr. Ambach opened his testimony by summarizing several
education indicators--from the increased percentage of students
taking math and science courses to the percentage of teachers
teaching out of certified area--that are included within the
status materials on math and science education collected by the
Council. He continued by explaining that students in states
that are approaching reform systemically are scoring higher on
tests. Mr. Ambach pointed out four approaches the federal
government could be taking with regard to science and math
education: funding standards and assessments; funding for
measurement tests, such as TIMSS; funding technology used both
for instruction and distance learning; and supporting
professional development. He concluded by stating that the
states do not fear strong federal intervention in the case of
directing funds to math and science.
4.1(d)--Security at the Department of Energy: Who's Protecting the
Nation's Secrets?
May 20, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-9
Background
On Thursday, May 20, 1999 the Committee on Science held a
hearing entitled, ``Hearing on Security at the Department of
Energy: Who's Protecting The Nation's Secrets?'' to hear
testimony on security lapses at the Department of Energy
resulting in the possible theft of nuclear secrets. A recent
FBI investigation uncovered instances of alleged espionage by a
scientist employed at the Los Alamos National Lab. This is the
fourth public case in the past two decades of Chinese espionage
at Department of Energy (DOE) labs. In addition, the Committee
discussed a reform package that the DOE put forward to address
security concerns.
The lone witness for this hearing was the Honorable Bill
Richardson, Secretary, U.S. DOE. He was accompanied by the
Honorable Ernest J. Moniz, DOE Under Secretary, and Mr. Edward
J. Curran, Director, DOE Office of Counterintelligence.
Summary of hearing
Secretary Richardson testified on many of the 86 reforms he
had initiated at DOE's national laboratories,
counterintelligence, and the overall complex. He said that
security problems arose because security operations at the
Department were splintered, there was a lack of accountability,
and the lab culture was not monitored. The Secretary proposed
creating a new ``Office of Security and Emergency Operations,''
which would report directly to the Secretary and would bring
all security operations under one roof. Additionally, the
Secretary's plan would impose a zero-tolerance security policy,
open the DOE up to scrutiny from independent boards, and
implement a cybersecurity program. Mr. Richardson also
testified to the following in response to questions from
Members:
A lack of communication is cited as the reason
that the Administration waited three years after learning of
the scientist's activities before they decided to take action
to strengthen security.
DOE has moved to a 100-percent background check
policy on scientists from sensitive countries and many people
have been rejected. DOE rejects scientists if anything
suspicious is found in the background check.
Mr. Richardson briefed the President continuously
since taking office in September 1998. The President's March
19, 1999 response to a question concerning espionage at DOE in
which he said, ``I can tell you that no one has reported to me
that they suspect such a thing has occurred,'' referred
specifically to a legal case against someone.
The Secretary supports legislation calling for a
moratorium on lab visits by citizens of sensitive countries,
but does not want the language to be drafted broadly so as to
prevent work that is currently going on in unclassified labs.
This moratorium could be lifted once the FBI and CIA determine
that sufficient security is in place.
4.1(e)--K-12 Math and Science Education--Finding, Training and Keeping
Good Teachers
June 10, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-63
Background
On Thursday, June 10, 1998, the Committee on Science and
the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a joint
hearing to examine issues related to K-12 mathematics and
science teachers, including recruitment, pre-service training,
professional development, and retention. This was the third in
a series of hearings on science and mathematics education
issues being conducted by the Committee on Science during the
106th Congress. The purpose of this third hearing was to
determine problems and strengths in the U.S. educational
systems that impact securing the best teachers in every
mathematics and science classroom. Among those areas explored
were the recruitment and training of future teachers,
professional development for teachers and retention of current
teachers.
Witnesses appearing before the Committees included: Dr.
John Staver, Director of the Center for Science Education,
President of the Association for Education of Teachers of
Science and Professor at Kansas State University; Mr. Howard
Voss, Chairman of the Physics Department at Arizona State
University; Dr. Jane Kahle, Condit Professor of Science
Education, Miami University of Ohio; and Ms. Pamela B. Tackett,
Executive Director, Texas State Board for Educator
Certification.
Summary of the hearing
Mr. Voss opened his testimony by stating that about two
million K-12 teachers will have to be recruited by 2007. He
explained that most teachers are recruited while they are young
students and that, given the impending timeframe in which these
teachers will be needed, nothing short of a societal change
will allow this number of teachers to be added to the teaching
force. Mr. Voss listed the reasons for the teacher shortage:
low salaries, lack of societal regard, and improper secondary
education. He described strategies for adding mathematics and
science teachers into the profession: ensuring enthusiastic
elementary and high school teachers who will excite in their
students an interest in teaching science and mathematics, and
reforming college programs to make them conducive to choosing
teaching as a career. Finally, he stated that one of the most
important strategies for keeping teachers is to treat them as
professionals.
Dr. Staver opened his testimony by stating that teachers
need expertise in four areas: science, teaching, learning and
the setting in which they plan to teach. He explained that
effective teacher training programs must teach all four. In
addition, good programs relate the subject areas to students'
interests, community concerns and societal issues, while
getting students involved in action research. Finally, good
programs promote teaching as a profession by providing
opportunities for experienced teachers. He stressed the
effectiveness of professional development schools (PDSs), which
are schools working in partnership with universities. He closed
his testimony by cautioning that alternative routes to teacher
certification may bypass much of the instruction needed to
fully prepare teachers.
Dr. Kahle opened her testimony by describing past
professional development efforts as short-term, standardized
sessions designed to impart specific skills. She explained that
such activities usually do not result in the improved content
knowledge necessary to change teachers' practices or enhance
student learning. Rather, she asserted, evidence is concluding
that professional development should include cooperative
groups, open-ended questioning, extended inquiry, problem-
solving, leadership opportunities and model strategies. It
should be sustained, content-based and use new teaching
strategies. In addition, professional development should
provide time for teachers to reflect on what they have learned.
It should include ongoing assessments, incentives, graduate
credit, and should be tied to career goals. Finally, it should
be accountable. Dr. Kahle explained that teaching practice
directly impacts student achievement, as has been demonstrated
by state-wide reform programs, including Systemic Initiatives.
Ms. Tackett opened her testimony by confirming that there
is a growing need for teachers, especially those qualified to
teach math and science. To address this challenge, the State of
Texas is adopting several approaches. First, programs to
motivate students interested in science to become science
teachers are being initiated at state universities. Secondly,
the universities have gotten legislative encouragement.
Thirdly, the State has submitted a proposal for a federal grant
that would establish mentor training, which, she stated, has
proven effective in teacher retention efforts. Finally, to
combat unpreparedness as a reason beginning teachers leave the
profession, the State is requiring schools of education to meet
new State standards.
4.1(f)--The Rudman Report on Security Problems at the Department of
Energy
June 29, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-31
Background
On Tuesday, June 29, 1999, the Committee on Science held a
hearing entitled, ``The Rudman Report on Security Problems at
the U.S. Department of Energy,'' to hear testimony on the
report published by the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board (PFIAB) entitled, ``Science at its Best,
Security at its Worst: A Report on Security Problems at the
U.S. Department of Energy.''
Beginning in January and escalating in March of 1999, a
series of press reports revealed that employees at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory may have provided classified
information to China. On March 18, 1999, President Clinton
asked PFIAB to ``undertake a review of the security threat at
the Department of Energy's (DOE) weapons labs and the adequacy
of the measures that have been taken to address it.'' The
President also asked PFIAB ``to deliver its completed report to
the Congress, and to the fullest extent possible consistent
with our national security, to release an unclassified version
to the public.'' A Special Investigative Panel of PFIAB spent
three months reviewing more than 700 reports and studies and
thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents,
interviewing over 100 witnesses, and visiting several of the
DOE labs.
The sole witness for the hearing was the Honorable Warren
B. Rudman, Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Rudman discussed the findings in the report as follows:
In the past 20 years there have been over 100
reports issued on security at DOE labs including 29 GAO
reports, 61 internal DOE reports, and 12 reports conducted by
special task forces and ad hoc panels.
PFIAB recommends that the management structure at
DOE Nuclear Weapons Labs be fundamentally restructured in favor
of a system of management that holds each person at the lab
responsible and accountable for security.
The science at the DOE labs is perhaps the best in
the world, and the PFIAB report should not be construed as a
criticism of these scientific programs, nor does PFIAB propose
anything that would undermine their effectiveness.
One of the major problems that has led to security
breaches at DOE is the overlapping and competing lines of
authority that lead to a reduced level of accountability by
employees for their mistakes.
PFIAB believes that creating a semi-autonomous
agency within DOE that deals with classified nuclear programs
would actually grant more power to the Secretary in that the
locus of responsibility would be more clearly defined.
Moreover, a semi-autonomous agency would not hamper important
scientific programs conducted at DOE.
While PFIAB does not advocate placing civilian
labs under the jurisdiction of the semi-autonomous agency, it
does support moving classified programs within the civilian
labs to other labs that are covered by the semi-autonomous
agency if DOE proves that security is a problem in the civilian
labs as well.
A security stand-down was ordered for three DOE
labs and some twenty percent of the employees failed to show up
for it. Senator Rudman explained that this is an example of the
culture of arrogance at DOE.
PFIAB was unanimous in deciding that moving the
weapons labs to the Department of Defense (DOD) was a bad idea.
Reasons cited for this decision included DOD's inability to
handle another complex lab and the potential to lose scientists
if the weapon's labs were put under DOD's jurisdiction.
4.1(g)--K-12 Math and Science Education--Testing and Licensing Teachers
August 4, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-64
Background
On Wednesday, August 4, 1999, the Committee on Science held
a hearing to examine issues related to K-12 mathematics and
science teachers, including recruitment, pre-service training,
professional development, and retention. This was the third in
a series of hearings on science and mathematics education
issues being conducted by the Committee on Science during the
106th Congress. The purpose of this third hearing was to
determine problems and strengths in the U.S. educational
systems that impact securing the best teachers in every
mathematics and science classroom. Among those areas explored
were the recruitment and training of future teachers,
professional development for teachers and retention of current
teachers.
Witnesses appearing before the Committees included: Dr.
Marci Kanstoroom, Research Director, Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation; Dr. Mari Pearlman, Vice President, Teaching and
Learning Division, Educational Testing Service; Ms. Patte
Barth, Senior Associate, The Education Trust.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Pearlman opened her testimony by explaining that the
purpose of licensing tests is to provide a standard by which
States can determine who has sufficient knowledge to be
qualified to receive a teaching license. She further clarified
that such tests are not meant to be able to predict who will be
an excellent teacher. She continued by examining validity and
fairness issues and explained the test development process that
is used to ensure validity and fairness. She concluded by
calling attention to ETS's recently released study on the
academic quality of prospective teachers.
Ms. Barth began by explaining that States' attempts to
raise standards for students have been limited by inadequately
prepared teachers. She continued with a summary of The
Education Trust's studies, including that State licensing
requirements place more emphasis on pedagogical knowledge as
opposed to content and do not test at a high enough level. She
also addressed concerns that higher standards mean fewer
minority teachers by stressing that minority students can do as
well on tests if they are taught to high standards. Ms. Barth
concluded by adding her support for maintaining teacher
licensure within the States' purview, but also by agreeing with
the Administration that content area tests should be given to
all prospective teachers.
Dr. Kanstoroom opened her testimony by explaining that the
current licensing systems are not able to ensure both the
quantity and quality of teachers needed in the classroom. She
continued that content knowledge is a primary factor in
determining a good teacher. She explained that alternative
certification often attracts those with expertise in content,
such as math and science, as opposed to an educational
foundation in pedagogy. Although such certification may result
in increasing the quantity of quality teachers, not every State
offers an alternative route to teacher certification. Dr.
Kanstoroom also noted that uniform teacher salaries inhibit
schools' ability to hire teachers with science and math
expertise. She concluded by offering suggestions for
improvement: expand alternative certification options, allow
teacher pay to respond to market place conditions and require
teachers to have degrees in the subject matter they teach.
4.1(h)--EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate
March 22, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-95
Background
On March 22, 2000 the Committee on Science held a hearing
entitled EPA's Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate? This
hearing examined whether the EPA, in its development and
enforcement of the Part 503 Sludge Rule, failed to foster sound
science with an open exchange of ideas and information between
scientists, EPA officials, and private citizens. The hearing
explored allegations that EPA scientists who disagree with
EPA's science associated with the sludge rule, were ignored, or
worse, subjected to harassment. Even more disturbing are
documented reports of intimidation directed at private citizens
who express concerns about EPA sludge policies and the science
behind those policies. Researchers, scientists, their
representatives and private citizens testified regarding EPA's
response to concerns raised about the science associated with
the Part 503 Sludge Rule.
Witnesses included: J. Charles Fox, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Stephen M. Kohn, Chairman of the Board of Directors of
the National Whistleblower Center; Ellen Harrison, Director,
Cornell Waste Management Institute, Cornell University, New
York; Mr. Cecil Lue-Hing, Former Director of Research and
Development, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago; and Jane Beswick, a California farmer.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Fox discussed the background of the 503 Sludge Rule and
the improvements in sewage treatment over the past 30 years. In
addition he defended the EPA's record of public and scientific
input in the decision making process, making the following key
points:
Eight million dry metric tons of biosolids
(sludge) are produced annually and 54 percent are disposed of
through land application.
Section 405(g) of the Clean Water Act authorizes
the EPA to promote the safe and beneficial management of
biosolids.
Part 503 is a risk-based rule that establishes
limits on the concentrations of pollutants (including heavy
metals) and pathogens in sludge, as well as guidelines for its
land application.
The development of Part 503 began in 1984 at an
EPA-sponsored workshop and culminated in 1989 into a proposal
that included a commitment to continue peer review.
In 1996 the National Academy of Sciences issued a
report that confirmed that properly managed and applied sludge
was safe for use in food crop production.
Mr. Kohn testified about the harassment and illegal
termination, by the EPA, of scientists who disagreed with the
Part 503 sludge rule. In particular, he talked about the cases
of Dr. David Lewis and Dr. William Marcus. In addition, he
detailed the agency's lack of a whistleblower protection
policy. Some of his key points were:
In October 1999, Dr. Lewis co-authored, along with
numerous prominent scientists, an article concerning pathogens
in sludge applied in accordance with the Part 503 Rule.
Joseph C. Cocalis, industrial hygienist for the
Centers for Disease Control, later testified that these
concerns were justified and characterized the EPA's position
as, ``indefensible from a public health standpoint.''
EPA publicly criticized Dr. Lewis and accused him
of violating the Hatch Act, charges they later admitted were
baseless.
The EPA supervisors responsible for the
retaliation and misconduct in whistleblower cases were never
disciplined.
Despite a court order, the EPA has yet to
implement a whistleblower protection policy.
Ms. Harrison raised concerns about the dangers of
groundwater contamination associated with the land application
of biosolids, and EPA's failure to adequately address these
concerns. In addition, she questioned the EPA's commitment to
an open peer-review process, and accused them of improperly
distributing research funds. Key points of her testimony
included:
Cornell researchers, teamed with 27 other
scientists, have suggested limits on land application much
stricter than the Part 503 Rule.
Of particular concern to these, and other
researchers was groundwater contamination from sludge leaching
in areas of New York with acidic soils and shallow water
tables.
The EPA attempted to discredit these studies by
suggesting that the research methods were inappropriate, even
though one of their own representatives sat on the project's
advisory board.
The EPA sent letters to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation discouraging them from
adopting standards more stringent than the Part 503 Rule.
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing defended the land application of sludge,
and the scientific integrity of the Part 503 Rule. He testified
that biosolids were a safe and effective source of fertilizer
when applied according to the Part 503 Rule. His key points
were:
There has never been any documented illness
associated with the land application of properly treated
sludge.
According to a 1985 study of 47 Ohio farms using
biosolids, there was no observed link between the land
application of sludge and disease occurrence in domestic
animals.
The Land Practices Peer Review Committee--a
diverse group of scientists, government officials, attorneys,
environmental activists, and other stakeholders--worked with
the EPA to provide an extensive peer review of the sludge rule.
During this peer review, 5,500 pages of comments
from 656 participants were received.
The resulting Part 503 Rule accomplished the goals
of recycling roughly 5 million tons of biosolids each year,
while protecting the health of people and the environment.
Ms. Jane Beswick, a California dairy farmer and coordinator
of the Coalition for Sludge Education described the harassment
and intimidation she allegedly received from Dr. Rubin of the
EPA. This aggravation began after her paper, ``Some
Misconceptions Concerning Sludge'' was published in 1996, and
consisted of ten unsolicited mailings.
The letters from Dr. Rubin began as objections to
two items in her paper. The first issue concerned landowner
liability, and the second concerned her distinctions between
manure and sludge.
She testified that Dr. Rubin warned that her
continued focus on the dangers of sludge would eventually
``focus . . . the regulators' attention on . . . the use of
manures.''
This pattern continued; as she became more active
she received more letters. All the letters contained
antagonistic language, and warned of future regulations on
manure.
Some of the mailings were official correspondence
from the EPA regarding animal manure and biosolids.
The ninth mailing was ominous handwritten message
reading, ``Manure = miscarriages or baby deaths. The bell is
tolling!''
4.1(i)--NASA's Mars Program After the Young Report, Part 1
April 12, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-96
Background
On April 12, 2000, the Committee on Science held a hearing
on NASA's Mars program in the context of the Mars Program
Independent Assessment Team's (MPIAT) report released on March
14, 2000. In 1999, all three of NASA's most recent missions to
Mars ended in failure. As a result, a number of panels,
including the MPIAT, were convened to look into the reasons
behind the failures and report their findings and
recommendations.
Witnesses included: Mr. Tom Young, retired Executive Vice
President of Lockheed Martin, Inc., and Chairman of the Mars
Program Independent Assessment Team; and Mr. John Casani,
retired Project Manager at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
at the California Institute of Technology and Chairman of the
JPL Special Review Board that investigated the Mars mission
failures.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Young presented the MPIAT's findings and
recommendations regarding the failed Mars missions and NASA's
overall Mars program.
Mr. Casani presented the Special Review Board's findings on
the likely reasons behind the Mars mission failures and the
panel's recommendations.
