H. Rept. 111-698 - 111th Congress (2009-2010)
December 30, 2010, As Reported by the Science and Technology Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 111-698 - SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS




[House Report 111-698]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 421

111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - -House Report 111-698

 
                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
                                 OF THE
                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                    
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                                    

                           DECEMBER 30, 2010

 December 30, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
    SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 421

111th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - -House Report 111-698

                         SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

                                 OF THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                FOR THE

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                    
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                                    

                           DECEMBER 30, 2010

 December 30, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          RALPH M. HALL, Texas*
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California              Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon                     LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico             RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York              BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana               PETE OLSON, Texas
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

                  HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California          VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico             RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York**            MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah                       
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee                 
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky                   
JOHN GARAMENDI, California               
+BART GORDON, Tennessee              +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

                HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chair
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio              VACANCY
KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania**       
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida                    
+BART GORDON, Tennessee              +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
             Subcommittee on Research and Science Education

                 HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio**              BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PAUL D. TONKO, New York              BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri                  
VACANCY                                  
+BART GORDON, Tennessee              +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona, Chair
DAVID WU, Oregon                     PETE OLSON, Texas
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland**         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                    Wisconsin
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana               FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio              MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida                    
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida               
+BART GORDON, Tennessee              +RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                                 ------                                

               Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation

                      HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chair
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico**           JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
PAUL D. TONKO, New York              W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan                 
JOHN GARAMENDI, California               
+BART GORDON, Tennessee              +RALPH M. HALL, Texas

*LRanking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and 
Subcommittee assignments.
**LVice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee 
assignments.
+LThe Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as Ex-
officio Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right 
to vote and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all 
matters before the Subcommittees.
  ...............................................................

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                            C O N T E N T S

                         Summary of Activities
                  Committee on Science and Technology
                       111th Congress, 2009-2010

                                                                   Page
History of the Committee on Science and Technology...............     1

Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science and 
  Technology.....................................................    17

    1.1--P.L. 111-5, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
      2009 (H.R. 1)..............................................    17
    1.2--P.L. 111-11, Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009 (H.R. 
      146).......................................................    18
    1.3--P.L. 111-84, National Defense Authorization Act for 
      Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647)...............................    22
    1.4--P.L. 111-125, To Extend the Commercial Space 
      Transportation Liability Regime (H.R. 3819)................    24
    1.5--P.L. 111-140, Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act 
      (H.R. 730).................................................    24
    1.6--P.L. 111-267, National Aeronautics and Space 
      Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (S. 3729).........    25
    1.7--P.L. 111-XXX, America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 
      2010 (H.R. 5116)...........................................    27
    1.8--P.L. 111-XXX, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
      Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523).......................    29

Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on 
  Science and Technology.........................................    31

    2.1--H.R. 445, Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, 
      Development, and Demonstration Act of 2009.................    31
    2.2--H.R. 469, Produced Water Utilization Act of 2009........    33
    2.3--H.R. 549, The National Bombing Prevention Act of 2009...    34
    2.4--H.R. 554, National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments 
      Act of 2009................................................    35
    2.5--H.R. 631, Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research 
      Act of 2009................................................    36
    2.6--H.R. 915, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009...............    38
    2.7--H.R. 957, Green Energy Education Act of 2009............    39
    2.8--H.R. 1145, National Water Research and Development 
      Initiative Act of 2009.....................................    40
    2.9--H.R. 1580, Electronic Waste Research and Development Act    42
    2.10--H.R. 1622, To Provide for a Program of Research, 
      Development, and Demonstration on Natural Gas Vehicles.....    44
    2.11--H.R. 1709, STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009.....    45
    2.12--H.R. 1736, The International Science and Technology 
      Cooperation Act of 2009....................................    47
    2.13--H.R. 2020, Networking and Information Technology 
      Research and Development Act of 2009.......................    48
    2.14--H.R. 2407, National Climate Service Act of 2009........    50
    2.15--H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 
      2009.......................................................    51
    2.16--H.R. 2693, Oil Pollution Research and Development 
      Program Reauthorization Act of 2010........................    52
    2.17--H.R. 2729, To Authorize the Designation of National 
      Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, 
      and for Other Purposes.....................................    53
    2.18--H.R. 2965, SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009.......    55
    2.19--H.R. 3029, To Establish a Research, Development, and 
      Technology Demonstration Program To Improve the Efficiency 
      of Gas Turbines Used in Combined Cycle and Simple Cycle 
      Power Generation Systems...................................    56
    2.20--H.R. 3165, Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 
      2009.......................................................    57
    2.21--H.R. 3246, Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009.....    59
    2.22--H.R. 3247, To Establish a Social and Behavioral 
      Sciences Research Program at the Department of Energy, and 
      for Other Purposes.........................................    60
    2.23--H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act................    61
    2.24--H.R. 3598, Energy and Water Research Integration Act...    63
    2.25--H.R. 3618, Clean Hull Act of 2009......................    64
    2.26--H.R. 3650, Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research 
      and Control Amendments Act of 2010.........................    66
    2.27--H.R. 3791, Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009.....    68
    2.28--H.R. 3820, Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2010..    69
    2.29--H.R. 4061, The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2010...    70
    2.30--H.R. 4842, Homeland Security Science and Technology 
      Authorization Act of 2010..................................    73
    2.31--H.R. 5716, Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling 
      Technology Research and Development Act....................    74
    2.32--H.R. 5781, National Aeronautics and Space 
      Administration Authorization Act of 2010...................    76
    2.33--H.R. 5866, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act 
      of 2010....................................................    77
    2.34--H.R. 6160, Rare Earths and Critical Materials 
      Revitalization Act of 2010.................................    78

Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the 
  Committee on Science and Technology and Passed by the House of 
  Representatives................................................    81

    3.1--H. Con. Res. 167, Supporting the goals and ideals of 
      National Aerospace Day, and for other purposes.............    81
    3.2--H. Con. Res. 292, Supporting the goals and ideals of 
      National Aerospace Week, and for other purposes............    81
    3.3--H. Res. 67, Recognizing and commending the National 
      Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Jet 
      Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and Cornell University for the 
      success of the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and 
      Opportunity, on the 5th anniversary of the Rovers' 
      successful landing.........................................    82
    3.4--H. Res. 117, Supporting the goals and ideals of National 
      Engineers Week, and for other purposes.....................    82
    3.5--H. Res. 224, Supporting the designation of Pi Day, and 
      for other purposes.........................................    82
    3.6--H. Res. 387, Supporting the goals and ideals of National 
      Hurricane Preparedness Week................................    83
    3.7--H. Res. 413, Supporting the goals and ideals of ``IEEE 
      Engineering the Future'' Day on May 13, 2009, and for other 
      purposes...................................................    83
    3.8--H. Res. 447, Recognizing the remarkable contributions of 
      the American Council of Engineering Companies for its 100 
      years of service to the engineering industry and the Nation    84
    3.9--H. Res. 492, Supporting the goals and ideals of High-
      Performance Building Week..................................    84
    3.10--H. Res. 558, Supporting the increased understanding of, 
      and interest in, computer science and computing careers 
      among the public and in schools, and to ensure an ample and 
      diverse future technology workforce through the designation 
      of National Computer Science Education Week................    85
    3.11--H. Res. 607, Celebrating the Fortieth Anniversary of 
      the Apollo 11 Moon Landing.................................    85
    3.12--H. Res. 631, Congratulating Continental Airlines on its 
      75th Anniversary...........................................    85
    3.13--H. Res. 793, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of 
      National Chemistry Week....................................    86
    3.14--H. Res. 797, Expressing the sense of Congress with 
      respect to raising awareness and enhancing the state of 
      cyber security in the United States, and supporting the 
      goals and ideals of the sixth annual National Cyber 
      Security Awareness Month...................................    86
    3.15--H. Res. 935, Honoring John E. Warnock, Charles M. 
      Geschke, Forrest M. Bird, Esther Sans Takeuchi, and IBM 
      Corporation for receiving the 2008 National Medal of 
      Technology and Innovation..................................    87
    3.16--H. Res. 1027, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the 
      historic dive to the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, 
      the deepest point in the world's oceans, on January 23, 
      1960, and its importance to marine research, ocean science, 
      a better understanding of the planet, and the future of 
      human exploration..........................................    87
    3.17--H. Res. 1055, Supporting the designation of National 
      Robotics Week as an annual event...........................    87
    3.18--H. Res. 1069, Congratulating Willard S. Boyle and 
      George E. Smith for being awarded the Nobel Prize in 
      physics....................................................    88
    3.19--H. Res. 1097, Supporting the goals and ideals of 
      National Engineers Week, and for other purposes............    88
    3.20--H. Res. 1133, Recognizing the extraordinary number of 
      African-Americans who have overcome significant obstacles 
      to enhance innovation and competitiveness in the field of 
      science in the United States...............................    88
    3.21--H. Res. 1213, Recognizing the need to improve the 
      participation and performance of America's students in 
      Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 
      fields, supporting the ideals of National Lab Day, and for 
      other purposes.............................................    89
    3.22--H. Res. 1231, Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 
      United States Television Infrared Observation Satellite, 
      the world's first meteorological satellite, launched by the 
      National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 1, 
      1960, and fulfilling the promise of President Eisenhower to 
      all nations of the world to promote the peaceful use of 
      space for the benefit of all mankind.......................    89
    3.23--H. Res. 1269, Commemorating the 400th anniversary of 
      the first use of the telescope for astronomical observation 
      by the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei...................    90
    3.24--H. Res. 1307, Honoring the National Science Foundation 
      for 60 years of service to the Nation......................    90
    3.25--H. Res. 1310, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the 
      laser......................................................    90
    3.26--H. Res. 1388, Supporting the goals and ideals of 
      National Hurricane Preparedness Week.......................    91
    3.27--H. Res. 1407, Supporting the goals and ideals of High-
      Performance Building Week..................................    91
    3.28--H. Res. 1421, Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the 
      Apollo 13 mission and the heroic actions of both the crew 
      and those working at mission control in Houston, Texas, for 
      bringing the three astronauts, Fred Haise, Jim Lovell, and 
      Jack Swigert, home to Earth safely.........................    92
    3.29--H. Res. 1560, Supporting the increased understanding 
      of, and interest in, computer science and computing careers 
      among the public and in schools, and to ensure an ample and 
      diverse future technology workforce through the designation 
      of National Computer Science Education Week................    92
    3.30--H. Res. 1660, Expressing support for the goals and 
      ideals of the inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival 
      in Washington, D.C., and for other purposes................    93
    3.31--H. Res. 1714, Congratulating the engineers, scientists, 
      psychologists, and staff of the National Aeronautics and 
      Space Administration (NASA) for helping to successfully 
      rescue 33 trapped Chilean miners from a collapsed mine near 
      Copiapo, Chile.............................................    93

Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
  Committee on Science and Technology, Including Selected 
  Subcommittee Legislative Activities............................    95

    4.1--Committee on Science and Technology.....................    95
        4.1(a) February 11, 2009--Electronic Waste: Investing in 
          Research and Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-1...............................    95
        4.1(b) February 25, 2009--Impacts of U.S. Export Control 
          Policies on Science and Technology Activities and 
          Competitiveness. Hearing Volume No. 111-4..............    97
        4.1(c) March 4, 2009--21st Century Water Planning: The 
          Importance of a Coordinated Federal Approach. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-6.......................................    98
        4.1(d) March 17, 2009--New Directions for Energy Research 
          and Development at the U.S. Department of Energy. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-11..............................   100
        4.1(e) April 1, 2009--Networking and Information 
          Technology Research and Development Act of 2009. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-17..............................   101
        4.1(f) April 22, 2009--Monitoring, Measurement, and 
          Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role 
          of Federal and Academic Research and Monitoring 
          Programs. Hearing Volume No. 111-18....................   102
        4.1(g) May 14, 2009--An Overview of the Federal R&D 
          Budget for FY 2010. Hearing Volume No. 111-26..........   103
        4.1(h) May 19, 2009--NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget 
          Request. Hearing Volume No. 111-28.....................   104
        4.1(i) June 17, 2009--Advancing Technology for Nuclear 
          Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, Development, 
          and Demonstration Strategy Be?. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          35.....................................................   105
        4.1(j) September 14, 2009--Strengthening Regional 
          Innovation: A Perspective From Northeast Texas. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-50......................................   107
        4.1(k) September 15, 2009--Options and Issues for NASA's 
          Human Space Flight Program: Report of the ``Review of 
          U.S. Human Space Flight Plans'' Committee. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-51......................................   108
        4.1(l) November 5, 2009--Geoengineering: Assessing the 
          Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-62..............................   109
        4.1(m) December 10, 2009--Decisions on the Future 
          Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for 
          the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-69..............................   111
        4.1(n) January 20, 2010--America COMPETES: Big Picture 
          Perspectives on the Need for Innovation, Investments in 
          R&D, and a Commitment to STEM Education. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-70.............................................   112
        4.1(o) January 27, 2010--The Advanced Research Projects 
          Agency-Energy (ARPA-E): Assessing the Agency's Progress 
          and Promise in Transforming the U.S. Energy Innovation 
          System. Hearing Volume No. 111-72......................   114
        4.1(p) February 24, 2010--The Administration's FY 2011 
          Research and Development Budget Proposal. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-78......................................   115
        4.1(q) February 25, 2010--NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 
          Request and Issues. Hearing Volume No. 111-80..........   117
        4.1(r) March 3, 2010--The Department of Energy Fiscal 
          Year 2011 Research and Development Budget Proposal. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-81..............................   117
        4.1(s) March 4, 2010--Reform in K-12 STEM Education. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-82..............................   118
        4.1(t) March 10, 2010--Fiscal Year 2011 Research and 
          Development Budget Proposals at EPA and NOAA. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-84......................................   119
        4.1(u) March 17, 2010--The Future of Manufacturing: What 
          Is the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting 
          Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers?. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-87.................................................   120
        4.1(v) March 18, 2010--Geoengineering III: Domestic and 
          International Research Governance. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-88.................................................   121
        4.1(w) May 19, 2010--Charting the Course for American 
          Nuclear Technology: Evaluating the Department of 
          Energy's Nuclear Energy Research and Development 
          Roadmap. Hearing Volume No. 111-94.....................   123
        4.1(x) May 26, 2010--Review of the Proposed National 
          Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Spaceflight 
          Plan. Hearing Volume No. 111-96........................   124
        4.1(y) September 29, 2010--Averting the Storm: How 
          Investments in Science Will Secure the Competitiveness 
          and Economic Future of the U.S. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          111....................................................   126
        4.1(z) November 15, 2010--Options and Opportunities for 
          Onsite Renewable Energy Integration. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-113................................................   127

    4.2--Subcommittee on Energy and Environment..................   129
        4.2(a) February 24, 2009--How Do We Know What We Are 
          Emitting? Monitoring, Reporting, and Verifying 
          Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Hearing Volume No. 111-3.....   129
        4.2(b) March 11, 2009--FutureGen and the Department of 
          Energy's Advanced Coal Programs. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-9..................................................   130
        4.2(c) March 24, 2009--Examining Federal Vehicle 
          Technology Research and Development Programs. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-13......................................   131
        4.2(d) April 23, 2009--Continued Oversight of the 
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
          Geostationary Weather Satellite System. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-19.............................................   133
        4.2(e) April 28, 2009--Pushing the Efficiency Envelope: 
          R&D for High-Performance Buildings, Industries and 
          Consumers. Hearing Volume No. 111-21...................   134
        4.2(f) May 5, 2009--Expanding Climate Services at the 
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): 
          Developing the National Climate Service. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-24.............................................   135
        4.2(g) June 4, 2009--A New Direction for Federal Oil 
          Spill Research and Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          29.....................................................   136
        4.2(h) June 9, 2009--Environmental Research at the 
          Department of Energy. Hearing Volume No. 111-30........   138
        4.2(i) July 9, 2009--Technology Research and Development 
          Efforts Related to the Energy and Water Linkage. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-41..............................   139
        4.2(j) July 14, 2009--New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar 
          Research and Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-42....   140
        4.2(k) July 23, 2009--Effectively Transforming Our 
          Electric Delivery System to a Smart Grid. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-46......................................   141
        4.2(l) September 10, 2009--Biological Research for Energy 
          and Medical Applications at the Department of Energy 
          Office of Science. Hearing Volume No. 111-49...........   142
        4.2(m) September 17, 2009--Harmful Algal Blooms and 
          Hypoxia: Formulating an Action Plan. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-52.................................................   144
        4.2(n) October 1, 2009--Investigating the Nature of 
          Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-54.................................................   145
        4.2(o) October 21, 2009--Biomass for Thermal Energy and 
          Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio for 
          the Future. Hearing Volume No. 111-56..................   146
        4.2(p) October 29, 2009--The Next Generation of Fusion 
          Energy Research. Hearing Volume No. 111-61.............   147
        4.2(q) December 3, 2009--Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy 
          Technology: Finding the Path to Commercialization. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-67..............................   149
        4.2(r) February 4, 2010--Geoengineering II: The 
          Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-75......................................   150
        4.2(s) June 9, 2010--Deluge of Oil Highlights Research 
          and Technology Needs for Effective Cleanup of Oil 
          Spills. Hearing Volume No. 111-98......................   151
        4.2(t) June 16, 2010--Real-Time Forecasting for Renewable 
          Energy Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-100.........   153
        4.2(u) June 23, 2010--Deepwater Drilling Technology, 
          Research, and Development. Hearing Volume No. 111-101..   155
        4.2(v) November 17, 2010--A Rational Discussion of 
          Climate Change: The Science, the Evidence, the 
          Response. Hearing Volume No. 111-114...................   156

    4.3--Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight............   159
        4.3(a) March 12, 2009--The Agency for Toxic Substances 
          and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Problems in the Past, 
          Potential for the Future?. Hearing Volume No. 111-10...   159
        4.3(b) March 19, 2009--Follow the Money, Part I: 
          Accountability and Transparency in Recovery Act Science 
          Funding. Hearing Volume No. 111-12.....................   161
        4.3(c) April 30, 2009--The Role of Science in Regulatory 
          Reform. Hearing Volume No. 111-23......................   163
        4.3(d) May 5, 2009--Follow the Money, Part II: Government 
          and Public Resources for Recovery Act Oversight. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-25..............................   164
        4.3(e) May 19, 2009--The Science of Insolvency. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-27......................................   167
        4.3(f) June 11, 2009--Fixing EPA's Broken Integrated Risk 
          Information System. Hearing Volume No. 111-33..........   168
        4.3(g) June 17, 2009--Continuing Independent Assessment 
          of the National Polar-Orbiting Operational 
          Environmental Satellite System. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          36.....................................................   169
        4.3(h) June 25, 2009--The Science of Security: Lessons 
          Learned in Developing, Testing and Operating Advanced 
          Radiation Monitors. Hearing Volume No. 111-38..........   171
        4.3(i) July 16, 2009--Providing Aviation Weather Services 
          to the Federal Aviation Administration. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-43.............................................   172
        4.3(j) September 10, 2009--The Risks of Financial 
          Modeling: VaR and the Economic Meltdown. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-48.............................................   174
        4.3(k) November 17, 2009--The Science of Security, Part 
          II: Technical Problems Continue to Hinder Advanced 
          Radiation Monitors. Hearing Volume No. 111-63..........   176
        4.3(l) December 3, 2009--Independent Audit of the 
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-68......................................   178
        4.3(m) March 16, 2010--Rare Earth Minerals and 21st 
          Century Industry. Hearing Volume No. 111-86............   180
        4.3(n) April 22, 2010--Caught by Surprise: Causes and 
          Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-92......................................   182
        4.3(o) May 20, 2010--Preventing Harm--Protecting Health: 
          Reforming CDC's Environmental Public Health Practices. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-95..............................   185
        4.3(p) June 29, 2010--Setting New Courses for Polar 
          Weather Satellites and Earth Observations. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-102.....................................   187
        4.3(q) July 20, 2010--Building a Science of Economics for 
          the Real World. Hearing Volume No. 111-106.............   189
        4.3(r) September 16, 2010--Camp Lejeune: Contamination 
          and Compensation, Looking Back, Moving Forward. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-108.....................................   191

    4.4--Subcommittee on Research and Science Education..........   197
        4.4(a) February 26, 2009--Beyond the Classroom: Informal 
          STEM Education. Hearing Volume No. 111-5...............   197
        4.4(b) March 24, 2009--Coordination of International 
          Science Partnerships. Hearing Volume No. 111-14........   198
        4.4(c) June 10, 2009--Cyber Security R&D. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-31.............................................   199
        4.4(d) June 16, 2009--Agency Response to Cyberspace 
          Policy Review. Hearing Volume No. 111-34...............   200
        4.4(e) July 21, 2009--Encouraging the Participation of 
          Female Students in STEM Fields. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          45.....................................................   202
        4.4(f) July 30, 2009--A Systems Approach to Improving K-
          12 STEM Education. Hearing Volume No. 111-47...........   203
        4.4(g) October 8, 2009--Investing in High-Risk, High-
          Reward Research. Hearing Volume No. 111-55.............   205
        4.4(h) October 22, 2009--Engineering in K-12 Education. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-57..............................   206
        4.4(i) February 4, 2010--Strengthening Undergraduate and 
          Graduate STEM Education. Hearing Volume No. 111-76.....   207
        4.4(j) February 23, 2010--The State of Research 
          Infrastructure at U.S. Universities. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-77.................................................   208
        4.4(k) March 10, 2010--The National Science Foundation's 
          FY 2011 Budget Request. Hearing Volume No. 111-83......   210
        4.4(l) March 16, 2010--Broadening Participation in STEM. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-85..............................   211
        4.4(m) June 10, 2010--From the Lab Bench to the 
          Marketplace: Improving Technology Transfer. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-99......................................   212
        4.4(n) June 29, 2010--21st Century Biology. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-103.....................................   214
        4.4(o) July 21, 2010--Behind the Scenes: Science and 
          Education at the Smithsonian Institution. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-107.....................................   215
        4.4(p) September 23, 2010--The Science of Science and 
          Innovation Policy. Hearing Volume No. 111-109..........   216

    4.5--Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics...................   219
        4.5(a) March 5, 2009--Cost Management Issues in NASA's 
          Acquisitions and Programs. Hearing Volume No. 111-7....   219
        4.5(b) March 26, 2009--Aviation and the Emerging Use of 
          Biofuels. Hearing Volume No. 111-15....................   220
        4.5(c) April 28, 2009--Keeping the Space Environment Safe 
          for Civil and Commercial Users. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          22.....................................................   221
        4.5(d) June 18, 2009--External Perspectives on the FY 
          2010 NASA Budget Request and Related Issues. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-37......................................   222
        4.5(e) July 16, 2009--Enhancing the Relevance of Space to 
          Address National Needs. Hearing Volume No. 111-44......   224
        4.5(f) October 22, 2009--Strengthening NASA's Technology 
          Development Programs. Hearing Volume No. 111-58........   225
        4.5(g) November 19, 2009--The Growth of Global Space 
          Capabilities: What's Happening and Why It Matters. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-65..............................   227
        4.5(h) December 2, 2009--Ensuring the Safety of Human 
          Spaceflight. Hearing Volume No. 111-66.................   228
        4.5(i) December 3, 2009--Independent Audit of the 
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-68......................................   230
        4.5(j) February 3, 2010--Key Issues and Challenges Facing 
          NASA: Views of the Agency's Watchdogs. Hearing Volume 
          No. 111-73.............................................   232
        4.5(k) March 24, 2010--Proposed Changes to NASA's 
          Exploration Program: What's Known, What's Not, and What 
          Are the Issues for Congress?. Hearing Volume No. 111-91   233
        4.5(l) May 5, 2010--Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash 
          Clouds on Aviation--What Do We Need to Know?. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-93......................................   234