4.1(j)--Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education in
Kindergarten through 12th Grade: H.R. 4271, The National Science
Education Act
May 17, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-82
Background
On May 17, 2000 the Committee on Science held a hearing
entitled ``A Plan to Renew Science, Math, Engineering and
Technology Education in Kindergarten through 12th Grade: H.R.
4271, The National Science Education Act.'' This was the first
in a series of hearings to examine certain programs under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Education (DoEd) that impact
or address science, mathematics, engineering and technology
(SMET) education and the ``National Science Education Act''
(H.R. 4271), introduced by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
(MI). The bill would establish and expand programs relating to
SMET education for students in kindergarten through 12th grade.
H.R. 4271 focuses on two primary components of quality
education: opportunities for all students and assistance for
teachers.
Witnesses included: Mr. Jeffrey Leaf, Vice President of the
Board on Pre-College Education for ASME and teacher at Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology; Mr. Benjamin
Boerkoel, Director of Curriculum and Staff Development, Grand
Rapids Christian Schools; Mr. John Boidock, Vice President for
Government Relations, Texas Instruments.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Jeffrey Leaf identified improvements of science, math,
engineering and technology education as being one of the most
important public policy issues and noted the following in his
testimony:
Educational software should encourage critical
thinking and problem solving.
Working groups are very important because they
provide a forum for ideas on curriculum and teaching methods.
A program of distance learning that stresses
innovation would help alleviate the shortage of qualified
technology teachers.
Master teachers should be used to mentor new
teachers, while master aides help with set up and maintenance
of equipment.
Mr. Boerkoel discussed the implications of H.R. 4271 for
improving teacher training and curriculum improvement, and made
the following observations:
Many new teachers have a less than enthusiastic
view of math and science; their inadequate training plays a
large role in this.
Providing grant money to recruit and hire Master
Teachers with strong backgrounds and interest in math, science,
and technology is invaluable to professional development.
Increasing teacher participation in curriculum
development through scholarships, working groups, and training
is important.
Rural educational opportunities need to be
enhanced through distance learning components.
Organizing and maintaining a link to private
sector funds and expertise help all students, especially the
economically disadvantaged, by providing the cutting edge
materials and personal relationships.
Mr. John Boidock spoke convincingly about the need to
improve math, science, and technology education for the health
of our economy.
The acute shortage of engineers and technology
workers is due to a variety of factors including a shrinking
pool of students graduating with the skills needed for these
jobs.
The number of bachelors degrees awarded in
electrical engineering since 1987 has declined steadily,
falling 46 percent.
To reverse this trend and maintain America's
technological supremacy, our schools must produce more students
with strong math, science and technology skills.
Companies need to take an active role in our
schools by ensuring that kids learn what they need to succeed
in a technology and information-rich society.
4.1(k)--Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education in
Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, and H.R. 4272, National Science
Education Enhancement Act
June 13, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-82
Background
On June 13, 2000 the Committee on Science held a hearing
entitled ``Hearing on Reviewing Science, Math, Engineering and
Technology Education in Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, and
H.R. 4272, The National Science Education Enhancement Act.''
This was the second in a series of hearings to examine certain
programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education
(DoEd) that impact or address science, mathematics, engineering
and technology (SMET) education and the ``National Science
Education Enhancement Act'' (H.R. 4272), introduced by
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI). The bill would establish
and expand programs, many at the DoEd, relating to SMET
education for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Like
its companion bills, H.R. 4272 focuses on two primary
components of quality education: opportunities for all students
and assistance for teachers.
Witnesses included: Dr. Len Simutis, Director of the
Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science
Education at The Ohio State University; Dr. Diane M. Bunce,
Associate Professor, Chemistry Department, Catholic University
of America; Dr. Audrey Champagne, Professor of Chemistry &
Science Education, Department of Educational Theory & Practice,
State University of New York at Albany; Dr. Janice M. Gruendel,
Executive Director, Connecticut Voices for Children.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Simutis explained how the Eisenhower National
Clearinghouse will continue to expand its mission under H.R.
4272.
H. R. 4272 would increase the products and
services that Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) would be
able to provide to educators across the nation. The legislation
would also expand the ENC to include K-12 engineering and
technology education.
A better evaluation of curriculum resources,
particularly those which are technology-based, is needed.
Programs such as ENC's Consortia would help
deliver expert, research-based advice to teachers, schools, and
states on how to improve their math and science programs. With
its economies of scale for expert staff and programs, federal
resources can be used more efficiently.
Dr. Diane Bunce spoke for the American Chemical Society and
offered her critique of H.R. 4272:
Funding for summer professional development
institutes, and the emphasis on content-based programs are key
provisions of H.R. 4272.
Summer institutes should be a part of university
degree programs, with college credit available.
Creation of another government body to oversee
curricula development is unwarranted, particularly because it
would duplicate the National Science Education Standards and
the AAAS Project 2061 Benchmarks.
A mentoring program linked with the Master Teacher
program would improve teacher quality and retention.
Science education should begin at a young age, and
programs such as After-School Science Day Care are a great way
of involving parents in this education.
Dr. Audrey Champagne spoke extensively on teacher
education, and possible improvements.
Participation in induction and continuing
education programs must be part of a teacher's work year and
recognized as a professional responsibility for everyone.
Mentoring is crucial because new teachers are
given the same responsibilities as veteran teachers.
The nature of the understanding of science that
teachers gain as a result of their undergraduate education is
quite different from the understanding of science required to
teach science.
The college faculty who teach undergraduate
science courses should also have the opportunity to participate
with K-12 teachers in continuing education activities.
Because of their ties to the National Science
Foundation, the NSF Centers for Learning and Teaching are
uniquely positioned to bring the most recent research in the
social and natural sciences to education.
Dr. Janice Gruendel's testimony focused on technology, and
American teachers' lack of proficiency in using it.
Technology is the most fundamental tool in all
disciplines including math, science and engineering.
Many classrooms are still not wired for the
internet and only 20-33% of teachers believe they are skilled
enough to use technology for instruction.
The most common technology assignments consist of
``skill and drill'' and very few promote critical thinking.
H.R. 4272 would make important strides in
encouraging technology education, especially through work study
initiatives.
Allocations in and the effective use of technology
are not sufficient to meet the needs of our current economic
environment.
4.1(l)-- NASA's Mars Program After the Young Report, Part 2
June 20, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-96
Background
On June 20, 2000, the Committee on Science held a hearing
on NASA's Mars program in the context of the Mars Program
Independent Assessment Team's (MPIAT) report released on March
14, 2000. This hearing followed on the Committee's hearing on
the same subject held on April 12, 2000.
Witnesses included: the Honorable Dan Goldin, Administrator
of NASA; Dr. Edward Stone, the Director of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology; Dr. Pedro
Rustan, retired Colonel, U.S. Air Force, former Director of the
Small Satellite Development Office at the National
Reconnaissance Office, and the program manager of the
Department of Defense's Clementine mission; and Dr. Alan
Binder, Director of the Lunar Research Institute and Principal
Investigator for NASA's Lunar Prospector mission.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Goldin discussed the current state of NASA's Mars
Program and NASA's reaction to the findings and recommendations
of the reports issued on the Mars '98 mission failures. In
addition, he described the steps NASA has taken--and will
take--to address the problems in the Mars Program, and the
current status of the ``Faster, Better, Cheaper'' philosophy at
NASA.
Dr. Stone addressed these same issues from the perspective
of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Dr. Rustan offered his perspective on the findings and
recommendations of the Mars Program Independent Assessment
Team, described relevant similarities and differences between
the Clementine mission and NASA's recent Mars missions, and
made general suggestions for successful implementation of the
``Faster, Better, Cheaper'' concept at NASA.
Dr. Alan Binder made general comments on NASA's Mars
program and the Faster, Better, Cheaper'' concept from his
perspective as the manager of the Lunar Prospector mission.
4.1(m)--Encouraging Science, Math, Engineering and Technology Education
in Kindergarten Through 12th Grade and H.R. 4273, National Science
Education Incentive Act
July 19, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-82
Background
The purpose of this hearing is to examine certain
provisions that would modify the tax code to encourage
activities that will benefit science, math, engineering and
technology (SMET) education and the ``National Science
Education Incentive Act'' (H.R. 4273), introduced by
Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI). Like its companion bills,
H.R. 4273 focuses on two primary components of quality
education: opportunities for all students and assistance for
teachers.
The Committee heard from Dr. Judith Sunley, Acting
Director, Education and Human Resources, National Science
Foundation; Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, President, The NASDAQ
Stock Market; Dr. Cozette Buckney, Chief Educational Officer,
Chicago Public Schools; Mr. Ted Gardella, K-12 Mathematics and
Science Coordinator, Battle Creek Public Schools.
Summary of hearing
Ms. Sunley discussed H.R. 4271, 4272, and 4273 and the
resulting action of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
noted that:
Math and science teachers face isolation in the
classroom, separation from ongoing developments in math and
science disciplines, and responsibilities that go well beyond
math and science.
Math and science teachers must understand the
current and potential role of information technologies in
education, what makes them effective, and how to expand that
effectiveness.
Math and science teachers must develop, identify,
and disseminate excellent curricula and instructional materials
for math and science.
Mr. Berkeley discussed the Stock Market's interest in K-12
education and how to improve education using H.R. 4273 and
pointed out that:
There must be continued investments in basic
research and education in math and science.
We need to pay attention to what sort of curricula
are being offered to children and how effective it is in the
long run.
Long term benefits of a tax-incentive have been
beneficial on the financial side and will be effective for
education as well.
Children need to know exactly what his/her grade
means in comparison to other children from across the United
States.
Dr. Buckney discussed the improvements in the Chicago
Public School system and how those improvements worked and how
H.R. 4273 would supplement the improvements and noted that:
Chicago Public Schools have been working for many
years to improve science and math education, most notably by
requiring three years of lab science and three years of math.
The Chicago Public School system has created a
special program that links high schools with local colleges and
universities.
The Chicago Public School system has been
aggressively recruiting teachers from the best colleges in the
nation, and providing all teachers with extensive professional
training.
The financial incentives would help attract
college students to the teaching profession.
Mr. Gardella discussed the math and science programs at the
Battle Creek Public Schools in Michigan and the benefits of
H.R. 4273 for his, and other, school districts and pointed out
that:
Battle Creek Public Schools have engaged in
creative hiring by bringing in candidates with content
knowledge who may not have taken the traditional route to
teaching.
The science and math teachers who experienced the
high quality institutes developed in the post-Sputnik era is
diminishing rapidly through retirement.
The long term nature of the tax credits will allow
teachers to keep teaching and that will help professional
development programs have maximum effect.
Working in the business, industrial, and other
scientific settings allow teachers to gain powerful insights
for getting real-world connections, which they can bring into
the classroom.
4.1(n)--Computer Security Lapses: Should FAA Be Grounded?
September 27, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-101
Background
The purpose of the hearing is to review whether the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken adequate actions to
correct computer security problems at the agency. FAA has a
policy that requires the FAA to conduct background checks on
contractor employees based upon the level of risk associated
with the project or task. FAA has not complied with its own
policy. In December 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
issued a report entitled Computer Security: FAA Needs to
Improve Controls Over Use of Foreign Nationals to Remediate and
Review Software for the Committee. GAO found that FAA failed to
adhere to its requirements for personnel security. FAA did not
perform risk assessments and did not even know at that time
whether it or the contractor had performed the required
background searches on all of the FAA contractor employees,
including those who are the foreign nationals.
The Committee heard from The Honorable Jane Garvey,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; The Honorable
Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation; and Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil
Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information
Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Summary of hearing
Ms. Garvey testified that the FAA is taking action based
upon the GAO's recommendations and noted that:
FAA has moved to identify all contracts associated
with mission critical systems.
FAA recognizes that it must have effective
leadership to establish the policies.
FAA has five layers of security: personnel
security, physical security, system security, site specific
adaptation and redundancy.
FAA has set up a Chief Information Officer, who is
the lead officer for information security. The CIO establishes
annual performance plan to achieve goals of computer security.
Mr. Mead discussed personnel security for government and
contractor personnel at FAA and pointed out that:
FAA is too reactive with lots of room to be
proactive.
There were significant vulnerabilities that were
low cost to fix.
FAA needs to work with OPM to set milestones and
then prioritize.
Many of the FAA computers are vulnerable to attack
by insiders.
Mr. Willemssen discussed FAA's computer security problems,
which leave the systems at risk and noted that:
Significant weaknesses were found in each of the
major areas GAO reviewed.
FAA has numerous facilities that have not been
assessed and accredited as secure.
FAA's own system penetration testing and
vulnerability assessments demonstrate significant weaknesses
potentially exposing the systems to unauthorized access.
FAA has restructured the CIO position, but more
needs to be done to establish specific procedures to be
followed by staff.
FAA's own system penetration testing and
vulnerability assessments demonstrate significant weaknesses
potentially exposing the systems to unauthorized access.
FAA has restructured the CIO position, but more
needs to be done to establish specific procedures to be
followed by staff.
4.1(o)--Intolerance at EPA: Harming People, Harming Science?
October 4, 2000
Hearing Volume No. 106-103
Background
Accordingly, this hearing will examine allegations that EPA
has discriminated against scientists and employees based on
their race and gender; and has retaliated against those who
have made these allegations. Open discourse is required for
credible science and open discourse and tolerance for dissent
are key for EPA to successfully complete its mission.
Intolerance inhibits, if not prevents, thorough scientific
investigation. Additionally, assigning EPA employees to conduct
science when those employees are not qualified in the field
further harms science at EPA. The integrity of EPA science is
at risk if these allegations are true. This hearing is a
continuation of the Committee's investigation into evidence
that EPA ignores and harasses scientists and employees who have
disagreed with EPA's policy conclusions or questioned EPA's
science. The Committee has already held one hearing on this
issue on March 22, 2000. Learning of the Committee's
investigation into possible intolerance at EPA, several
African-American and disabled EPA employees came forward with
new allegations last fall.
Witnesses included: Carol Browner, Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Marsha Coleman-
Adebayo, Senior Advisor to the Director of the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. EPA; Ron Harris, Chief
Union Steward, Non-Professional, Vice President; and Leroy W.
Warren, Jr., Chairman of the NAACP Federal Sector Task Force.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo discussed the intolerant
atmosphere at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
noted that:
She believed her background as an African affairs
specialist would be an asset to the EPA, instead she has
endured a decade of racial, sexual, and retaliatory abuse.
The EPA suffers from a racial bias in which people
with significantly less experience are given a job on the basis
of skin color.
Even after she brought suit against the EPA, she
still suffered from civil rights violations.
The EPA has refused to police itself and address
injustices that occur.
Mr. Ron Harris discussed how retaliation and discrimination
cases were dealt with at the EPA and pointed out that:
These cases manipulate scientific disciplines and
they usually encompass many violations ranging from conspiracy
to environmental racism.
When he was investigating a case, he claims he was
subject to unnecessary delays by the EPA, cancellations of
meetings, and denial of basic discovery rights.
If an employee speaks out about alleged
retaliation and discrimination, he/she may be denied training
or may not be given positions that they are the most qualified
for.
If an employee speaks out, his or her position may
be given to someone who is grossly unqualified.
Mr. Leroy Warren discussed the lack of accountability and
integrity within the EPA and noted that:
There is an integrated work force on paper, and a
segregated work force off paper.
There is no integrity within the internal
structure of the EPA to ``do the right thing'', nor is there
any accountability when someone does not do the right thing.
If an employee speaks out, he or she is facing a
death sentence within the EPA; he or she will have a job, but
no future.
The EEO program is in place, but its rules are not
enforced; and EEO management needs to be investigated by
outside counsel.
Administrator Browner discussed the EPA's commitment to
diversification and pointed out that:
Minority representation in the Senior Executive
Service has more than tripled and minority representation as a
whole has increased by 116%.
77% of EPA employees are satisfied with their
jobs, which is higher than the government average of 60%.
In 1997, EPA launched a Diversity Action Plan,
which set up a way for employees to comment on their managers.
The EPA is committed to restructuring the EEO
complaint process to make it timelier.
4.2--Subcommittee on Basic Research
4.2(a)--The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Reauthorization
February 23, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-17
Background
On February 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held a hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP). This hearing examined the Administration's
Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for this program as well as
programmatic issues. The purpose of this hearing was to assess
the current status of the Federal government's earthquake
research and earthquake hazard mitigation efforts and to give
the agencies and stakeholders an opportunity to provide input
needed for a two-year reauthorization of the Program. In
addition, the Subcommittee explored the Program's future goals
and objectives as well as plans for achieving these goals and
objectives.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Mr. Michael J.
Armstrong, Associate Director for Mitigation, FEMA; Dr. P.
Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, USGS; Dr. Joseph Bordogna,
Acting Deputy Director, NSF; Raymond Kammer, Director, NIST;
Dr. Daniel Abrams, Director, Mid-America Earthquake Center; and
Mr. Christopher Arnold, President, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Armstrong testified by describing the two roles FEMA
plays within NEHRP: (1) Lead Agency--FEMA serves as Program
coordinator; and (2) Emergency Management Agency--FEMA works to
reduce losses resulting from earthquakes. He announced the
creation of a strategic plan for the Program and announced its
goals: (1) accelerate implementation of earthquake loss
reduction practices; (2) improve techniques to reduce seismic
vulnerability; (3) improve quality and use of seismic hazard
and risk identification; and (4) improve the understanding of
earthquakes. Mr. Armstrong concluded his testimony by
highlighting several of the successes resulting from NEHRP,
which range from the development of building guidelines and
hazard maps to progress made through research activities.
Dr. Leahy described the three roles of the Survey in NEHRP:
(1) producing earthquake loss products; (2) providing
earthquake notifications; and (3) supporting earthquake
research. He testified earthquake loss products include hazard
assessments that give the expected severity of shaking at a
given location in a given time frame. These were used, in
conjunction with state and professional organizations, to
develop national seismic hazard maps, which in turn will be
used to create the new international building codes. To carry
out the Survey's second role, USGS operates the National
Earthquake Information Center, the National Seismograph Network
and supports 13 regional seismic networks. Dr. Leahy closed his
testimony by pointing out two areas of need: a comprehensive
upgrade of the seismic monitoring system and an external
advisory committee for the USGS within NEHRP.