    4.6--Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation...............   237
        4.6(a) February 12, 2009--An Overview of Transportation 
          R&D: Priorities for Reauthorization. Hearing Volume No. 
          111-2..................................................   237
        4.6(b) March 10, 2009--Strengthening Forensic Science in 
          the United States: The Role of the National Institute 
          of Standards and Technology. Hearing Volume No. 111-8..   239
        4.6(c) March 31, 2009--The Role of Research in Addressing 
          Climate in Transportation Infrastructure. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-16......................................   241
        4.6(d) April 23, 2009--The Role of SBIR and STTR Programs 
          in Stimulating Innovation at Small High-Tech 
          Businesses. Hearing Volume No. 111-20..................   243
        4.6(e) June 11, 2009--Reauthorization of the National 
          Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: R&D for Resilient 
          Communities. Hearing Volume No. 111-32.................   244
        4.6(f) June 16, 2009--Agency Response to Cyberspace 
          Policy Review. Hearing Volume No. 111-34...............   246
        4.6(g) June 25, 2009--Assessing Cybersecurity Activities 
          at NIST and DHS. Hearing Volume No. 111-39.............   248
        4.6(h) July 8, 2009--Reauthorization of the FIRE Grants 
          Program. Hearing Volume No. 111-40.....................   249
        4.6(i) September 24, 2009--The Potential Need for 
          Measurement Standards to Facilitate Research and 
          Development of Biologic Drugs. Hearing Volume No. 111-
          53.....................................................   251
        4.6(j) October 22, 2009--Cybersecurity Activities at 
          NIST's Information Technology Laboratory. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-59......................................   253
        4.6(k) October 27, 2009--Developing Research Priorities 
          at DHS's Science and Technology Directorate. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-60......................................   254
        4.6(l) November 19, 2009--The Research and Development 
          Portfolio Required to Support the Priorities of the 
          Department of Transportation. Hearing Volume No. 111-64   256
        4.6(m) January 21, 2010--Commerce Department Programs to 
          Support Job Creation and Innovation at Small and 
          Medium-Sized Manufacturers. Hearing Volume No. 111-71..   258
        4.6(n) February 3, 2010--Passenger Screening R&D: 
          Responding to President Obama's Call to Develop and 
          Deploy the Next Generation of Screening Technologies. 
          Hearing Volume No. 111-74..............................   260
        4.6(o) February 24, 2010--How Can NIST Better Serve the 
          Needs of the Biomedical Research Community in the 21st 
          Century?. Hearing Volume No. 111-79....................   262
        4.6(p) March 23, 2010--NIST Structure and Authorities, 
          Its Role in Standards, and Federal Agency Coordination 
          on Technical Standards. Hearing Volume No. 111-89......   264
        4.6(q) March 24, 2010--Supporting Innovation in the 21st 
          Century Economy. Hearing Volume No. 111-90.............   265
        4.6(r) May 27, 2010--Interoperability in Public Safety 
          Communications Equipment. Hearing Volume No. 111-97....   268
        4.6(s) July 1, 2010--Smart Grid Architecture and 
          Standards: Assessing Coordination and Progress. Hearing 
          Volume No. 111-104.....................................   271
        4.6(t) July 15, 2010--Planning for the Future of Cyber 
          Attack Attribution. Hearing Volume No. 111-105.........   273
        4.6(u) September 23, 2010--Progress on P25: Furthering 
          Interoperability and Competition for Public Safety 
          Radio Equipment. Hearing Volume No. 111-110............   274
        4.6(v) September 30, 2010--Standards for Health IT: 
          Meaningful Use and Beyond. Hearing Volume No. 111-112..   276

                                Appendix

Views and Estimates of the Committee on Science and Technology 
  for FY 2010....................................................   280

Minority Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2010................   287

Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Alan Grayson....   291

Additional Views and Estimates of Representatives Bob Inglis and 
  Vernon J. Ehlers...............................................   292

Additional Views of Representative Paul C. Broun.................   293

Additional Views of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson.........   294

Views and Estimates for the Committee on Science and Technology 
  for Fiscal Year 2011...........................................   298

Additional Views of Representatives Donna F. Edwards and Brian 
  Baird..........................................................   304

Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Alan Grayson....   305

Minority Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2011................   307

Additional Views of Representative Dana Rohrabacher..............   315

Additional Views and Estimates of Representative Bob Inglis......   317

Additional Views of Representative Paul C. Broun.................   318

Additional Views of Representative Pete Olson....................   319

House Science and Technology Committee Summary of Oversight 
  Activities--111th Congress.....................................   320

Findings of the Chairman of the Committee on Science and 
  Technology Pursuant to H. Res. 1493............................   395

History of Appointments, Committee on Science and Technology.....   398

Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Science and 
  Technology for the 111th Congress..............................   399

Legislative and Oversight Jurisdiction of the Committee on 
  Science and Technology.........................................   412

List of Publications of the Committee on Science and Technology 
  (111th Congress)...............................................   413


                                                 Union Calendar No. 421
111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-698

======================================================================


       SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                               __________

 December 30, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               __________

       Mr. Gordon, from the Committee on Science and Technology,

                        submitted the following



                              R E P O R T

           History of the Committee on Science and Technology

    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 (NASA) 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\1\, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Council, and the National Science Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Now named the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) (P.L. 100-418, Title V, Part B, Subpart A, Sections 5111 through 
5163, enacted August 23, 1988.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 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 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 non-military 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 nine very talented and distinctly 
different chairmen, each very creative in his own way in 
directing the Committee's activities.
    Representative 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 
Representative 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, Representative 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 assuming 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 and 
was succeeded as Chairman by Representative Don Fuqua of 
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.

        
 LThe 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.

        
 LThe 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 
        Ranking Minority Member Robert Roe, 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 
eight 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.
    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 research 
programs for renewable and alternative energy sources, a 
national hydrogen research and development program was 
established. The mission of the program was to foster the 
economic production of hydrogen from renewable resources to 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.
    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 and 
he tenaciously stuck to those 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 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 the official name of the Committee 
from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to the 
Committee on Science. Representative 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 its ranking minority 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 the 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. LFederal R&D efforts should focus on long-term, non-
        commercial R&D, leaving economic feasibility and 
        commercialization to the marketplace.

        2. LAll R&D programs should be relevant and tightly 
        focused to the agencies' missions.

        3. LGovernment-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. LThe Federal Government should not fund research in 
        areas that are receiving, or should reasonably be 
        expected to obtain, funding from the private sector.

        5. LRevolutionary ideas and pioneering capabilities 
        that make possible the impossible should be pursued 
        within controlled, performance-based funding levels.

        6. LFederal 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 another change in 
leadership to the Committee. Representative F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Republican from Wisconsin, became the 
eighth Chairman after Chairman Walker retired from Congress. 
Sensenbrenner had been a Member of the Committee since 1981 and 
prior to his appointment as Committee head, he served as 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
    At the start of the 105th Congress, the Speaker of the 
House charged the Science Committee with the task of developing 
a long-range science and technology policy. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner appointed the Committee's Vice Chairman, 
Representative Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, to lead a study of 
the current state of the Nation's science and technology 
policy. The National Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our 
Future: Toward a New National Science Policy, was unveiled in 
September 1998 and was endorsed by the House on Oct. 8, 1998. 
The Science Policy Study continues to serve as a policy guide 
to the Committee, Congress and the scientific community.
    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 (December, 1997), Buenos Aires 
(November, 1998), and The Hague (November, 2000) global warming 
conferences. Under Chairman Sensenbrenner's leadership, the 
Committee examined the science supporting the Kyoto Protocol 
and the economic impacts the treaty could have on the Nation.
    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 
Representative Constance Morella of Maryland, 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. 
Thankfully, the U.S. and the world experienced very minor 
problems associated with the Y2K rollover.
    Over many years, and during the tenure of several chairmen, 
the Science Committee closely monitored development of the 
International Space Station. In October of 2000, a crew of 
American and Russian astronauts became the first inhabitants of 
the space station.
    One of Chairman Sensenbrenner's priorities was to achieve a 
steady and sustained growth in federal R&D investments. During 
his tenure, funding for civilian federal R&D increased by 39 
percent. Funding for the National Science Foundation increased 
23 percent, including its highest ever appropriation in FY 
2001.
    The start of the 107th Congress brought another change in 
the Committee's leadership. Representative Sensenbrenner was 
elected Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and on January 3, 
2001, Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert from New York became 
the new Chairman of the Committee on Science.
    Boehlert had served on the Science Committee since first 
taking office in 1983 and had earned a reputation for 
independence, moderation and thoughtful leadership. In his 
first speech as Chairman, Boehlert pledged to ``build the 
Science Committee into a significant force within the 
Congress,'' and ``to ensure that we have a healthy, 
sustainable, and productive R&D establishment--one that 
educates students, increases human knowledge, strengthens U.S. 
competitiveness and contributes to the well-being of the Nation 
and the world.''
    With those goals in mind, Boehlert laid out three 
priorities for the Committee--``The Three E's''--science and 
math education, energy policy, and the environment--three areas 
in which Boehlert believed the resources and expertise of the 
scientific enterprise could be brought to bear on issues of 
national significance.
    Boehlert also reorganized the Subcommittees to reflect 
these new priorities. The four Subcommittees became Research; 
Energy; Environment, Technology, and Standards; and Space and 
Aeronautics.
    Unexpected events in our nation's history--the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001 and the loss of the Space Shuttle 
Columbia on February 1, 2003--would also focus the Committee's 
attention on preventing future terrorist attacks and charting a 
new course for human space exploration.
    The Committee played a central role in the establishment of 
the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which 
represented the largest reorganization of the Federal 
Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 
1947. Because of the Committee's tenacious efforts, the final 
legislation creating the new Department, signed into law on 
November 22, 2002, included a Science and Technology 
Directorate and a Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, the two entities within DHS tasked with putting our 
nation's scientific ingenuity to work at protecting the 
American people.
    Heeding Chairman Boehlert's admonition that ``the War on 
Terrorism, like the Cold War, will be won in the laboratory as 
much as on the battlefield,'' the Science Committee also worked 
to ensure that agencies throughout the Federal Government were 
investing in the science and technology necessary to combat 
terrorism over the long-term.
    One area of particular concern to Chairman Boehlert was the 
vulnerability of the Nation's power grid, financial 
institutions and other critical infrastructures to a cyber 
attack. To strengthen our nation's cyber security efforts, 
Boehlert authored the Cyber Security Research and Development 
Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on November 
27, 2002.
    Under Boehlert's leadership, the Committee also took the 
lead in responding to the concerns of family members of 
September 11th victims regarding the investigation into the 
collapse of the World Trade Center. After two high-profile 
hearings into the matter, the Committee introduced legislation 
to enable the government to respond more quickly to building 
failures and to overcome the problems that plagued the World 
Trade Center investigation. The Committee's legislation, signed 
into law on October 1, 2002, designated the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology as the lead agency for all future 
building failure investigations.
    The Committee also held hearings on how to strike the 
proper balance between the need for openness to conduct 
research successfully and the need for secrecy to protect 
homeland security. The Committee was particularly concerned 
about the significant delay in the processing of student visas 
following 9/11 and worked closely with the Administration to 
streamline the application process and reduce wait times for 
foreign researchers.
    In addition to its efforts to shape the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Committee also had several legislative 
victories in the areas of research and education policy. A 
signature piece of legislation from the 107th Congress, the 
National Science Foundation Authorization Act, was signed into 
law in December 2002, authorizing the doubling of the agency's 
budget over 10 years. The bill also gave additional focus to 
the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) education programs 
and set up a process for establishing priorities for large 
science projects.
    Less than two months into the 108th Congress, the Space 
Shuttle Columbia, with her crew of seven, broke apart during 
re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. The Committee held several 
high profile hearings into the cause of the accident and 
exercised close oversight of the proceedings of the Columbia 
Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), the independent 
investigative body convened by the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA) to determine the cause of the 
accident.
    The Columbia accident prompted President George W. Bush to 
issue a new vision for NASA that calls for the return of humans 
to the Moon and future manned mission to Mars and beyond. 
Following the President's announcement, the Committee held 
hearings and numerous briefings to evaluate his exploration 
plan. Chairman Boehlert applauded the President for giving NASA 
a clear vision for the future, but also raised questions about 
the funding of the proposal and about its potential impact on 
NASA's work in Space and Earth Science and in aeronautics.
    Determined to strike the proper balance between NASA's 
human exploration programs and its science and aeronautics 
programs, the Committee drafted an authorization bill for NASA 
that formally endorsed the President's exploration initiative, 
dubbed the Vision for Space Exploration, while also ensuring 
that NASA remains a multi-mission agency by requiring robust 
programs in Earth science, space science, and aeronautics. By 
an overwhelming vote of 383 to 15, the House of Representatives 
endorsed the Committee's blueprint for the future direction of 
NASA and, on December 30, 2005, the bill was signed into law.
    President Bush also signed into law Science Committee bills 
that allowed NASA to adapt to the workforce challenges of the 
21st Century and promoted the development of the emerging 
commercial human space flight industry. The NASA Flexibility 
Act of 2004, introduced by Chairman Boehlert, gave NASA new 
personnel tools to attract and retain a top-notch technical 
workforce. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, 
introduced by Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Dana 
Rohrabacher of California, established a regulatory regime 
within the Federal Aviation Administration to encourage the 
development of the commercial human space flight industry, 
while providing information to the public on the inherent risks 
in space tourism and limiting that risk, as appropriate.
    Following the recommendation of reports on ocean policy, 
the Committee passed an ``organic act'' for the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that would 
formally establish the agency in law and clearly define its 
role and responsibilities. The House passed the bill, which was 
introduced by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan, the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
Standards, in September 2006, but the legislative clock ran out 
before it could be enacted into law.
    One of Chairman Boehlert's signature accomplishments in the 
109th Congress was elevating the issue of U.S. economic 
competitiveness to the forefront of domestic policy 
discussions. He and Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon of 
Tennessee were among those who requested the 2005 National 
Academy of Sciences report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 
which recommended increased investment in research and 
education.
    On December 7, 2005, Chairman Boehlert, along with 
Representative Ehlers and Representative Frank Wolf of 
Virginia, hosted a day-long Innovation Summit at the Department 
of Commerce that brought together more than 50 chief executive 
officers and university presidents to discuss the Nation's 
economic challenges with top Administration officials, 
including the secretaries of Education, Energy, Commerce and 
Labor.
    The Committee's efforts helped pave the way for President 
Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), announced in 
the 2006 State of the Union Address. The ACI proposed doubling 
the budgets of NSF, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology's laboratory programs, and the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science over 10 years.
    The Committee also worked to establish a research regime to 
help promote the development of nanotechnology, which was 
estimated by the National Science Foundation to become a $1 
trillion industry within a decade. Recognizing the enormous 
economic potential of nanotechnology, Chairman Boehlert 
authored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and 
Development Act, signed into law in December 2003, which 
authorized increased funding and established a coordinated 
interagency program to carry out nanotechnology research.
    Recognizing that the full economic potential of 
nanotechnology will only be realized if the public fully 
accepts the technology, the Committee also held several 
hearings on the potential environmental, health, and safety 
implications of nanotechnology and pressed the Administration 
to devote a greater share of research and development funding 
to addressing these areas of concern.
    Central to the Nation's ability to compete is its ability 
to meet its energy demands, and the Science Committee took an 
active role in promoting the development of alternative energy 
sources. The Committee authored key provisions in the Energy 
Policy Act, enacted in 2005, that authorized research and 
development of clean, domestically produced renewable energy 
sources. Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, Chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Research, also introduced the H-Prize 
Act, which called for the establishment of a national prize 
competition to summon America's best and brightest minds to the 
challenge of developing the technical breakthroughs that would 
make hydrogen vehicles technically and economically practical.
    In November 2006, the Democratic Party regained the 
majority of the House of Representatives. The Democratic Caucus 
agreed to change the name of the Committee from the Committee 
on Science to the Committee on Science and Technology. This was 
previously the name of the Committee from the 93rd to the 99th 
Congress. Representative Bart Gordon became the Chairman of the 
newly renamed Committee at the start of the 110th Congress. 
Gordon had served as the ranking minority member of the 
Committee since the 108th Congress.
    One of Chairman Gordon's first acts was to reorder the 
subcommittee structure of the Committee. In the 110th Congress 
there were five subcommittees of the Committee on Science and 
Technology: Energy and Environment; Technology and Innovation; 
Research and Science Education; Space and Aeronautics; and, 
Investigations and Oversight. The renewal of the Investigations 
and Oversight Subcommittee after a 12 year absence reflected 
the new Congress' focus on ethics and oversight of federal 
programs.
    Under Chairman Gordon's leadership, the Committee on 
Science and Technology embarked on an aggressive agenda for the 
110th Congress. The Chairman's early focus was on 
implementation of the recommendations of the National Academy 
of Sciences from their report, Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm. This report, which was requested in 2005 by then ranking 
minority member Gordon and Chairman Boehlert, outlined steps 
the Federal Government needed to take to ensure the 
competitiveness of America in the 21st Century. Included in 
these recommendations were calls for additional teacher 
training in the math and science fields, scholarships to math 
and science college students who pursue teaching careers, 
increased funding for research and development, and the 
creation of a high-risk high-reward energy research agency 
within the Department of Energy modeled after the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at the Department of 
Defense. These recommendations were translated into legislation 
by the Committee, and eventually became law in the form of the 
America COMPETES Act (the America Creating Opportunities to 
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and 
Science Act).
    Another early focus of the Committee was on the topic of 
energy. The Committee moved numerous bills during the first 
session of the 110th Congress, and these individual pieces were 
eventually incorporated into an omnibus energy bill entitled 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The 
Committee's contributions to this law included legislation on 
research, development, and demonstration in the areas of 
biofuels, solar energy, marine energy, geothermal energy, 
carbon sequestration, and energy storage. EISA also contained 
stringent new efficiency standards and automobile fuel 
efficiency standards.
    The Committee also devoted considerable energy into 
oversight and reauthorization of NASA. This culminated in a one 
year reauthorization of the agency. The NASA reauthorization 
mandated that the agency take no steps that would preclude 
flying the Space Shuttle past 2010 until after the new 
President had a chance to evaluate the status of the agency. In 
addition to the agency's base authorization levels, the bill 
authorized an additional one billion dollars to accelerate 
development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which was the 
follow-on human space transportation system to the Space 
Shuttle. Finally, the 2008 authorization increased funding for 
aeronautics research at the agency.
    During the 110th Congress the Committee also passed several 
other pieces of legislation. The Methamphetamine Remediation 
Research Act of 2007 tasked EPA to develop new detection and 
remediation technologies and standards for cleanup contaminated 
methamphetamine production sites. The U.S. Fire Administration 
Reauthorization Act of 2008 reauthorized programs at the 
Administration and added programs focused on fires at the wild 
land-urban interface. Finally, the Committee passed the 
National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008, in 
conjunction with the Natural Resources Committee. There were 
numerous other pieces of legislation which were enacted that 
the Committee had jurisdictional interests in, including: 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; 
Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008; Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008; Higher Education Opportunity Act; Great 
Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008; and, Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
    Chairman Gordon's focus on competitiveness continued in the 
111th Congress, with many of the activities of the Committee 
focused on reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Other 
issues on which the Committee focused include: water use and 
conservation; climate research and monitoring; energy research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application; and, 
national space policy.
    Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act involved the 
combined work of the Research and Science Education, Technology 
and Innovation, and Energy and Environment Subcommittees, along 
with the full committee, in holding 26 hearings, three 
subcommittee markups, and a full committee markup. The primary 
focus of the reauthorization effort was to maintain the 
doubling paths of the National Science Foundation, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science, and greatly expand the newly formed 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. In addition, the bill 
focused new efforts on innovation including Department of 
Commerce programs creating regional innovation clusters around 
the United States and providing innovative technology loan 
guarantees to small and medium sized manufacturers. A number of 
complementary and related measures were included in H.R. 5116, 
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, including: 
H.R. 554, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act 
of 2009; H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act of 2009; H.R. 
1144, the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science 
and Engineering Act; H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Coordination 
Act of 2009; and, H.R. 2020, the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act of 2009.
    The Committee on Science and Technology also found itself 
at the center of the policy debate concerning NASA in the 111th 
Congress. In February of 2010, the President submitted a budget 
request with dramatic changes for NASA's human spaceflight 
program. The primary elements of this plan included the 
cancellation of the Bush-era Constellation program to return 
astronauts to the Moon, an increased investment in space 
technology, and outsourcing the task of transporting NASA 
astronauts to and from the International Space Station to the 
nascent ``commercial'' human spaceflight industry. The plan was 
met with skepticism in Congress, and the Committee spent the 
Spring and early Summer of 2010 holding a number of hearings on 
the topic. These culminated in the Committee reporting H.R. 
5781, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 
2010. H.R. 5781 differed in many key aspects from the 
Administration's plan, most notably in continuing the 
development of a Government owned launch capability and a 
reduction on the funding for ``commercial'' crew development. 
Before H.R. 5781 was considered by the House, the Senate passed 
their version of the NASA Authorization, S. 3729. The Senate's 
bill also authorized development of a Government owned launch 
vehicle, but differed from the House bill in mandating an 
additional Space Shuttle flight in 2011 and devoting more 
resources to ``commercial'' crew development. The House and 
Senate were unable to come to an agreement on a compromise bill 
text, and sensing that time was running out on the fiscal year, 
Chairman Gordon ultimately supported passage of S. 3729.
    In the first session of the 111th Congress, the Committee 
devoted considerable attention to legislation addressing energy 
and environmental issues. Early in the Congress, the Committee 
moved H.R. 1580, the Electronic Waste Research and Development 
Act. This bill sought to address, through research and 
standards, the significant and growing problems associated with 
the waste stream associated with electronic devices. The 
Committee also marked up a bill to establish a National Climate 
Service to coordinate Federal climate research and monitoring 
activities, and this bill eventually passed the House as part 
of a large climate related bill: H.R. 2454, the American Clean 
Energy and Security Act of 2009. Energy bills which the 
Committee moved in the 111th Congress include measures relating 
to: gas turbine efficiency, wind and solar power, and advanced 
vehicle technologies.
    Another area of focus for Chairman Gordon was on the topic 
of water. Despite water being an increasingly precious and 
valuable resource, Chairman Gordon recognized that Federal 
efforts at water conservation and use were fractured among 
several agencies with little overall coordination. H.R. 1145, 
the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 
2009 sought to remedy this situation by requiring coordination 
of the Federal government's water research and development 
efforts. The Chairman also addressed the important energy-water 
nexus in H.R. 3598, the Energy and Water Research Integration 
Act. Water use and availability and energy production are 
inextricably intertwined, and H.R. 3598 required the Department 
of Energy to pay greater attention to this issue in its 
research efforts. The Committee also moved three additional 
water-related bills in the 111th Congress: H.R. 469, the 
Produced Water Utilization Act of 2009 which was sponsored by 
Ranking Member Ralph Hall; H.R. 631, the Water Use Efficiency 
and Conservation Research Act which was sponsored by Jim 
Matheson; and, H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010 which was sponsored 
by Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird.
    On April 20, 2010, the British Petroleum owned oil rig 
``Deepwater Horizon'' exploded and sank, which resulted in a 
months long release of millions of barrels of oil in one of the 
greatest environmental catastrophes in the country's history. 
The Committee responded by moving two bills: H.R. 2693, the Oil 
Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act 
of 2010 and H.R. 5716, the SAFER Oil and Natural Gas Drilling 
Technology Research and Development Act. H.R. 2693 reorganized 
and expanded the existing interagency oil pollution research 
and development efforts within the Federal government. With 
H.R. 5716, the Committee addressed the issue of developing 
safer oil and gas drilling technologies by altering an existing 
oil and gas research and development program to focus heavily 
on the issue of safety.
   Chapter I--Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science and 
                               Technology

 1.1--P.L. 111-5, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (H.R. 
                                   1)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009, was a comprehensive law aimed at addressing the severe 
economic downturn in the United States. Its principal 
provisions involved a series of tax cuts, infrastructure 
spending, and extension of unemployment benefits. The law 
appropriated significant resources to programs within the 
Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction, including: 
the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and the Department of Energy.
    P.L. 111-5 also legislated on a select number of areas 
within the Committee's jurisdiction, including the area of 
health information technology. In the 110th Congress, Chairman 
Gordon introduced H.R. 2406, the Healthcare Information 
Technology Enterprise Integration Act, which established an 
initiative for healthcare information enterprise integration at 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It 
directed NIST to work with the private sector to establish 
technical standards for healthcare IT for Federal agencies to 
promote the interoperability of Federal healthcare information 
systems. It created a program of grants for universities and 
consortia to conduct multidisciplinary research in healthcare 
IT research centers, directed the National High-Performance 
Computing Program to coordinate Federal research and 
development programs related to healthcare IT, and further 
directed NIST to establish a task force to develop 
recommendations on standards harmonization. Finally, it 
authorized $8 million for NIST in FY2009 and FY2010. On 
November 15, 2007, the Committee reported the bill to the House 
(H. Rept. 110-451), but no further action was taken on the 
measure.
    Efforts continued in the 110th Congress to craft a 
comprehensive healthcare information technology bill involving 
the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and 
Science and Technology. The result of those efforts culminated 
in Title XIII of P.L. 111-5, entitled ``Healthcare Information 
Technology.'' Title XIII created a comprehensive Federal effort 
to develop and implement modern information technology across 
the healthcare industry. The Science and Technology Committee 
had shared jurisdiction over Subtitle A, Subtitle B and Part I 
of Subtitle C of Title XIII. Subtitle A deals with the 
development of health information technology standards, 
adoption of those standards, promotion of those standards, and 
coordination of these actions by entities like the HIT 
Standards Committee created by section 3003. Subtitle B 
addressed research and development relating to health 
information technology and testing of the technology by NIST. 
Among other things, Part I of Subtitle C established a health 
information technology architecture program, provided for 
implementation assistance, created a Health Information 
Technology Research Center, and established a health 
information technology professional education program.
    In addition to the Health Information Technology components 
of P.L. 111-5, the Committee had jurisdiction over two energy 
related sections of the act: Section 405, Amendments to Title 
XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 
and Section 406, Temporary Program for Rapid Deployment of 
Renewable Energy and Electric Power Transmission Projects. 
Section 405 contained provisions relating to smart grid 
demonstration projects. In addition, the section required all 
energy demonstration projects funded under the section to 
``utilize open protocols and standards.'' Section 406 provided 
for loan guarantees for renewable energy projects that can be 
rapidly deployed. The loan guarantees are to be specifically 
made available for biofuel projects ``at the pilot or 
demonstration scale''.

Legislative History
    On January 26, 2009, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations, introduced H.R. 1, which was 
referred to the Committees on Appropriation and Budget. On 
January 27 and 28, 2009, H.R. 1 was considered by the House and 
passed by: Y-244, N-188 (Roll Call No. 46).
    H.R. 1 was received in the Senate on January 29, 2009. H.R. 
1 was considered by the Senate on February 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 
and 10, 2009, and ultimately passed the Senate on February 10, 
2009, with an amendment by: Y-61, N-37 (Record Vote No. 61). 
The Senate requested a conference and appointed conferees.
    On February 10, 2009, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 1, agreed to a conference, and appointed 
conferees. On February 12, 2009 the conference report (H. Rept. 
111-16) was filed. The House considered and passed the 
conference report on February 13, 2009, by: Y-246, N-183, 1 
Present (Roll Call No. 70). The Senate passed the conference 
report on February 13, 2009, by: Y-60, N-38 (Record Vote No. 
64). It was signed into law by the President on February 17, 
2009, and became Public Law No. 111-5.

    1.2--P.L. 111-11, OMNIBUS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009 (H.R. 146)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-11, the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, was a 
consolidated bill primarily composed of elements dealing with 
Federal lands and water resources. Several portions of this 
bill were within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science 
and Technology.
    Subtitle F of Title IX, ``Secure Water,'' created several 
programs within the Departments of the Interior, Energy, 
Agriculture, and Commerce to more accurately assess potential 
future water impacts from climate change. Those programs within 
the Department's of Energy and Commerce lie within the 
Committee's jurisdiction.
    Title XII, ``Oceans,'' is composed of several bills dealing 
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA). Subtitle A, ``Ocean Exploration,'' contained two parts: 
Exploration and NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2009. 
These sections are very similar to the text of H.R. 366, the 
Ocean Research and Exploration Enhancement Act of 2009, 
introduced on January 9, 2009, by Representative Sam Farr, and 
the Senate analogue, S. 172, the NOAA Ocean Exploration and 
Undersea Research Program Act of 2009, introduced on January 8, 
2009, by Senator Olympia Snowe. Both of these bills were 
similar in topic to H.R. 1834, the National Ocean Exploration 
Program Act, from the 110th Congress. H.R. 1834 implemented a 
key recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to 
provide specific and separate authorizations for the 
exploration and undersea research programs within NOAA. The 
purpose of H.R. 1834 was to authorize the national ocean 
exploration program and the national undersea research program 
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 
authorizations further strengthen NOAA's standing as the 
preeminent civilian federal ocean agency by granting the agency 
explicit authority to conduct scientific research that directly 
contributes to increasing scientific knowledge of the world's 
oceans. The legislation addressed the national need to develop 
and advance new innovations in oceanographic research, 
communication and navigation technologies to support ocean 
exploration and science. Additionally, the legislation 
emphasized the importance of outreach and public education to 
ensure that future scientific discoveries and benefits are 
disseminated to decision-makers in both the public and private 
sectors, and conveyed to the general public to increase public 
awareness and appreciation of the Great Lakes and the world's 
oceans and their importance to our economic and environmental 
well-being. H.R. 1834 was introduced on March 29, 2007, by 
Representative Saxton. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on 
Natural Resources and the Committee on Armed Services. On 
October 10, 2007, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
met to consider H.R. 1834. No amendments were offered. The 
Subcommittee ordered the bill to be reported to the Committee 
by voice vote. The Committee met to consider H.R. 1834 on 
October 24, 2007. Representative Lampson offered a manager's 
amendment, which was adopted by a voice vote. The Committee 
ordered the measure reported, as amended, by a voice vote. On 
December 18, 2007, the Committee reported H.R. 1834 to the 
House (H. Rept. 110-311, Part II). The House suspended the 
rules and passed H.R. 1834 on a recorded vote of 352-49 on 
February 14, 2008. On February 25, 2008, H.R. 1834 was received 
in the Senate and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 
under General Orders. No further legislative action was taken 
on H.R. 1834.
    Subtitle B of Title XII of H.R. 146, the Ocean and Coastal 
Mapping Integration Act, was similar to H.R. 2400, the Ocean 
and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, from the 1110th Congress. 
H.R. 2400 was introduced by Delegate Bordallo on May 21, 2007, 
and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and the 
Committee on Science and Technology. On July 23, 2007, the 
Committee was discharged of H.R. 2400. On July 23, 2007, the 
House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 2400 by voice vote. 
On July 24, 2007, H.R. 2400 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
2400. H.R. 2400 directed the Administrator to convene or use an 
existing interagency committee on ocean and coastal mapping to 
implement such program and to coordinate federal ocean and 
coastal mapping and surveying activities with other federal 
efforts (including the Digital Coast, Geospatial One-Stop, and 
the Federal Geographic Data Committee), international mapping 
activities, coastal states, user groups, and nongovernmental 
entities. It also authorized the Administrator to convene an 
ocean and coastal mapping advisory panel consisting of 
representatives from nongovernmental entities to provide input 
regarding activities of the committee. It also directed the 
Administrator to develop a plan for an integrated ocean and 
coastal mapping initiative within NOAA that: (1) identifies all 
ocean and coastal mapping programs within NOAA, establishing 
priorities; (2) encourages the development of innovative ocean 
and coastal mapping technologies and applications through 
research and development (R&D) cooperative agreements at joint 
or cooperative research institutes or centers and with other 
nongovernmental entities; and (3) documents available and 
developing technologies, best practices in data processing and 
distribution, and leveraging opportunities with other federal 
agencies, coastal states, and nongovernmental entities. It 
authorized the Administrator to establish joint ocean and 
coastal mapping centers (including a joint hydrographic center) 
of excellence in institutions of higher education to conduct 
specified activities, including: (1) research and development 
of innovative ocean and coastal mapping technologies, 
equipment, and data products; and (2) mapping of the U.S. outer 
continental shelf.
    Subtitle C of Title XII, the Integrated Coastal and Ocean 
Observation System Act of 2009, was largely derived from H.R. 
2342, the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation Act 
of 2007, from the 110th Congress. H.R. 2342 was introduced on 
May 16, 2007, by Representative Allen. The bill was referred 
the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on 
Science and Technology. On March 31, 2008, the Committee was 
discharged of H.R. 2342. On March 31, 2008, the House suspended 
the rules and passed H.R. 2342 by voice vote. On April 1, 2008, 
H.R. 2342 was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2342. H.R. 2342 directed 
the President to establish a National Integrated Coastal and 
Ocean Observation System to: (1) support national defense, 
marine commerce, energy production, basic and applied research, 
ecosystem-based marine and coastal resource management, public 
safety and public outreach training and education; (2) promote 
awareness of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources; (3) 
improve the ability to measure, track, explain, and predict 
weather and climate change and natural climate variability; (4) 
fulfill the plan contained in the document entitled ``US 
Publication No. 9, The First Integrated Ocean Observing System 
(IOOS) Development Plan''; and (5) fulfill the nation's 
international obligations to contribute to the global earth and 
ocean observation systems. The bill made the National Ocean 
Research Leadership Council responsible for coordination and 
long-term operations plans, policies, protocols, and standards 
for the System and for coordination with other earth observing 
activities. H.R. 2342 made the existing Interagency Working 
Group responsible for, among other things, implementation of 
operations plans and policies, budget development, 
identification of observation coverage gaps or capital 
improvements needs, data management and communication protocols 
and standards, observation data variables, and establishment of 
a competitive matching grant or other program to promote 
research and development of innovative observation 
technologies. It made the Administrator of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the lead federal agency 
for the System.
    Subtitle D, Federal Ocean Acidification Research and 
Monitoring Act of 2009, was likewise, derivative of a bill from 
the 110th Congress: H.R. 4174. H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean 
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, was introduced on 
November 14, 2007, by Representative Allen. The bill was 
referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. The 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 
4174 on June 18, 2008. Representatives Baird and Inglis offered 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was adopted 
by voice vote. The Subcommittee reported the bill, as amended, 
to the Committee by voice vote. On June 25, 2008, the Committee 
met to consider H.R. 4174. A manager's amendment offered by 
Representatives Baird and Inglis was adopted by voice vote. The 
Committee ordered the measure, as amended, reported by a voice 
vote. On July 9, 2008, the Committee on Science and Technology 
reported H.R. 4174 to the House (H. Rept. 110-749). The House 
suspended the rules and passed the bill by voice vote on July 
9, 2008. On July 10, 1008, H.R. 4174 was received in the Senate 
and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 4174. 
H.R. 4174 established an interagency program to develop and 
coordinate a comprehensive plan to better understand and 
address the impacts of ocean acidification, to provide for 
assessment of ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts of ocean 
acidification and to provide for research on adaptation 
strategies to conserve marine ecosystems. National investment 
in a coordinated program of research and monitoring will 
improve understanding of ecosystem responses and provide marine 
resource managers the information they need to develop 
strategies for the protection of critical species, habitats, 
and ecosystems. The bill designated JSOST as the coordinating 
body for interagency activities on ocean acidification and 
required JSOST to involve the extramural ocean community in the 
development of the plan, including universities, states, 
industry and environmental groups. The bill also authorized 
ocean acidification activities at the National Science 
Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.

Legislative History
    On January 6, 2009, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced H.R. 
146, which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. 
The bill, as introduced, was entitled, ``Revolutionary War and 
War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act,'' and bore little 
resemblance to P.L. 111-11. On March 2 and 3, 2009, H.R. 146 
was considered by the House and passed by: Y-394, N-12 (Roll 
Call No. 91).
    On January 7, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman 
of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
introduced S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009. On January 15, 2009, the Senate passed S. 22, with 
amendments by: Y-73, N-21 (Record Vote No. 3). On January 16, 
2009, S. 22 was received in the House. On March 11, 2009, Rep. 
Nick Rahall (D-WV), Chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee, moved to suspend the rules and pass S. 22, as 
amended. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as 
amended, failed by: Y-282, N-144 (Roll Call No. 117).
    H.R. 146 was considered by the Senate on March 18 and 19, 
2009, and H.R. 146, as amended, passed the Senate on March 19, 
2009, by: Y-77, N-20 (Record Vote No. 106). The amended bill, 
as passed the Senate, closely resembled S. 22, as passed the 
Senate.
    H.R. 146 was received in House on March 19, 2009. On March 
25, 2009, Chairman Rahall moved that the House agree to the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 146, and the motion was agreed to by: 
Y-285, N-140 (Roll Call No. 153). It was signed into law by the 
President on March 30, 2009, and became Public Law No. 111-11.

 1.3--P.L. 111-84, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2010 (H.R. 2647)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010, authorized the defense activities of the 
federal government, including the Department of Defense and 
portions of the Department of Energy. The Committee on Science 
and Technology had jurisdiction over provisions in both the 
House passed and Senate passed versions of the bill. Provisions 
of P.L. 111-84 over which the Committee had jurisdiction are: 
Section 254, Authority for National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration federally funded research and development 
centers to participate in merit-based technology research and 
development programs; Section 806, Treatment of non-defense 
agency procurements under joint programs with intelligence 
community; Section 819, Contract authority for advanced 
component development or prototype units; Section 845, Study of 
the use of factors other than cost or price as the predominate 
factors in evaluating competitive proposals for defense 
procurement contracts; Section 847, Extension of SBIR and STTR 
programs of the Department of Defense; Section 848, Extension 
of authority for small business innovation research 
Commercialization Pilot Program; Section 911, Submission and 
review of space science and technology strategy; and, Section 
913, Management and funding strategy and implementation plan 
for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 
Satellite System Program.
    Section 254 allowed NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to 
perform research and development work for other agencies, 
including the Department of Defense. Sections 806, 819, and 845 
slightly altered Department of Defense procurement rules, which 
also apply to NASA and the Department of Homeland Security. 
Section 847 extended the Department of Defense's Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 
Transfer Research (STTR) programs through fiscal year 2010. 
Section 848 extended an SBIR commercialization pilot program 
through fiscal year 2010. Section 911 slightly altered certain 
aspects of an existing space science and technology strategy 
which the Department of Defense was tasked with formulating, 
and required GAO to review the strategy and report back to 
Congress on the review. Section 913 required the President to 
create a management and funding strategy for the National 
Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 
Program (commonly referred to as NPOESS), which was jointly 
managed by the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA, and also required 
the President to create a plan for implementation of the 
strategy.

Legislative History
    On June 2, 2009, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services, introduced H.R. 2647, which was 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On June 18, 2009, 
H.R. 2647 was favorably reported from the Committee on Armed 
Services, with an amendment.
    On June 24 and 25, 2009, the House considered H.R. 2647 
under a structured rule (H. Res. 572), and on June 25, 2009, 
the House passed H.R. 2647, as amended, by: Y-389, N-22, 1-
Present (Roll Call No. 460).
    H.R. 2647 was received in the Senate on July 6, 2009, and 
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. On July 23, 2009, 
H.R. 2647 was considered and passed, with a substitute 
amendment, by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate 
insisted on its amendment, asked for a conference, and 
appointed conferees.
    Message on Senate action was sent to the House on July 28, 
2009. On October 6, 2009, Chairman Skelton moved that the House 
disagree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2647 and agree to a 
conference, and the motion was agreed to by voice vote. From 
the Committee on Science and Technology, the Speaker appointed 
the following conferees for consideration of Sections 248, 819, 
836, and 911 of the House bill and Sections 801, 814, 833, 834, 
912, and Division F of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), 
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman David Wu (D-
OR), and Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Adrian Smith (R-NE).
    On October 7, 2009, the conference report (H. Rept. 111-
288) was filed. The House considered the conference report, 
subject to a rule (H. Res. 808), on October 8, 2009, and the 
report passed by: Y-281, N-146 (Roll Call No. 770). The Senate 
considered the conference report on October 20, 21, and 22, and 
the conference report passed the Senate On October 22, 2009, 
by: Y-68, N-29 (Record Vote No. 327). The bill was signed into 
law by the President on October 28, 2009, and became Public Law 
111-84.

   1.4--P.L. 111-125, TO EXTEND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION 
                      LIABILITY REGIME (H.R. 3819)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-125, to extend the commercial space transportation 
liability regime, was a bill which extended the indemnification 
regime for commercial space transportation until December 31, 
2012. The commercial space transportation indemnification 
regime was first enacted as part of P.L. 100-657, the 
Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988. Under this 
regime, the United States shall pay up to $1.5 billion, 
adjusted for inflation, in excess of the amount covered by 
liability insurance or demonstrated financial responsibility 
with respect to third party claims against a commercial space 
launch or reentry licensee, transferee, contractor, 
subcontractor, or customer for death, bodily injury, or 
property damage or loss resulting from and activity carried out 
under the license.
Legislative History
    On October 15, 2009, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chairman of 
the Committee on Science and Technology, introduced H.R. 3819, 
which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. 
On October 20, 2009, Chairman Gordon moved to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, and the motion was agreed to by voice vote.
    H.R. 3819 was received in the Senate on October 21, 2009, 
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. H.R. 3819 was favorably reported from the 
committee without amendment on December 22, 2009. On December 
23, 2009, H.R. 3819 was considered and passed by the Senate by 
unanimous consent. It was signed into law by the President on 
December 28, 2009, and became Public Law No. 111-125.

  1.5--P.L. 111-140, NUCLEAR FORENSICS AND ATTRIBUTION ACT (H.R. 730)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-140, the Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act, 
directed certain nuclear forensic and attribution activities 
within the Department of Homeland Security. The bill amends the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add to the mission of the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO): 1) lead the 
development and implementation of the national strategic five-
year plan for improving U.S. nuclear forensic and attribution 
capabilities; 2) establish within DNDO a National Technical 
Nuclear Forensics Center to centralize all federal nuclear 
forensics and attributions activities; and, 3) establish a 
National Nuclear Forensics Expertise Development Program to 
provide scholarships and other means to ensure faculty and 
students have a secure funding stream in the study of nuclear 
and geochemical science specialties relevant to technical 
nuclear forensics.
    The bill also required DNDO and the other federal partners 
in these efforts to annually report an assessment of each 
department's activities and investments in support of nuclear 
forensics and attribution activities and specific goals and 
objectives accomplished during the previous year pursuant to 
the national strategic five-year plan.
Legislative History
    On January 27, 2009, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), introduced 
H.R. 730, which was referred to the Committees on Homeland 
Security and Foreign Affairs. H.R. 730 was similar to H.R. 
2631, which was introduced and passed the House and Senate in 
the 110th Congress. Differences between the houses on H.R. 2631 
were not resolved before the end of the 110th Congress. The 
Science and Technology Committee's jurisdiction over H.R. 2631 
was acknowledged in correspondence with the Committee on 
Homeland Security. Similarly, on March 19 and 20, 2009, 
Chairman Bart Gordon and Homeland Security Committee Chairman 
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) exchanged correspondence acknowledging 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology 
over H.R. 730, and agreeing to waive referral of the bill to 
Committee. On March 24, 2009, the bill was considered under 
suspension the rules, and the motion was agreed to by: Y-402, 
N-16 (Roll Call No. 148).
    H.R. 730 was received in the Senate on March 26, 2009, and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. H.R. 730 was favorably reported from the committee 
with an amendment on November 4, 2009. On December 23, 2009, 
H.R. 730 was considered and passed by the Senate by unanimous 
consent, and the House was notified of Senate action on 
December 24, 2009.
    On January 20 and 21, 2010, H.R. 730, as amended by the 
Senate, was considered by the House under suspension of the 
rules, and the bill passed by: Y-397, N-10 (Roll Call No. 16). 
It was signed into law by the President on February 16, 2010, 
and became Public Law No. 111-140.

   1.6--P.L. 111-267, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                  AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 (S. 3729)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-267, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act of 2010, authorized the 
programs of NASA for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. The 
prior NASA Authorization (P.L. 110-422) expired at the end of 
fiscal year 2009.
    Shortly after the Obama Administration took power in 2009, 
the Administration announced a Review of United States Human 
Space Flight Plans and formed a committee to undertake the 
review. The committee, led by Norm Augustine, former CEO of 
Lockheed Martin, released its final report on October 22, 2009. 
The Augustine committee's report determined that NASA's 
existing Constellation program was so underfunded and behind 
schedule that meeting the program's goals without large budget 
increases was not possible. The committee judged that human 
exploration beyond low earth orbit should be NASA's primary 
human spaceflight goal and, within budget scenarios prescribed 
by the Administration, crafted several basic options to achieve 
this goal. Each of these options involved different 
destinations and tools to get there. The committee also 
evaluated in these options the possibility of heavily utilizing 
``commercial'' providers of launch services.
    Following the release of the Augustine committee's report, 
in February of 2010, the President submitted a budget request 
with dramatic changes for NASA's human spaceflight program and 
for NASA generally. Elements of the President's request 
included termination of the Constellation program and its 
constituent elements, sharply increased investment in space 
technology development, and outsourcing the task of 
transporting NASA astronauts to and from the International 
Space Station to a ``commercial'' spaceflight industry. The 
plan was met with skepticism in Congress, and the Science and 
Technology Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee spent much of the Spring and early 
Summer of 2010 holding a number of hearings on the topic. The 
Committee was unable to acquire any programmatic or budgetary 
analysis from the Administration which would support the 
drastic changes to NASA proposed in the budget request. For 
that reason, Chairman Gordon decided to move forward in 
crafting a NASA authorization which departed from the 
President's budget request.
    The key programmatic elements of H.R. 5781 were: the 
continuation of assured NASA access to low earth orbit and the 
International Space Station through development of a government 
vehicle or vehicles; development of a heavy lift launch 
vehicle, utilizing elements from Constellation and the Space 
Shuttle to the maximum extent practicable; a flexible path 
toward exploration beyond low earth orbit which could adapt to 
future budget realities; reduced funding for ``commercial'' 
human launch development, and an alteration in the funding 
mechanism from direct payments to a loan or loan guarantee 
approach; continuation of the International Space Station until 
at least 2020; and, increased space and aeronautics technology 
funding (albeit less than proposed in the President's request). 
Although the programmatic elements of H.R. 5781 differed 
significantly from the President's budget request, the top line 
authorization levels for 2011, 2012, and 2013 matched those in 
the budget request.
    Before H.R. 5781 was considered by the House, the Senate 
passed S. 3729. S. 3729 differed significantly from the 
President's budget request, but it also contained key 
differences from the House bill, including: prescriptive 
requirements for the development of a NASA heavy lift launch 
vehicle; no mandate of assured government owned access to low 
earth orbit; increased (relative to the House bill) funding for 
``commercial'' human launch development; and a mandated extra 
flight of the Space Shuttle. Like the House bill, S. 3729 hewed 
to the top line numbers in the President's budget request. Also 
like the House bill, S. 3729 provided significant increases in 
NASA's space and aeronautics technology programs and it 
extended the International Space Station until 2020.
    After passage of S. 3729, attempts were made to reconcile 
the differences between the two bills. However, those efforts 
were unsuccessful. With the 2011 fiscal year quickly 
approaching, Chairman Gordon determined that moving forward 
with the Senate bill was necessary to provide NASA and its 
workforce with stability, and the House took up and passed S. 
3729 without amendment.
Legislative History
    On July 20, 2010, Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), along with 
Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee Chair Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and Space and 
Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Olson (R-TX), 
introduced H.R. 5781, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act of 2010. On July 22, 2010, 
H.R. 5781 was marked up by the Full Committee, and ordered 
reported, amended, by voice vote. H.R. 5781 was reported to the 
House on July 28, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-576). No further action 
was taken on H.R. 5781.
    On August 5, 2010, Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), 
Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee, introduced S. 3729, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. The measure, in 
draft form, was previously marked up by the Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation Committee on July 15, 2010, and favorably 
ordered reported by voice vote. The written report on the 
measure was filed upon introduction of the bill (S. Rept. 111-
278). On August 5, 2010, the Senate passed S. 3729, with 
amendments, by unanimous consent.
    S. 3729 was received in the House on August 9, 2010, and 
held at the desk. On September 29, 2010, Chairman Gordon moved 
to suspend the rules and pass S. 3729. S. 3729 passed the House 
by: Y-304, N-118 (Roll Call No. 561). It was signed into law by 
the President on October 11, 2010, and became Public Law No. 
111-267.

 1.7--P.L. 111-XXX, AMERICA COMPETES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 (H.R. 
                                 5116)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 5116, America COMPETES Reauthorization 
Act of 2010, was to invest in innovation through research and 
development and science and mathematics education and to 
improve the competitiveness of the United States. It 
reauthorized the programs of the National Science Foundation, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) at the Department of 
Energy. The Act also authorized new innovation-focused programs 
at the Department of Commerce and an energy innovation hub 
program at the Department of Energy. Finally, the Act 
authorized: education and oceanic and atmospheric programs at 
NOAA; education programs at the Department of Energy; and, 
education programs at NASA.
    The origin of H.R. 5116 dates back to the National 
Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which 
was requested in 2005 by then Ranking Member Gordon and 
Chairman Boehlert. The report made several recommendations for 
action to ensure the competitiveness of the United States, and 
those recommendations were enacted as P.L. 110-69, the America 
COMPETES Act or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully 
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act. 
Among other things, P.L. 110-69: authorized seven year doubling 
paths for NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy Office of 
Science; authorized science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) education programs at NSF, the Department of 
Education, NOAA, and NASA; and, authorized the creation of an 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy at the Department of 
Energy to engage in high-risk high-reward energy related 
research.
    In the update to the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' 
report, entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 
Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5,'' the Committee 
headed by Norm Augustine, former Chairman of Lockheed Martin, 
noted that:

        L``Although significant progress has been made . . . 
        the Gathering Storm effort once again finds itself at a 
        tipping point. It is widely agreed that addressing 
        America's competitiveness challenge is an undertaking 
        that will require many years if not decades; however, 
        the requisite federal funding of much of that effort is 
        about to terminate. In order to sustain the progress 
        that has begun it will be necessary to (1) reauthorize 
        the America COMPETES Act, and (2) ``institutionalize'' 
        funding and oversight of the Gathering Storm 
        recommendations . . . ''

    P.L. 111-XXX sought to fulfill these objectives. The bill 
reauthorized NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy Office of 
Science for three fiscal years. In addition, the bill 
reauthorized ARPA-E. P.L. 111-XXX also expanded upon the 
original COMPETES Act in authorizing certain competitiveness 
related activities at the Department of Commerce. These include 
loan guarantee programs for science park infrastructure and 
innovative technology manufacturing and a regional innovation 
cluster program to help spur innovation at a regional level.
Legislative History
    H.R. 5116 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on 
April 22, 2010 and referred to the Science and Technology 
Committee and the Education and Labor Committee.
    The House Education and Labor Committee discharged the bill 
on April 22, 2010. House Science and Technology committee met 
to consider the bill on April 28, 2010. The Committee agreed to 
report the bill to the House by voice vote. The Science and 
Technology Committee reported the bill, as amended, to the 
House on May 7, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-478, Part I).
    The House considered H.R. 5116 on May 12 and 13, 2010. On 
May 13, 2010, Ranking Member Hall moved to recommit the bill to 
the Committee on Science and Technology with instructions. The 
motion was agreed to by: Y-292, N-126 (Roll Call No. 270). 
Further proceedings on the bill were postponed.
    On May 18, 2010, Chairman Gordon introduced H.R. 5325, the 
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. H.R. 5325 was 
substantially similar to H.R. 5116, with the notable exception 
that it was a three-year authorization rather than a five-year 
authorization. On May, 19, 2010, Chairman Gordon moved that the 
House suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5325, and the motion 
failed by: Y-261, N-148 (Roll Call No. 277).
    On May 28, 2010, H.R. 5116 was considered as unfinished 
business. Upon reporting the bill back to the House with the 
amendment specified in the motion to recommit, Chairman Gordon 
moved to divide the question of adoption of the amendment into 
each of its nine components. The question of adoption was 
divided and put to each portion of the amendment. Upon 
division, certain portions of the amendment passed and certain 
portions failed. The bill then passed, as amended, by: Y-262, 
N-150 (Roll Call No. 332).
    The bill was received in the Senate on June 29, 2010 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. On December 17, 2010, the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation was discharged of H.R. 
5116 by unanimous consent. On December 17, 2010, the bill was 
considered and passed the Senate, with an amendment, by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 17, 2010, message of the Senate's action was 
sent to the House. On December 21, 2010, Chairman Gordon moved 
that the House concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116, 
and the bill passed by: Y-228, N-130 (Roll Call No. 659). On 
December XX, 2010, the bill was signed by the President and 
became P.L. 111-XXX.