Dr. Bordogna reviewed two of the initiatives being
undertaken by NSF. The first, the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES) will be an integrated system of
new and upgraded research facilities. The second, the
Incorporated Research Institutes in Seismology (IRSIS), which
is a consortium that provides seismographic monitoring
facilities, including the Global Seismographic Network (GSN).
He closed his testimony by stating NEES, IRIS and other NSF-
sponsored activities will continue to make long-term
contributions to the safety and welfare of the country.
Mr. Kammer testified NIST's role in NEHRP is to conduct
research that will improve building and lifeline codes,
practices and standards, which supports other earthquake
research. He used video to demonstrate examples of research
techniques. He closed his testimony by adding NIST has been
working with other government entities and professional
organizations both to develop such standards and to solve
earthquake-related problems, such as post-earthquake fires.
Dr. Abrams explained his organization conducts earthquake
engineering research aimed at reducing the losses associated
with earthquakes. He explained the need for continued research
by citing current examples of the application of research
findings: provisions for the seismic design of new buildings,
recently published guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, and the loss estimate methodology known as HAZUS.
The future of earthquake engineering research, he said, should
include progress propelled by advanced technologies, maturity
of NEHRP, continued earthquake reconnaissance, the new NEES
program, continuation of the three earthquake centers, and
research that takes into consideration other hazards.
Mr. Arnold commented on the performance-based engineering
research undertaken by EERI members which is resulting in new
design and construction methodology. Research supported by NSF
and a study commissioned by FEMA are two examples of EERI's
involvement in NEHRP. He testified EERI supports the NEES
initiative proposed by NSF. Finally, he closed his testimony by
commenting that social science research is also an important
area in which research should be conducted to provide guidance
on how to apply technical solutions.
4.2(b)--Information Technology for the 21st Century
March 16, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-20
Background
On Tuesday, March 16, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing on the Administration's ``Information
Technology for the 21st Century'' initiative, better known as
IT \2\. The hearing focused on the three research areas
highlighted in the proposal--(1) fundamental, long-term
research in computer science; (2) advanced computational
activities; and, (3) the economic and social implications of
information technology--and how these would complement, build
upon, or duplicate current federal activities conducted through
the High-Performance Computing and Communications, Next
Generation Internet, and other federal programs.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Dr. Ken Kennedy, Co-Chair, President's Information Technology
Advisory Committee and Director, Center for Research on
Parallel Computation, Rice University; Dr. Erich Bloch,
President, Washington Advisory Group and Distinguished Fellow,
Council on Competitiveness; Dr. Stephen Wolff, Executive
Director, Advanced Internet Initiatives Division, Cisco
Systems; Dr. Fred Hausheer, Chairman and CEO, BioNumerick
Pharmaceuticals; and Dr. Hal R. Varian, Dean, School of
Information Management, University of California, Berkeley.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Lane testified the Administration focused on
information technology (IT) research in the fiscal year 2000
R&D budget for three central reasons: (1) IT has become a key
driver of the economy; (2) IT is essential for achieving some
of our most overarching public goals; and (3) Federal
investment in fundamental IT research is essential to provide
the reservoir of ideas that will lead to IT innovations in the
generations to come. The President's IT \2\ initiative, which
would provide $366 million in new funding, is a direct response
to the PITAC's recommendation for increased Federal support of
fundamental, long-term IT research in three areas: (1) long-
term fundamental research aimed at fundamental advances in
computing and communications; (2) advanced computing
infrastructure as a tool to facilitate important scientific and
engineering discoveries of national interest; and (3) expanded
research into social, economic, and workforce impacts of
information technology, including transformation of social
institutions, impact of legislation and regulation, electronic
commerce, barriers to information technology diffusion, and
effective use of technology in education. Six agencies will
participate in the program: the Department of Defense,
Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Science
Foundation.
Dr. Kennedy summarized PITAC's principal finding, i.e.,
there has been a pronounced shift in Federal IT programs away
from long-term high-risk projects toward short-term, applied
research linked to mission agencies. PITAC believes unless this
shift away from fundamental high-risk research is reversed, it
will threaten the Nation's economic leadership, along with the
continued beneficial effects on the health and welfare of its
citizens. PITAC recommended four areas requiring greater
research: (1) software; (2) scalable information
infrastructure; (3) high-end computing; and (4) social,
economic, and workforce implications. In addition, PITAC
recommended developing strategic initiatives for long-term R&D,
funding projects for longer periods, establishing an effective
structure for managing and co-ordinating R&D, and increasing
spending by $1.4 billion by Fiscal Year 2004.
Dr. Erich Bloc noted the history of Federal investment in
information technology research is studded with examples of
research that would never have been done--and discoveries that
could never have been made--if it had been left to the private
sector alone. These innovations have spawned new industries and
created tens of thousands of high paying jobs. Dr. Bloc agreed
with PITAC there is an increased need for research to address
the challenges of an evolving information infrastructure
supported the government's continuing role to support basic
research in IT. The budget Congress will consider for research
on information technology for the coming fiscal year should
include sustained support for research aimed at setting and
achieving difficult goals over the next five to ten years.
Dr. Wolff testified Cisco supports the principal findings
of PITAC and the Administration's responsiveness to its
recommendations via the IT\2\ program. The proposed long-term
research in ``deeply networked systems'' will support and
complement nascent industry initiatives in Electronic
Persistent Presence--ubiquitous, very large-scale, and
permanent Internet connectivity. The IT\2\ thrust in modeling
and simulation will also support this massive growth. Within
both the software and the socio-economic areas, a research
thrust related to cryptography is required. The sub-programs on
economic and social implications on workforce development
complement and support industry activities. There are
management issues concerning the relation of IT\2\ to existing
programs.
Dr. Hausheer discussed the importance of IT to biomedical
research. The success of the NIH component of the IT\2\
initiative is critical to using the vast amount of genomic and
biological information generated by the human genome project to
benefit patients. NIH's IT goals should include: (1) on-site
supercomputing capability advanced in the near term to multi-
teraflops, and ultimately petaflop capability; (2) dedicated
biomedical IT training and research program for physicians and
scientists; (3) dedicated NIH software development on-site with
laboratory validation of simulations; (4) avoid ``off-the-
shelf, just as fast, but cheaper'' computing research projects;
and (5) greater IT-biomedical research representation on PITAC.
Dr. Varian spoke to the socio-economic aspects of the IT\2\
proposal. IT also will have a significant impact on law,
education, commerce, organizations, and communities. Policy
choices made now, such as definition of technological and legal
standards, will be with us for a long time, and attention must
be paid not only to their technological merit, but also their
social and economic impact. Understanding the social and
economic consequences of our technological choices is vitally
important in achieving the full potential of advances in IT.
4.2(c)--The United States Fire Administration (USFA) Authorization for
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
March 23, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-19
Background
On Tuesday, March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing on the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) and its National Fire Academy (NFA). This
hearing examined the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget
request for this program as well as programmatic issues. The
purpose of this hearing was to assess the current status of the
NFA and the programs offered through the USFA and consider
issues related to a two-year authorization of the U.S. Fire
Administration.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: The Honorable
James Lee Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency;
Dr. Karen Brown, Deputy Director, on behalf of the Honorable
Raymond Kammer, Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology; Mr. Stephen Austin, Chair, Blue Ribbon Panel and
External Affairs Representative, International Association of
Arson Investigators, Inc.; Chief Luther Fincher, First Vice
President, International Association of Fire Chiefs; Dr. John
R. Hall, Assistant Vice President, Fire Analysis and Research,
National Fire Protection Association; and Salvador Morales,
Member, Blue Ribbon Panel and Driver Engineer, Dallas Fire
Department.
Summary of hearing
Director Witt began by discussing the recommendations for
reform of the U.S. Fire Administration made by the Blue Ribbon
Panel. He then reviewed FEMA's blueprint for change within the
Fire Administration, including increased funding requests for
the data collection system, public education materials, and
firefighter training activities. He added FEMA also is going to
be working with national fire organizations on prevention and
protection efforts. Director Witt added that FEMA is going to
be re-commissioning America Burning so the current state of
fire dangers in the Nation can be determined. He closed his
testimony by acknowledging challenges facing the agency, such
as reaching those most vulnerable to fire losses.
Dr. Brown testified by reviewing NIST's responsibilities
under the Fire Prevention and Control Act: serving as the
Nation's leading fire research laboratory and having
responsibility for national fire safety policy and programs.
She explained NIST's strategy for meeting these obligations has
been both to identify the most common situations that result in
fire death and develop intervention strategies and technologies
and to conduct fundamental fire research and develop fire
safety materials, products, systems and facilities. These
activities, along with cooperative efforts with other Federal
agencies, private sector organizations and the fire services
have led to decreased fire death rates; new practices,
standards, code provisions; and new technologies, such as
residential smoke detectors. She concluded her testimony by
emphasizing the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel report
that called for increasing fire research.
Mr. Austin testified by highlighting the recommendations of
the Blue Ribbon Panel report. He explained the Panel does not
want the USFA to assume added responsibilities, but to improve
upon current responsibilities. He explained funding increases
are necessary in order to maintain the responsibilities the
USFA has successfully fulfilled. Mr. Austin pointed out the
development of residential smoke detectors and sprinkler
systems as proof for continued investment in research. He also
stressed the importance of improving the fire data collection
system, as this information is necessary to developing
strategies for fire protection and public safety education.
Finally, he noted a lack of resources is inhibiting the
National Fire Academy from reaching its capability, which is
both needed and requested by the fire services community. He
concluded his testimony by stating support for the Fire
Administration.
Chief Fincher relayed the support of the Fire Service
Leadership Summit participants for the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Panel and the Administration's FY 2000 budget
request. He highlighted four areas of particular importance. He
stated two of these areas, organizational structure and
management and leadership issues, must be addressed before
other problems can be addressed. The final two priorities for
which he testified increased funding should be allocated are
the National Fire Incident Reporting System and research and
development. He concluded by adding appreciation for the
attention being paid to the Fire Administration by the Congress
and by FEMA.
Dr. Hall testified about the importance of the National
Fire Incident Reporting System as the core of the Nation's
basis for fire data. Continuous underfunding has inhibited
NFIRS from fully being successful. Next, he spoke of the
progress gained by fire research, especially that done by NIST,
in developing fire protection technology. He suggested the USFA
partner with other fire researchers through long-term
partnerships in order to increase the volume of fire research
conducted. Finally, he recommended the USFA leverage resources
by partnering with national organizations in fire safety and
prevention efforts. He concluded his testimony by offering
support for the reauthorization of the USFA.
Mr. Morales highlighted some of the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Panel. Specifically, he advocated increasing
funding for educational materials to be used in conjunction
with Federal, state and local organizations in order to meet
the USFA goal of reducing the risk of loss of life and property
from fire-related hazards by five percent by the year 2000.
Next, he reiterated the Panel's support for upgrading the NFIRS
system and for increasing investment in fire research, arson
research and prevention, and anti-terrorism training. He
concluded his testimony by supporting the Panel's
recommendation for increased funding to the National Fire
Academy.
4.2(d)--H.R. 749, The Home Page Tax Repeal Act
March 24, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-38
Background
On Wednesday, March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing to examine the ``Home Page Tax Repeal
Act'' (H.R. 749), introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). The bill
would repeal section 8003 of the 1998 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescissions Act (P.L. 105-174), which
granted authority retroactively to the National Science
Foundation (NSF) to collect a fee for use to support Internet
development. Rep. Terry's bill also would allow NSF to use
funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 1999 to meet any obligation
arising from the repeal of section 8003.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: The
Honorable Lee Terry, Member of Congress (R-NE); Mr. Lawrence
Rudolph, General Counsel, National Science Foundation,
Arlington, Virginia; Mr. David McClure, Executive Director,
Association of Online Professionals, Alexandria, Virginia; and
Mr. Dan Troy, Partner, Wiley, Rein & Fielding and Associate
Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.
Summary of hearing
Congressman Terry stated his bill, by eliminating this fee/
tax, would keep the Internet free of taxes as proposed by the
Internet Tax Freedom Act that was passed in the 105th Congress.
He further stated Congress had not authorized this tax and
therefore the NSF had exceeded its authority and allowing a
retroactive tax to continue would harm the future growth of the
Internet.
Mr. Rudolph testified the NSF did have the authority to
create the Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund (IIF)
under well-known government rules governing cooperative
agreements. Mr. Rudolph stated under OMB Circular A-110, the
charge was legal and would be treated as ``program income.'' He
stated the NSF has used this fee-structure on several other NSF
projects. He noted NSF's disagreement with the district court's
decision and the appeal process was still under way. He was
concerned the bill did not outline how the money collected by
the fee would be sent back to the payers, if the bill was
enacted. He also stated the NSF took great offense at the
charge that it was a ``renegade'' agency.
Mr. McClure stated that allowing retroactive taxation of
the Internet would establish a dangerous precedent. Mr. McClure
praised the Internet Tax Freedom Act and noted that there is
increasing pressure to tax the World Wide Web. He concluded his
testimony by stating that keeping the Internet tax-free is in
the long-term a benefit to the country.
Mr. Troy stressed three points in his testimony. First, the
Constitution vests the Congress with the exclusive power to
tax. Allowing agencies to establish their own, unauthorized
taxes is dangerous and lacks democratic legitimacy. Second,
allowing this retroactive authorization of an unconstitutional
tax would encourage other agencies to do the same. Third,
eliminating this tax will emphasize the principles written into
the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
4.2(e)--National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request
April 28, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-12
Background
On Wednesday, April 28, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing to review the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) budget request for FY 2000. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the National Science Foundation and the
National Science Board.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation, and Dr.
Eamon Kelly, Member, National Science Board.
Summary of the hearing
Dr. Kelly testified more research is done by the private
sector than by government. His concern is that only the
government supports true fundamental science, while corporate
funded research is usually short-term projects. In addition, he
stated as a percentage of the money spent by the government for
R&D, a lower amount now goes to basic research than has in the
past. His argument is basic research will pay-off in the long
term. As an example, he noted four of the top ten companies
listed on the Fortune 500 list were not even on the list at all
ten years ago.
Dr. Colwell testified by discussing the IT \2\ Initiative.
She stated information technology is responsible for close to
one-third of the economic growth in the 1990s and it is a
national imperative to continue to support funding basic
research in the field of information technology. She then
discussed the issue of biocomplexity and its importance to
multi-disciplinary projects at the NSF. Like Dr. Kelly, Dr.
Colwell was concerned that a lower percentage of government R&D
funding now goes into engineering, while a larger percentage is
going into the life sciences and other applied sciences.
4.2(f)--The U.S. Antarctic Research Program
June 9, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-57
Background
On Wednesday, June 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing addressing issues related to the U.S.
Antarctic Research Program. The hearing examined a number of
issues, including modernization of the South Pole Station, the
transfer of logistical support from the Navy to the New York
Air National Guard, long-term plans for McMurdo Station,
recompetition of the Antarctic support contract, the impact of
growing tourism, weather forecasting and air traffic control,
and satellite communications.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Karl Erb, Director, Office of Polar Programs, National Science
Foundation; Brigadier General Archie J. Berberian II, Chief of
Staff, New York Air National Guard; and Dr. Donal Manahan,
Chairman, Polar Studies Board, National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Erb emphasized the vital research being conducted in
Antarctica and stressed the importance of maintaining an active
presence in the region. His testimony covered a number of
important issues, including: South Pole Station modernization
and safety/environment upgrade; the impact of these programs on
U.S. Antarctic Program science projects; the transition of air
logistics support from the Navy and the New York Air National
Guard; support-contract recompetition; research vessel contract
recompetition; facilities improvements; weather forecasting;
air traffic control and landing systems; energy conservation,
satellite communications; and the effects of tourism.
General Berberian testified on the status of the transition
of the ski-equipped LC-130 airlift mission in support of the
U.S. Antarctic Program from the Navy to the Air National Guard.
His testimony covered background on the transition and
operational issues the Guard has encountered during the three-
year inter-service hand-off process. General Berberian stated
the transition was successful and the cost savings approached,
if not surpassed, projections. He supported NSF's budget
request, which included funds for upgrading three LC-130
aircraft, and advocated acquisition of classified imagery of
Antarctic field sites from the National Reconnaissance Office.
Gen. Berberian also addressed weather forecasting and air
traffic control.
Dr. Manahan's testimony dealt with the impact of the South
Pole modernization on the science being conducted in and around
Antarctica. Dr. Manahan reported, for the most part, the
science has been unaffected by the modernization. The one area
where there has been a noticeable impact has been in deep field
operations, especially those in the geological sciences. Dr.
Manahan also testified the scientific community is in agreement
that the modernized South Pole Station will greatly improve the
opportunities for scientific research.
4.2(g)--Tornadoes: Understanding, Modeling, and Forecasting Supercell
Storms
June 16, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-11
Background
On Wednesday, June 16, 1999, the Subcommittees on Energy
and Environment and Basic Research held a joint hearing
examining federally funded tornado research and how research is
used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to improve warning
times.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittees included: Mr.
Dennis McCarthy, Meteorologist in Charge, Norman Weather
Forecast Office; Dr. Morris Weisman, Mesoscale and Microscale
Meteorology Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research;
Dr. Roger Wakimoto, Professor and Chair, Department of
Atmospheric Science, University of California Los Angeles; and
Dr. Howard Bluestein, Professor of Meteorology, University of
Oklahoma.
Summary of hearing
Mr. McCarthy testified by noting the May 3, 1999 tornado
outbreak that killed 42 people and injured 795 in Oklahoma. He
stated the outbreak, while tragic, demonstrated how much
progress has been made in issuing accurate and timely weather
warnings. He testified that on that day, outlooks, watches and
warnings were issued well in advance and they were communicated
rapidly. He said the media, emergency managers, local
officials, volunteer spotter groups and state agencies worked
in partnership to keep people informed. He pointed to
technological developments such as NEXRAD Doppler radar and the
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) have
assisted the National Weather Service in improving its warning
capabilities. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of
continued tornadic storm research in improving the accuracy and
timeliness of severe weather warnings.
Dr. Weisman testified by emphasizing how, over the past two
decades, much progress has been made in understanding and
forecasting tornado outbreaks that devastated Oklahoma and
Kansas on May 3, 1999. He stated this progress has come about
through a strong connection between the research and forecast
communities. Dr. Weisman used radar images of the May 3rd
tornadoes, along with training materials developed for the
National Weather Service, to illustrate the local conditions
that form such storms, detailed the physical aspects of the
storms, and reviewed new forecasting theories and applications.