 1.8--P.L. 111-XXX, IKE SKELTON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                      FISCAL YEAR 2011 (H.R. 6523)

Background and Summary of Legislation
    P.L. 111-XXX, the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, authorizes the defense 
related activities of the United States, including the 
Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration at the Department of Energy.
    H.R. 6523 included several provisions within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology 
including: establishing a pilot program on collaborative energy 
security between the Department of Defense and the Department 
of Energy; modifications to defense procurement laws which also 
apply to NASA; an assessment and plan for critical rare earth 
materials; a limitation on use of authorized funds to cancel 
contracts related to the National Polar-Orbiting Operation 
Environmental Satellite System Program (NPOESS); preservation 
of the solid rocket motor industrial base; sustainment of the 
liquid rocket propulsion system industrial base; and, extension 
of certain transaction authority of the Secretary of Energy 
through 2015.
Legislative History
    H.R. 6523 was introduced by Armed Services Committee 
Chairman Ike Skelton on December 15, 2010, and the bill was 
referred to the Armed Services Committee and the Budget 
Committee. The bill was derivative of H.R. 5136, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. H.R. 5136 had 
previously passed the House, and in the course of that previous 
effort, the Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction 
over parts of the measure was acknowledged. Chairman Skelton 
also acknowledged the Committee on Science and Technology's 
jurisdiction over portions of H.R. 6523 in an exchange of 
correspondence.
    On December 17, the House suspended the rules and passed 
H.R. 6523, as amended, by: Y-341, N-48 (Roll Call No. 650). The 
bill was received in the Senate on December 17, 2010. On 
December 22, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 6523, with an 
amendment, by unanimous consent.
    The bill was received in the House on December 22, 2010, 
and passed the House by unanimous consent. On December XX, 
2010, the President signed the bill and it became Public Law 
111-XXX.
 Chapter II--Other Legislative Activities of the Committee on Science 
                             and Technology

  2.1--H.R. 445, HEAVY DUTY HYBRID VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                       DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 445 is to establish a research, 
development, demonstration, and commercial application program 
to promote research of appropriate technologies for heavy duty 
hybrid vehicles, and for other purposes.
    Large, heavy duty trucks that rely on a diesel or gasoline 
internal combustion engine for power typically have relatively 
low fuel economy and high emissions. This is especially evident 
in trucks with duty-cycles that include frequent starts and 
stops, long periods of engine idling, or addition power for 
auxiliary systems such as bucket lifters, trash compactors, 
off-board power tools, air conditioning, refrigeration, or 
other work-related equipment. Switching a portion of the 
driving and auxiliary power loads away from the internal 
combustion engine to an alternate power source would enable 
these vehicles to realize considerable fuel savings and 
emissions reductions compared to conventional models. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that an average 
delivery truck using a hybrid drive system could save 
approximately 1,000 gallons of diesel per year compared to one 
with a conventional drive system.
    Despite substantial investment in both the defense and 
commercial sectors, the cost of research and development and 
the final price of heavy duty hybrid vehicles remain 
prohibitively high, even for military applications. 
Consequently, there remain significant technical obstacles to 
development and final commercial application of these 
technologies that federally-sponsored R&D activities can help 
to overcome. Managing a comprehensive federal R&D program is 
complicated by the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all 
hybrid solution for the entire heavy duty vehicle sector. The 
power demands of heavy duty trucks are as varied as the 
applications. For example, through the course of an average 
drive cycle the charging and discharging of a hybrid system on 
a refuse truck with its frequent starts and stops, dumpster 
lifting, and trash compaction will be considerably different 
than that of a utility truck, which may idle in one place for 
several hours to operate a boom or other equipment. Class 8 
long haul tractor trailers present an even greater challenge 
they seldom brake enough to charge batteries through 
regenerative braking. The energy storage devices and related 
control systems may be altogether different for each of these 
platforms. Future generations of heavy trucks may also include 
plug-in hybrid electric models that can store more electric 
energy in larger banks of batteries and charge these batteries 
through direct connection to the electricity grid either while 
in operation on a jobsite or in a parking lot or garage.
    The majority of federal funding for hybrid vehicle R&D has 
focused on passenger vehicles which far outnumber heavy trucks. 
However, the federal R&D portfolio should address the 
significant potential for fuel savings and emissions reductions 
through improvements in the heavy duty vehicle sector, and take 
advantage of the ability of this sector to deploy new 
technologies more quickly. The Department of Energy (DOE) has 
funded limited research on the hybridization of trucks, most 
recently through the 21st Century Truck Partnership which 
conducts research and development through joint public and 
private efforts. Other federal agencies involved in the 21st 
Century Truck Partnership include the Department of Defense, 
the Department of Transportation, and EPA. DOE does not 
currently offer any competitive grants that target the 
development of technologies applicable for use in hybrid 
trucks.
    H.R. 445 directs the Secretary of DOE (Secretary) to 
establish a grant program for the development of advanced heavy 
duty hybrid vehicles. The bill gives the Secretary the 
discretion to award between three and seven grants based on the 
technical merits of the proposals received. At least half of 
the awarded grants must be for the development of plug-in 
hybrid trucks. H.R. 445 also directs the Secretary to conduct a 
study of alternative power train designs for use in advanced 
heavy duty hybrid vehicles. Grant applicants may include 
partnerships between manufacturers or electrical utilities in 
to conduct research authorized by the bill. Awards under H.R. 
445 will be for up to $3 million per year for three years. 
Appropriations are authorized for $16 million per year for 
fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
Legislative History
    On June 17, 2008, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment met to consider a Chairman's Mark of the ``Heavy 
Hybrid Truck Research and Development Act of 2008,'' a bill 
authored by Representative Sensenbrenner. An amendment offered 
by Ms. Biggert was agreed to by voice vote. The Subcommittee 
reported the Chairman's Mark, as amended, to the Committee on a 
voice vote.
    The Chairman's Mark, as reported by the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment, was introduced on June 19, 2008 as H.R. 
6323, the ``Heavy Hybrid Truck Research and Development Act of 
2008'' by Representative Sensenbrenner. The bill was referred 
to the Committee on Science and Technology.
    On July 16, 2008, the Committee met to consider H.R. 6323. 
An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Hall on behalf of Mr. Sensenbrenner was agreed 
to by voice vote. An amendment to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute offered by Mr. Reichert was agreed to by voice 
vote. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the bill, as 
amended, to the House. On September 16, 2008, the Committee 
reported H.R. 6323 to the House (H. Rept. 110-855). On 
September 24, 2008, the House agreed to suspend the rules and 
pass H.R. 6323 by voice vote.
    On October 2, 2008, H.R. 6323 was received in the Senate 
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
6323.
    On January 9, 2009, the bill was reintroduced in the House 
as H.R. 445, the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act of 2009, and referred to the 
House Committee on Science and Technology.
    The House considered the bill on suspension on September 9, 
2009 and passed the bill, as amended, by voice vote.
    The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. No other legislative actions was taken on 
H.R. 445.

         2.2--H.R. 469, PRODUCED WATER UTILIZATION ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    As the population of the United States increases, 
additional potable water supplies are required to sustain 
individuals, agricultural production, and industrial users, 
particularly in the Mountain West and desert Southwest. During 
the development of domestic energy sources, including coal-bed 
methane, oil, and natural gas, water may be extracted from 
underground sources and brought to the surface, often 
increasing energy production from subsurface geological 
formations in the process. Produced water frequently contains 
increased levels of potentially harmful dissolved solids, 
rendering much of the water non-potable and unsuitable for 
agricultural or industrial uses, and encouraging re-injection 
of the water to subsurface geological formations to safely 
dispose of it. This may lead to reduced production of domestic 
energy resources and increased costs to producers.
    The environmentally responsible surface utilization of 
produced water would increase water supply, reduce the amount 
of produced water returned to underground formations, and 
increase domestic energy production by reducing costs 
associated with re-injection of produced water to the 
subsurface. At a time when usable water supplies are more vital 
than ever to support our growing economy, safe and sustainable 
uses of produced water need to be researched and pursued, for 
human, agricultural and industrial uses. This legislation 
addresses environmental concerns, water use issues and energy 
production benefits.
    H.R. 469 directs the Secretary to establish a program of 
research, development, and demonstration of technologies for 
environmentally sustainable utilization of produced water for 
irrigational, municipal, and industrial uses, authorizing $20 
million each year for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The 
program addresses produced water recovery, produced water 
utilization and re-injection of produced water. The program 
also establishes a complementary R&D program at the appropriate 
DOE National Laboratory.
Legislative History
    On May 16, 2007, Representative Hall, Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Science and Technology, introduced the Produced 
Water Utilization Act of 2007 as H.R. 2339. The bill was 
referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. The 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 
2339 on May 6, 2008. Representative Hall offered an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, which was agreed to by voice 
vote. The bill, as amended, was reported favorably to the 
Committee by voice vote.
    The Committee met to consider H.R. 2339 on July 16, 2008. 
No amendments were offered. The Committee voted by voice vote 
to report the bill, as amended in Subcommittee, to the House. 
On July 30, 2008, the Committee reported H.R. 2339 to the House 
(H. Rept. 2339). On July 30, 2008, the House suspended the 
rules and passed H.R. 2339 by voice vote.
    On July 31, 2008, H.R. 2339 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
    On January 13, 2009 the bill was reintroduced in the House 
as H.R. 469, the Produced Water Utilization Act of 2009, by 
Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX). On February 11, 2009, the 
House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 469 by voice vote.
    On February 12, 2009 the bill was received in the Senate 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 469.

       2.3--H.R. 549, THE NATIONAL BOMBING PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    Explosives are one of the most commonly used terrorist 
weapons worldwide. A National strategy is needed to deal with 
this threat. Many agencies within the Federal Government play a 
role in prevention and detection of, protection against, and 
response to terrorist use of explosives. It is important to 
designate an overall coordinator for this mission. This 
legislation authorizes in statute the Office of Bombing 
Prevention within the Department of Homeland Security for this 
purpose. The purpose of H.R. 549 is to amend the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 to establish the Office for Bombing 
Prevention, to address terrorist explosive threats, and for 
other purposes.
Legislative History
    The bill was introduced as H.R. 4749, the National Bombing 
Prevention Act of 2008 by Representative Peter King (R-NY) on 
December 17, 2007 and referred to the House Committee on 
Homeland Security.
    The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on 
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection met to 
consider the bill on May 1, 2008 and discharged the bill on May 
20, 2008. The full Committee on Homeland Security met to 
consider the bill on May 20, 2008 and ordered the bill to be 
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On June 16, 2008 Chairman Gordon of the House Science and 
Technology Committee and Chairman Thompson of the House 
Committee on Homeland Security exchanged correspondence in 
which the House Committee on Homeland Security acknowledged the 
House Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction over 
the bill, H.R. 549, and Chairman Gordon waived a referral of 
the bill.
    On June 18, 2008 the bill was reported to the House, as 
amended, by the Committee on Homeland Security (H. Rept. 110-
689). On June 18, 2008, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 4749 by voice vote.
    On June 19, 2008, the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
    On January 15, 2009, the bill was reintroduced by 
Representative Thompson as H.R. 549, the National Bombing 
Prevention Act of 2009, and referred to the House Committee on 
Homeland Security.
    On February 3, 2009, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 549 by voice vote.
    On February 4, 2009 the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 549.

  2.4--H.R. 554, NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 
                                  2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The Science and Technology Committee was instrumental in 
the development and enactment of the 21st Century 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
153), which authorizes the interagency National Nanotechnology 
Initiative (NNI). The 2003 statute put in place formal 
interagency planning, budgeting, and coordinating mechanisms 
for NNI. The National Science and Technology Council, through 
the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) 
Subcommittee, plans and coordinates the NNI, and the National 
Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides technical 
and administrative support to the NSET.
    There are twenty-six federal agencies that participate in 
the NNI, with 13 of those agencies reporting a nanotechnology 
research and development budget. The total estimated NNI budget 
for fiscal year 2008 is $1.49 billion. P.L. 108-153 also 
provides for formal reviews of the content and management of 
the program by the National Academy of Sciences and by the NNI 
Advisory Panel, a statutorily created advisory committee of 
non-government experts. These reviews have found that the 
coordination and planning processes among the participating 
agencies in the NNI are largely effective.
    The NNI supports productive, cooperative research efforts 
across a spectrum of disciplines, and it is establishing a 
network of national facilities for support of nanoscale 
research and development. However, the formal reviews by 
external experts noted above, as well as the findings of the 
Committee's oversight hearings on the NNI, have identified 
aspects of the interagency program that could be strengthened 
and improved. These areas are environmental, health and safety 
research; technology transfer and the fostering of 
commercialization of research results; and educational 
activities.
    The purpose of H.R. 554 is to improve the content and 
various aspects of the planning and coordination of the 
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). This includes 
provisions to strengthen the planning and implementation of the 
environment, health, and safety research component of the NNI; 
to increase emphasis on nanomanufacturing research, technology 
transfer, and commercialization of research results flowing 
from the program; to create a new NNI component of focused, 
large-scale research and development projects in areas of 
national importance; and to enhance support for K-16 
nanotechnology-related education programs.
Legislative History
    On May 1, 2008, Representative Gordon, Chairman of the 
Committee on Science and Technology introduced the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 as H.R. 5940. 
H.R. 5940 was referred to the Committee on Science and 
Technology.
    The Committee met to consider H.R. 5940 on May 7, 2008. An 
amendment offered by Representative Johnson and an amendment 
offered by Representative Baird were adopted by separate voice 
votes. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the bill, as 
amended, to the House. On June 4, 2008, the Committee reported 
H.R. 5940 to the House (H. Rept. 110-682). On June 5, 2008, the 
House agreed to a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 
5940 by a recorded vote of 407-6.
    On June 6, 2008, H.R. 5940 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On January 15, 2009, H.R. 5940 was reintroduced as H.R. 
554, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 
2009 by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) and referred to the 
House Committee on Science and Technology. The House considered 
the bill on suspension on February 11, 2009 and passed the bill 
by voice vote.
    H.R. 554 was received in the Senate on February 12, 2009 
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
554. However, H.R. 554 also passed the House as part of H.R. 
5116 (see Chapter I for further information). This portion of 
H.R. 5116 was stricken by the Senate before enactment.

 2.5--H.R. 631, WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION RESEARCH ACT OF 
                                  2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    Drought and recent water shortages in several regions of 
the United States have increased concern about water supply at 
all levels of government. Since 1950, the United States 
population has increased nearly 90 percent. In that same 
period, public demand for water has increased 209 percent. 
Thirty six states are anticipating local, regional, or 
statewide water shortages by 2013. Some states are already in 
the middle of a severe drought.
    Although some water efficiency strategies require an 
initial capital investment, in the long run, conserving water 
provides significant cost savings for water and wastewater 
systems. Water efficiency and re-use programs help systems 
avoid, downsize, and postpone expensive infrastructure 
projects, by developing new water supplies.
    In conjunction with its statutory responsibilities to 
ensure water quality under the Clean Water Act and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, EPA has a program of research and 
development on water treatment technologies, health effects of 
water pollutants, security from deliberate contamination, and 
watershed protection. Current annual funding for these 
activities is approximately $50 million. EPA currently has no 
research and development effort that addresses water supply, 
water-use efficiency or conservation.
    H.R. 631 establishes a research and development program 
within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research 
and Development (ORD) to promote water use efficiency and 
conservation. The research program includes the development of 
technologies and processes to expand water supplies through 
storage, treatment, and reuse of rainwater, stormwater, and 
greywater; research on water storage and distribution systems; 
research on behavioral, social, and economic barriers to 
achieving greater water efficiency; and research on the use of 
watershed planning.
Legislative History
    On October 24, 2007, Representative Matheson introduced 
H.R. 3957. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science 
and Technology.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider 
H.R. 3957 on May 6, 2008. No amendments were offered. The 
Subcommittee voted to report the measure to the Committee by 
voice vote.
    The Committee met to consider H.R. 3957 on July 16, 2008. 
Representative Matheson offered a manager's amendment to make 
technical corrections to the bill and the amendment was adopted 
by voice vote. Representative Johnson offered an amendment 
which was adopted by voice vote. Representative Gingrey offered 
an amendment which was also adopted by voice vote. Finally, an 
amendment offered by Representative Giffords was adopted by 
voice vote. The Committee voted to report the measure, as 
amended, to the House by voice vote. On July 30, 2008, the 
Committee reported H.R. 3957 to the House (H. Rept. 110-802). 
On July 30, 2008, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 
3957 by voice vote.
    On July 31, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
    On January 22, 2009, the bill was reintroduced to the House 
by Representative Matheson as H.R. 631, the Water Use 
Efficiency and Conservation Research Act of 2009 and referred 
to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
    On February 11, 2009, the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 631 by voice vote.
    On February 12, 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 631.

             2.6--H.R. 915, FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 915, authorized 
appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for 
fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to improve aviation safety and 
capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation 
system, and for other purposes. H.R. 915 would authorize almost 
$54 billion for FAA programs over three years. The bill raised 
fuel taxes for corporate jets and other general aviation 
aircraft, but kept fuel taxes paid by the airlines and 
passengers' taxes at their current rates. The bill allowed 
airports to increase passenger facility charges, raising the 
maximum from $4.50 to $7 per passenger. The bill increased 
authorized spending for facilities and equipment to support 
development of Next Generation air traffic modernization 
initiatives, and authorized increased funding for airport 
infrastructure improvement grants. The bill modified FAA 
management and oversight of Next Generation air traffic 
modernization projects, and included provisions addressing 
system capacity, aviation safety, environmental issues, and 
airline industry issues, including airline passenger rights 
issues.
Legislative History
    Representative James Oberstar introduced H.R. 915 on 
February 9, 2009. H.R. 915 was referred to the House Committee 
on Science and Technology and the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
    On May 19, 2009 the Committee on Science and Technology 
discharged the bill. On May 19, 2009 the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure reported the bill to the full 
house (H. Rept. 111-119).
    On May 21, 2009 the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure submitted a supplemental report to the full 
house. Representative Oberstar offered an amendment, which was 
passed by voice vote. Representative Lee offered an amendment, 
which was passed by voice vote. Representative Richardson 
offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Cueller offered an amendment, which was passed 
by voice vote. Representative Cassidy offered an amendment, 
which was passed by voice vote. Representative Murphy offered 
an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative 
Kilroy offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Lowey offered an amendment, which was passed by 
voice vote. Representative Ackerman offered an amendment, which 
was passed by voice vote. Representative Burgess offered an 
amendment, which was passed by a recorded vote of 420-0 (Roll 
Call No. 288). Representative McCaul offered an amendment, 
which was passed by a recorded vote of 417-2 (Roll Call No. 
289). The bill was passed, as amended by a recorded vote of 
277-136 (Roll Call No. 291).
    On June 1, 2009 the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
915.

           2.7--H.R. 957, GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION ACT OF 2009

Background and Legislative History
    H.R. 957 addresses a significant opportunity for energy 
savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions: energy 
consumption in buildings. According to Department of Energy 
(DOE) 2003 statistics, buildings consume more energy than any 
other sector of the economy, including industrial processes and 
transportation. Buildings consume 39 percent of primary energy 
in the United States and 70 percent of electricity. Innovations 
in high-performance building technologies, materials, 
techniques and systems, combined with advances in photovoltaic 
and other distributed clean energy technologies, have the 
potential to dramatically transform the pattern of energy 
consumption associated with buildings. These building systems 
and components--coupled with a whole building approach that 
optimizes the interactions among building systems and 
components--enable buildings to use considerably less energy, 
while also helping to meet national goals for sustainable 
development, environmental protection, and energy security. 
Achieving this depends on architects, engineers, contractors 
and other buildings professionals working together from the 
earliest stages of planning.
    H.R. 1716 provides interdisciplinary education and training 
in high-performance building design and construction to the 
next generation of architects and engineers. The purpose of 
this bill is to authorize higher education curriculum 
development and graduate training in advanced energy and green 
building technologies.
Legislative History
    On March 27, 2007, Representative McCaul introduced the 
bill as H.R. 1716, the Green Energy Education Act of 2007. The 
bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
    On May 23, 2007, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1716. 
An amendment offered by Representative McCaul was adopted by 
voice vote. The Committee voted by voice vote to report the 
bill, as amended, to the House. On June 5, 2007, the Committee 
reported H.R. 1716 to the House (H. Rept. 110-173). On June 6, 
2007, the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1716 by a 
recorded vote of 416-0.
    On June 7, 2007, the bill was received in the Senate, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No 
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 1716.
    On February 10, 2009, the bill was reintroduced to the 
House by Representative McCaul as H.R. 957, the Green Energy 
Education Act of 2009, and referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology.
    On April 22, 2009, the House suspended the rules and passed 
H.R. 957 by a recorded vote of Y-277, N-136 (Roll Call No. 
199).
    On February 12, 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On December 8, 2009 
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a 
hearing on the bill. No further legislative action was taken on 
H.R. 957. However, H.R. 957 also passed the House as part of 
H.R. 5116 (see Chapter I for further information). This 
provision was stricken by the Senate prior to enactment of H.R. 
5116.

2.8--H.R. 1145, NATIONAL WATER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE ACT 
                                OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 1145 is to authorize a National Water 
Research and Development Initiative to coordinate the Federal 
Government's efforts in research, development, demonstration, 
data collection and dissemination, education, and technology 
transfer related to water resources.
    Water policy in the United States remains essentially 
unchanged despite a myriad of reports recommending broad 
changes to address dwindling water supplies. Multi-year 
droughts continue to plague regions and states around the 
country, including the Southeast, Texas, and California. For 
many municipalities, intense competition for water and 
diminished supplies will force local water agencies to make 
tough decisions on water allocations including implementation 
of restrictions to protect essential ecosystem services. 
Droughts, changing patterns of precipitation and snowmelt, and 
increased water loss due to evaporation as a result of warmer 
air temperatures are indicators that climate variability and 
climate change have impacts that are being felt across the 
United States.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 
latest report projects that water supplies stored in glaciers 
and snow cover will decline in the course of the century, thus 
reducing water availability in regions supplied by melt water 
from major mountain ranges. The United States' water supply 
cannot support future populations at its current rate of 
consumption. The country's population has increased from five 
million citizens in the 19th century to over 300 million today, 
and it continues to grow at a rate of roughly one percent 
annually. Available surface water supplies have not increased 
in the United States since the 1990s, and groundwater tables 
are continuing to decline.
    These water supply problems have substantial economic 
impacts. According to a 2000 report from the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), each of the eight water 
shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat waves 
resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. Further, an 
adequate supply of water is integral to industry. Water 
shortages contribute to reductions in job creation and 
retention, and increased water demand results in increased 
costs to businesses. Available water supplies are decreasing in 
the face of increasing demand. This problem necessitates that 
the federal government establish a comprehensive strategy for 
research and development to ensure a sustainable water supply.
    Currently, over 20 federal agencies carry out research and 
development on some aspect of water supply, water quality or 
water management. The National Academies of Science surveyed 
these agencies for a 2004 study and, based upon the responses, 
estimated approximately $700 million in federal expenditures on 
water research. Despite this investment, an increase in the 
number of water shortages and emerging conflicts over water 
supplies suggest that we are inadequately prepared to address 
the nation's water management issues. Quantitative knowledge of 
water supply in the United States is currently inadequate. 
Accurate and timely data on water resources and variations in 
water supplies over time is essential to effectively manage 
water supplies.
    Accordingly, a national initiative coordinating federal 
water research is necessary to ensure that the United States 
maintains adequate water supplies in the coming decades. H.R. 
1145 seeks to improve the Federal Government's efforts in water 
research, development, demonstration, data collection and 
dissemination, education, and technology transfer activities to 
address changes in water use, supply, and demand in the United 
States.
    The bill codifies the Interagency Committee created in 
2003, the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) 
of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on 
Environment and Natural Resources. SWAQ was created to identify 
science and technology needs to address the growing issues 
related to freshwater supplies, to develop a coordinated 
multiyear plan to improve research on water supply and water 
quality, and to enhance the collection and availability of data 
needed to ensure an adequate water supply for the nation. H.R. 
1145 incorporates suggestions in the NAS's 2004 report that are 
intended to strengthen the Committee. By strengthening the SWAQ 
and providing it explicit Congressional authorization, the 
recommendations of the 2007 SWAQ report will receive due 
consideration and form the foundation of a national strategy to 
ensure that the United States has a sustainable water supply.
Legislative History
    On September 23, 2008 Committee Chairman Bart Gordon 
introduced H.R. 6997, the National Water Research and 
Development Initiative Act, which was referred to the Committee 
on Science and Technology. On February 24, 2009, Chairman 
Gordon reintroduced the legislation in the 111th Congress as 
H.R. 1145, and the bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology.
    On March 25, 2009, the Committee met to consider H.R. 1145, 
the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act. Mr. 
Baird moved that the Committee favorably report H.R. 1145, as 
amended, to the House. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
    The bill was reported to the House on April 21, 2009 (H. 
Rept. 111-76). On April 23, 2009 the House considered H.R. 
1145. Representative Gordon offered two amendments, 
Representative Hastings offered an amendment, Representative 
Cardoza offered an amendment, Representative Arcuri offered an 
amendment, Representative Kirk offered an amendment, 
Representative Blumenauer offered an amendment, Representative 
Moore offered an amendment, and Representative Brown-Waite 
offered an amendment, each of which were agreed to by voice 
vote. Representative Kosmas offered an amendment which was 
agreed to by a recorded vote of 424-0 (Roll Call No. 200). 
Representative Teague offered an amendment which was agreed to 
by a recorded vote of 423-1 (Roll Call No. 201). Representative 
Roskam offered an amendment which failed by a recorded vote of 
194-236 (Roll Call No. 202). Representative Shadegg offered an 
amendment which failed by a recorded vote of 160-271 (Roll Call 
No. 203). H.R. 1145 was passed in the House, as amended, on 
April 23, 2009 with a vote of 413-10 (Roll Call No. 205).
    On April 23, 2009, the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. No 
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 1145.