He also presented results from experimental forecast models
which were run on May 3rd which offer hope that such events
could some day be forecast hours in advance, rather than the
10-30 minute warning times currently available.
Dr. Wakimoto noted the science of forecasting the
atmospheric conditions that will lead to the development of a
supercell storm is rather effective; whereas, the science
surrounding the development of a tornado within a supercell is
not nearly so well-understood. He testified some important
questions remain unanswered: what triggers the genesis of a
tornado in a supercell? What is the origin of rotation within
supercell tornadoes? He also stated more research is necessary
in understanding tornadoes that form in non-supercell storms,
such as those that form in so-called ``bow'' echo storms.
Dr. Blustein testified on federally funded research aimed
at understanding the formation and behavior of tornadoes. He
highlighted the success of new radar technologies including the
NEXRAD and mobile Doppler systems, noting these technologies
give researchers a much higher-resolution look at the structure
of tornadoes. He stated new radar technology, and faster and
larger computers, researchers can make great progress in the
next five to ten years in determining how and why tornadoes
form, and in developing the best ways to protect the citizenry.
4.2(h)--Nanotechnology: The State of Nano-Science and Its Prospects for
the Next Decade
June 22, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-40
Background
On Tuesday, June 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing on the state of nanotechnology. The
purpose of the hearing was to review federal funding of
nanotechnology research, to discuss the role of the federal
government in supporting nano-science research, and to discuss
the economic implications of scientific advances made in the
field of nanotechnology.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Eugene Wong, the Assistant Director of NSF's Engineering
Directorate, National Science Foundation; Professor Richard
Smalley, Ph.D., Rice University; Dr. Ralph C. Merkle, XEROX;
and Mr. Paul McWhorter, Deputy Director, Sandia National
Laboratories' Microsystems Science, Technology and Components
Center.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Wong testified by defining the word ``nanoscale''. A
nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. The diameter of an atom
is about \1/4\ of 1 nanometer. Over the last twenty years a
series of instruments have been developed that allow
researchers to control objects at the nanoscale level. The
ability to control and manipulate objects at the molecular
level will allow researchers and manufacturers to produce
revolutionary products. One example, the ``nanochip'' allows a
single researcher to complete gene-characterizations in a few
hours rather than over a few years as has been the case.
Dr. Smalley testified our society is already seeing the
initial uses of nanotechnology. Dr. Smalley used his own
experience with chemotherapy as an example of how today's
biotech industry is, in fact, a crude version of the
nanotechnology that will exist in the next few decades. He also
testified a national initiative, ``Nanotechnology for the
Twenty-First Century: Leading to a New Industrial Revolution'',
will be recommended as part of the Administration's Fiscal Year
2001 budget. The initiative will support long-term
nanotechnology research and development. The proposed level of
additional annual funding approximately doubles (by $260 M) the
current level of effort, incrementally increased over three
years. This initiative will focus on fundamental research on
novel phenomena, processes and tools; synthesis and processing
by design; nanostructured devices, materials and systems that
are high risk, broadly enabling and are designed to have major
impact; as well as education and training of future
nanotechnology workers; and rapid technology transfer.
Mr. McWhorter discussed the progress made over the past
fifty years in the field of micro-electronics and how that
progress will lead to a ``second silicon revolution'' involving
micro-machines made using nanotechnology. One benefit of
establishing a national initiative on nanotechnology is it will
generate a sense of unity among the many individual researchers
working in this field. Mr. McWhorter argued nanotechnology is
unlike attempting to send someone to the moon because that
initiative had one well-known and well-defined goal--
nanotechnology is an example of ``small science'' in which many
individual researchers work separately on non-related projects.
Dr. Merkle testified by giving a few examples of the uses
of nanotechnology. We will be able to manufacture metals fifty
times lighter than steel but with the same strength, amazingly
small yet powerful molecular computers, and surgical devices so
small that they could be injected into the blood-stream and
guided by non-invasive computers. Dr. Merkle testified
nanotechnology will reshape our entire manufacturing process
and will impact every aspect of our lives. One of the more
controversial issues in nanotechnology is the issue of self-
replication. In biology, cells are continuously self-
replicating. Dr. Merkle argued to unlock the true potential of
nanotechnology researchers will need to discover a way to
produce self-replicating man-made molecules. He also stated it
will take 20 to 30 years to produce the nanotechnological
advances discussed at this hearing.
4.2(i)--H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development Act
July 14, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-39
Background
On Wednesday, July 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing on H.R. 2086, the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD
Act). This hearing focused on the authorizations for
appropriations for the six agencies participating in the
program, including the various grants programs for long-term IT
research, the Next Generation Internet program, and the
terascale computing competition.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Dr. Roberta Katz, President and CEO, Technology Network; Dr.
Edward D. Lazowska, Professor and Chair, Department of Computer
Science & Engineering, University of Washington and Chair,
Computing Research Association; and Mr. Alan Blatecky, Vice
President for Information Technology, MCNC.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Lane testified the Administration strongly supports the
aims of H.R. 2086 but believes there are areas where the bill
could be improved. These include: including the Department of
Defense and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the
proposed legislation; providing funding for DOE's Scientific
Simulation Initiative, including terascale computing
infrastructure; providing increased funding for DOE's base
advanced mathematics and computation programs; funding the
National Institute for Standards and Technology at the
requested level for fiscal year 2000; and incorporating all of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's IT
programs in H.R. 2086. In addition, the Administration also is
concerned about a provision in H.R. 2086 calling for the NSF to
conduct a study to assess foreign encryption technologies and
domestic technologies subject to export restriction. The
Administration supports the bill's provision making the R&D tax
credit permanent but takes the position that it must be paid
for per the PAYGO requirements of the Budget Enforcement Act.
Dr. Katz began by stating TechNet has adopted strengthening
the Nation's federal investment in basic IT R&D and enacting a
permanent R&D tax credit as top priorities; H.R. 2086 is an
important first step in achieving consistent increases in
federal support for critical IT research programs. She noted
TechNet appreciates the bill's reliance on the recommendations
of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
(PITAC). In particular, TechNet supports H.R. 2086's emphasis
on fundamental IT research. She observed that although the
private sector provides the lion's share of IT research
funding, most of this is for short-term, applied research. The
bill's focus on NSF also is appropriate and in keeping with
PITAC's recommendations. The bill's provisions on large-scale,
long-term IT grants, completion of the Next Generation Internet
program, and establishing an IT internship program were also
supported by TechNet. And the five-year authorizations in the
bill demonstrate a commitment to a continued strong federal
investment in basic IT research. Her organization also strongly
supports the permanent extension of the R&D tax credit.
Dr. Lazowska voiced strong support for the bill, saying it
exemplifies a sound approach to making research policy by
responding to clear national needs with recognizable objectives
and setting forth a well defined program for meeting them.
Concerning the legislation, Dr. Lazowska made three main
points: (1) H.R. 2086 expands fundamental research in targeted
critical areas and sustains successful interagency programs
with multi-year funding; (2) H.R. 2086 strengthens the federal
role in long-term IT research, a role industry cannot be
expected to assume; and (3) H.R. 2086 appropriately increases
support for the National Science Foundation, the agency with
the broadest role in computing research and infrastructure.
Concerning the current environment, he said: (1) NSF is
undertaking a thorough planning process to maximize the
benefits of IT research for all of science and engineering, and
for all of society; (2) expanding the federal investment in
information technology research is widely supported by the
scientific community; and (3) the impact of IT on society and
the economy clearly demonstrates the need for and timeliness of
the NITRD Act. Calling IT a ``rising tide that lifts all
boats,'' Dr. Lazowska urged quick passage of the bill.
Mr. Blatecky noted the importance of IT to the Nation's
economy and talked about the impact the North Carolina Research
and Education Network, North Carolina Supercomputing Center,
and North Carolina Information Highway have had on the economy
of that State. He also noted the importance of a national grid
of communication and computing resources and said the
technology development cycle does not address the equally
important issues of scalability, long term basic research in
networking and computing, software development, human
interfaces, network security, information or training. H.R.
2086 directly address these needs through three key provisions:
(1) long-term basic research grants for high end computing and
networking; (2) provision of twenty to thirty large focused
grants by NSF; and (3) establishment of eight to ten IT
research centers. In addition, he supported the establishment
of a scientific internship program to encourage and develop an
effective mechanism to link the private sector with the
universities and community colleges that will broaden the
educational experience of students and create a more effective
way to transfer technology.
4.2(j)--Attracting a New Generation to Math and Science: The Role of
Public-Private Partnerships in Education and H.R. 1265, Mathematics and
Science Proficiency Partnership Act of 1999
July 29, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-62
Background
On Thursday, July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing to examine the role of public-private
partnerships in encouraging students to pursue math and science
education and to examine the ``Mathematics and Science
Proficiency Partnership Act of 1999'' (H.R. 1265), introduced
by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee. The bill would establish a
demonstration project through the National Science Foundation
(NSF) to encourage student interest in the fields of
mathematics, science, and information technology by creating a
grant program through NSF. The grants would be awarded to
eligible rural and urban educational agencies for developing or
expanding mathematics, science or information technology
programs.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Jane Kahle,
Director of NSF's Division of Elementary, Secondary and
Informal Education in the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources; Mr. Gerald L. Borders, Director of Public Affairs
for Texas Instruments; Mr. Raymond V. (Buzz) Bartlett, Director
of Corporate Affairs for Lockheed Martin Corporation; Dr. John
A. Thorpe, the Executive Director of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics; and Dr. Manuel Berriozabal, Director
of the San Antonio Prefreshman Engineering Program and
Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas at San
Antonio.
Summary of hearing
In her testimony, Dr. Kahle described six NSF initiatives
aimed at improving science and math achievement: (1) the K-12
Systemic Initiative Programs; (2) instructional materials and
curriculum development, in which texts and other materials are
developed with NSF support; (3) professional development,
including teacher and administrator preparation; (4) the
Digital Libraries Initiative project, which will create a
virtual facility to link students, teachers and faculty and
provide access to educational materials; (5) research on
learning and education, with a particular emphasis on the
Interagency Education Research Initiative, a joint project with
the Department of Education (DoEd) and the National Institutes
of Health (NIH); and (6) the Graduate Teaching Fellows Program,
which pairs graduate students with K-12 teachers and brings the
graduate students into the classroom.
Mr. Borders began his testimony by describing and showing
an example of a Texas Instruments semiconductor chip. He went
on to say that because Texas Instruments relies on a highly
technologically skilled workforce to make such products, the
company has made support of educational programs a corporate
priority. Texas Instruments has already formed a partnership
with NSF as part of the Urban Systemic Programs and is involved
in training teachers in order to help them integrate learning
technologies into their school districts. Furthermore, plans
are currently underway to create an alliance between NSF and
more than 3000 member companies of the American Electronics
Association. Mr. Borders closed by offering support for H.R.
1265.
Mr. Bartlett described Lockheed Martin Corporation's
involvement in education, stating of the $10 million spent by
the corporation on philanthropy every year, two thirds of that
sum is spent on education, with $800,000 of that going to
programs at the K-12 level. Most, if not all, of Lockheed's 50
operating companies are involved in programs in local schools.
Mr. Bartlett then described one such programs: an intern
program at Lockheed Martin Missile Systems in Gaithersburg,
Maryland. Lockheed Martin has also been involved in the
movement to introduce standards, assessments and accountability
in schools, and Mr. Bartlett stressed the need for teacher
professional development and the introduction of more rigorous
curricula, and indicated support for H.R. 1265 to the extent it
supports those goals.
Dr. Thorpe briefly described the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, which represents more than 100,000
mathematics teachers and has been involved in curriculum and
professional development. He also stressed the importance of
addressing the needs of students in urban and rural school
districts. The most important aspect of improving math and
science education, he said, is the role of teachers, and he
pointed out currently, approximately 40 percent of the Nation's
teachers are teaching outside of their area of professional
competency. Qualified teachers who have access to high quality
professional development programs, he said, are critical to
improving math and science education, and he indicated support
for H.R. 1265, saying the bill recognizes the important role of
teachers in improving education.
Dr. Berriozabal described the San Antonio Prefreshman
Engineering Program, a mathematics-based academic enrichment
program for middle and high school students interested in
science, mathematics, and engineering careers. The program
operates in partnership with private industry and provides
supplemental mathematics instruction to students, with special
efforts dedicated to the recruitment of women and minorities.
Dr. Berriozabal closed by suggesting the public and private
sectors ought to identify pre-college programs that have a
proven record of achievement and provide for their support. He
also indicated support for private-sector underwriting of
college scholarships for deserving students interested in
pursuing science, engineering, or information technology
careers.
4.2(k)--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab to the Field to the Market,
Part I
August 3, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-60
Background
On August 3, 1999 the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
the first of a series of hearings to review federal funding for
plant genome research; the role of the Federal Government in
supporting plant genome research; and the potential impact of
this research on agriculture and the marketing of agricultural
products.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Mary
Clutter, the Assistant Director of NSF's Directorate for
Biological Sciences; Dr. Eileen Kennedy, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Dr. Kenneth Keegstra, Director and
Professor, Michigan State University Plant Research Laboratory;
Dr. John Ryals, the Chief Executive Officer of Paradigm
Genetics; and Dr. Susanne Huttner, Director of the
Biotechnology Research and Education Program at the University
of California.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Clutter stressed NSF's role in funding plant biology
research in the U.S., in part by providing over 50 percent of
all competitively awarded support for basic plant biology
research that is conducted in colleges and universities. Dr.
Clutter stated NSF's Plant Genome Program alone provided $50
million in FY 1999 for research projects involving 45 separate
institutions in 23 states. One of the specific projects funded
by the Plant Genome Project is the Arabidopsis Genome Research
Project. The first goal of the Arabidopsis project is to
determine the sequence of the plant's entire DNA complement--a
project analogous to the Human Genome Project in concept. In
the second stage of the project, functional analysis will be
performed. In discussing the benefits of the Arabidopsis
project, Dr. Clutter stressed the importance of placing all the
sequencing data into public databases.
Dr. Kennedy discussed USDA's involvement in plant genome
research and related areas in her testimony. Besides USDA's
participation in the Arabidopsis and rice genome projects, USDA
funds basic research through Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) laboratories as well as through other mechanisms. Dr.
Kennedy also described the Biotechnology Risk Assessment
Research Grant Program, which was funded at $1.5 million in
FY1999 and is aimed at sponsoring research into the impacts of
biotechnology on agriculture and the environment. A goal of the
program is to assist Federal regulatory agencies in making
science-based decisions regarding the safety of genetically
modified plants.
Dr. Keegstra described plant genome research currently
being pursued at Michigan State University, a recipient of NSF
Plant Genome funding. Dr. Keegstra described the researchers'
use of ``DNA microarray analysis,'' a recently developed
technology aimed at determining the functions of all of the
genes in an organism simultaneously. Dr. Keegstra closed his
testimony by emphasizing the potential benefits of plant genome
research--improved crop yields, enhanced nutritional
characteristics of plant-based foods, for example--had a
grounding in basic research such as that funded by NSF.
Dr. Ryals described the private sector's interest and
involvement in plant genome research and agricultural
biotechnology. He described the practice of genetically
engineering crops as ``a revolution not unlike the advent of
power and light, aviation or computer technology.'' While
scientists are able to move genes into new organisms quite
readily, he stated, the major limiting step in the technology
today involves the discovery of new genes. The application of
genome-based techniques, he explained, would facilitate this
discovery, and thus forms the basis for much of the research at
agricultural biotechnology companies such as his.
Dr. Huttner testified to the crucial role of biotechnology
in agriculture and food production and to the importance of the
agricultural biotechnology industry. Public investments in
research activities such as the Plant Genome program, she said,
are an important step in increasing the level of activity in
the agricultural biotechnology sector. She described a special
role for small businesses, saying small firms are often fueled
by investors ``that take risks big agribusiness won't.'' Dr.
Huttner warned, however, public controversy over genetically
engineered crops threatens to distort U.S. regulatory policy,
potentially stifling future developments. She emphasized the
consensus of scientists regarding the risks associated with
genetically modified foods was the new technology posed risks
no different from those associated with classical agricultural
techniques. She stressed current regulatory policies aimed at
protecting consumers are adequate to protect the safety of
humans and the environment.
4.2(l)--Overcoming Barriers to the Utilization of Technology in the
Classroom
September 22, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-44
Background
On September 22, 1999, the Subcommittees on Technology and
Basic Research held a joint hearing, which focused on
technology in the K-12 classroom. In particular, the hearing
examined the appropriate role of local, state, and Federal
programs in helping schools get connected; the barriers that
prevent schools from implementing successful technology
programs; and how the private sector can be harnessed to assist
schools in bringing technology into the classroom.
Witnesses included: Dr. George O. Strawn, Executive
Officer, Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Directorate, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA; Mr.
Alan Spoon, President, The Washington Post, Washington, DC; Dr.
Elizabeth Glowa, Director for Instructional Technology Support
Team, Office of Global Access Technology, Montgomery County
Public Schools, Rockville, MD; and Mr. James Fallon Jr.,
Superintendent of Schools, East Hartford School District, East
Hartford, Connecticut.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Strawn provided an overview of the National Science
Foundation's involvement with the creation of the Internet and
its use in the classroom. He testified since 1996, NSF has
supported research and development in novel technologies that
could lower the cost of and/or lower other barriers to bringing
the Internet to public schools and libraries. He testified
there is a need to better understand the costs, capabilities,
human resource requirements, and potential educational benefits
of universal high speed Internet access for all schools.
Finally, he said NSF stands ready to work with Congress and
other stakeholders in education technology to develop an
effective mechanism to inform policymakers in the rapidly
evolving world of networking.