     2.9--H.R. 1580, ELECTRONIC WASTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The growing number of unwanted televisions, computers, cell 
phones, monitors, and other electronic devices ready for 
discard is a growing problem in the United States and 
worldwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated 
that between 1980 and 2004, 2 billion electronic products were 
sold in the U.S. Of these, it estimated about half were still 
in use, while 42 percent were discarded. Further estimates 
revealed that only 11 percent of those discarded devices 
reached recyclers. Most were disposed of in landfills.
    Electronics recycling is increasing in the United States, 
but the industry faces a number of challenges. These challenges 
include convincing consumers to recycle, the logistics of 
collecting unwanted electronic devices, efficiently 
disassembling products, safely removing hazardous substances, 
efficiently processing materials, and recovering value from all 
of the materials found in the electronic devices.
    The design of electronic products could also aid in making 
recycling more cost efficient. Many products are difficult to 
disassemble and the location of hazardous materials varies 
(i.e., mercury lamps in some flat panel displays). Greater use 
of materials recycled from old electronics in the manufacturing 
of new products would help make recycling more profitable.
    Scores of different chemicals and materials comprise 
computers, televisions, cell phones and other electronics. Some 
of the substances used in electronics, like lead and hexavalent 
chromium, have raised enough health and environmental concerns 
that the European Union adopted a measure to ban their use in 
electronics products sold in Europe. Manufacturers have been 
able to comply with these requirements for most consumer 
electronics, but the process to ban substances sensitive to the 
environment and human health is on-going. Comprehensive data on 
the physical properties of substitutes for harmful materials 
would enable electronics designers to change their products 
more quickly in response to concerns raised about different 
materials. The availability of this type of comprehensive data, 
provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
enabled manufacturers to quickly meet the challenge of 
eliminating ozone-layer depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 
from their products in the 1980s.
    Increasing the amount of electronics sent to responsible 
recyclers is essential to reducing the impacts of electronic 
device disposal. Of equal importance, though, is prolonging the 
use, and re-use, of these devices. Estimates of the total 
amount of energy required over a computer's lifecycle show that 
roughly 80 percent goes into the computer's production phase, 
and only 20 percent into the use phase. Extending the amount of 
time a product is in use could not only reduce the volume of 
discarded electronic devices, but also lessen the impact of the 
production of these complex and sophisticated products on the 
environment. Consumers are often wary of purchasing used 
electronics because they are unsure of a used product's value 
or they are afraid it will not meet their needs. Developing re-
use markets that aid consumers in evaluating used devices could 
help keep these devices in the hands of consumers for a longer 
period of time. Prolonging a device's use could also be 
accomplished by developing ways for consumers to easily upgrade 
their current products. Consumers need to be better educated 
about electronics recycling. In addition, the training of 
current and future engineers, and others in the fields of 
electronics production and recycling could be improved to 
incorporate environmental considerations in to the design of 
electronics and the practice of recycling.
    The purpose of H.R. 1580 is to authorize the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to award grants to 
reduce the volume of discarded electronic products in the 
United States through research, development, and demonstration 
projects for product design, recycling and re-use. H.R. 1580 
requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to award multiyear grants through a competitive, 
merit-based process. The grants are to conduct research to 
create innovative and practical approaches to manage the 
environmental impacts of electronic devices through recycling, 
reuse, reduction of the use of hazardous materials, and life-
cycle extension; and through such research, to contribute to 
the professional development of scientists, engineers, and 
technicians in the fields of electronic device manufacturing, 
design, refurbishing, and recycling.
    The Administrator is also required to enter into an 
arrangement for the National Academy of Sciences to report to 
Congress on opportunities for, and barriers to, increasing the 
recyclability of electronic devices and making electronic 
devises safer and more environmentally friendly, the risks 
posed by the storage, transport, recycling, and disposal of 
unwanted electronic devices, the current status of research and 
training programs to promote the environmental design of 
electronic devices to increase the recyclability of such 
devices, and regulatory or statutory barriers that may prevent 
the adoption or implementation of best management practices or 
technological innovations that may arise from the research and 
training programs established by the bill.
    Additionally, H.R. 1580 requires the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
establish an initiative to develop a comprehensive physical 
property database for environmentally friendly alternative 
materials for use in electronic devices and develop a strategic 
plan to establish priorities and physical property 
characterization requirements for the database.
Legislative History
    Representative Bart Gordon introduced H.R. 1580, the 
Electronic Waste Research and Development Act, on March 18, 
2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Science 
and Technology on March 18, 2009. The bill was reported to the 
House on April 21, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-75). On April 23, 2009 
the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1580 by voice 
vote.
    On April 23, 2009 the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1580.

2.10--H.R. 1622, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROGRAM OF RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                 DEMONSTRATION ON NATURAL GAS VEHICLES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    Natural gas vehicles have the potential to address 
important energy security and environmental issues. While the 
United States imports the majority of the petroleum it uses, 
most natural gas is domestically produced. As a result, 
increased use of natural gas vehicles may reduce dependence on 
foreign oil imports and promote U.S. energy security. In 
addition, natural gas vehicles, in general, have lower 
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline vehicles.
    The Energy Information Administration estimates that there 
were roughly 116,000 compressed natural gas vehicles in the 
United States in 2006, and roughly 3,000 liquefied natural gas 
vehicles. Roughly two-thirds of natural gas vehicles are light-
duty (i.e., passenger) vehicles. This compares to roughly 230 
million conventional (mostly gasoline) light-duty vehicles. 
Furthermore, of the roughly 16.5 million new light-duty 
vehicles sold in 2006, only about 2,000 (0.01%) were natural 
gas vehicles.
    The Vehicle Technologies program at the Department of 
Energy funds a wide range of research activities on passenger 
vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. The program's mission is to 
`develop `leap frog' technologies that will provide Americans 
with greater freedom of mobility and energy security, while 
lowering costs and reducing impacts on the environment.' The 
Department of Energy is currently addressing these research 
needs through two public-private research programs: the 21st 
Century Truck Partnership, which conducts research and 
development through collaborations with the heavy-duty trucking 
industry, and the FreedomCar and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative 
programs which examine the pre-competitive, high-risk research 
needed to develop technologies that will apply to a range of 
affordable cars and light trucks. Though the Department has 
funded natural gas vehicle R&D in the past there are currently 
no activities in this area.
    The purpose of H.R. 1622 is to provide for a program of 
research, development, and demonstration on natural gas 
vehicles and related technologies. The bill directs the 
Secretary of Energy to conduct a five-year program of natural 
gas vehicle research, development, and demonstration, 
coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) regarding such program, coordinate with 
the natural gas vehicle industry to ensure cooperation between 
the public and the private sector, and report to Congress on 
implementing such program.
Legislative History
    Representative John Sullivan introduced H.R. 1622 on March, 
19, 2009. On June 16, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment reviewed the bill. On June 24, 2009 the Committee 
on Science and Technology met to consider the bill. The bill 
was reported to the House on July 14, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-206). 
On July 21, 2009 the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 
1580 by a recorded vote of 393-35 (Roll Call No. 598).
    On July 22, 2009 the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1622.

        2.11--H.R. 1709, STEM EDUCATION COORDINATION ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The purpose of this bill is to establish a committee 
through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 
within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), to 
coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
education.
    A consensus exists that improving STEM education across the 
United States is a necessary condition for preserving the 
Nation's capacity for innovation and discovery and for ensuring 
the Nation's economic strength and competitiveness. A variety 
of STEM education programs and activities exist for K-16 
students at the federal research and development (R&D) 
agencies, which include: the National Science Foundation, the 
National Aeronautics & Space Administration, the National 
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of 
Health.
    For the most part, agencies have developed their programs 
independently rather than sharing `best practices' and 
collaborating across agencies. Each program has also developed 
its own methods and criteria for evaluation, making a 
comparison of effectiveness across the programs impossible. 
This is often the case even within agencies, where there 
appears to be little communication between different offices 
and directorates, each of which may manage their own STEM 
education programs. Finally, the agencies have at times had 
trouble building widespread awareness of their programs among 
teachers and other practitioners.
    In 2006, the Department of Education, through the American 
Competitiveness Council (ACC), launched a year-long review of 
federal STEM education programs. The ACC process identified 105 
federal STEM education programs, across all levels, totaling 
$3.12 billion in federal funding. Agencies submitted a total of 
115 evaluations for those programs. Only 10 of the evaluations 
were determined to be scientifically rigorous and only four of 
them led the ACC to conclude that the educational activity 
evaluated had a meaningful positive impact. The ACC concluded, 
that, `despite decades of significant federal investment in 
science and math education, there is a general dearth of 
evidence of effective practices and activities in STEM 
education.'
    In its May 2007 report, the ACC made six key 
recommendations: 1) The government should maintain and update 
regularly an inventory of federal STEM education programs, 
including goals and metrics, to facilitate stronger interagency 
coordination; 2) Agencies and the federal government at large 
should foster knowledge of effective practices through improved 
evaluation and implementation of proven effective, research-
based instructional materials and methods; 3) Federal agencies 
should improve the coordination of their K-12 STEM education 
programs with states and local school systems; 4) Federal 
agencies should adjust program designs and operations so that 
programs can be assessed and measurable results can be 
achieved, consistent with STEM education program goals; 5) 
Funding for federal STEM education programs designed to improve 
STEM education outcomes should not increase unless a plan for 
rigorous, independent evaluation is in place, appropriate to 
the types of activities funded; and 6) Agencies with STEM 
education programs should collaborate on implementation of ACC 
recommendations under the auspices of the NSTC.
    In October 2007, the National Science Board (NSB) released 
its own report, `A National Action Plan for Addressing the 
Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, 
and Mathematics Education System.' A key recommendation of the 
NSB action plan was the creation of a committee on STEM 
Education, under NSTC, responsible for coordinating STEM 
education programs across federal R&D agencies and the 
Department of Education. Similarly, many of the witnesses at 
the Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearings held 
in the 110th Congress testified that there is a need for 
improved coordination among the agencies regarding their STEM 
education efforts in order to better communicate best practices 
and eliminate inefficiencies. Even though an NSTC subcommittee 
on education and workforce does currently exist, the ACC and 
NSB reviews and the Subcommittee hearings demonstrated that 
current efforts are far from sufficient to ensure a meaningful 
federal investment in STEM education.
    H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009, 
requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 
through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), to 
establish a committee to coordinate federal programs and 
activities in support of STEM education. In addition, the bill 
requires this committee to develop a STEM education strategic 
plan to inform program and budget planning for agencies and to 
establish and maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM 
education activities, including documentation on program 
assessments and participation by minorities. Finally, H.R. 1709 
requires the Director of OSTP to submit an annual report to 
Congress including a description and level of funding of the 
STEM education programs and activities of each participating 
Federal agency for the previous and current fiscal years.
Legislative History
    On March 25, 2009, Representative Bart Gordon introduced 
H.R. 1709. The bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology and the House Committee on Education and 
Labor. On March 26, the bill was referred to the Research and 
Science Education Subcommittee. On March 31, 2009, the 
Committee on Science and Technology met to consider H.R. 1709. 
The bill was reported to the House on June 2, 2009 (H. Rept. 
111-130). On June 8, 2009 the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 1709 by a recorded vote of 353-39 (Roll Call No. 
312).
    On June 8, 2009, H.R. 1790 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1790. However, H.R. 1709 
also passed the House as a component of H.R. 5116. This 
provision was ultimately enacted (see Chapter I for further 
information on H.R. 5116).

 2.12--H.R. 1736, THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION 
                              ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The purpose of this bill is to provide for the 
establishment of a committee under the National Science and 
Technology Council to identify and coordinate international 
science and technology research and training partnerships that 
can strengthen the U.S. science and technology enterprise, 
improve economic and national security, and support U.S. 
foreign policy goals.
    In 2008, the National Science Board (NSB) issued a report, 
`International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority 
for U.S. Foreign Policy and our Nation's Innovation Agenda,' in 
which the Board made a series of recommendations for increased 
coherence and coordination of federally sponsored international 
science and engineering activities that serve both a domestic 
mission and a foreign policy mission.
    In particular, the NSB called on the White House Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to take a more active and 
prominent role both in setting federal priorities for 
international science and engineering cooperation and in 
coordinating efforts across agencies, including by 
reestablishing a Committee on International Science, 
Engineering and Technology (CISET) under the National Science 
and Technology Council (NSTC). Such a Committee existed in the 
1990's under the Clinton Administration.
    CISET's mandate was not defined within any particular area 
of science and technology (S&T). Rather, CISET's role was to 
review the wide range of bilateral and multilateral 
international scientific programs carried out by the technical 
agencies in the U.S. Government, and to identify opportunities 
for international cooperation and interagency coordination in 
response to new needs and opportunities. In particular, CISET 
was charged to: identify, and coordinate international 
cooperation that can strengthen the domestic S&T enterprise and 
promote U.S. economic competitiveness and national security; 
utilize American leadership in S&T to address global issues and 
to support the post-Cold War tenets of U.S. foreign policy--
promoting democracy, maintaining peace, and fostering economic 
growth and sustainable development; and coordinate the 
international aspects of federal R&D funding across the Federal 
agencies.
    The Bush Administration OSTP disbanded CISET in 2001. Dr. 
Marburger, former Director of OSTP, explained in his testimony 
before the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in 2008 
that his approach to coordinating international S&T 
partnerships was to draw together agencies in meetings focused 
on specific science topics such as nanotechnology or genomics, 
or on specific countries such as China or Brazil. The former 
meetings occur naturally in the NSTC context, the latter occur 
on the schedule of high-level bilateral commission meetings to 
review progress under the S&T agreements. But many other 
experts, including all of the witnesses at the March 24, 2009 
hearing before the Subcommittee, argued that significant 
opportunities are missed by this ad hoc approach to 
international S&T cooperation, especially opportunities at the 
intersection of science and diplomacy. The witnesses at the 
March 2009 hearing agreed that a reconstituted CISET could 
serve an important role in ensuring that the international 
component of the national R&D agenda is sufficiently addressed 
and in helping to bring S&T to bear on our foreign policy 
goals.
    H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology 
Cooperation Act of 2009, requires the establishment of a 
committee under the National Science and Technology Council 
with the responsibility to identify and coordinate 
international science and technology cooperation that can 
strengthen the U.S. S&T enterprise, improve economic and 
national security, and support U.S. foreign policy goals. 
Furthermore, the bill requires that the committee report to 
Congress annually on its activities.
Legislative History
    Representative Brian Baird introduced H.R. 1736 on March 
26, 2009. H.R. 1736 was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology, and subsequently referred to the 
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education on March 26, 
2009. On April 29, 2009, the Committee on Science and 
Technology met to consider the bill. The bill was reported to 
the House on May 21, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-128). On June 8, 2009 
the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 1736 by a 
recorded vote of 341-52 (Roll Call No. 311).
    On June 9, 2009, H.R. 1736 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 1736.

  2.13--H.R. 2020, NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND 
                        DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the planning and 
coordination mechanisms of the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program and to 
update the research content of the program. The legislation 
implements a number of recommendations made in a recent 
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 
(PCAST) assessment of the program.
    Over the past 50 years, advances in networking and 
information technology (NIT) such as the internet and wireless 
communication technologies have permeated society and 
contributed significantly to the growth of the U.S. economy. 
Breakthroughs in the coming decades are expected to lead to a 
more reliable and secure internet, personalized health 
monitoring, and increased transportation safety and efficiency. 
Advances in networking and information technologies and their 
anticipated benefits are built upon a strong foundation of 
research and development (R&D).
    The NITRD program, originally authorized in the High 
Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), is a multi-
agency research effort to accelerate progress in the 
advancement of computing and networking technologies and to 
support leading edge computational research in a range of 
science and engineering fields. The 1991 statute established a 
set of mechanisms and procedures to provide for interagency 
planning, coordination, and budgeting of R&D activities carried 
out under the program.
    The NITRD Subcommittee of the National Science and 
Technology Council (NSTC) is the working body for interagency 
planning and coordination and includes representatives from 
each of the participating NITRD agencies as well as the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP). In the current fiscal year (FY 2009), 
13 Federal agencies are full participants in the NITRD program 
and requested a total budget of $3.55 billion, an increase of 
$0.21 billion or approximately 6 percent over the FY 2008 level 
of $3.34 billion. Additional agencies participate in the 
planning activities of the NITRD program, but do not report 
their funding levels or contribute to the operating budget of 
the National Coordination Office (NCO). The NCO provides staff 
support for the NITRD Subcommittee and the program's Advisory 
Committee and serves as the public interface for the program. 
Currently, the NITRD program is divided into eight major 
research components: Cyber Security and Information Assurance; 
High End Computing Infrastructure and Applications; High End 
Computing Research and Development; Human Computer Interaction 
and Information Management; High Confidence Software and 
Systems; Large Scale Networking; Software Design and 
Productivity; and Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications 
of IT.
    In August 2007, PCAST completed an assessment of the NITRD 
program and issued a report entitled, Leadership Under 
Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive World. 
The report indicates that while the U.S. remains the global 
leader in NIT, several countries, including China and India, 
are investing heavily in R&D and higher education. PCAST found 
that while the NITRD program has been effective at addressing 
the IT needs of the Federal agencies and the Nation, a number 
of changes are necessary to guarantee continued U.S. leadership 
in networking and information technology.
    The Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development Act of 2009, H.R. 2020, requires the development 
and periodic update of a strategic plan for the NITRD program 
which specifies near-term and long-term objectives, and the 
timeframe and metrics for achieving those objectives, 
authorizes NITRD agencies to support large-scale, long-term, 
interdisciplinary research in areas of national importance, 
requires the NCO Director to convene a task force, with 
representatives from universities, industries, and federal 
laboratories, to explore mechanisms for carrying out 
collaborative research and development activities for cyber-
physical systems, formally establishes the NCO, delineates the 
office's responsibilities, mandates annual operating budgets, 
specifies the source of funding for the office (consistent with 
current practice), and stresses the role of the NCO in 
developing the strategic plan and in public outreach and 
communication with outside communities of interest.
Legislative History
    On April 22, 2009, Representative Bart Gordon introduced 
H.R. 2020. H.R. 2020 was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology. On April 29, 2009, the Committee on 
Science and Technology met to consider the bill. The bill was 
reported to the House on May 12, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-102). On 
May 12, 2009 the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 2020 
by voice vote.
    On May 13, 2009, H.R. 2020 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2020. However, H.R. 2020 
also passed the House as a component of H.R. 5116 (see Chapter 
I for more information on this bill). This provision was 
stricken from the bill by the Senate prior to enactment.

         2.14--H.R. 2407, NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE ACT OF 2009

Background and Need for Legislation
    On February 8, 2010, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke 
announced the Department's intent to create a National Climate 
Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA). H.R. 2407, the National Climate Service Act of 2009, 
proposes to better integrate NOAA's climate activities and to 
make them more accessible. The proposed NOAA Climate Service 
would have equivalent organizational standing with NOAA's other 
divisional structures, such as the National Weather Service, 
the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    H.R. 2407 defines the activities to be undertaken by NOAA 
to serve three primary purposes: (1) advance understanding of 
climate variability and change at all geographic scales; (2) 
provide forecasts, warnings, and information to the public on 
climate variability and change and its effects on the public; 
(3) and support development of adaptation and response plans by 
Federal agencies; State, local and tribal governments, the 
private sector and the public.
    H.R. 2407, among other things, requires the interagency 
development of a National Climate Service, addresses the 
internal operational structure of the Climate Service Program, 
requires the establishment of a Climate Service Advisory 
Committee and at least two Subcommittees, repeals the National 
Climate Program Act of 1978, establishes regional integrated 
sciences and assessments teams, and requires a survey of 
current and future climate services needs, and includes an 
implementation plan for the National Climate Service. Nothing 
in H.R. 2407 authorizes the National Climate Service or NOAA's 
Climate Service Program to require state, tribal, or local 
governments to develop adaptation or response plans or to take 
other actions that could increase the financial burdens of 
those governmental entities.
Legislative History
    H.R. 2407 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on 
May 14, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Science and 
Technology. The Committee met to consider the bill on June 3, 
2009. H.R. 2407 was ordered to be reported, as amended, by a 
recorded vote of 24-12. No further legislative action was taken 
on H.R. 2407. However, the substance of H.R. 2407 passed the 
House as a component of H.R. 2454 (see below).

    2.15--H.R. 2454, AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009

Background and Summary of Legislation
    Between now and 2030, an estimated $1.5 trillion will be 
invested in energy infrastructure in the United States and more 
than $26 trillion will be invested worldwide. How these 
investments are made will have dramatic and consequential 
effects on the national security and economic future of the 
United States. How these investments are made may also 
determine the fate of our planet's climate.
    Investments in clean energy offer an important opportunity 
to spur economic growth. However, uncertainty about federal 
policies regarding energy and global warming pollution is 
impeding investors and CEOs in making investments in the energy 
sector. By establishing an energy policy that provides 
certainty with respect to both support for clean energy and 
regulatory obligations for global warming pollution, we can 
free up investments that have been on hold. By unleashing 
billions of dollars of private and public investment in new 
power generation, retrofits of existing capacity, energy 
efficiency, and offsets for global warming pollution, clean 
energy legislation can be an engine for both economic growth 
and job creation.
    The purpose of H.R. 2454 is to create clean energy jobs, 
achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution 
and transition to a clean energy economy. Measures in the 
legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical 
deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions 
in carbon emissions. The bill sets forth provisions concerning 
clean energy, energy efficiency, reducing global warming 
pollution, transitioning to a clean energy economy, and 
providing for agriculture and forestry related offsets. 
Includes provisions: (1) creating a combined energy efficiency 
and renewable electricity standard and requiring retail 
electricity suppliers to meet 20% of their demand through 
renewable electricity and electricity savings by 2020; (2) 
setting a goal of, and requiring a strategic plan for, 
improving overall U.S. energy productivity by at least 2.5% per 
year by 2012 and maintaining that improvement rate through 
2030; and (3) establishing a cap-and-trade system for 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and setting goals for reducing 
such emissions from covered sources by 83% of 2005 levels by 
2050.
Legislative History
    H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 
2009 was introduced by Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Rep. Edward J. 
Markey on May 15, 2009. On May, 2009, H.R. 2454 was referred to 
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the House Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, the House Committee on Financial Services, 
the House Committee on Education and Labor, the House Committee 
on Science and Technology, the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the House Committee on 
Natural Resources, the House Committee on Agriculture and the 
House Committee on Ways and Means. The bill was reported to the 
House on June 5, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-137).
    The bill was discharged by the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and the House Committee on Education and Labor on June 
5, 2009. The bill was discharged by the House Committee on 
Financial Services, the House Committee on Science and 
Technology, the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the House Committee on Natural Resources, the 
House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Ways 
and Means on June 19, 2009. H.R. 2454 was passed in the House 
on June 26, 2009 by recorded vote: 219-212 (Roll Call No. 477).
    H.R. 2454 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 
under General Orders (Calendar No. 97). No further legislative 
action was taken on H.R. 2454.