Mr. Spoon testified on behalf of the CEO Forum on Education
and Technology. The CEO Forum is a coalition of corporate and
academic leaders who joined together in 1996 to form a four-
year partnership to access and monitor progress toward
integrating technology in American schools. He stated the CEO
Forum has committed to releasing four reports examining
different areas of education technology and his testimony would
focus on the Forum's third report dealing with teacher
training. He stated it is important for schools to invest in
professional development so teachers can successfully integrate
technology in the classroom. Otherwise, schools are at a risk
of wasting scarce resources on technology that will not be
utilized to its fullest potential. He went on to list a set of
recommendations put forth by the CEO Forum to help guide
schools in preparing their teachers.
Dr. Glowa testified if technology is to realize its
powerful potential for improving education, it must be used for
more than just automating the traditional methods and practices
of teaching. She further stated positive changes in the
learning environment brought about by technology are more
evolutionary than revolutionary. She stated these changes occur
over a period of years, as teachers become more experienced
with technology and instructional implementation strategies and
are supported by effective staff development efforts. She
highlighted in her testimony a list of barriers to effectively
utilizing technology in the classroom.
Mr. Fallon testified regarding steps the East Hartford
School District had undertaken to integrate technology in the
classroom. He stated funding for technology continues to be a
major obstacle--especially when schools must weight spending
money on hardware and infrastructure against spending money on
staff development and technology support. He stated that new
technologies that facilitate the sharing of teaching units and
expertise among teachers and schools districts over the World
Wide Web promise a much more effective use of resources than
has been possible by isolated, individual teachers acting
alone.
4.2(m)--The Impact of Basic Research on Technological Innovation &
National Prosperity
September 28, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-58
Background
On September 28, 1999 the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held a hearing to review federally funded basic research
programs, to discuss the technological and economic advances
generated by federally funded basic research, and to discuss
how policymakers can ensure the government's basic research
portfolio is designed to maximize the economic results of
investment in civilian research and development.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Rita
Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; Dr. Fawwaz
Ulaby, Vice President for Research, University of Michigan; Dr.
Scott Stern, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management; and Dr.
Laurence Hirsch, M.D., Vice President, Public Affairs, Merck
Research Laboratories.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Colwell testified by stating the United States has
witnessed incredible technological and economic payoffs from
Federal investments in basic research. As an example, she noted
this week two of the Nation's most prominent weekly news
magazines featured cover stories on e-commerce and Internet-
based issues. It was government sponsored research at the
National Science Foundation and other Federal agencies that
launched today's information revolution. She also noted NSF's
role in generating cell-phones, fiber optics and computer-
assisted designs. An additional benefit of government funding
of basic research is many scientists trained with the support
of NSF often move on to the private sector and transfer their
new insights to industry. Director Colwell testified innovation
predominately comes from publicly supported research and that
nearly two-thirds of the papers cited on recent U.S. Patents
were published by organizations primarily supported by public
funding. Director Colwell's last point was that through NSF's
partnerships with more than 1,500 companies, the knowledge
gained by publicly funded basic research is disseminated
throughout our economy. To close her testimony she stated that
with Congress' continued support of basic research, the next 50
years promise to bring even more innovations and prosperity to
all Americans.
Dr. Ulaby testified the basic research performed two
decades ago is at the very core of the intellectual and
technological creativity responsible for the economic boom of
the 1990s. He stated the University of Michigan responded to
the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act by creating formal
mechanisms for commercializing technologies developed by the
University's faculty. The University now spends over $500
million dollars per year on research, 65 percent of which is
from federal sponsors. He noted, however, the goal of their
tech transfer program is to get new knowledge to the private
sector so experts can apply the knowledge in business. One of
the most important features of federal funded research
programs, he said, is the ``talent transfer'' of educated
scientists from universities to the private sector. He closed
his statement by stating that resolute federal support for
basic research should be a fundamental principle of the
government-university partnership.
Professor Stern discussed the findings of a study he
conducted with Michael Porter of Harvard Business School.
According to the findings of this study the United States risks
losing its competitive advantage if it continues to under-fund
programs that lead to innovation and prosperity. The findings
of this study were published by the American Enterprise
Institute in a publication entitled ``The New Challenge to
America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index.'' The
index is based on a statistical model incorporating distinct
drivers of innovation capacity, including such factors as
research and development personnel and investment, the
composition of research and development funding and
performance, and policy instruments, such as the strength of
intellectual property and openness to international
competition. Historically the United States has ranked high on
the Index and as a result has had a high level of technological
innovation. However, Professor Stern is concerned the United
States may be living off historical assets. He recommended the
Federal Government support higher levels of research and
development funding, improve and increase the country's
dwindling pool of scientists and engineers, and help create new
intellectual property tools which address new forms of
innovative output.
Dr. Hirsch, testified the U.S. pharmaceutical industry
leads the world due to the Federal Government's long-term
support for basic research. Funding basic research is a win-win
situation because not only does the research generate new
medicines for patients, but also creates a broad range of jobs
for Americans. The success of the industry is due to federal
support of research, our free and competitive markets,
effective intellectual property protection, and an efficient
regulatory system. Dr. Hircsh closed his testimony by stating
that it takes a pharmaceutical company approximately 15 years
and 500 million dollars to bring new medicine to the
marketplace. Government funding of basic research provides
important seeds from which innovative new health care advances
ultimately grow to the benefit of all.
4.2(n)--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab to the Field to the Market,
Part II
October 5, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-60
Background
On October 5, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research held
the second in a series of hearings to review federal funding
for plant genome research, the role of the Federal Government
in supporting plant genome research, and the potential impact
of this research on agriculture and the marketing of
agricultural products.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Michael
Thomashow, Professor of Plant and Soil Science, Michigan State
University; Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, Director of Biotechnology
Programs, Environmental Defense Fund; Dr. Abigail A. Salyers,
Professor of Microbiology, University of Illinois; Dr. Anthony
M. Shelton, Professor of Entomology, Cornell University; Dr. R.
James Cook, Professor of Plant Pathology, Washington State
University.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Thomashow's testimony highlighted a number of current
and expected applications of agricultural biotechnology. All of
the applications were based on, applications he listed under
the following three categories: (1) improved crop production
and quality; (2) improved health; and (3) alternative non-food
uses. He described a few of these advancements in detail,
starting with herbicide resistance, which he explained was
aiding farmers and allowing safer and more environmentally
friendly herbicide usage.
Dr. Goldburg made two major points in her testimony: (1)
she expressed her view that there are legitimate concerns about
risks of transgenic crops and (2) the benefits of the
technology for the current generation of genetically engineered
crops were often overstated. She then listed and described a
number of specific concerns, including: (1) the potential for
allergenic proteins to be introduced into genetically
engineered food; (2) the evolution of pests that are resistant
to pesticides produced by genetically modified plants; (3) harm
to non-target species, such as the Monarch butterfly, by these
pesticides; and (4) antibiotic resistance generated by the
``marker'' genes used in the creation of genetically engineered
plants.
In her testimony, Dr. Salyers dismissed the risk of
antibiotic resistance genes moving into human or animal
intestinal bacteria from ingested biotech foods as extremely
small and of questionable medical significance. She commented,
however, that the focus on the incredibly small possibility of
this type of transfer had distracted officials in Europe,
causing them to make an extremely ill-advised decision
regarding the use of a specific antibiotic in agriculture. She
also discussed her perspective on the real reasons behind the
anti-biotech sentiment of activists, saying their main aim
``seems to be to destroy the biotech industry and return to
organic farming.'' She pointed out the irony of their position
in that organically grown plants have a number of potential
safety problems yet are virtually unregulated. In contrast, she
said, genetically engineered plants are safer because the
process involves making specific, targeted, and well-understood
changes to a plant and the plants must then pass rigorous
testing for safety.
Dr. Shelton's testimony focused on concerns raised by data
published recently in scientific journals that suggested
biotech crops pose a danger to the Monarch butterfly and these
crops would speed up the development of pesticide resistance.
He said anti-biotechnology activists have used preliminary
results for political purposes.
Dr. Cook's testimony focused on environmental issues
surrounding the use of genetically modified crops, and he made
four main points: (1) genetic modification of plants for food,
agriculture and the environment is nothing new; (2) use of
plants as crops for the production of food, fiber and other
products has an amazing record of environmental safety; (3)
environmental risks that have been associated with crop plants
are all consequences of management practices that can be
alleviated through the use of biotech plants; and (4) extensive
performance trials and institutional reviews conducted by the
developers of biotech crops adequately assure their safety.
4.2(o)--Plant Genome Science: From the Lab to the Field to the Market,
Part III
October 19, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-60
Background
On October 19, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held the third in a series of hearings to review federal
funding for plant genome research, the role of the Federal
Government in supporting plant genome research, and the
potential impact of this research on agriculture and the
marketing of agricultural products.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Sally L.
McCammon, a Science Advisor at the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr.
Janet Anderson, Director of the Bio-Pesticide and Pollution
Prevention Division of the Environmental Protection Agency; Dr.
James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator for the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug
Administration; Mr. Mark Silbergeld, Co-Director of the
Washington Office of Consumers Union; and Dr. Stephen Taylor,
Professor of Food Technology at the University of Nebraska.
Summary of hearing
Dr. McCammon described USDA's role in regulating
genetically modified plants, which she described as being
rooted in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of
Biotechnology. The Framework forms the foundation for Federal
regulatory policy regarding agricultural biotechnology and is
based on the premise that the risks associated with organisms
created using biotechnology are not fundamentally different
than those associated with organisms modified by other genetic
techniques, such as traditional breeding programs. Dr. McCammon
stressed the importance of science in informing the regulatory
process, and identified the success of the current regulatory
system for biotechnology as being that the agencies involved
have established credibility and scientific expertise.
Dr. Andersen explained in her testimony EPA's jurisdiction
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) is limited to pesticidal substances. According to a
1994 EPA document, the substances plants produce for protection
against pests and disease are pesticides. EPA will begin the
process of establishing data requirements and testing
guidelines for plant pesticides when it completes the
rulemaking process. Dr. Andersen also discussed the potential
threat of plant pesticides to non-target species and insect
resistance management programs.
Dr. Maryanski described FDA's legal authority over
genetically engineered foods as falling under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and said bio-engineered foods must
adhere to the same standards of safety as conventionally
derived ones. Dr. Maryanski stressed FDA's policies in
regulating biotech foods are science-based and were developed
through careful consideration of new developments in
biotechnology.
Mr. Silbergeld described a number of food safety concerns
in his testimony, including: (1) the potential for new
allergenic foods; (2) the potential for toxic new foods; (3)
the possibility of lower-nutrient foods; (4) environmental
concerns; and (5) risks associated with antibiotic marker
genes. Mr. Silbergeld asserted that FDA's guidelines for
assuring the safety of biotech foods are inadequate and foods
created using biotechnology should be labeled as such.
In his testimony, Dr. Taylor endorsed the concept of
substantial equivalence as a part of the safety evaluation of
foods derived through genetic modification, pointing out it has
been recognized as an integral component of the safety
assessment of biotech foods by scientific and regulatory
experts from the U.S. and abroad. In addition, he said, biotech
foods are subjected to extensive testing. This testing focuses
most closely on the novel components in these foods, and as
such is much more likely to yield helpful results.
4.2(p)--The Turkey, Taiwan, and Mexico Earthquakes: Lessons Learned
October 20, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-67
Background
On October 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held a hearing on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program's (NEHRP) post-earthquake research and evaluation
activities. The purpose of this hearing was to assess the
current status of the Federal Government's post-earthquake
research efforts and to discuss what has been learned through
this program over the past several years. Among other topics,
the Subcommittee explored NEHRP's recent post-earthquake
research in Turkey, Mexico and Taiwan.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Mr. Waverly
Person, Director, National Earthquake Information Center
(NEIC), United States Geological Survey, United States
Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado; Professor Thomas
O'Rourke, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Professor
of Engineering, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca. New York; Professor
Terry Wallace, Ph.D., President, Seismological Society of
America, Professor of Geosciences, Department of Geosciences,
University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona; Battalion Chief Michael
Tamillow, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Service, Fairfax
County, Virginia.
Summary of hearing
Director Person testified by describing the functions of
the NEIC. Mr. Person gave examples of the Center's work during
and after the Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes and noted in terms
of reacting to earthquake disasters, time is of the essence. In
terms of the need for improved earthquake monitoring
technology, Mr. Person compared and contrasted the information
generated after the Turkey and Taiwan earthquake. In Turkey it
took almost two full days to calculate the extent and intensity
of the earthquake. By contrast, in Taiwan, the location, depth,
and magnitude of the earthquake were computed with 102 seconds.
As a result, rescue activities after the Taiwan earthquake
could commence quickly after the earthquake. Mr. Person
testified the USGS is now in the process of installing similar
technology in California so if and when an earthquake strikes
California, the NEIC will be able to process information as
quickly as was done in Taiwan.
Professor O'Rourke testified the two most pervasive images
and lessons from the Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes are the
thousands of failures of non-ductile concrete buildings and the
extensive surface faulting that ruptured and destroyed critical
infrastructure. He noted the United States' inventory of
buildings includes a significant percentage of similarly
constructed ``non-ductile concrete buildings.'' He also stated
in the United States a large number of public schools and other
public institutions are located directly on fault lines and
therefore are at heightened risk if an earthquake were to cause
serious surface rupture. He stated the two most important
lessons learned over the last few years are to support federal
projects, such as FEMA's Project Impact that deal with
mitigation, and to continue to research issues such as those
that will lead to improved technologies for retrofitting
existing structures.
Professor Wallace testified although the recent earthquakes
have made the newspapers due to the fact they have been located
in densely populated areas, the recent period has not been
extremely unusual in terms of worldwide earthquake activity. On
average, he stated, there are 15-18 earthquakes of magnitude
7.0 or larger each year. On average earthquakes kill
approximately 20,000 people each year. In fact in 1990 one
earthquake killed 50,000 people in Iran. As for the recent
earthquakes, Professor Wallace was quick to point out the fault
located in Turkey is similar to the San Andreas Fault in
California. He also discussed a few of the new findings based
on recent studies concerning the size of the area effected by a
given earthquake. Based on those findings, he stated the United
States would see similar problems if a major earthquake were to
strike California. Professor Wallace closed his testimony by
stating basic research as funded through the NEHRP program has
been vital to understanding earthquakes. He said seismology is
a data-driven science and therefore there is a real need for
the kind of basic research performed during post-earthquake
research.
Chief Tamillow testified responding to a catastrophic
earthquake is a daunting undertaking. He stated the research
conducted by FEMA over the last ten years has generated
significant improvements in his organization's ability to
complete its tasks. He stated post-earthquake research is
important because most people will be saved during the first
few hours after an earthquake and that the information gained
during post-earthquake research translates into more saved
earthquake victims. In addition, he stated research is
important in terms of logistics and in determining the extent
of the disaster caused by an earthquake.
4.2(q)--Education Research: Is What We Don't Know Hurting Our Children?
October 26, 1999
Hearing Volume Number 106-65
Background
On October 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Basic Research
held a hearing to examine the current state of education
research, including the impact of recent developments in fields
such as neuroscience, cognition, and developmental psychology
on education policy and classroom practices. The Subcommittee
also examined the Interagency Education Research Initiative
(IERI), a new program developed by the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Education (DOEd), and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). The IERI was established
to coordinate education research efforts, and a recent National
Resource Council report on education research entitled
Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Education
Research and Its Utilization.
Witnesses before the Subcommittee included: Dr. Judith S.
Sunley, the Assistant Director for the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources at the National Science
Foundation; Dr. C. Kent McGuire, Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) at the
U.S. Department of Education; Dr. G. Reid Lyon, the Chief of
the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National
Institutes of Health's National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD); Dr. Alexandra K. Wigdor, the
Associate Executive Director for the Commission of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education at the National Research
Council; and Dr. Maris Vinovskis, a Professor of History and
Public Policy at the University of Michigan.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Sunley addressed the overall state of education
research, calling it ``mixed but improving.'' She described the
various programs at NSF that are focused on education research
or have a research component. These include: (1) the Research
in Education Policy and Practice, which funds research across a
spectrum of science, mathematics, engineering and technology
education; (2) special and targeted awards; (3) the Learning
and Intelligent Systems (LIS) and Knowledge and Distributed
Intelligence (KDI) programs; and (4) the Interagency Education
Research Initiative (IERI), which NSF participates in with DoEd
and NIH. The IERI program provides grants to researchers in
order to perform education-related research. NSF provided
approximately two-thirds of IERI's support in FY 1999.
Dr. McGuire's testimony focused on OERI's education
research programs, which he said fell into three broad
categories: (1) Promoting school reform and improvement; (2)
assisting teachers and administrators; and (3) helping
policymakers reach informed decisions. In discussing some of
the crosscutting themes associated with education research at
DoEd, Dr. McGuire pointed to research into early childhood
development and education, children who are at risk of
educational failure, and achievement in literacy, mathematics,
and science.
Dr. Lyon began his testimony by providing an overview of
education research efforts at NICHD, describing the research
there as being multidisciplinary and focused on identifying:
(1) the critical environmental, experiential, cognitive,
genetic, neurobiological, and instructional conditions that
enable students to learn; (2) the risk factors that predispose
some children to learning difficulties; and (3) instructional
practices that foster optimal reading development. Dr. Lyon
stressed that these initiatives, which have been underway for
34 years, were developed and designed in close collaboration
with the scientific community.
Dr. Wigdor's testimony focused on a proposal by the
National Research Council for a Strategic Education Research
Plan (SERP). This plan is undergirded by three major
propositions: (1) there is an emerging science of learning that
has important implications for curricula design, instruction,
assessment, and learning; (2) researchers, educators, and
policymakers can work together in a partnership that can
improve the effectiveness of all; and (3) the time is right for
the initiative.
Like most of the other panelists, Dr. Vinovskis expressed
the view that most education research has not been of high
quality, saying academics in the other behavioral and social
science disciplines ``frequently regard educational research
and evaluation as second-rate methodologically and
conceptually.'' He listed a number of shortcomings and
limitations in the current educational research efforts at
DoEd, including a lack of intellectual leadership. In
suggesting improvements, Dr. Vinoskis cited the need for OERI
to be politically independent, and to work more closely with
scientific agencies such as NSF and NIH on education research
initiatives.
4.2(r)--National Science Foundation FY 2001 Budget Authorization
Request, Part I: Research and Related Activities and Major Research
Equipment
February 16, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-80
Background
On Wednesday, February 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing to review a portion of the National
Science Foundation's (NSF) budget request for FY 2001. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the National Science
Foundation and the National Science Board (NSB).