    2.16--H.R. 2693, OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    Oil spills are reported every day in the United States. Few 
spills are environmental disasters of national or global 
significance; most of the three million gallons of oil and 
refined petroleum product spilled into U.S. waters each year 
goes unnoticed by the public. Regardless of the level of public 
awareness in each case, natural resources such as fish, corals, 
marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, beaches, coastal habitats, 
and water quality are often negatively affected, as are the 
businesses and industries which depend on the immediate and 
long-term health of these resources.
    The United States has incorporated lessons learned from 
past spills into Federal law and relevant response readiness 
practices. We now have response tools and trained personnel at 
ports and aboard vessels across the nation. However, oil 
recovery and clean up techniques, including in situ burns, 
chemical dispersants, skimmers, and booms have changed little 
since the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.
    The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90), P.L. 101-380 (8-18-1990), 
was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to 
rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The 
intent of OPA 90 was to improve the nation's ability to prevent 
and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that 
expand the Federal government's ability to respond to oil 
spills, and provide the funding and resources necessary for an 
adequate response.
    Title VII of OPA 90 establishes an Interagency Coordinating 
Committee on Oil Pollution Research to coordinate a 
comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology 
development, and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in 
cooperation and coordination with industry, universities, 
research institutions, state governments, and other nations, as 
appropriate, and to foster cost-effective research mechanisms, 
including the joint funding of research. Fourteen Federal 
partners are named as members of the Interagency Committee, and 
a representative of the Coast Guard serves as Chairman.
    This program provides for research, development, and 
demonstration of new or improved technologies which are 
effective in preventing or mitigating oil discharges and which 
protect the environment, including oil pollution technology 
evaluation, oil pollution effects research, marine simulation 
research, demonstration projects, simulated environmental 
testing, and regional research programs.
    Few legislative modifications to OPA 90's research and 
development program have been made since its enactment, and 
appropriations for these provisions have been small in 
comparison to the need. The response to the Deepwater Horizon 
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has exposed the need for an 
effective and coordinated research program for oil spill 
response.
    The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and 
Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, is to amend 
and reauthorize the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The bill 
authorizes the establishment of the Interagency Coordinating 
Committee on Oil Pollution Research and coordination of a 
comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology 
development, and demonstration program authorized under OPA 90 
to ensure the ongoing development of methods and technologies 
to prevent, detect, recover, and mitigate oil discharges.
Legislative History
    H.R. 2693 was introduced by Representative Lynn Woolsey on 
June 3, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology on June 3, 2009. The bill was referred 
to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on June 4, 2009. 
The Subcommittee met to consider H.R. 2693 on June 16, 2009. 
The full committee met to consider H.R. 2693 on July 14, 2010. 
H.R. 2693 was reported to the House on July 21, 2010 (H. Rept. 
111-553). H.R. 2693 passed the House on July 21, 2010 by voice 
vote.
    On July 22, 2010, H.R. 2693 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2693.

2.17--H.R. 2729, TO AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
   RESEARCH PARKS BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Need for Legislation
    The National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs) are 
unique outdoor laboratories that provide opportunities for 
environmental studies on protected lands around Department of 
Energy (DOE) facilities. They offer secure settings for long-
term research on a broad range of subjects, including biomass 
production, environmental remediation, plant succession, 
population ecology, ecological restoration, climate change and 
thermal effects on freshwater ecosystems. The Parks also 
provide rich environments for training researchers and 
introducing the public to ecological sciences.
    The seven National Environmental Research Parks are located 
within six major ecological regions of the United States, 
covering more than half of the nation. The mission of the Parks 
is to: conduct research and education activities to assess and 
document environmental effects associated with energy and 
weapons use; explore methods for eliminating or minimizing 
adverse effects of energy development and nuclear materials on 
the environment; train people in ecological and environmental 
sciences; and educate the public. A number of long-term data 
sets have been gathered and maintained by researchers working 
at the Parks. These long-term data sets are available nowhere 
else in the U.S. or in the world and include information on 
amphibian populations, bird populations, prairie succession and 
restoration, and soil moisture and plant water stress. These 
data are uniquely valuable for the detection of medium and 
long-term variability and changes in ecology and climate. They 
also provide valuable baseline information for assessing short 
and long-term effects of energy development activities, 
pollution exposures, pollution remediation, and other land-use 
changes.
    Over the years since their establishment, there have been 
thousands of scientific papers published on the environmental 
studies done at the NERPs. The research at these sites has been 
conducted by DOE scientists, scientists from other federal 
agencies, universities and private foundations.
    The maintenance of the Parks by DOE meets the Department's 
statutory obligations to promote sound environmental 
stewardship of federal lands and to safeguard sites containing 
cultural and archeological resources. However, the Parks 
themselves have never been formally authorized and currently 
have no designated source of funding within the federal 
government. Research and outreach activities have been 
coordinated on an ad hoc basis to date. H.R. 2729 addresses 
each of these issues. The purpose of H.R. 2729 is to authorize 
the existing National Environmental Research Parks as permanent 
research reserves and provide guidance for research, education, 
and outreach activities to be conducted on or in collaboration 
with the Parks.
Legislative History
    H.R. 2729 was introduced by Representative Ben Lujan on 
June 4, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology on June 4, 2009 and to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Environment on June 10, 2009. The Subcommittee 
met to consider H.R. 2729 on June 16, 2009. The full committee 
met to consider H.R. 2729 on June 24, 2009. H.R. 2729 was 
reported to the House on July 14, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-207). H.R. 
2729 passed the House on July 21, 2009 by recorded vote: 330-96 
(Roll Call No. 597).
    On July 22, 2009, H.R. 2729 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 2729.

         2.18--H.R. 2965, SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

Background and Need for Legislation
    In 1982, Congress passed the Small Business Innovation 
Development Act which established the SBIR program. The intent 
of the Act was to increase government funding of small, 
innovative companies for the performance of research and 
development with commercial potential. Supporters of the SBIR 
program argued that while small companies were highly 
innovative, such firms were underrepresented in federal R&D 
activities.
    The potential of small companies to be sources of 
significant innovation led Congress to establish the SBIR 
program. From the program's original development, however, SBIR 
has been intended to stimulate technological innovation related 
to each participating agency's goals and mission, use small 
businesses for federal R&D needs and increase private sector 
commercialization of innovations derived from federal R&D 
expenditures. To meet these objectives, the Act required that 
Federal departments with an extramural research budget of $100 
million or more to set aside a small percentage of their 
agency's overall research budget and award technology 
development contracts to small firms. The percentage of R&D 
activities to be conducted by small firms has increased since 
the Act was originally passed and now stands at 2.5 percent.
    A key element of the SBIR program is that it establishes a 
three-phase development system for participants. During Phase 
One, participating agencies fund a proposed idea to determine 
if it has scientific and technical merit and is feasible. 
Projects that demonstrate potential after the initial endeavor 
can compete for Phase Two awards (lasting one to two years) to 
perform the principal R&D. Generally, Phase One and Phase Two 
awards may not exceed $100,000 and $750,000, respectively. A 
third phase of the program, aimed at the commercialization of a 
product or process developed in the earlier phases, is intended 
to be funded by the private sector.
Legislative History
    H.R. 2965 was introduced by Representative Jason Altmire on 
June 19, 2009. The bill was referred to the Committee on Small 
Business and to the Committee on Science and Technology on June 
19, 2009.
    The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider the 
bill on June 24, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill, 
as amended, to the House by a voice vote. The Committee on 
Small Business met to consider the bill on June 25, 2009. The 
Committee voted to report the bill, as amended, to the House by 
a recorded vote of 22-0. The bill was reported to the House on 
by the Committee on Small Business on June 26, 2009 (H. Rept. 
111-190, Part I). The bill was reported to the House on by the 
Committee on Science and Technology on July 7, 2009 (H. Rept. 
111-190, Part II).
    H.R. 2965 was considered by the House on July 8, 2009. H.R. 
2965 passed by recorded vote of 386-41 (Roll Call No. 486).
    H.R. 2965 was received in the Senate on July 9, 2009. The 
Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause, substituted the 
language of S. 1233, as amended, and passed the bill by 
unanimous consent. On July 14, 2009 a message of the Senate 
action was sent to the House. Further action was taken on H.R. 
2965, however, the bill no longer dealt with SBIR or STTR, but 
rather, unrelated issues not within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Science and Technology.

 2.19--H.R. 3029, TO ESTABLISH A RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY 
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF GAS TURBINES USED IN 
        COMBINED CYCLE AND SIMPLE CYCLE POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS

Background and Need for Legislation
    Natural gas is playing an increasingly important role in 
the nation's electric generation portfolio. Gas-fired plants 
now comprise about 20% of the total electric generation 
portfolio in the U.S. after falling from 24% in 1970 to 12% in 
1985. The majority of electric generation capacity additions in 
the last decade have been gas-fired. For example, the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) reported that, in 2000, of the 
23,453 megawatts of total new electric capacity added in the 
U.S. almost 95 percent, or 22,238 MW were natural gas-fired 
additions. In 2009 it is estimated that over 50 percent of 
additions will be gas-fired. Given the likelihood of tightening 
environmental regulations on power plants and the recent 
confirmation of sizeable new domestic natural gas resources, 
the EIA estimates that natural gas-fired electricity generation 
will increase dramatically over the next 20 years.
    Efficiency enhancements for both combined cycle and simple 
cycle gas turbine units could result in significantly reduced 
natural gas usage and emissions. For example, General Electric 
estimates that a one-percentage point improvement in efficiency 
applied to its existing F Class fleet would result in CO
2
 
emission reductions of 4.4 million tons per year, while also 
providing savings of more than a billion dollars per year in 
fuel costs.
    In 1992, the Department of Energy, through the Office of 
Fossil Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable 
Energy, developed the Advanced Turbine Systems Program to 
address a temperature barrier that, for all practical purposes, 
capped efficiencies for turbine-based power generating systems. 
Above 2300 degree F, conventional cooling technologies were 
insufficient to protect the turbine blades and other internal 
components from heat degradation. Because higher temperatures 
generally correlate with higher efficiencies (i.e. faster 
turbine speeds), this effectively limited the generating 
efficiency at which a turbine power plant could convert the 
energy in the fuel into electricity.
    Nine years after the development of the Advanced Turbine 
Systems Program, the Department of Energy and its private 
partners produced `breakthrough' turbine systems that pushed 
firing temperatures to 2,600 degrees F and permitted combined 
cycle efficiencies that surpassed 60%. Among the innovations 
that emerged from the Department's Advanced Turbine Systems 
program were single-crystal turbine blades and thermal barrier 
coatings (TBC) that could withstand the high inlet 
temperatures, along with new firing techniques to stabilize 
combustion and minimize nitrogen oxide formation.
    H.R. 3029 directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out a 
research, development, and technology demonstration program to 
improve the efficiency of gas turbines used in power generation 
systems and to identify the technologies that will lead to gas 
turbine combined cycle efficiency of 65% or simple cycle 
efficiency of 50%. The bill requires the program to support 
first-of-a-kind engineering and detailed gas turbine design for 
megawatt-scale and utility-scale electric power generation, 
include technology demonstration through component testing, 
subscale testing, and full scale testing in existing fleets, 
include field demonstrations of the developed technology 
elements to demonstrate technical and economic feasibility, 
assess overall combined cycle and simple cycle system 
performance, and directs the Secretary, in selecting program 
proposals, to emphasize the extent to which the proposal will 
stimulate the creation or increased retention of jobs in the 
United States and promote and enhance U.S. technology 
leadership.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3029 was introduced by Representative Paul Tonko on 
June 24, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology on June 24, 2009 and to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Environment on June 25, 2009.
    The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider the 
bill on June 29, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill, 
as amended, to the House by voice vote. The Committee on 
Science and Technology reported H.R. 3029, as amended, to the 
House on December 1, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-343). On December 1, 
2009 the House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 3029 by a 
recorded vote of 266-118 (Roll Call No. 911).
    The bill was received in the Senate on December 2, 2009 and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. No 
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3029. Also note 
that the substance of H.R. 3029 passed the House as a component 
of H.R. 2454.

   2.20--H.R. 3165, WIND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 3165 is to authorize a comprehensive 
research, development, and demonstration program to advance 
wind energy technologies.
    According to a Department of Energy (DOE) report published 
in May 2008 entitled 20% Wind Energy by 2030, a much greater 
proportion of the nation's demand for electrical energy could 
be provided by exploiting our land-based and offshore wind 
resources. However, to expand from today's proportion of 
electric generation from wind (less than 2 percent) to a 
scenario where the U.S. generates 20 percent or more of its 
power from wind energy requires several significant advances 
including: improved wind turbine technology, improved wind 
forecasting capability, improved energy storage, and expansion 
of transmission systems to deliver wind power from resource 
centers to centers of population. In turn, these changes in the 
power generation and delivery process may involve changes in 
manufacturing, policy development, and environmental 
regulation.
    Overall performance of wind energy systems can be 
substantially improved to become more efficient, cost-
effective, and reliable. Fundamental technical issues remain 
even while wind power is competitive with coal and other 
conventional forms of energy in some markets. As a follow-up to 
DOE's wind energy report, the American Wind Energy Association 
(AWEA) Research and Development Committee produced a detailed 
Action Plan to 20% Wind Energy by 2030 in March 2009. This plan 
proposed $217 million in annual federal funding combined with a 
$224 million industry/state cost share to support specific 
research and development programs which the AWEA Committee 
believes are necessary to meet a goal of providing 20 percent 
of America's electricity from wind by 2030.
    This would be a significant increase from the DOE wind 
program's current annual budget of roughly $50 million, 
notwithstanding the one-time expenditure of $118 million 
currently identified by the Department for additional wind 
research and development activities from the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In recent years much of the 
federal wind program has focused on testing and evaluation of 
commercial turbines rather than advanced research, leading to 
gaps in our national wind R&D portfolio. There is broad 
consensus among government, academic, and industry leaders that 
research areas in which greater federal support could have a 
considerable impact include: new materials and designs to make 
larger, lighter, less expensive, and more reliable rotor 
blades; advanced generators to improve the efficiency of 
converting blade rotation to electric power; automation, 
production materials, and assembly of large-scale components to 
reduce manufacturing costs; low-cost transportable towers 
greater than 100 meters in height to capitalize on improved 
wind conditions at higher elevations; advanced computational 
tools to improve the reliability of aeroelastic simulations of 
wind energy systems; and advanced control systems and blade 
sensors to improve performance and reliability under a wide 
variety of wind conditions.
    H.R. 3165 authorizes research targeted to fulfill these 
areas of needed research. Providing federal support to address 
areas of common need for the wind industry will help us to 
reach the goal of increasing the proportion of electrical 
generation from wind resources.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3165 was introduced by Representative Paul Tonko on 
July 9, 2009. The bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology on July 9, 2009 and to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Environment on July 14, 2009. The Committee met 
to consider H.R. 3165 on July 29, 2009. The Committee voted to 
report the bill, as amended, to the House on July 29, 2009 by 
voice vote.
    The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3165, 
as amended, to the House on September 8, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-
248). On September 8, 2009 the House suspended the rules and 
passed H.R. 3165, as amended, by voice vote.
    H.R. 3165 was received in the Senate on September 10, 2009 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3165.

        2.21--H.R. 3246, ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2009

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 3246 is to provide for a program of 
research, development, demonstration and commercial application 
in vehicle technologies at the Department of Energy.
    For over two decades the Department of Energy has funded a 
wide range of research activities on passenger vehicles and 
heavy-duty trucks through its Vehicle Technologies program. The 
program's mission is to develop leap frog technologies that 
will provide Americans with greater freedom of mobility and 
energy security, while lowering costs and reducing impacts on 
the environment. Most recently, the Department of Energy has 
addressed these research needs through two public-private 
research programs: The 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP), 
which conducts research and development through collaborations 
with the heavy-duty trucking industry, and the FreedomCar and 
the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative programs, which engages in pre-
competitive, high-risk research needed to develop technologies 
that will apply to a range of affordable passenger cars and 
light trucks.
    Over the last decade, federal research priorities have 
shifted between passenger and heavy duty vehicles, as well as 
diesel-hybrids, hydrogen-fueled, and battery-powered drive 
systems. While the various programs have had some successes in 
transferring component technologies to the marketplace, critics 
contend that previous Administrations have adopted an 
inconsistent winner-take-all approach to vehicle research where 
one technology or platform receives the large bulk of funding, 
only to have funding cut before the programs can reasonably be 
expected to develop commercially viable technologies. It is 
argued that what is needed is long-term sustained funding on a 
broad range of areas from near-commercial technologies to 
exploratory research on systems with the potential to 
revolutionize transportation in the U.S. Striking the 
appropriate research balance and strengthening the federal 
commitment in this area is especially critical at a time when 
both the automotive and commercial trucking industries have 
limited resources for increasingly expensive research and 
development.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3246 was introduced by Representative Gary Peters on 
July 17, 2009. The bill referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology on July 17, 2009 and referred to the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on July 21, 2009. The 
Committee met to consider the bill on July 29, 2009. The 
Committee voted to report the bill to the House on July 29, 
2009 by voice vote.
    The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3246 
on July 11, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-254). The House considered H.R. 
3246 on September 16, 2009. Representative Gordon offered an 
amendment, which was adopted by voice vote. Representative Hall 
offered an amendment, the amendment failed by a recorded vote 
of 179-253 (Roll Call No. 705). Representative Broun offered an 
amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. Representative 
Peters offered an amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. 
Representative Posey offered an amendment which was agreed to 
by voice vote. Representative Gordon offered an amendment which 
was agreed to by voice vote. Representative Marshall offered an 
amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. Representative 
Cohen offered an amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. 
Representative Donnelly offered an amendment which was agreed 
to by recorded vote of 369-62 (Roll Call No. 706). 
Representative Altmire offered an amendment which was agreed to 
by voice vote. Representative Massa offered an amendment which 
was agreed to by recorded vote of 416-14 (Roll Call No. 707).
    The House passed H.R. 3246, as amended, on September 16, 
2009 by a recorded vote of 312-114 (Roll Call No. 709).
    H.R. 3246 was received in the Senate on September 17, 2009 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3246.

2.22--H.R. 3247, TO ESTABLISH A SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES RESEARCH 
      PROGRAM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Need for Legislation
    H.R. 3246 directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
social and behavioral sciences research program to identify and 
understand social and behavioral factors influencing energy 
consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy 
technologies, and to promote the use of the results of social 
and behavioral research to improve the development and 
application of energy technologies, requires the Secretary to 
appoint or designate a Director of Social and Behavioral 
Research to carry out such program, requires the Director to 
develop a research plan in consultation with the Advisory 
Committee established by this Act and review such plan every 
five years and revise it as appropriate, instructs the 
Secretary to provide grants in support of social and behavioral 
research, and requires the Advisory Committee to advise the 
Secretary and the Director on priority areas for research, 
assist the Director in the development of the research plan; 
and provide other assistance and advice as requested by the 
Secretary or the Director.

Legislative History
    H.R. 3247 was introduced by Representative Brian Baird on 
July 17, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Science 
and Technology. The Committee met to consider H.R. 3247 on July 
29, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill to the House 
by voice vote on July 29, 2009. No further action was taken on 
H.R. 3247.

             2.23--H.R. 3585, SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP ACT

Background and Need for Legislation
    Solar energy constitutes the largest global energy 
resource. Currently the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 158 
active solar applications, covering 1.8 million acres with a 
projected capacity to generate 97,000 megawatts of electricity 
on the public lands that have been fast-tracked for renewable 
energy development in six western states. These BLM solar 
projects could provide the equivalent of 29 percent of the 
nation's household electricity use. In addition, the United 
States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that 48 percent of 
total water withdrawals in 2000 were used for electric power 
generation. The combination of environmental benefits and 
government incentives has resulted in a boom in the growth of 
applications for solar energy projects on public and private 
lands and on residential, commercial, and municipal sites. An 
array of solar technologies are currently available for use in 
lighting, heating, and cooling (air or water) as well as to 
generate electricity on a wide range of scales from the 
residential level to utility-scale installations.
    The solar industry faces a number of challenges to 
achieving a significant, stable domestic energy supply for U.S. 
consumers while meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction 
targets. Reaching these goals will require the coordination of 
the solar energy technology research and manufacturing supply 
chains. The U.S. solar industry faces a number of barriers to 
entry in energy supply markets. Utilities are justifiably risk-
averse and need access to best practices and expertise in order 
to efficiently integrate solar loads especially in urban areas.
    The United States has a long history of leadership in solar 
energy technology, in part due to the development of 
photovoltaic technologies for space applications. To help 
accelerate the widespread deployment of solar technologies in 
the U.S., the Administration recently dedicated $118 million in 
Recovery Act funds to projects administered by the DOE solar 
program. This program currently has a base annual budget of 
roughly $200 million. In reviewing ways to support the long-
term growth of a domestic solar manufacturing industry the 
semiconductor industry may provide a model for partnership on 
R&D between government and the private sector.
    In the case of semiconductors, in the mid-1980s the U.S.--
and the Department of Defense in particular--became concerned 
that Japanese semiconductor manufacturers were limiting access 
to semiconductor chips for two years or longer, delaying or 
halting the progress of technological advancement. In order to 
protect its strategic interest in advancing electronics the 
U.S. opted to support the growth of a domestic semiconductor 
industry through support for a semiconductor manufacturing 
technology research consortium. Sematech was created along with 
a National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.
    These two activities brought together key players within 
the industry, from semiconductor manufacturers to manufacturing 
equipment builders and members of the semiconductor materials 
supply chain. This model of coordination and collaboration 
helped to keep the technology moving forward at a quick pace, 
encouraged the industry to adopt cost and time-saving 
standards, and helped to eliminate the duplication of research 
efforts on pre-competitive technologies through communication 
and coordination. The U.S. continues to host some of the 
world's most prominent semiconductor companies including Intel, 
AMD, National Semiconductor, and Texas Instruments.
    While there are American solar companies that have emerged 
as strong players in the world solar market, they do not have 
the resources to individually support long-term research, 
development, and commercial application of new solar 
technologies while sustaining rapid growth and expanding 
production capacity. Additionally, significant obstacles in the 
approval process for siting, constructing and operating new 
solar facilities has further stymied industry's pursuit of 
cutting edge technological advances. A jointly-developed 
comprehensive solar technology plan with public and private 
support may provide a framework for strengthening U.S. 
leadership in renewable energy technology.
    H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, directs the 
Secretary of Energy to conduct a program of research, 
development, and demonstration for solar technology, requires 
the Secretary to provide awards on a merit-reviewed, 
competitive basis to promote a diversity of research, 
development, and demonstration activities for solar technology, 
calls for at least 75% of funding for such activities conducted 
by DOE after FY2014 to support a diversity of activities 
identified by and recommended under a Solar Technology Roadmap, 
directs the Secretary to establish and provide support for a 
Solar Technology Roadmap Committee, requires the Secretary to 
award multiyear grants on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis 
for research, development, and demonstration activities to 
create innovative and practical approaches to increase reuse 
and recycling of photovoltaic devices and contribute to the 
professional development of scientists, engineers, and 
technicians in the fields of photovoltaic and electronic device 
manufacturing, design, refurbishing, and recycling, and 
requires the results of such activities to be made publicly 
available.

Legislative History
    H.R. 3585 was introduced by Representative Gabrielle 
Giffords on September 16, 2009 and referred to the House 
Committee on Science and Technology. The Committee met to 
consider H.R. 3585 on October 7, 2009. The Committee voted to 
report the bill, as amended, to the House by voice vote on 
October 7, 2009.
    The Committee on Science and Technology reported the H.R. 
3585, as amended, to the House on October 15, 2009 (H. Rept. 
111-302). The House considered H.R. 3585 on October 22, 2009. 
Representative Gordon offered a manager's amendment, which was 
agreed to by a voice vote. Representative Hastings offered an 
amendment, which was agreed to by a voice vote. Representative 
Cardoza offered an amendment, which was agreed to by a voice 
vote. Representative Marshall offered an amendment, which was 
agreed to by a voice vote. Representative Murphy offered an 
amendment, which was agreed to by a voice vote. Representative 
Broun offered an amendment, which failed by recorded vote of 
162-256 (Roll Call No. 801). Representative Kaptur offered an 
amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 395-24 
(Roll Call No. 802). Representative Klein offered an amendment, 
which agreed to by a recorded vote of 414-5 (Roll Call No. 
803). Representative Titus offered an amendment, which was 
agreed to by a recorded vote of 407-9 (Roll Call No. 804). 
Representative Heinrich offered an amendment, which was agreed 
to by a recorded vote of 420-0 (Roll Call No. 805). 
Representative Himes offered an amendment, which was agreed to 
by a recorded vote of 410-6 (Roll Call No. 806). The House 
passed H.R. 3585 by a recorded vote of 310-106 (Roll Call No. 
807) on October 22, 2009.
    H.R. 3585 was received in the Senate on October 26, 2009 
and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources on December 8, 2009. No further legislative action 
was taken on H.R. 3585.