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; and Dr.
Eamon Kelly, Member, National Science Board.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Kelly raised the concern that only 2.8 percent of GDP
was spent on research and development. He stated although NSF
funding only supports four percent of annual R&D funding, the
NSF is a silent partner in our Nation's economy due to the
relationship between long-term basic research and economic
progress.
Dr. Colwell noted, if enacted, this year's increase in the
NSF budget would double the largest increase in the
Foundation's history. Dr. Colwell discussed the foundation's
major initiatives: the Information Research Initiative,
Biocomplexity, the 21st century Workforce and the Nanoscale
Science and Engineering Initiative. She also discussed two new
Major Research Equipment accounts, the NEON Project and the
EarthScope project. In closing she stated the best way to start
NSF's next fifty years would be to enact this year's budget
request.
4.2(s)--National Science Foundation FY 2001 Budget Authorization
Request, Part II: Education and Human Resources
February 29, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-80
Background
On Wednesday, February 29, 2000, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing to review the National Science
Foundation's (NSF) FY 2001 budget request for the Foundation's
Education and Human Resources directorate. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from representatives from the National Science
Foundation, Johns Hopkins University and the University of
Chicago.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Judith Sunley, Acting Assistant Director for the Directorate
for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation;
Dr. James E. K. Hildreth, Professor and Associate Dean, Johns
Hopkins School of Medicine; and Dr. Bennett Bertenthal,
Professor, University of Chicago.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Sunley stated the budget request for NSF's Education
and Human Resources directorate is $729 million for FY 2001,
with an additional $31 million coming from H-1B visas. She
stated the directorate's work with NSF's 21st Century Workforce
initiative assigns high priority to advancing research on
learning and education and linking it to the development of
information technologies as well as to educational models for
our schools. She stated the Centers for Learning and Teaching
will begin on a prototype basis this year with the intent of
establishing five to seven centers in 2001. Associate Director
Sunley noted the importance of the Graduate Teaching Fellows in
K-12 Education and stated that the Distinguished Teaching
Scholars Program is true intellectual seed-corn. In closing,
she stated the EHR directorate and its programs reach 120,000
people every year, who in turn influence millions of people.
Dr. Bertenthal made three major points in his testimony:
(1) More funding is needed for education research activities;
(2) more fundamental research on child development is
necessary; and (3) NSF is uniquely positioned to facilitate
this research. Dr. Bertenthal suggested that unlike hospital
emergency rooms that have been transformed over the past one
hundred years, little has changed in the classroom. He stated
NSF's interdisciplinary activities are perfect for bringing
together the various researchers who deal with child research
so that progress can be made on this important issue.
Dr. Hildreth opened his testimony by discussing Johns
Hopkins University's success in attracting outstanding
minorities to their MD and Ph.D programs. He also discussed the
relationship between Johns Hopkins and Dunbar High School and
the importance of NSF's funding of graduate students as
teaching fellows in K-12 settings. He stated this relationship
will help both the young students at Dunbar and also the
teaching fellows. He stated that the teaching fellows, who are
wonderful content resources, are a terrific addition to high
school classrooms in which most teachers are overburdened. In
closing he stated NSF's funding of programs, such as the one at
Dunbar High School will have lasting effects on the progress of
science and education in the country.
4.2(t)--National Science Foundation FY 2001 Budget Authorization
Request, Part III: A View From Outside NSF
March 15, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-80
Background
On Wednesday, March 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Basic
Research held a hearing to get an outsider's view of the
National Science Foundation's (NSF) FY 2001 budget request and
to consider issues related to a two-year authorization. NSF's
current authorization expires at the end of FY 2000. This
hearing was part of a series of hearings and meetings held by
the Subcommittee regarding the NSF Budget Authorization
Request.
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Cornelius Sullivan, Vice Provost for Research, University of
Southern California; Dr. Neil Evans, Director of the NorthWest
Center for Emerging Technologies at Bellevue Community College,
Bellevue, Washington; Dr. Ruben G. Carbonell, Co-Director, NSF
Science and Technology Center for Environmentally Responsible
Solvents and Processes, North Carolina State University; and
Dr. Paula Stephan, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Georgia
State University.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Sullivan stated NSF funding is a true investment in our
Nation's future because it contributes to greater
understanding, innovation, discovery, and the ability to solve
complex problems. Collectively, these assets contribute
substantially to our economic strength and to the defense of
our Nation in the broadest of terms. Further, he stated
continued investments such as this are essential to build and
maintain a leadership role for the United States in the ever
more globalized environment we face in the new century. He
noted NSF accounts for only 4 percent of the federal R&D
budget, but it supports 50 percent of the non-medical basic
research housed at our colleges and universities. Dr. Sullivan
acknowledged he was a bit concerned about several aspects of
the initiatives, including the IT program, as currently
structured. He recommended Congress and the NSF should consider
at least doubling the average award allocated per investigator
under this program.
Dr. Evans opened his testimony by stating technology is
transforming the U.S. economy, creating a ``New Economy,''
based on innovation and brainpower. He stated the overall
demand for information technology (IT) workers far outstrips
the supply. More than half of these IT jobs can be staffed by
technicians and technologists, with only a 2-year community
college Associate degree. To meet the demand for greater
supply, quality and diversity of the IT workforce, the
NorthWest Center for Emerging Technologies (NWCET) was created
in September 1995. Major funding for this center was provided
by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advanced Technology
Education (ATE) Program and several corporate partners
(Microsoft Corporation, The Boeing Company, and other regional
businesses). He stated the center is an excellent example of
the work funded by NSF. In closing, he stated the Nation's
community colleges support NSF's budget request.
Dr. Carbonell testified that NSF finds itself in a crucial
position to influence the future economic growth and
competitiveness of the United States in the global markets of
the 21st century. He also stated only the Federal Government is
in a position to fund basic research programs. The private
sector has a much narrower focus for its research objectives.
Corporate support for academic research tends to be aimed at
two or three-year development plans for a particular existing
product line or business unit. Even though there is a constant
demand from the corporate world for a well-trained and diverse
work force and novel research equipment, it is not likely that
significant funds will ever be forthcoming from industrial
sources for these purposes. Dr. Carbonell concluded by stating
NSF's goals are at the heart of the Nation's needs for basic
scientific research to provide for economic growth and national
defense, and they certainly are worthy of additional support.
Dr. Stephan stated a key component of the FY 2001 NSF
proposed budget is funding to extend the average duration of an
award from three to four years. She strongly supported this
proposal and sees it as a way by which the quality and quantity
of research output per dollar invested can be increased, thus
contributing to even greater economic growth. She noted that
there are three mechanisms by which graduate students in the
United States are generally supported: (1) Graduate Research
Assistantships; (2) Fellowships; and (3) Training Grants. She
stated these mechanisms are key components of principal
investigator-initiated research projects. She stated these
mechanisms are excellent methods of supporting graduate
education and they send signals that reflect the interests and
career goals of the next generation of scientists--not the
generation training them. This in turn provides the opportunity
for reforming the educational system, as programs work to
attract fellowship holders and strive to develop training
grants that pass the muster of peer review.
4.2(u)--The Internet, Distance Learning and the Future of the Research
University
May 9, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-81
Background
This hearing examined the potential impact that the growth
of Internet-based distance learning may have on our Nation's
education system, particularly its impact on the country's
research universities. The hearing also addressed the pros and
cons of Internet-based education, how universities are reacting
to the growth of distance learning, whether widespread use of
Internet-based education will lead to fundamental changes in
our nation's research universities, and what should be the
response of science funding agencies (particularly the National
Science Foundation).
Witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee included: Dr.
Nils Hasselmo, President, American Association of Universities;
Professor Richard Larson, Director, Center for Advanced
Educational Services, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Carol Vallone, Chief Executive Office & President, WebCT, Inc.;
and Dr. James Duderstadt, Director, Millenium Project,
University of Michigan.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Hasselmo opened his testimony by noting the advent of
digital distance education allows education to be delivered at
any time, permitting the instructor to post educational content
on a web site which the student may access at a time optimal
for the student. But a great deal of Internet-based education
is not ``distant'' at all, but involves the intermingling of
digital content with other orally delivered or paper-based
content in traditional residential educational settings. He
also noted that although there has been a great deal of
speculation about the potential cost reductions that might
occur from the use of information technology in education, the
initial experience has been the opposite: the costs to develop,
deliver, and receive digital distance education are quite high.
The high cost of developing comprehensive, high-quality digital
course packages is one of the principal factors driving the
creation of consortia of institutions brought together to
develop joint digital distance education programs. He stated
there were four things the Congress could do to improve
distance learning: (1) fund research for high-performance
networks and applications; (2) support pilot programs for
distance learning; (3) modify and update the Copyright Law; and
(4) support database protection legislation.
Professor Larson noted we are at the start of a transition
that will provide students and faculty with new networked
opportunities for collaborative learning and research. He
stated the transition may be analogous to that experienced over
the 20th Century in the electric power industry and in the
telephone industry. Where once these services were very local,
they now encompass huge national networks. He noted there is
some confusion between the terms ``distance learning'' and
``technology-enabled education.'' Technology-enabled education
(TEE) is education that is enhanced and improved as a result of
technology. The technology does not drive the education, rather
students' learning needs. TEE allows educational environments
and opportunities not possible before the technology was in
place. Intellectually, TEE is more important than distance
learning. In fact, many teaching/learning environments first
developed as TEE projects for on-campus use can be relatively
easily exported in a distance learning mode. In that sense,
distance learning is almost a ``subset'' of TEE. He stated
there are many potential federal roles in this exciting new
field. He offered the following for suggestions for
consideration: (1) Support more research on technology-enabled
education, focusing on what works and what doesn't work; (2)
Encourage and support novel and compelling learning networks
between cooperating institutions of higher education; (3)
Examine the federal role in the support of life-long learning,
leading to actions that would encourage the creation of a
learning society; and (4) Support efforts to narrow or
eradicate the ``digital divide.''
Ms. Vallone stated demand for online teaching and learning
resources would not be booming if Internet-based education and
distance learning did not offer dramatic benefits. They can
widen access to higher education, improve the quality of
teaching, and leverage an institution's existing
infrastructure. She also stated the National Science Foundation
is responding well to these rapidly changing times. She
concluded her prepared remarks with a quotation from John
Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems. He told The New York Times
last November, ``The next big killer application for the
Internet is going to be education. Education over the Internet
is going to be so big it is going to make e-mail usage look
like a rounding error.''
Dr. Duderstadt's testimony concerned exploring the
implications of rapidly evolving information technology for the
future of the American research university. He stated that
today our society and our social institutions are being
reshaped by the rapid advances in information technology-
computers, telecommunications, and networks. These rapidly
evolving technologies are dramatically changing the way we
collect, manipulate, and transmit information. They change the
relationship between people and knowledge, and they are likely
to reshape in profound ways knowledge-based institutions such
as the research university. While this technology has the
capacity to enhance and enrich teaching and scholarship, it
also poses certain threats to the university. We can now use
powerful computers and networks to deliver educational services
to anyone, anyplace, anytime, no longer confined to the campus
or the academic schedule. Technology is creating an open
learning environment in which the student has evolved into an
active learner and consumer of educational services,
stimulating the growth of powerful market forces that could
dramatically reshape the higher education enterprise.
4.2(v)--The State of Ocean and Marine Science
July 27, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-100
Background
The purpose of this joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment was to review federal support for the
Ocean Sciences. Topics of the hearing included: ocean research
activities supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the Academic Fleet and the University-National Oceanographic
Laboratory System (UNOLS), and other issues of concern to the
ocean research community.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Admiral James
Watkins, President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education (CORE); Dr. Robert Knox, Associate Director, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography and Chair, University-National
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Council; Dr. James
Delaney, Professor of Oceanography, University of Washington;
and Dr. Jack Sobel, Center for Marine Conversation.
Summary of hearing
Admiral Watkins opened his testimony by noting the
importance of ocean research given that more than half of the
world's population lives in the 2 percent of the Earth's
surface that is coastal zone. He noted there are increasing
concerns about the biological health of the oceans. Watkins
also explained the importance of ocean research in
understanding the development and effects of natural disasters,
including hurricanes, monsoons, typhoons and tsunamis. In
addition, Watkins noted the important role the oceans play in
the realm of national defense. He suggested that a system of
sustained integrated ocean observations would address
fundamental scientific questions regarding the interacting
physical, biological, chemical and geological processes in the
oceans, and their relationship to the human population that
relies on them. Watkins testified that building on the existing
infrastructure, a multi-sector commitment involving the Federal
Government, State governments, the private sector and academia,
lead to a national capability within 10 years.
Dr. Knox testified on the current status of UNOLS. He noted
UNOLS is a successful system yielding highly cost-effective
seagoing capability for the U.S. ocean science community. In
addition, he explained that the question of how to renew the
UNOLS fleet in concert with a long-range view of scientific
requirements--including a realistic view of funded future uses
for the fleet--confronts agencies, UNOLS institutions, and
several Committees of Congress. With intelligent cooperation,
he noted, we can plan this future well, enhancing the UNOLS
fleet. He believes the Federal Oceanographic Facilities
Committee (FOFC) with its new reporting relationship to the
National Ocean Research Leadership Council bodes well for a new
round of fleet renewal planning. He urged Congress to resist
altering the ``roadmap'' FOFC and UNOLS have created in funding
research in oceanography.
Dr. Delaney made three points in his testimony: (1) the
tide is rising in the world of oceanographic research; (2) life
exists deep within our planet and perhaps within others; and
(3) we are on the threshold of a new type of Interactive
Oceanography. Delaney provided a view of his research of
volcanically supported biospheres on the ocean floor. He
proposed further research projects similar to his NEPTUNE
project, an undersea observatory based on electro-optical
networking that connects through the Internet to many remote,
interactive natural laboratory nodes. These labs would be
designed for real-time, four-dimensional experiments on, above,
and below the sea floor. He noted this type of research
represents the shift, in his view, of ocean research from an
exploratory-based model to an understanding-based model.
Dr. Sobel testified on the current state of coral reef
science. He explained our current knowledge of coral reefs is
sufficient to state unequivocally they are among the most
biologically diverse biosystems on earth, they possess high
value to human beings if properly preserved, they face a number
of serious stresses that have the potential to cause greater
impacts over the next several decades, they face a number of
well-documented threats, and the application of existing
management tools can limit the impacts of these threats and
stresses. He noted the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and its
National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs represent the best
opportunity to protect coral reefs, and urged further funding
of these projects.
4.2(w)--Beyond Silicon-Based Computing: Quantum and Molecular Computing
September 12, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-91
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to review federally funded
research of quantum and molecular computing, to discuss the
role of the Federal Government in supporting further research,
and to discuss the economic implications of advances made in
the field of non-silicon-based computing.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy,
Assistant Director, Computer, Information Science, and
Engineering (CISE) Directorate, National Science Foundation;
Dr. Charles H. Bennett, IBM Research Fellow; Dr. Laura
Landweber, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary
Biology, Princeton University; Dr. Timothy Havel, Lecturer,
Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard
Medical School, Affiliate, Department of Nuclear Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary of hearing
Dr. Bajcsy stated today's research into non-silicon based
computing has the potential to revolutionize every facet of our
lives. The NSF is particularly well suited to support research
in these areas. NSF's Initiatives in Information Technology
Research and in Nanoscale Science and Engineering provide
mechanisms to address the interdisciplinary research that these
ideas require. In her comments, she addressed five general
points. First she gave a brief overview of the science and
engineering challenges and accomplishments to date. Then she
spoke about four aspects of the federal role in these exciting
new areas: how the NSF is supporting and coordinating this
research, multi-agency activities and coordination, the
relationship of federally supported research with industry, and
lastly, international activities in these areas. In closing she
noted this is a high-risk, high-payoff field, and many years of
basic research into new hardware and software technologies will
be needed to unlock the potential of this science and
technology. Quantum, chemical and DNA computing are all
radically different approaches to information science and
technology. They offers the possibility of new paradigms in
computation and data processing, data storage and transmission,
cryptography and information security, as well as new quantum-
based technologies.
Dr. Bennett noted quantum information science draws on the
disciplines of physical science, mathematics, computer science,
and engineering. Its aim is to understand how certain
fundamental laws of physics can be harnessed to improve
dramatically how we transmit and process information. This is
not research that will get done in the private sector.
Industrial R&D cannot replace government investment in long-
term fundamental research. Federal and private research are
largely complementary, not overlapping, activities. If there is
a lesson about technology that the twentieth century has taught
us, it is that technology leadership has a huge and beneficial
impact on the welfare of our society and national security. One
need only look at our current economic prosperity or at how few
lives were lost in the Desert Storm campaign to have ample
evidence of this truth. Stepping up our national investment in
quantum information science will do much to help insure our
technological preeminence in the century that lies ahead of us.
Dr. Havel testified today's computers are the enabling
technology that could provide a breakthrough in our ability to
deal with complex systems, ranging from the quantum to the
biological. At the present rate computer circuitry will reach
atomic dimensions within the next 10 to 15 years, at which
point dealing with, and taking advantage of, quantum complexity
becomes inevitable. In particular, researchers have shown a
quantum computer could simulate other quantum systems in
subexponential time, thereby ensuring current progress will
continue far into the foreseeable future. It should be
understood that molecular and quantum computing are about more
than just getting the silicon out of computers. They are about
entirely new architectures and even paradigms for computation,
which will lead to machines that differ from today's computers
not merely in degree, but fundamentally in kind.
Dr. Landweber opened her testimony by stating ever since
scientists discovered conventional silicon-based computers have
an upper limit in terms of speed, they have been searching for
alternate media with which to solve computational problems.
That search has led us, among other places, to DNA. The
advantage of DNA is that it is tiny, cheap, and can react
faster than silicon. Since this fledgling field is only six
years old, it is difficult to guess at this stage what
applications it may ultimately have. For now it is a terrific
example of basic research, bringing together researchers from
two traditionally disparate fields--computer science and
biology--to find new approaches to doing creative science.
Developing this field will require basic research on all fronts
to expand its impact on both computer science and molecular
biology, with particular attention to training and educating
individuals in more than a single discipline of science.