       2.24--H.R. 3598, ENERGY AND WATER RESEARCH INTEGRATION ACT

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 3598 is to ensure consideration of 
water intensity in the Department of Energy's energy research, 
development and demonstration programs where appropriate, and 
to help assure efficient, reliable and sustainable delivery of 
energy and water resources.
    According to the National Science and Technology Council 
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on 
Water Availability and Quality report, A Strategy for Federal 
Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and 
Quality in the United States, there is a need for coordinated 
science and technology efforts to better understand water 
supply and demand in the United States. In addition, the 
Committee understands the Department of Energy will issue a 
draft energy-water research roadmap outlining a number of 
research and development challenges in this area. Finally, the 
recent Government Accountability Office report, Electricity and 
Water: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would Increase 
Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use, underscores 
the need for improvements in federal water use data to help 
increase the understanding of trends in power plant water use.
    Energy and water are directly linked. Water is essential 
for energy generation and fuel production--it is used in energy 
resource extraction, refining, processing, transportation, 
hydroelectric generation, thermoelectric power plant cooling 
and emissions scrubbing. Equally important is the energy needed 
for water pumping, treatment, distribution and end-use 
requirements. Furthermore, climate variability and demand 
growth affect both our water and energy resources. Accordingly, 
it is important to recognize this interdependency and develop 
technologies and adopt practices that allow us to manage these 
resources effectively. Thermoelectric power, oil, natural gas, 
oil shale, and renewable energy, including solar power and 
biofuels, are all important areas for energy and water research 
integration.
    As our population grows, our demand for water continues to 
rise while supplies become scarcer. In water-stressed areas of 
the United States, power plants will increasingly compete with 
other sectors of the economy and end-users for water resources. 
In addition, energy and water-related regulatory policy may add 
to the challenge of operating our existing power plants and 
permitting new thermoelectric power plants.
    As future demands for energy and water continue to grow, 
the reliability of our energy and water supplies is likely to 
be an increasing challenge. As water use decisions become more 
difficult a comprehensive research, development and 
demonstration strategy would help to ensure we are well-
equipped to prevent energy and water supply disruptions.
    H.R. 3598 authorizes research addressing these issues by 
directing the Secretary of Energy to integrate energy-related 
water issues into energy research, development and 
demonstration programs at the Department of Energy.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3598 was introduced on September 17, 2009 by 
Representative Bart Gordon. The bill was referred to the House 
Committee on Science and Technology on September 17, 2009 and 
referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on 
September 18, 2009. The full Committee met to consider the bill 
on October 7, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill, as 
amended to the House on October 7, 2009.
    The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3598, 
as amended, to the House on December 1, 2009 (H. Rept. 111-
344). The House suspended the rules and voted to pass H.R. 3598 
by a voice vote on December 1, 2009.
    H.R. 3598 was received in the Senate on December 2, 2009 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3598.

                2.25--H.R. 3618, CLEAN HULL ACT OF 2009

Background and Need for Legislation
    The fouling of a vessel's surface can produce many serious 
consequences. For example, fouling on a vessel's hull increases 
the ship's weight and slows it progress through the water, 
causing the vessel to burn additional fuel. Untreated, a deep 
draft tank vessel's hull can accumulate up to 6,000 tons of 
fouling material in less than six months of exposure to sea 
water. Such fouling can increase a vessel's fuel consumption by 
up to 40 percent, causing significant economic and 
environmental impacts. Antifouling is the process of removing 
or preventing the accumulation of biological fouling organisms. 
It is estimated that total expenditures on antifouling 
applications for commercial and recreational vessels exceeds 
$700 million a year. Biological fouling is defined by the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) as the unwanted 
accumulation of microorganisms, algae, mussels, plats, or other 
`biological material' on structures that are `immersed in 
water'. There are more than 4,000 species of biological 
organisms that can foul an immersed surface.
    In the 1960s, antifouling coatings based on tributyltin 
(TBT) were developed. This product was so successful that, by 
the 1970s, it was the standard antifouling application 
throughout the shipping industry. As the number of vessels 
using antifouling paints containing TBT increased, scientists 
began to find high concentrations of TBT in marinas, ports and 
harbors that had a large number of boats and vessels. 
Eventually, high TBT levels were discovered in the open seas 
and oceanic waters. TBT has been noted as the most toxic 
substance ever deliberately introduced into the marine 
environment.
    In October 2001, IMO adopted the International Convention 
on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, which 
entered into force on September 17, 2008, after 25 States 
representing 25 percent of the international commercial 
shipping tonnage adopted the Convention. Countries that became 
parties to the Convention were required to ban the new 
application of TBT coatings by January 1, 2003 and to ensure 
that all vessels that had a TBT-based coating removed the 
coating or covered it with a barrier through which it could not 
leach by January 1, 2008. Parties to the Convention must also 
ensure that no vessel of a party using antifouling paint 
containing TBT will be allowed in their ports, shipyard, or 
offshore terminal.
    In the United States, antifouling systems containing 
organotins, including TBT, are currently regulated under the 
Organotin Anti-Fouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (OAPCA), 33 
U.S.C. Sec. 2401-2410 (2009). The OAPCA prohibits organotin-
based antifouling paints on vessels less than 25 meters 
(excluding aluminum hulls, outboard motors, and external drive 
units), and limits the leaching rate of antifouling paints on 
larger vessels. Under the OAPCA, the sale, purchase, and 
application of antifouling paint containing organotins were 
banned.
    In 2008, the Senate ratified the Convention and the Bush 
administration submitted draft legislation to implement the 
requirements of the Convention for purposes of U.S. law. The 
United States will not become a party to the Convention until 
implementing legislation is enacted. It is important for the 
United States to become a party to the Convention to not only 
replace the OAPCA, but also to ban vessels using antifouling 
paint containing TBT from entering the country and continuing 
to pollute the marine environment.
    H.R. 3618, the Clean Hull Act of 2009, provides for the 
implementation of the International Convention on the Control 
of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships 2001, and for other 
purposes.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3618 was introduced by Representative James Oberstar 
on September 22, 2009 and referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on 
Science and Technology.
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met to 
consider H.R. 3618 on September 24, 2009. The Committee voted 
to report the bill to the House, as amended, on September 24, 
2009. The Committee on Science and Technology referred the bill 
to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on September 23, 
2009. The Committee on Science and Technology discharged the 
bill on November 7, 2009. The Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3618 to the House on November 7, 
2009 (H. Rept. 111-331, Part I).
    The House suspended the rules and passed H.R. 3618 by voice 
vote on November 17, 2009.
    H.R. 3618 was received in the Senate on November 18, 2009 
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
3618.

2.26--H.R. 3650, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL 
                         AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010, is to 
establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program to 
develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy 
to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for 
the development and implementation of regional action plans to 
reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
    Harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia (severe depletion 
of oxygen) are one of the most scientifically complex and 
economically significant coastal management issues facing the 
nation. In the past, few regions of the U.S. were affected by 
HABs. Now, all U.S. coastal regions have reported major blooms 
and hypoxic events. These phenomena have devastating 
environmental, economic, and human health impacts. Impacts 
include human illness and mortality following direct 
consumption or indirect exposure to toxic shellfish or toxins 
in the environment; economic hardship for coastal economies, 
many of which are highly dependent on tourism or harvest of 
local seafood; as well as dramatic fish, bird, and mammal 
mortalities. There are also devastating impacts to ecosystems, 
leading to environmental damage that may reduce the ability of 
those systems to sustain species due to habitat degradation, 
increased susceptibility to disease, and long-term alterations 
to community structure.
    Scientific understanding of harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxic events has improved significantly since the early 
1990s. However, there is a need for additional efforts in 
monitoring, prevention, control and mitigation of these complex 
phenomena. Practical and innovative approaches to address 
hypoxia and HABs in U.S. waters are essential for management of 
aquatic ecosystems and to fulfill a stronger investment in the 
health of the coasts, oceans, and waterways.
    Recognizing this need, in 2004 Congress reauthorized and 
expanded the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-383) by passing the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
456). The 1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Act (HABHRCA) established an Interagency Task Force to 
develop a national HABs assessment and authorized funding for 
existing and new research programs on HABs. These programs 
involve federal, state, and academic partners and support 
interdisciplinary extramural research studies to address the 
issues of HABs in an ecosystem context. HABHRCA, reauthorized 
in 2004, required assessments of HABs in different coastal 
regions and the Great Lakes and plans to expand research to 
address the impacts of HABs. The law also authorized research, 
education, and monitoring activities related to the prevention, 
reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and 
reconstituted the Interagency Task Force on HABs and Hypoxia.
    The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce 
several reports and assessments in addition to authorizing 
funding for both new and existing programs and activities. The 
Prediction and Response Report, released in September 2007, 
addresses both the state of research and methods for HAB 
prediction and response, especially at the federal level. The 
National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and 
Technology Transfer Plan for Reducing Impacts from Harmful 
Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan) establishes research priorities to 
develop and demonstrate prevention, control and mitigation 
methods to advance current prediction and response 
capabilities. The law also required development of local and 
regional Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia and a Scientific 
Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms.
    The HABHRCA authorized funds were directed to conduct 
research and seek to control HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine 
waters, estuaries and the Great Lakes. The 2004 reauthorization 
also required a report on The Scientific Assessment of 
Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms that describes the state of 
knowledge of HABs in U.S. inland and freshwaters, and presents 
a plan to advance research and reduce the impacts on humans and 
the environment. There is a continued need to research and 
respond to HABs in marine waters, the Great Lakes, and in 
inland waterways, such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees a wide 
array of programs specifically designed to protect and preserve 
the coastal and marine waters of the United States, including 
watershed protection programs working through partnerships and 
an array of regulatory programs. In conjunction with its 
statutory responsibilities to ensure water quality under the 
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has a 
program of research and development on water treatment 
technologies, health effects of water pollutants, security from 
deliberate contamination, and watershed protection.
    EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) are co-leads of a Federal Workgroup of thirteen federal 
agencies committed to supporting the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a 
partnership formed by the five Gulf State Governors. In 
addition, EPA is also a participating member of the Mississippi 
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. However, at 
present, there is a lack of significant federal research and 
development aimed at addressing freshwater HABs. Because of the 
agency's complementary work on inland water ecosystems, the EPA 
is a logical federal entity to partner with NOAA to develop and 
implement a research, development, and demonstration program to 
address freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia through 
research, monitoring, prevention, mitigation, and control. As 
the lead agency with oversight over freshwater quality, the EPA 
should ensure the protection of aquatic ecosystems to protect 
human health, support economic and recreational activities, and 
provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife by 
conducting research to develop HAB prevention, control and 
mitigation technologies.
    Addressing the many dimensions of HABs requires a 
coordinated multi-agency approach, and there are presently a 
number of programs and agencies that address the various 
aspects of HABs. However, there is a need to expand Harmful 
Algal Blooms research to include both marine and freshwaters. 
The reauthorization of the HABHRCA should address both marine 
and freshwater blooms and hypoxia by building upon and 
utilizing the findings and results of various reports and 
assessments to formulate national and regional action 
strategies.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3650 was introduced by Representative Brian Baird on 
September 25, 2010. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on 
Natural Resources. The Committee on Science and Technology met 
to consider the bill on October 10, 2009. The Committee on 
Science and Technology voted to report H.R. 3650, as amended, 
to the House on October 7, 2010. On January 13, 2010, the 
Committee on Natural resources discharged the bill and the 
Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3650, as 
amended to the House (H. Rept. 111-396, Part I).
    On March 9, 2010 the House suspended the rules and voted on 
H.R. 3650, which failed by a recorded vote of 263-142 (Roll 
Call No. 92). On March 12, 2010 the House considered H.R. 3650 
under a structured rule and passed the bill, as amended, by a 
recorded vote of 251-103 (Roll Call No. 109).
    H.R. 3650 was received in the Senate on March 15, 2010. No 
further legislative action was taken on H.R. 3650.

        2.27--H.R. 3791, FIRE GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

Background and the Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization 
Act of 2009, is to reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters 
Grant (AFG) Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and 
Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Program.
    Since the AFG program began in FY2001, over $4.8 billion in 
Federal funding has been competitively awarded to local fire 
departments to purchase firefighting and emergency response 
training and equipment. In FY2008, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) received over 20,000 applications from 
fire departments for AFG funds, requesting over $3 billion. The 
program was created to assist local fire departments in meeting 
the challenge of expanding emergency response capabilities. 
Many local fire departments do not have adequate training and 
equipment. For instance, the National Fire Protection 
Association estimates that 65 percent of fire departments in 
the U.S. do not have enough portable radios to equip all 
firefighters on shift, and that 36 percent of fire departments 
involved in emergency medical response do not have enough 
adequately trained personnel to perform those duties. The 
support for training, equipment, and apparatus provided by the 
AFG Program is especially needed to protect public safety as 
municipalities face severe budget constraints.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009, was 
introduced on October 13, 2009 by representative Harry Mitchell 
and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
    The House Committee on Science and Technology met to 
consider H.R. 3791 on October 21, 2009 and voted to report the 
bill to the House by voice vote. On November 7, 2009, the 
Committee on Homeland Security was referred H.R. 3791 and 
discharged the bill. The House Committee on Science and 
Technology reported the bill to the House, as amended, on 
November 7, 2009 (H. Rep. 111-333, Part I).
    H.R. 3791 was considered by the House under the provisions 
of rule H. Res. 909 on November 18, 2009. Representative Titus 
offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Holden offered an amendment, which was passed by 
voice vote. Representative Cardoza offered an amendment, which 
was passed by voice vote. Representative Perlmutter offered an 
amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 358-75 
(Roll Call No. 899), which was. Representative Flake offered an 
amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 371-63 
(Roll Call No. 900). The House passed H.R. 3791, as amended, by 
a recorded vote of 395-31 (Roll Call No. 901) on November 18, 
2009.
    H.R. 3791 was received in the Senate on November 19, 2009 
and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. No further legislative action was taken 
on H.R. 3791.

      2.28--H.R. 3820, NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 3820, Natural Hazards Risk Reduction 
Act of 2010, is to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program (NWIRP). In addition, this bill strengthens 
the National Construction Safety Team Act (NCSTA) by giving the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) more 
flexibility in implementing the Act.
    The United States faces serious threats to public safety 
and property from natural disasters. Major California 
earthquakes in 1989 and 1994, Loma Prieta and Northridge 
respectively, killed over 100 people, injured thousands, and 
cost the country nearly $30 billion from property losses and 
economic disruption. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita most recently 
demonstrated that severe weather can cause death, injury, and 
billions of dollars in damage. Developing and implementing 
measures to reduce the toll of earthquakes, severe weather, 
wildfires, and other natural disasters is critical as more 
Americans move to hazard-prone regions of the country. H.R. 
3820 reauthorizes and amends the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program (NWIRP), the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program (NWIRP), National Construction Safety Team 
Act, and the Wildfires at the Wildland-Urban Interface to 
improve knowledge of the physical processes of natural hazards 
and their effects, develop methods to prepare for and mitigate 
the impacts of natural hazards on the built environment and 
communities, and to facilitate the implementation of mitigation 
measures to stem the mounting losses from these disasters.
Legislative History
    H.R. 3820 was introduced by Representative David Wu on 
October 15, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Science 
and Technology; House Committee on Natural Resources; and House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
    The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider 
H.R. 3820 on October 21, 2009. The Committee voted to report 
the bill to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    The Committee on Science and Technology reported H.R. 3820, 
as amended, to the House on February 26, 2010 ( H. Rept. 111-
424, Part I). The bill was considered under suspension of the 
rules by the House on March 2, 2010. The House voted to pass 
H.R. 3820 by a recorded vote of 335-50 (Roll Call No. 76) on 
March 2, 2010.
    H.R. 3820 was received in the Senate on March 3, 2010 and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
3820.

       2.29--H.R. 4061, THE CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    Information technology (IT) has evolved rapidly over the 
last decade, leading to markedly increased connectivity and 
productivity. The benefits provided by these advancements have 
led to the widespread use and incorporation of information 
technologies across major sectors of the economy. This level of 
connectivity and the dependence of our critical infrastructures 
on IT have also increased the vulnerability of these systems. 
Reports of cyber criminals and possibly nation-states accessing 
sensitive information and disrupting services have risen 
steadily over the last decade, heightening concerns over the 
adequacy of our cybersecurity measures.
    The Office of Management and Budget cites that federal 
agencies spend $6 billion on cybersecurity to protect a $72 
billion IT infrastructure. In addition, the Federal government 
funds approximately $350 million in cybersecurity research and 
development (R&D) each year. Despite this Federal spending, the 
Government Accountability Office testified as recently as June 
2009 that the U.S. IT infrastructure is vulnerable to attack 
and the Federal agencies tasked with its protection are not 
fulfilling their responsibilities.
    On May 29, 2009, the Obama Administration released the 
Cyberspace Policy Review, a 60-day review of cyberspace 
policies across the Federal government. The findings of the 
review include: strengthening partnerships between the Federal 
government and the private sector to guarantee a secure and 
reliable infrastructure, increasing public awareness of the 
risks associated with cybersecurity, expanding and training the 
Federal cybersecurity workforce, advancing cybersecurity R&D, 
and better coordination among Federal agencies.
    Specifically, the review recommends the development of an 
R&D framework that focuses on strategies for innovative 
technologies and calls for a single entity to coordinate United 
States representation in international cybersecurity technical 
standards setting bodies. In the mid-term, it recommends that 
Federal agencies expand support for cybersecurity education and 
R&D to ensure the Nation's continued ability to compete in the 
information age economy.
    The task of coordinating unclassified cybersecurity R&D 
lies with the Networking and Information Technology Research 
and Development (NITRD) program, which was originally 
authorized in statute by the High-Performance Computing Act of 
1991 (P.L. 102-194). The NITRD program, which consists of 13 
Federal agencies, coordinates a broad spectrum of R&D 
activities related to information technology. It also includes 
an interagency working group and program component area focused 
specifically on cybersecurity and information R&D. However, 
many expert panels, including the President's Council of 
Advisors on Science and Technology, have argued that the 
portfolio of Federal investments in cybersecurity R&D is not 
properly balanced and is focused on short-term reactive 
technologies at the expense of long-term, fundamental R&D.
    With a budget of $127 million for FY 2010, NSF is the 
principal agency supporting unclassified cybersecurity R&D and 
education. NSF's cybersecurity research activities are 
primarily funded through the Directorate for Computer & 
Information Science & Engineering (CISE). CISE supports 
cybersecurity R&D through a targeted program, Trustworthy 
Computing, as well as through a number of its core activities 
in Computer Systems Research, Computing Research 
Infrastructure, and Network and Science Engineering. In 
addition to its basic research activities, NSF's Directorate 
for Education & Human Resources (EHR) manages the Scholarship 
for Service program which provides funding to colleges and 
universities for the award of 2-year scholarships in 
information assurance and computer security fields.
    NIST is tasked with protecting the Federal information 
technology network by developing and promulgating cybersecurity 
standards for Federal non-classified network systems (Federal 
Information Processing Standard [FIPS]), identifying methods 
for assessing effectiveness of security requirements, 
conducting tests to validate security in information systems, 
and conducting outreach exercises. Experts have stated that 
NIST's technical standards and best practices are too highly 
technical for general public use, and making this information 
more usable to average computer users with less technical 
expertise will help raise the base level of cybersecurity 
knowledge among individuals, business, education, and 
government.
    Currently, the United States is represented on 
international bodies dealing with cybersecurity by an array of 
organizations, including the Department of State, Department of 
Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and the United 
States Trade Representative without a coordinated and 
comprehensive strategy or plan. The Cyberspace Policy Review 
called for a comprehensive international cybersecurity strategy 
that defines what cybersecurity standards we need, where they 
are being developed, and ensures that the United States Federal 
government has agency representation for each. At a hearing 
before the Committee's Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, 
witnesses stated that NIST is the appropriate Federal agency to 
coordinate the development of this strategy due to its status 
as a non-regulatory agency known and respected among 
international and private sector stakeholders.
    In the 107th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee 
developed the Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 
107-305). The bill created new programs and expanded existing 
programs at NSF and NIST for computer and network security. The 
authorizations established under the Cyber Security Research 
and Development Act expired in fiscal year 2007.
    The purpose of this bill is to improve cybersecurity in the 
Federal, private, and public sectors through: coordination and 
prioritization of federal cybersecurity research and 
development activities; strengthening of the cybersecurity 
workforce; coordination of U.S. representation in international 
cybersecurity technical standards development; and 
reauthorization of cybersecurity related programs at the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST).
Legislative History
    H.R. 4061 was introduced by Representative David Lipinski 
on November 7, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on 
Science and Technology. The Committee met to consider the bill 
on November 18, 2009. The Committee voted to report the bill to 
the House, as amended, by a voice vote.
    H.R. 4061 was considered under the provisions of rule H. 
Res. 1051 on February 2, 2010. Representative Gordon offered an 
amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative 
Matheson offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Roskam offered an amendment, which was passed by 
voice vote. Representative Edwards offered an amendment, which 
was passed by voice vote. Representative Garamendi offered an 
amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative 
McCarthy offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Sanchez offered an amendment, which was passed 
by voice vote. Representative Langevin offered an amendment, 
which was passed by voice vote. Representative Shea-Porter 
offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Clarke offered an amendment, which was passed by 
voice vote. Representative Bright offered an amendment, which 
was passed by voice vote. Representative Kratovil offered an 
amendment, which was passed by voice vote. Representative 
Lipinski offered an amendment, which was passed by voice vote. 
Representative Heinrich offered an amendment, which was passed 
by voice vote. Representative Hastings offered an amendment, 
which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 417-5 (Roll Call No. 
34). Representative Flake offered an amendment, which was 
agreed to by a recorded vote of 396-31 (Roll Call No. 35). 
Representative Dahlkemper offered an amendment, which was 
agreed to by a recorded vote of 419-3 (Roll Call No. 36). 
Representative Cueller offered an amendment, which was agreed 
to by a recorded vote of 416-4 (Roll Call No. 37). 
Representative Connelly offered an amendment, which was agreed 
to by a recorded vote of 417-4 (Roll Call No. 38). 
Representative Halvorson offered an amendment, which was agreed 
to by a recorded vote of 424-0 (Roll Call No. 39). 
Representative Kilroy offered an amendment, which was agreed to 
by a recorded vote of 419-4 (Roll Call No. 40). Representative 
Kissell offered an amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded 
vote of423-6 (Roll Call No. 41). Representative Owens offered 
an amendment, which was agreed to by a recorded vote of 430-0 
(Roll Call No. 42). H.R. 4061 was passed by the House by a 
recorded vote of 422-5 (Roll Call No. 43) on February 4, 2010.
    H.R. 4061 was received by the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on February 
9, 2010..

2.30--H.R. 4842, HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 4842 is to authorize the Directorate of 
Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security 
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
    Congress authorized the Science and Technology Directorate 
in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office was authorized by the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006. Over the years, the 
Committee on Homeland Security has considered measures 
affecting both components, but has never passed a 
comprehensive, multi-year authorization like H.R. 4842.
    In March 2009, on a bipartisan basis, the Committee on 
Homeland Security began a review of the activities of the 
Department's Science and Technology Directorate and Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office. The Homeland Security Act broadly 
authorizes the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to 
conduct research, development, testing, and evaluation 
activities for the Department, utilizing national laboratories 
and federally funded research and development centers, and 
specifically transfers a number of functions to the Under 
Secretary for the purposes of achieving his or her 
responsibilities. In reviewing the Department's use of these 
authorities, the Committee determined that accountability and 
internal procedures, essential to the Department's ability to 
perform its research and development mission, were 
insufficient.
    The Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization 
Act of 2010 addresses management, administration, and 
programmatic areas affecting the Science and Technology 
Directorate (`S&T') and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 
(`DNDO'). The legislation principally emphasizes management and 
administrative aspects. To foster a culture that puts the needs 
of S&T's customers at the forefront, and more closely align 
research and development activities with identified homeland 
security risks, the legislation directs the establishment of a 
more rigorous process within the S&T Directorate for 
identifying, prioritizing, and funding research opportunities. 
The legislation places a number of additional reporting 
requirements on the Department to ensure compliance with the 
law and Congressional intent. The legislation contains several 
specific programmatic areas for research.
Legislative History
    H.R. 4842 was introduced by Representative Clarke on March 
13, 201 and referred to the House Committee on Science and 
Technology and the House Committee on Homeland Security on 
March 15, 2010.
    The House Committee on Homeland Security met to consider 
H.R. 4842 on March 16, 2010. The Committee voted to report the 
bill to the House by a recorded vote of 26-0. H.R. 4842 was 
reported to the House, as amended, on March 18, 2010. (H. Rept. 
111-486, Part I). H.R. 4248 was referred sequentially to the 
House Committee on Science and Technology on March 18, 2010. 
The Committee on Science and Technology discharged the bill on 
June 25, 2010.
    The House considered H.R. 4842 under suspension of the 
rules on July 20, 2010, and the bill was passed by voice vote.
    H.R. 4842 was received in the Senate on July 21, 2010 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 4842.