Because this field is still so new, nourishing it at this stage
could indeed alter its course as well as shape its next leaders
that will build upon the current level of progress in the
future.
4.2(x)--Benchmarking U.S. Science: What Can It Tell Us?
October 4, 2000
Hearing Volume Number 106-102
Background
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the use of
international benchmarking to determine the standing of U.S.
efforts in various research fields. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from Dr. Eamon Kelly, Chairman of the National
Science Board; Dr. Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor, North Carolina
State University; and Dr. Robert M. White, Professor and
Director of the Data Storage Systems Center at Carnegie Mellon
University.
Summary of hearing
In her testimony, Dr. Fox explained how the Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a committee
of the National Academies, embarked on its experiments in
benchmarking as a result of their 1993 report, Science,
Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a
New Era. That study, she said, set two goals: (1) ``the United
States should be among the world leaders in all major areas of
science,'' and (2) ``the United States should maintain clear
leadership in some major areas of science.'' Dr. Fox explained
that COSEPUP decided to experiment with benchmarking as means
of assessing progress towards those goals. COSEPUP charged each
benchmarking panel with answering three questions, she said:
What is the position of U.S. research in the field, relative to
that in other regions or countries? On the basis of current
trends, what will be our relative position in the near and
longer-term future? What are the key factors influencing
relative U.S. performance in the field? Fox testified the
experiments concluded benchmarking could effectively answer
those questions for the fields chosen, but it might not be an
appropriate technique for all fields.
Dr. White spelled out the methodology employed by the
benchmarking panels. He noted each panel of experts in the
field used a variety of different measures to arrive at a
conclusion, including: a nominating ``virtual congress'' of
experts in the chosen field; performing a citation analysis;
examining journal publications; a quantitative data analysis; a
look at prize winners in the chosen field; and an analysis of
speakers at international conferences. From this data, he said,
it was possible to get an assessment of the standing of U.S.
research in the chosen field.
In his remarks, Dr. Kelly addressed the broader policy
implications of benchmarking. He noted international
comparisons are valuable for understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of the U.S. science and technology, and for helping
to shape the appropriate role of the Federal Government in
national S&T enterprise. However, he noted there is no simple
solution in the form of a single methodology to guide federal
decisions on research allocations. The strength of U.S. science
and technology in the international context should be an
important consideration in federal allocations to fields of
research, he said, but they should also be weighed against the
potential public benefits from investments, the health of our
infrastructure for science and engineering research and
education, and the opportunities and readiness for rapid
advancement in specific research fields.
4.3--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
4.3(a)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning,
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps
February 24, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-30
Background
On February 24, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA] and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning,
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps,'' to hear testimony on the
justification of NOAA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 budget request.
Witnesses included: The Honorable D. James Baker, Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of
Commerce, and Administrator, NOAA; Mr. Joel C. Willemssen,
Director, Civil Agencies Information Sytems, Accounting and
Information Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO), accompanied by Mr. L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal
Management and Workforce Issues, General Government Division,
GAO; and Dr. Richard A. Anthes, Chair, National Research
Council (NRC) National Weather Service Modernization Committee,
and President, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colorado.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Baker testified NOAA's FY 2000 request is for $2.6
billion in total budget authority, which includes $2.5 billion
in discretionary budget authority. This request collectively
represents a 12.9% increase over the total budget authority
appropriated for FY 1999, and Dr. Baker highlighted the
following:
Funding to address NOAA's data acquisition needs
by providing for the first of four new Fisheries Research
Vessels (FRVs) and to increase the number of days-at-sea for
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS)
ship time for critical data collection needs.
Funding to maintain NOAA's supercomputing capacity
at the National Weather Service (NWS) Central Computing
Facility in Suitland, Maryland, and the Forecast Systems Lab
(FSL) in Boulder, Colorado, while acquiring a massively
parallel, scaleable computer to be located at the OAR's
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL), in Princeton, New
Jersey.
Recurring lease and/or operations costs at a
number of NOAA facilities coming on-line in FY 1999 and FY
2000, including the David Skaggs Research Center in Boulder,
Colorado. At the same time funds are requested to complete the
planning and design of a new state-of-the-art National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) research facility near Juneau, Alaska.
Adjustments-to-base for pay related and
inflationary cost increases to the NWS, as well as for the FY
2000 pay raise for the remaining Line Offices.
Funding to begin to replace outdated climate/
weather observing equipment in order to maintain continuity of
core data and services and provides funds for continuing
technology infusion for systems developed under the Weather
Service Modernization.
The Administration's intent to restructure and
maintain the NOAA Corps and includes payments of retirement
benefits for Commissioned Officers as mandatory funding.
$1 million to establish educational training
relationships through a joint partnership with a consortium of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).
Funding to accelerate the implementation of the
Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS), which is
critical to meeting NOAA's financial management requirements.
Mr. Willemssen's testimony discussed the status of the NWS
systems modernization, and then addressed the most cost-
effective alternatives for acquiring NOAA's marine data. GAO
findings included the following:
Although the NWS is nearing completion of its
systems modernization effort, two significant challenges face
it this year--deploying the Advanced Weather Interactive
Processing System (AWIPS), the final system of the
modernization, and ensuring that all of its mission-critical
systems are Year 2000 compliant. NWS has made progress on the
development and operational testing of the forecaster
workstations and its Year 2000 testing and contingency
planning. However, cost, schedule, and technical risks
associated with the workstations continue to be concerns.
Further, the results of NWS' Year 2000 end-to-end testing and
business continuity and contingency plans are expected to be
delivered soon.
In the NOAA fleet area, NOAA now out-sources for
more of its research and data needs, but plans to spend $185
million over the next 5 years to acquire four new replacement
NOAA fisheries research vessels. Continued Congressional
oversight of this area, as well as NOAA's budget requests for
replacement or upgraded ships, is needed to ensure that NOAA is
pursuing the most cost-effective alternatives for acquiring
marine data.
Dr. Anthes' testimony summarized the work to date of the
NRC's National Weather Service Modernization Committee (NWSMC),
and focused on the ongoing modernization and restructuring of
the NWS. The NWSMC was established under a NOAA contract
executed with the NRC on December 29, 1989 to monitor the
technical aspects of the modernization and restructuring of the
NWS. To date, the NWSMC has completed 15 reports, three of
which were letter reports--representing a total of more than
10,000 hours of volunteered time by 37 professionals from a
range of science, engineering, weather and information
technologies, and organizational management specialties, who
provided oversight and independent advice to NOAA and the NWS
during the past nine years.
At this time, the NWSMC finds the following:
Three of the five major technical components of
the modernization--the Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler
(WSR-88D), more commonly referred to as the Next Generation
Weather Radar (NEXRAD); the Automated Surface Observing System
(ASOS); and the Next Generation Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellites (GOES-NEXT)--are in place,
operational, and contributing to improved weather forecasts
nationwide.
The fourth component--the Advanced Weather
Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)--has experienced delays
caused by a mixture of technical and management problems, and
is now being deployed in a configuration that is somewhat less
capable than originally specified. However, even with its
somewhat reduced capability, it provides a data integration and
communications tool to the forecasters that is far superior to
the old technology in use at weather offices.
The fifth component of the modernization,
supercomputers at the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction, are clearly deficient to meet current and climate
modeling needs. A program to buy class 8 supercomputers is in
place, but there needs to be a long-term commitment to
periodically and regularly upgrade computers at the National
Centers.
Dr. Anthes concluded his testimony by summarizing the
latest NWSMC report, ``A New Vision for the National Weather
Service: Roadmap for the Future.''
4.3(b)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Department of
Energy--Offices of Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and
Environmental Management
March 3, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-69
Background
On March 3, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of
Science; Environment, Safety and Health; and Environmental
Management.'' This was the first in a series of hearings to
examine the Department of Energy (DOE) FY 2000 budget request.
The Subcommittee also heard testimony from the GAO on the
status of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Project.
DOE's total FY 2000 request for new budget authority for
its civilian energy R&D and science programs is $4.99 billion,
an increase of 4.2 percent over FY 1999 levels. Regarding
programs solely under the jurisdiction of the Science
Committee, DOE has requested $4.5 billion, an increase of 7.0
percent over the previous year.
The DOE Office of Science is the largest single entity
under the Science Committee's jurisdiction and its $2.85
billion request is a 5.1 percent (or $138 million) increase
over FY 1999 levels. Two items--the SNS ($84 million) and the
new Scientific Simulation Initiative (SSI) ($70)--account for
$154 million in increases. The DOE Office of Environment,
Safety and Health (EH) Non-Defense request is $50.8 million, an
increase of 7 percent. Lastly, DOE's Non-Defense Environmental
Management (EM) Program $330 million request is a decrease of
23 percent, mostly due to the transfer of two Oak Ridge cleanup
projects to the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management appropriation account.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Martha A. Krebs,
Director, DOE Office of Science; The Honorable David M.
Michaels, DOE Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and
Health (EH); Mr. Dan M. Berkovitz, DOE Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Planning, Policy and Budget, Office of
Environmental Management (EM); and Mr. Victor S. Rezendes,
Director, Energy, Natural Resources, and Science Issues,
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
Summary of hearing
Dr. Krebs testified on the $2.85 billion request from the
Office of Science. Her testimony included the following:
DOE ranks second behind the Department of Defense
in terms of the investment made in science by the Federal
Government.
Background and status of the SNS, including some
recent reviews of the project DOE has taken into account when
planning the project.
DOE hopes to use the Scientific Simulation
Initiative to build computer and information technology for the
second decade of the new century with the hope that the
terascale computers developed will be used for numerous
projects within DOE and the science community in general.
Dr. Michael's testimony on the $50.8 million EH non-defense
budget request discussed the following:
In 1997 DOE decided to run pilot programs to
determine the costs and benefits of external regulation, and
subsequently intended to submit legislation to Congress that
would externally regulate certain single-purpose energy
research laboratories.
The FY 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Conference Report directed DOE not to begin any
pilot projects that did not include the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
and other state and local bodies.
These pilots have raised unexpected and as yet
unresolved issues. With such issues outstanding, DOE does not
feel comfortable in submitting single-purpose laboratory
external-regulation legislation at this time. DOE, however, is
still continuing with external regulation activities.
Secretary of Energy Richardson designated the
Integrated Safety Management (ISM) as the Department's safety
policy and is continuing to take steps towards implementing
ISM.
EH is currently soliciting input from outside
experts with the hope of addressing concerns by workers who
claim that their health was put in jeopardy.
Mr. Berkovitz discussed the $330 million non-defense
request for EM and said the following:
EM is responsible for cleaning up government-
related nuclear energy research facilities that have
accumulated over the past 50 years. In addition, EM is tasked
with maintaining the safety and security of weapons-usable
plutonium and radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
EM has set a goal of cleaning up as many sites as
possible by the year 2006. There are 48 sites left (down from
53 the previous year) and EM hopes to reduce that number to 42
by the end of FY 2000.
EM uses technological innovations to contribute to
clean-up and continues to research and develop new technologies
to aid in the future.
Mr. Rezendes testified on GAO review of the status of the
SNS project and noted the following findings:
DOE has not assembled a complete team with the
necessary technical skills and experience to manage the
project.
The project is underspending its appropriations
and has currently spent 60 percent of the planned budget.
The project's cost and schedule estimates are not
fully developed and thus do not represent a reliable estimate
baseline. There is also an inadequate allowance for
contingencies.
DOE's complex management structure also creates
problems for the SNS project.
GAO reviewed 80 DOE projects from a 15-year period
and found that only 15 were completed and 31 were terminated
after spending $10 billion.
4.3(c)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Department of
Energy--Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil
Energy; and Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
March 10, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-69
Background
On March 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Offices of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy; and Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology.'' This was the second in a
series of hearings to hear testimony on the justification of
the DOE's FY 2000 budget request.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Dan Reicher, DOE
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE); Mr. Robert Kripowicz, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary
for Fossil Energy (FE); and Mr. William Magwood IV, Director,
DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE).
DOE's total FY 2000 request for new budget authority for
its civilian energy R&D and science programs is $4.99 billion,
an increase of 4.2 percent over FY 1999 levels. Regarding
programs solely under the jurisdiction of the Science
Committee, DOE has requested $4.5 billion, an increase of 7
percent over the previous year.
The FY 2000 EERE request is $1.014 billion, an increase of
$175.7 million--or 21.0 percent--above the FY 1999
appropriation of $837.9 million. The FY 2000 request for FE R&D
is $364.4 million, a decrease of $20.1 million--or 5.2
percent--below the FY 1999 appropriation of $384.1 million. The
major decreases are $9.9 million for gas and $11.0 million for
the use of prior year balances. The FY 2000 budget request for
the NE under the Science Committee's jurisdiction is $269.3
million, an increase of $5.9 million--or 2.2 percent--over FY
1999
Summary of hearing
Mr. Reicher discussed the EERE budget request of just over
$1 billion and claimed the following:
Consumer savings have totaled more than $33
billion since 1978 as a result of several DOE-supported
technologies, and energy-intensive industries such as steel,
glass, aluminum, and paper have saved $2.1 billion because of
energy-saving technologies.
Renewable energy costs are down 80 percent since
1980.
DOE wants to reduce energy use 50 percent in new
homes and 30 percent in commercial buildings.
The EERE budget request hopes to keep up this pace
as well as reach the following goals: complete work on advanced
industrial turbine; accelerate R&D for high efficiency
vehicles; increase grants to states for energy work, increase
weatherization funding; improve R&D on highly efficient and
affordable buildings; and increase the use of coal mixed with
biomass.
Eleven percent of the Office of Power Technologies
budget is earmarked, and 93 percent of the remaining funds are
distributed on a competitive basis. The Office of
Transportation Technologies is in the 70 to 80 percent
competitive awards range and the Office of Industrial
Technologies is near 100 percent.
The next generation of turbines will allow for
wind energy in the two to three cents per kilowatt hour range--
down from 30 to 40 cents in 1980.
Mr. Kripowicz gave testimony justifying the $364 million
budget request by the FE, which includes the following:
FE has set as a priority the development of a
virtually pollution-free power plant (named the Vision 21 Power
Plant) in the 2015 timeframe. A key aspect of this project is
higher efficiency resulting in lower costs and fewer emissions
of greenhouse gases.
Another priority of FE is research into carbon
sequestration.
Diversifying the future domestic supplies,
including assuring adequate supplies of natural gas at
reasonable prices and conducting more research into the
potential of methane hydrates, is important.
FE is also working to provide the technical
assistance, including demonstrating improvements in both tools
and techniques, as well as developing new technologies to keep
oil flowing from the most threatened reserves, as it often
costs more to pump out of the ground than it brings on the
market. In most fields, only one-third or so of the oil has
been produced.
FE offered the deferral of $246 million from the
Clean Coal Technology Program because only two of the 40
projects in the program still require funding.
Approximately 10 percent of the FE budget is
earmarked; the remainder is awarded competitively.
Mr. Magwood discussed the NE civilian budget request of
$269.3 million, and gave the following justifications for the
request:
The U.S. remains a key international participant
in the discussion over future application of nuclear
technology. However, this position is in jeopardy as momentum
from past accomplishments fades and the nuclear R&D
infrastructure decays.
NE's requested increase of $25 million, as well as
increases requested in their university programs are geared
toward keeping the U.S. in a leadership role of nuclear
technology.
NE also is proposing several new projects,
including the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program to
ensure nuclear plants are safe and efficient over the next
three decades and the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative,
part of the isotope program, to fight against cancer,
arthritis, and other illnesses.
NE is relying more than ever on outside advice in
conducting nuclear R&D activity.
DOE remains confident that the
Electrometallurgical Treatment (EMT) project will continue
after an independent review by the National Research Council
even though the Administration has proposed cutting $20
million, or one-fourth, of the project's funding.
4.3(d)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Environmental
Protection Agency Research and Development
March 18, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-25
Background
On March 18, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Environmental Protection Agency Research
and Development,'' to hear testimony on the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) FY 2000 budget request for Science and
Technology (S&T).
Witnesses included: The Honorable Norine E. Noonan, EPA
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development; Dr.
William Randall Seeker, Chair, Research Strategies Advisory
Committee (RSAC), EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Mr.
David G. Wood, Associate Director, Environmental Protection
Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development
Division, GAO.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Noonan testified that EPA's total FY 2000 request in
the S&T appropriation account--which was created in 1996 and
funds the operating programs of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR's)
Office of Mobile Sources, and the Program Office laboratories--
is $642.5 million and 2,456 total work years--a decrease of
$17.5 million and 97 work years from FY 1999. ORD's total FY
2000 request is $534.8 million and 2,004 work years. Of this
total, ORD's FY 2000 request in the S&T account is $495.9
million and 1,876 work years; the remaining $38.9 million and
128 work years are in accounts other than the S&T account to
support the Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank, and
Oil Spills research programs.
Dr. Seeker noted that the SAB's RSAC had conducted a formal
review of the entire FY 2000 EPA S&T budget request for the
first time, and as part of the review process, had responded to
six charge questions:
1. Can the objectives of the research and development
program in ORD and the broader science and technology programs
in EPA be achieved at the resource levels requested?--RSAC
found the funding request priorities to be appropriate based on
the environmental goals established in the Agency Strategic
Plan, but continues to have reservations about the adequacy of
the funding level given the increasing complexity and cost of
environmental problems.
2. Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in
the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans?--RSAC found that the ORD and
Program Office S&T budgets do set priorities aligned with the
Agency and ORD strategic plans and Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) goals, but had some reservations about the
decreases and some omissions in the overall priorities and
concluded that the budgets proposed in several areas were not
likely to be sufficient to meet the goals established by the
Agency and ORD in their Strategic Plans.
3. Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD
and the Program Offices?--RSAC commended the Agency for
significant improvements in the coordination between ORD
projects and the needs of the program offices and found that
the Agency needs to continue to build on its strategic planning
process for science across the Agency and across environmental
goals.
4. Does the budget request support a reasonable balance in
terms of attention to core research on multimedia capabilities
and issues and to media-specific problem-driven topics?--RSAC
found that the ORD budget request does appear to provide a
balance between core research and media-specific, problem-
driven science needs, but noted that the overall S&T budget
request is more weighted to media-specific problem driven
activities.