2.31--H.R. 5716, SAFER OIL AND NATURAL GAS DRILLING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 
                          AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of this bill is to provide for the enhancement 
of existing efforts in support of research, development, 
demonstration, and commercial application activities to advance 
technologies for the safe and environmentally responsible 
exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas 
resources.
    On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire occurred on the BP 
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig as it completed the final stages 
of an exploratory well in approximately 5,000 feet of water. 
The rig capsized and sank two days later, leaving an 
uncontrolled flow of oil and gas from the wellhead, and 
resulting in the largest oil spill in U.S. history. While an 
investigation into the exact cause of the Deepwater Horizon 
accident is ongoing, it is understood to be a confluence of 
critical human errors and the failure of certain equipment 
designed to stop such an incident.
    Initial investigations of the Deepwater Horizon incident 
indicate that, in addition to a series of operator errors that 
compromised wellbore integrity, the highest-consequence 
technology failure lay in the inability of the Blowout 
Preventer (BOP) in immediately terminating oil and gas flow 
from the well. The BOP is a very large mechanism positioned at 
the wellhead on the seafloor, and is comprised of a series of 
high pressure hydraulic valves designed to stop an uncontrolled 
flow of oil and gas from the well. As a failsafe option of last 
resort, a BOP includes at least one `blind shear ram' which 
uses two blades to cut through the metal drill pipe and seal 
the wellbore. A BOP can be activated by personnel from the 
drill rig, automatically via a `deadman switch', via acoustic 
signal from a vessel other than the drill rig, or manually by 
remotely-operated vehicles (ROV). ROVs also perform a range of 
other deepwater functions. The crew aboard the Deepwater 
Horizon attempted unsuccessfully to activate the BOP before 
evacuating the rig, and subsequent attempts to activate the BOP 
using ROVs and other methods also failed. A number of 
stakeholders inside and outside of the industry, including the 
CEO of BP, have concluded that the design of blowout preventers 
must be rethought altogether. Witnesses at the June 9th, 2010, 
and June 23rd, 2010, Science and Technology Committee hearings 
testified about the need for industry and government-sponsored 
research into BOPs and a range of other accident prevention and 
mitigation technologies and practices.
    Deepwater drilling presents a unique set of technological 
challenges, including for environmental and worker safety, and 
accident prevention and mitigation. Operations must be 
optimized for the extreme pressures, stresses, and temperature 
variations that can affect the subsea and surface equipment and 
architecture, drilling materials, and the hydrocarbon reservoir 
itself. Consequently, the industry has invested billions of 
dollars in researching and developing advanced drilling systems 
specific to the deepwater and ultra-deepwater, especially those 
technologies which represent an increase in production 
efficiency. However, many contend that the industry has not 
devoted comparable resources to the development of technologies 
and methods for accident prevention and mitigation in the 
deepwater. Furthermore, while the technological demands differ 
between onshore and offshore, the onshore industry sector, 
including small producers, faces similar challenges in ensuring 
the safe and environmentally responsible exploration and 
production of oil and natural gas.
    Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the 
Secretary of Energy to establish an `Ultra-Deepwater and 
Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum 
Resources' research and development program. Management of the 
999 program was awarded to a research consortium known as the 
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), 
which is overseen for DOE by the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory (NETL). The program is funded through $50 million in 
annual mandatory spending from offshore oil and gas royalty 
revenues collected by the Department of Interior. Of this, DOE 
conducts approximately $12.5 million (25 percent) of `in-house' 
research at NETL. The remaining $37.5 million (75 percent) is 
managed by the research consortium, RPSEA, and is divided into 
three parts: ultra-deepwater architecture and technology; 
unconventional onshore natural gas and other resources; and 
technology challenges of small producers. RPSEA currently has 
approximately 170 members, with representation from industry, 
academia, NGOs, and government laboratories and programs.
    In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, questions 
have arisen as to how the program activities authorized by 
Section 999 could better serve the nation in the development of 
advanced environmental and worker safety technologies and 
practices for oil and gas exploration and production, while 
also bolstering the federal government's technical expertise on 
deepwater, ultra-deepwater, and unconventional onshore drilling 
technologies.
Legislative History
    H.R. 5716 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on 
July 13, 2010 and referred to the Committee on Science and 
Technology and the Committee on Natural Resources.
    The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider the 
bill on July 14, 2010. The Committee on Science and Technology 
agreed to report the bill to the House by voice vote. The 
Committee on Science and Technology reported the bill, as 
amended, to the House on July 21, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-554). The 
Committee on Natural Resources discharged the bill on July 21, 
2010.
    The House considered the bill under suspension of the rules 
on July 21, 2010. The bill was agreed to by voice vote.
    H.R. 5716 was received in the Senate on July 22, 2010. No 
further legislative action was taken on the bill.

    2.32--H.R. 5781, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the science, 
aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration programs of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for 
the fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and address space and 
aeronautics policy and programmatic issues.
    The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 provided 
policy and programmatic guidance for NASA that made clear that 
NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a 
balanced portfolio of programs in science, aeronautics, and 
human space flight, including human and robotic exploration 
beyond low Earth orbit. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 
reaffirms the basic principles espoused in the earlier NASA 
Authorizations while emphasizing the need to reinvigorate 
NASA's capability to undertake innovative space technology and, 
replenish our Earth observations assets and capabilities, and 
restructure NASA's existing exploration program so that it can 
be both executable and productive in spite of a very 
challenging budgetary environment. It also reaffirms the 2008 
Authorization's support for a healthy commercial space sector 
and includes provisions to foster its growth. The need for the 
legislation at this time is due to the expiration of the 
previous authorization and the fact that major changes to 
NASA's programs have been proposed by the Administration and 
debated by Congress over the past year. Without a clear 
statement of congressional priorities and policies for NASA, 
the nation runs the risk of serious drift in our space program, 
with a resultant cost in time and resources and loss of 
critical capabilities.
Legislative History
    H.R. 5781 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on 
July 20, 2010 and referred to the House Science and Technology 
Committee. The Committee met to consider the bill on July 22, 
2010. The Committee agreed to report the bill to the House, as 
amended, by voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 5781, as 
amended, on July 28, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-576). No further 
legislative action was taken on H.R. 5781. However, the Senate 
companion to H.R. 5781 was subsequently enacted (see P.L. 111-
267 in Chapter I for more information).

  2.33--H.R. 5866, NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    Today in the United States there are 104 nuclear reactors 
producing approximately 20 percent of our nation's electricity 
supply and 70 percent of our emissions-free energy. However, 
nuclear power as it exists today relies on a `once-through' 
fuel cycle that produces high level radioactive waste from 
enriched uranium. In the United States, there exists a 
stockpile of approximately 63,000 metric tons of nuclear waste 
from reactors which generate roughly 2,000 more tons per year. 
Furthermore, the capital costs of nuclear plants have risen 
steeply and present a high hurdle to deployment of new 
reactors. Some have argued that without a fully developed 
strategy to deal with these challenges, nuclear power will be 
unable to compete with other fuel sources. Furthermore, in any 
carbon dioxide restrained regime, nuclear power will play a 
large role in energy production. To attain the 2030 reduction 
goals set in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 
2454, the Energy Information Administration estimated that at 
least 96 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity would be needed.
    To address these challenges, the Nuclear Energy Research & 
Development Act of 2010 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
modify and augment existing nuclear research and development 
programs at the Department of Energy. The primary goals of this 
bill are to mitigate the problems associated with nuclear waste 
and reduce the capital costs of nuclear power through a robust 
and integrated research, development, demonstration, and 
commercial application program.
    The bill repeals the requirement that the Secretary of 
Energy implement the nuclear power 2010 program, the generation 
IV nuclear energy systems initiative, and the reactor 
production of hydrogen. The bill also directs the Secretary to 
implement research and development to advance fission power 
systems and technologies (reactor concepts) to sustain 
currently deployed systems, a small modular reactor program to 
promote research and development of small modular reactors, and 
research and development on fuel cycle options that improve 
uranium resource utilization, maximize energy generation, 
minimize nuclear waste creation, improve safety, and mitigate 
risk of proliferation in support of a national strategy for 
spent nuclear fuel and reactor concepts. Additionally, H.R. 
5866 instructs the Secretary, in carrying out certain optional 
initiatives, to consider the final report on a long-term 
nuclear waste solution produced by the Blue Ribbon Commission 
on America's Nuclear Future, directs the Secretary to conduct a 
program to support the integration of certain activities 
undertaken through R&D programs for reactor concepts and 
crosscutting nuclear energy concepts, and requires the 
Secretary to report to Congress on the quantitative risks 
associated with the potential of a severe accident arising from 
the use of nuclear power and current technologies to mitigate 
the consequences of such an accident. The bill changes the 
location of the prototype Next Generation Nuclear reactor and 
associated Plant from the Idaho National Laboratory (IDL) to a 
construction site determined by the IDL-organized consortium of 
appropriate industrial partners through an open and transparent 
competitive selection process, directs the Comptroller General 
to submit to Congress a status update of the Next Generation 
Nuclear Plant program, and finally requires the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
establish a nuclear energy standards committee to facilitate 
the development or revision of technical standards for new and 
existing nuclear power plants and advanced nuclear 
technologies.
Legislative History
    H.R. 5866 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on 
July 27, 2010 and referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment of the House Science and Technology Committee. The 
Subcommittee met to consider the bill on July 28, 2010 and 
forwarded to the full committee by voice vote. The bill was 
reported, as amended, to the House by the Science and 
Technology Committee on November 18, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-658). 
The House considered the bill under suspension of the rules on 
November 30, 2010. The bill, as amended, was agreed to by voice 
vote.
    H.R. 5866 was received in the Senate on December 1, 2010, 
read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. No further legislative action was taken on 
H.R. 5866.

2.34--H.R. 6160, RARE EARTHS AND CRITICAL MATERIALS REVITALIZATION ACT 
                                OF 2010

Background and Need for Legislation
    The purpose of H.R. 6160 is to develop a rare earth 
materials program, to amend the National Materials and Minerals 
Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and for other 
purposes. Rare earth materials, or rare earths, are critical 
components of a broad range of technologies with applications 
in important industrial sectors such as defense, manufacturing, 
energy, transportation, optics, and electronics. Weapons 
guidance systems, petroleum refining catalysts, advanced 
vehicle batteries, wind turbine motors, jet engines, miniature 
disk drives and speakers, televisions and monitors, compact 
fluorescent light bulbs, and optical cable are just a few 
examples of technologies that cannot currently be made without 
rare earths. And, demand for rare earths for these and other 
technologies is only expected to increase. However, for the 
past decade, the United States and the rest of the world have 
been almost entirely dependent on China to supply rare earths.
    The purpose of H.R. 6160 is to spur U.S. research, 
development and education in rare earths; to help facilitate 
investment in domestic production facilities across the entire 
rare earths supply chain; to promote international 
collaboration in the field; and to catalogue and disseminate 
research results and other information on rare earths. Many 
experts agree that actions are needed to expand the limited 
capabilities left behind from the Nation's former world 
leadership in these technologies, and to train the new 
scientists and engineers who will restore our ability to 
compete in the global market.
    The U.S.'s mechanism for establishing a materials policy 
and monitoring the materials industry has also significantly 
diminished over the last three decades. The Congress passed the 
National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and 
Development Act in 1980 to address concerns with bottlenecks in 
the production of tungsten and the platinum group metals. That 
law required both the Executive Office of the President and the 
Cabinet Departments to identify, track, and act to avert 
impacts on national security or the economy from a lack of 
materials. Four years later, dissatisfied with the progress of 
implementation, Congress passed the National Critical Materials 
Act, creating a National Critical Materials Council to serve as 
the President's primary advisers on materials issues and to 
oversee implementation of the 1980 Act. The mechanisms set up 
by the 1980 Act had since atrophied--the Committee on Materials 
formerly constituted within the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy no longer exist, the Bureau of Mines of the 
Department of the Interior has been disbanded, and there is no 
identifiable `early warning' system as called for in the law. 
The National Critical Materials Council had little perceptible 
input on U.S. materials policy, and was ultimately terminated 
early in the Clinton administration.
    H.R. 6160 amends provisions in the 1980 National Materials 
and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act to remove 
obsolete provisions and require the Executive Office of the 
President and the Cabinet agencies to be attentive to the state 
of materials supply to meet the Nation's various needs. 
Particularly important is the design and maintenance of an 
`early warning' system to prevent the U.S. from encountering 
emergency situations in regards to supplies of materials like 
rare earths. Finally, given the difficulties encountered by the 
National Critical Materials Council in overcoming bureaucratic 
resistance within the White House and the agencies, and the 
fact that its dissolution in 1993 has had very little effect on 
the Nation's national materials policy, H.R. 6160 repeals the 
underlying 1984 statute. Doing so returns accountability for 
materials issues to the Executive Office of the President and 
the Cabinet agencies.
Legislative History
    H.R. 6160 was introduced on September 22, 2010 by 
Representative Kathleen Dahlkemper and referred to the House 
Science and Technology Committee. The Committee met to consider 
the bill on September 23, 2010 and agreed, by voice vote, to 
report the bill to the House. The bill, as amended was reported 
to the House on September 28, 2010 (H. Rept. 111-644).
    The House considered the bill under suspension of the rules 
on September 28, 2010. The bill, as amended, was agreed to by a 
recorded vote of 325-98 (Roll Call No. 555).
    H.R. 6160 was received in the Senate on September 29, 2010, 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. No further legislative action was taken on H.R. 
6160.
 Chapter III--Commemorative Resolutions Discharged by the Committee on 
   Science and Technology and Passed by the House of Representatives

  3.1--H. CON. RES. 167, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL 
                 AEROSPACE DAY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Con. Res. 167 supports the goals and ideals of National 
Aerospace Day, and recognizes the contributions of the 
aerospace industry to the history, economy, security, and 
educational system of the United States.
Legislative History
    H. Con. Res. 167 was introduced by Representative Vernon 
Ehlers and solely referred to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on July 20, 2009. On September 9, 2009 the House 
debated the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed 
the resolution by voice vote. It was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation on September 10, 2009.

  3.2--H. CON. RES. 292, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL 
                 AEROSPACE WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Con. Res. 292 supports the goals and ideals of National 
Aerospace Week, and recognizes the contributions of the 
aerospace industry to the history, economy, security, and 
educational system of the United States.

Legislative History
    H. Con. Res. 292 was introduced by Representative Vernon 
Ehlers and solely referred to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on June 30, 2010. On July 21, 2010 the House debated 
the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the 
resolution, 413-0. It was received and agreed to in the Senate 
on September 13, 2010 without amendment and with a preamble by 
Unanimous Consent.

 3.3--H. RES. 67, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 
 AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA), THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY (JPL), 
AND CORNELL UNIVERSITY FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE MARS EXPLORATION ROVERS, 
     SPIRIT AND OPPORTUNITY, ON THE 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROVERS' 
                           SUCCESSFUL LANDING

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 67 commends the engineers, scientists, and 
technicians of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Cornell 
University for their successful execution and continued 
operation of the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and 
Opportunity, and recognizes the success and significant 
scientific contributions of NASA's Mars Exploration Rovers.

Legislative History
    H. Res. 67 was introduced by Representative David Dreier 
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 
January 15, 2009. On March 11, 2009 the House debated the 
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the 
resolution, Y-421, N-0 (Roll Call No. 116).

3.4--H. RES. 117, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS 
                      WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 117 supports the goals and ideals of National 
Engineers Week and its aims to increase understanding of and 
interest in engineering and technology careers and to promote 
literacy in math and science.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 117 was introduced by Representative Dan Lipinski 
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on February 4, 2009. On February 12, 2009 the House agreed to 
the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-422, N-0 (Roll 
Call No. 64).

 3.5--H. RES. 224, SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF PI DAY, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The Greek letter (Pi) is the symbol for the ratio of the 
circumference of a circle to its diameter. The ratio Pi is an 
irrational number, which will continue indefinitely without 
repeating, and has been calculated to over one trillion digits. 
Pi has been studied throughout history and is central in 
mathematics as well as science and engineering. Pi can be 
approximated as 3.14, and thus March 14, 2009 was designated 
``National Pi Day''. H. Res. 224 supports the designation of 
``Pi Day'' and its celebration around the world, and recognizes 
the continuing importance of National Science Foundation's math 
and science education programs.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 224 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon 
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on March 9, 2009. On March 12, 2009 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-391, N-10 (Roll 
Call No. 124).

3.6--H. RES. 387, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL HURRICANE 
                           PREPAREDNESS WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 387 supports the goals and ideals of National 
Hurricane Preparedness Week, encourages the staff of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially the 
National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center, and 
other appropriate Federal agencies, to continue their 
outstanding work of educating people in the United States about 
hurricane preparedness, and urges the people of the United 
States to recognize such a week as an opportunity to learn more 
about the work of the National Hurricane Center in forecasting 
hurricanes and educating citizens about the potential risks of 
the storms.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 387 was introduced by Representative Mario Diaz-
Balart and solely referred to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on April 30, 2009. On May 12, 2009 the House debated 
the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the 
resolution by voice vote.

3.7--H. RES. 413, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF ``IEEE ENGINEERING 
        THE FUTURE'' DAY ON MAY 13, 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The IEEE is the world's largest technical professional 
society, with more than 375,000 members, including more than 
210,000 members in the United States. The IEEE members are 
engineers, scientists, and other professionals whose technical 
interests and rooted in electrical and computer sciences, 
engineering, and related disciplines. The resolution recognizes 
the importance of engineering and technology to meeting our 
Nation's most pressing challenges, congratulates IEEE on its 
125th anniversary, and supports the goals and ideals of ``IEEE 
Engineering the Future'' Day.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 413 was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns 
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on May 6, 2009. On May 12, 2009 the House debated the 
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the 
resolution, Y-409, N-0 (Roll Call No. 244).

   3.8--H. RES. 447, RECOGNIZING THE REMARKABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE 
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES FOR ITS 100 YEARS OF SERVICE 
               TO THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRY AND THE NATION

Background and Summary of Legislation
    The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and 
its thousands of members firms celebrated the Council's 100th 
anniversary in 2009. The ACEC is the oldest and largest 
business association of America's engineering industry, 
representing more than 5,000 engineering firms that employ 
500,000 professionals, engaged in a wide range of practices 
that propel our economy and ensure a high quality of life for 
all people in the United States. H. Res. 447 congratulates the 
American Council of Engineering Companies for its 100 years of 
service.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 447 was introduced by Representative Heath Shuler 
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on May 14, 2009. On September 9, 2009 the House debated the 
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the 
resolution, Y-420, N-0 (Roll Call No. 690).

 3.9--H. RES. 492, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
                             BUILDING WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 492 supports the goals and ideals of High-
Performance Building Week and recognizes and reaffirms the 
Nation's commitment to High-Performance Buildings by promoting 
awareness about their benefits and by promoting new education 
programs, supporting research, and expanding access to 
information. The resolution also recognizes the unique role 
that the Department of Energy plays through the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Building Technologies 
Program, which works closely with the building industry and 
manufacturers to conduct research and development on 
technologies and practices for building energy efficiency, and 
recognizes the important role that the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology plays in developing the measurement 
science needed to develop, test, integrate, and demonstrate the 
new building technologies. The resolution also encourages 
further research and development of high-performance building 
standards, research, and development.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 492 was introduced by Representative Russ Carnahan 
and solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on June 2, 2009. On June 8, 2009 the House debated the 
resolution under suspension of the rules and passed the 
resolution by voice vote.

   3.10--H. RES. 558, SUPPORTING THE INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF, AND 
 INTEREST IN, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTING CAREERS AMONG THE PUBLIC 
 AND IN SCHOOLS, AND TO ENSURE AN AMPLE AND DIVERSE FUTURE TECHNOLOGY 
    WORKFORCE THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 
                             EDUCATION WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 558 supports the designation of National Computer 
Science Education Week and encourages schools, teachers, 
researchers, universities, and policymakers to identify 
mechanisms for teachers to receive cutting edge professional 
development to provide sustainable learning experiences in 
computer science at all educational levels and encourages 
students to be exposed to computer science concepts. The 
resolution also encourages opportunities, including through 
existing programs, for females and underrepresented minorities 
in computer science and supports research in computer science 
to address what would motivate increased participation in this 
field.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 558 was introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers 
and referred to the House Committee and Science and Technology, 
and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor on June 
18, 2009. On October 20, 2009 the House debated the resolution 
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution, Y-405, 
N-0 (Roll Call No. 792).

 3.11--H. RES. 607, CELEBRATING THE FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APOLLO 
                            11 MOON LANDING

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 607 celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 
11 lunar landing, honors the brave crew of the Apollo 11 
mission--Neil Armstrong, ``Buzz'' Aldrin, and Michael Collins, 
and commends all those individuals and organizations who 
contributed to such a historic achievement that continues to be 
an inspiration to the Nation and the world.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 607 was introduced by Representative Ralph Hall and 
solely referred to the Committee on Science and Technology on 
July 7, 2009. On July 20, 2009 the House debated the resolution 
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution, Y-390, 
N-0 (Roll Call No. 594).

  3.12--H. RES. 631, CONGRATULATING CONTINENTAL AIRLINES ON ITS 75TH 
                              ANNIVERSARY

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 631 recognizes the 75th anniversary of operations 
by Continental Airlines and congratulates the employees of 
Continental Airlines for the numerous awards and accolades they 
have earned for the company over the years.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 631 was introduced by Representative Gene Green on 
July 10, 2009. On July 22, 2009 the Committee on Science and 
Technology was discharged from public consideration of the 
resolution and that it was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce. On July 29, 2009 House debated the resolution 
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution by 
voice vote.

    3.13--H. RES. 793, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL 
                             CHEMISTRY WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 793 recognizes that the contributions of chemical 
scientists and engineers have created new jobs, boosted 
economic growth, and improved the Nation's health and standard 
of living, supports the goals and ideals of National Chemistry 
Week, and encourages the people of the United States to observe 
National Chemistry Week with appropriate recognition, 
activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of 
chemistry to everyday life.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 793 was introduced by Representative Silvestre 
Reyes and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on October 1, 2009. On October 20, 2009 House 
debated the resolution under suspension of the rules and passed 
the resolution by voice vote.

  3.14--H. RES. 797, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO 
  RAISING AWARENESS AND ENHANCING THE STATE OF CYBER SECURITY IN THE 
UNITED STATES, AND SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE SIXTH ANNUAL 
                NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 797 recognizes that cyber security is a critical 
part of the Nation's overall homeland security. The resolution 
express that the House of Representatives supports the goals 
and ideals of National Cyber Security Awareness month and 
intends to work with Federal agencies, national organizations, 
businesses, and educational institutions to encourage the 
development and implementation of existing and future cyber 
security consensus standards, practices, and technologies in 
order to enhance the state of cyber security in the United 
States.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 797 was introduced by Representative Yvette Clarke 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on October 6, 2009. On October 22, 2009 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-415, N-0 (Roll Call 
No. 800).

   3.15--H. RES. 935, HONORING JOHN E. WARNOCK, CHARLES M. GESCHKE, 
    FORREST M. BIRD, ESTHER SANS TAKEUCHI, AND IBM CORPORATION FOR 
     RECEIVING THE 2008 NATIONAL MEDAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 935 honors John E. Warnock, Charles M. Geschke, 
Forrest M. Bird, Esther Sans Takeuchi, and IBM Corporation for 
receiving the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, 
which is the highest honor for technological achievement given 
by the President to the country's leading innovators.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 935 was introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on November 19, 2009. On March 9, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-402, N-0 (Roll Call 
No. 94).

 3.16--H. RES. 1027, RECOGNIZING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HISTORIC 
DIVE TO THE CHALLENGER DEEP IN THE MARIANA TRENCH, THE DEEPEST POINT IN 
 THE WORLD'S OCEANS, ON JANUARY 23, 1960, AND ITS IMPORTANCE TO MARINE 
RESEARCH, OCEAN SCIENCE, A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PLANET, AND THE 
                      FUTURE OF HUMAN EXPLORATION

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1027 recognizes the 50th anniversary of the 
historic dive to the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, the 
deepest point in the world's oceans, on January 23, 1960, and 
its importance to marine research, ocean science, a better 
understanding of the planet, and the future of human 
exploration.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1027 was introduced by Representative Gregorio 
Sablan and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on January 21, 2010. On March 19, 2010 the House 
agreed to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-398, 
N-2 (Roll Call No. 126).

  3.17--H. RES. 1055, SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL ROBOTICS 
                        WEEK AS AN ANNUAL EVENT

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1055 supports the designation of National Robotics 
Week (NRW) as an annual event and encourages institutions of 
higher education and companies which utilize robotics 
technology to hold open houses during NRW to help explain the 
technology and its applications. The resolution also encourages 
science museums to organize events and demonstrations during 
NRW that help to educate and engage the public about robotics 
technology. The resolution also encourages additional 
educational activities related to robotics and affirms the 
growing importance of robotics technology.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1055 was introduced by Representative Michael Doyle 
and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in 
addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, on February 
2, 2010. On March 9, 2010 the House debated the resolution 
under suspension of the rules and passed the resolution by 
voice vote.

3.18--H. RES. 1069, CONGRATULATING WILLARD S. BOYLE AND GEORGE E. SMITH 
              FOR BEING AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1069 congratulates Willard S. Boyle and George E. 
Smith for being awarded the Nobel Prize in physics and 
recognizes Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, as a 
contributor to leadership in scientific research and innovation 
in the United States.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1069 was introduced by Representative Lance Leonard 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on February 3, 2010. On March 9, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-402, N-0 (Roll Call 
No. 93).

    3.19--H. RES. 1097, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL 
                 ENGINEERS WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1097 supports the goals and ideals of National 
Engineers Week to increase the understanding of and interest in 
engineering careers and to promote technological literacy and 
engineering education, and resolves that the House of 
Representatives will continue to work with the engineering 
community to ensure that the creativity and contributions made 
by engineers can be expressed through research, development, 
standardization, and innovation.