5. Does the budget request balance attention to near-term
and to long-term research and science and technology issues?--
RSAC found that, in general, the Agency has given serious
consideration to both long-term and short-term research and
science and technology issues, but that there is still no
overall explicit approach to incorporate the requirements of
longer-term research programs within the short-term budgetary
process.
6. How can EPA use or improve upon the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure to communicate
research plans, priorities, research requirements, and planned
outcomes?--RSAC found that the EPA had used the GPRA goals
structure to organize its FY 2000 budget request, and welcomed
such a structure as an organizing principle. However, RSAC also
found that most of the science milestones were process (or
``output'') oriented rather than results (or ``outcome'')
oriented; and that the ORD and Agency process for prioritizing
potential research programs is not completely transparent.
Mr. Wood discussed the findings from GAO's recent report on
EPA's S&T funds requested for FY 1999 \1\ and on its limited
review of EPA's FY 2000 budget justification, including: (1)
difficulties experienced in comparing EPA's S&T budget
justification for FY 1999 with those of previous years; and (2)
actions that EPA planned and implemented in order to improve
the clarity and comparability of the FY 2000 justification, and
items that need further clarification. In summary, GAO found
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environmental Protection: EPA's Science and Technology Funds
(GAO/RCED-99-12, Oct. 30, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's budget justification for FY 1999 could not
be readily compared to amounts requested or enacted for FY 1998
and prior years because the justification did not show how the
budget would be distributed among program offices or program
components--information needed to link to the prior years'
justifications.
EPA implemented several changes to its FY 2000
justification to solve problems experienced in comparing the
1998 and 1999 budget justifications. While the budget
justification followed the basic format reflecting the agency's
strategic goals and objectives, EPA made changes to the
objectives without explanations or documentation to link the
changes to the FY 1999 budget justification. As a result, the
FY 2000 budget justification cannot be completely compared with
the FY 1999 justification without supplemental information.
4.3(e)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: Department of
Energy--Results Act Implementation
March 24, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-24
Background
On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: Department of Energy--Results Act
Implementation.'' This hearing--the third in a set of hearings
on DOE's FY 2000 budget request--examined whether or not the
DOE is incorporating the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 in its budget
request.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, DOE
Inspector General; Ms. Susan D. Kladiva, Associate Director,
Energy Resources, and Science Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division, GAO; Mr. John R. Sullivan,
Director of Strategic Planning, Budget and Program Evaluation,
DOE Office of Policy and International Affairs; and Ms.
Gwendolyn Cowan, Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance
Policy, DOE Office of Management and Administration.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Friedman testified on reviews conducted by the Office
of Inspector General regarding DOE's implementation of GPRA and
discussed the following findings and recommendations:
The Offices of Science, NE, and EERE have not
integrated their planning, budgeting, and performance measures
into a unified strategy. On the other hand, the Offices of
Defense Programs and of Environmental Management (EM) have
performed such an integration.
The Office of Science, NE, and EERE also had
limited success in developing results-oriented performance
standards while the Office of Defense Programs and EM
demonstrated significant progress in this area.
None of the aforementioned offices adequately
validated the estimated and actual costs used to measure
performance, which is also a requirement of the Results Act.
The Office of Inspector General has offered the
following recommendations to DOE: (1) enhance the links between
the overall strategic plan and its individual program office
budget request; (2) require program offices to develop
performance standards that are results-oriented, clear,
measurable, and tied to projected resources; and (3) require
program managers to collect and validate both estimated and
actual costs used in performance measures.
DOE made significant use of the peer-review
process to offset problems in defining results and performance
goals in areas such as basic research.
Ms. Kladiva discussed GAO's observations concerning DOE's
ability to implement GPRA, and noted the following:
DOE's annual performance plan could be more useful
if it better identified planned outcomes, presented information
on individual offices' planned performance and requested funds,
and described its verification and validation in more detail.
While many of DOE's goals and measures clearly
quantify planned performance, no baseline information is given,
and, therefore, it is impossible to judge how much progress has
been made.
Some of DOE's annual goals and measures are vague
and ambiguous and make it difficult to judge performance.
DOE's measuring system is flawed because it allows
DOE to rate incomplete work as successful.
It is often difficult to associate an office's
total planned performance with funds requested because of a
complex matrix used by the Department.
Mr. Sullivan testified on DOE's efforts to comply with and
implement the Results Act and discussed the following:
The Department initiated its strategic management
system in 1996 that allows it to perform the functions of
planning, budgeting, program execution, and evaluation.
The first performance agreement between the
President and the Secretary was published for FY 1995 and the
first annual performance report was released later in 1995;
1996 brought about the release of the first annual performance
plan from the Department.
The two main challenges remaining for DOE are
refining and perfecting measures so that they represent
outcomes, not outputs, and ensuring that all Departmental
activities, budgets, contracts, and plans clearly link to the
strategic plan.
DOE is planning on using the National Academy of
Sciences report to learn how to shape and build their next
strategic plan.
Ms. Cowan talked about the progress DOE had made regarding
GPRA and also discussed DOE's procurement and financial
assistance award activities. She noted that in 1994 the
Department eliminated its unique competition policy and that
competition for major contracts has been greater in the
subsequent four years than in any time in the Department's
history.
4.3(f)--Fiscal Year 2000 Climate Change Budget Authorization Request
April 14, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-15
Background
On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled ``Fiscal Year 2000 Climate
Change Budget Authorization Request.'' This hearing examined
the Administration's FY 2000 climate change budget proposals
related to the Kyoto Protocol and the Protocol's requirement
that the U.S. reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by 7
percent below 1990 levels in the 2008-2012 timeframe--a
reduction in projected U.S. carbon emissions of about 550
million metric tons, according to the most recent estimate of
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) contained in its
Annual Outlook 1999 (AEO99) report. The hearing also considered
the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP).
The Administration's FY 2000 climate change budget request
totals $4.142 billion, which includes: (1) $200 million for an
EPA ``Clean Air Partnership Fund''; (2) $1.368 billion for
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) spending programs;
(3) $387 million for CCTI tax incentives; (4) $400 million in
other climate-related programs (DOE clean coal and natural gas,
weatherization, and state energy grants); and (5) $1.787
billion for the USGCRP.
Witnesses included: The Honorable Neal F. Lane, Assistant
to the President for Science and Technology, and Director,
Office of Science and Technology Policy; The Honorable Dan
Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy; The Honorable David M. Gardiner, Assistant
Administrator for Policy, EPA; and The Honorable Jay E. Hakes,
Administrator, EIA, DOE.
Summary of hearing
Dr. Lane testified on the Administration's FY 2000 budget
requests for CCTI and USGCRP, and noted the following:
CCTI is the Administration's response to a report
issued from the President's Committee of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST), which concluded that the federal energy
R&D programs were not commensurate in scope and scale with the
energy challenges and opportunities for the 21st century. PCAST
also warned that this shortfall could translate into higher
dependence on imported oil, higher energy costs, smaller U.S.
energy technology exports, worse air quality than would
otherwise be the case, and the diminished capacity to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions cost effectively.
U.S. climate change science is largely supported
by the $1.8 billion FY 2000 budget request of the USGCRP. This
request includes a new Carbon Cycle Science Initiative and the
U.S. climate modeling effort.
The climate change issue requires two issues to be
addressed: (1) a sustained and enhanced commitment to energy
research, development, and deployment; and (2) continued
research into the science of climate change.
Mr. Reicher testified on the DOE's FY 2000 climate change
budget request of approximately $1.1 billion, and Mr. Gardiner
discussed EPA's role in CCTI and its FY 2000 budget requests of
$216 million for CCTI and $200 million for a Clean Air
Partnership Fund.
Dr. Hakes gave testimony on the EIA report, Analysis of The
Climate Change Technology Initiative, which was conducted at
the request of Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Minority Member George Brown, Jr. The EIA analysis
predicts that the CCTI tax incentives would only reduce
projected U.S. carbon emissions in 2010 by 3.1 million metric
tons, or 0.17 percent. The EIA also found that while research,
development, and deployment programs also have benefits in
reducing carbon emissions, it is not possible to link program
expenditures directly to program results or to separate the
impacts of incremental funding requested for FY 2000 from
ongoing program expenditures. In addition, Dr. Hakes testified
that the current EIA AEO99 estimates already include the
impacts of ongoing research and development.
4.3(g)--Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Authorization Request: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning,
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps
April 15, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-30
Background
On April 15, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning,
Aircraft Services, and NOAA Corps'' to hear testimony on the
justification of NOAA's FY 2000 budget request. The hearing
also reviewed the prospects of privatizing some aspects of the
NOAA fleet in order to save money and ensure a more efficient
use of the fleet.
Witnesses included: Mr. Bob J. Taylor, Acting Deputy
Director, Office of NOAA Corps Operations; accompanied by Dr.
Andrew A. Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Dr.
Michael P. Sissenwine, Science and Research Director, NOAA
Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts; Mr. George E. Ross, Assistant Inspector General
for Auditing, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Craig E. Dorman,
Senior Scientist, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania
State University and Special Assistant to the Executive
Director and Technical Director, Office of Naval Research; and
Dr. Robert A. Knox, Chair, University-National Laboratory
Oceanographic System, and Research Oceanographer and Associate
Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of
California, San Diego.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Taylor's testimony addressed NOAA's FY 2000 budget
request for Fleet Maintenance and Planning, Aircraft Services,
NOAA Corps, and included the following:
Many of NOAA's ships, while serviceable, are well
over 30 years of age and must be replaced.
In addition to the $51.6 million, NOAA hopes to
spend a total of $184.6 million for four new replacement ships
over the 5-year period ending in FY 2004--$51.6 million in
2000, $51.0 million in 2001, $39.8 million in 2002, $40.2
million in 2003, and $2.1 million in 2004.
NOAA is requesting $350,000 for aircraft services
to support a second flight crew on NOAA's Gulfstream-IV high
altitude hurricane reconnaissance jet.
NOAA Corps had been downsized from 400 officers in
1995 to about 240 officers presently and has made strides in
increasing the amount of outsourcing.
The Administration has changed its position on the
need to downsize the Corps in response to Public Law 105-384.
NOAA is currently beginning to work on a national
plan for conducting marine fisheries research, which includes
academic and private sector input.
Any new ships built would simply be for
replacement purposes, there will still be an increased need for
chartering.
Mr. Ross discussed NOAA's need to expand private sector
participation in order to more efficiently and cost-effectively
utilize its resources. Mr. Ross also discussed the following
findings and recommendations by the Inspector General's (IG)
office:
NOAA must identify and thoroughly assess
alternative approaches to relying on its own vessels.
NOAA could outsource many areas of fishery
research to academia, the private sector, and other government
ship operators. This would allow NOAA to change its focus from
designing, owning, and operating ships to a more research-
oriented direction.
The aircraft services cost 42 percent more than
similarly chartered aircraft from the private sector and,
therefore, NOAA must privatize this operation. Factors
contributing to this cost include: (1) NOAA's overhead
structure; (2) low level of aircraft utilization; (3) rising
operation costs due to the age of the aircraft; and (4) high
training costs due to the periodic rotation of pilots.
NOAA Corps needs to be downsized in order to
achieve significant cost savings and management efficiencies.
As such, the IG recommends no more than 70 officer positions
should be allocated to ship- and aircraft-related activities.
Dr. Dorman presented reports he had submitted in 1998 to
the NOAA Administrator, Dr. D. James Baker, and to the Office
of Management and Budget that included many observations and
recommendations concerning the fisheries research programs:
A national plan must be devised in order to
achieve maximum efficiency out of any new fisheries research
vessel (FRV) that may be constructed.
Two actions are required to justify the cost of
any new vessel built, including: (1) the use of advanced
acoustics technology; and (2) an attitude change by NOAA to
consider the FRVs as a national asset and not a replacement
vehicle solely dedicated to the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Any such plan, and subsequent FRV, must be done in
conjunction with other federal agencies, private interests, and
academic communities.
There is a need to reintegrate fisheries
oceanography mandates operated as part of the national research
fleet, preferably at the university level. NOAA Corps is not
needed for this task.
In a very few years, virtually all hydrographic
survey in U.S. waters can be done by industries, and as such,
Dr. Dorman recommends that NOAA's fleet of the future should
number half a dozen ships or less.
A new FRV should be expected to operate for over
300 days a year.
Dr. Knox testified on the status of UNOLS operations and
their ability to work with NOAA on a wide range of projects:
The UNOLS fleet is very modern and highly capable
of taking on many of the tasks required by NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in addition to its academic
research support function.
A closer cooperation between UNOLS and NMFS would
benefit both the academic community and the taxpayers by
ensuring efficient use of resources for research projects and
decreasing risk of using federal funds for repairs and
replacements that are not warranted.
There is a need for a long-range ship renewal plan
that treats UNOLS, NOAA, and other U.S. research vessel fleets
comprehensively.
4.3(h)--S. 330 and H.R. 1753: Methane Hydrate Research and Development
Act of 1999
May 12, 1999
Hearing Volume No. 106-14
Background
On May 12, 1999 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
held a hearing entitled, ``S. 330 and H.R. 1753: Methane
Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999.''
Witnesses included: Mr. Robert S. Kripowicz, DOE Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy; Dr. William P.
Dillon, Research Geologist, Geologic Division, U.S. Department
of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and Dr. Gerald D.
Holder, USX Dean of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh.
Summary of hearing
Mr. Kripowicz presented DOE's views on the potential for
methane hydrates as a future source of natural gas, to review
the progress the Department is making in preparing a multi-
agency coordinated research plan for this potentially vast
energy resource, and DOE's position on S. 330, the Methane
Hydrate Research and Development Act, as follows:
Worldwide, estimates of the natural gas potential
of methane hydrates approach 400 million trillion cubic feet--a
staggering figure compared to the 5,000 trillion cubic feet
that make up the world's currently known gas reserves.
From 1982-1992, DOE's methane hydrate program
spent $8 million in developing a foundation of basic knowledge
about the location and thermodynamic properties of gas
hydrates.
In FY 1997 and FY 1998, DOE provided a small
amount of funding from its Natural Gas Supply Program to
support activities in preparation for a more definitive program
proposed for FY 1999.
In its 1997 report, the Energy Research and
Development Panel of the President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) recommended ``a major initiative
for DOE to work with USGS, the Naval Research Lab, Mineral
Management Service, and the industry to evaluate the production
potential of methane hydrates in U.S. coastal waters and world
wide.'' PCAST also called attention to the possibility that
studies of methane hydrates could lead to possible sequestering
of carbon dioxide (CO2) in CO2 hydrates.
On January 21-22, 1998, DOE hosted a workshop in
Denver on the ``Future of Methane Hydrate Research and Resource
Development,'' and held a second workshop in Washington, DC, on
May 12, 1998, to review a ``strawman'' Methane Hydrates Program
Plan. From these workshops and other planning, activities
carried out cooperatively with the USGS, the Naval Research
Laboratory, the NSF, the Minerals Management Service and
industrial and academic experts, DOE published a ``Strategy for
Methane Hydrates Research & Development'' in August 1998, which
outlines a multidisciplinary 10-year national program that will
begin in FY 2000 with the aim of producing the knowledge and
products necessary for the private sector to begin
commercially-viable production of methane from hydrates by
2015.
Because future program activities were still in
the formative stage, DOE requested only a minimal level of R&D
funding ($500,000) in its FY 1999 budget submission to
Congress. In FY 2000, the Department has requested an increase
in funding to $2.0 million to initiate the multidisciplinary
program strategy.
S. 330 would promote the research, identification,
assessment, exploration, and development of methane hydrate
resources. The legislation is consistent with the goals DOE has
established for the Federal hydrates R&D program; therefore,
the Department can support this measure.
Dr. Dillon discussed the USGS assessment of natural gas
hydrate resources and examined the technology that would be
necessary to safely and economically produce gas hydrates, as
follows:
The primary objectives of USGS gas hydrate
research are to: (1) document the geologic parameters that
control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates; (2)
assess the volume of natural gas stored within gas hydrate
accumulations; (3) identify and predict natural sediment
destabilization caused by gas hydrate; and (4) analyze the
effects of gas hydrate on drilling safety. The USGS in 1995
made the first systematic assessment of the in-place natural
gas hydrate resources of the United States, which showed that
the amount of gas in the hydrate accumulations of the United
States greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional
domestic gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a
scientific and technologic frontier, and much remains to be
learned about their characteristics and possible economic
recovery.
The amount of methane contained in the world's gas
hydrate accumulations is enormous, but estimates of the amounts
are speculative and range over three orders-of-magnitude from
about 100,000 to 270,000,000 trillion cubic feet of gas.
Despite the enormous range of these estimates, gas hydrates
seem to be a much greater resource of natural gas than
conventional accumulations.
Even though gas hydrates are known to occur in
numerous marine and Arctic settings, little is known about the
geologic controls on their distribution. Gas hydrates have been
recovered by scientific drilling along the Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Pacific coasts of the United States, as well as at
many international locations.
To date, onshore gas hydrates have been found in
Arctic regions of permafrost and in deep lakes such as Lake
Baikal in Russia. Gas hydrates associated with permafrost have
been documented on the North Slope of Alaska and Canada and in
northern Russia. Combined information from Arctic gas-hydrate
studies shows that, in permafrost regions, gas hydrates may
exist at subsurface depths ranging from about 130 to 2,000
meters.
The USGS 1995 National Assessment of United States
Oil and Gas Resources focused on assessing the undiscovered
conventional and unconventional resources of crude oil and
natural gas in the United States, and included for the first
time a systematic appraisal of the in-place natural gas hydrate
resources of the United States, both onshore and offshore. The
mean (expected value) in-place gas hydrate resource for the
entire United States is estimated to be 320,000 trillion cubic
feet of gas. However, this assessment does not address the
problem of gas hydrate recoverability.
Gas recovery from hydrates is hindered because the
gas is in a solid form and because hydrates are usually widely
dispersed in hostile Arctic and deep marine environments.
Seafloor stability and safety are two important
issues related to gas hydrates. Seafloor stability refers to
the susceptibility of the seafloor to collapse and slide as the
result of gas hydrate disassociation. The safety issue refers
to petroleum drilling and production hazards that may occur in
association with gas hydrates in both offshore and onshore
environments.
Dr. Holder testified in support of the legislation, and
made the following observations: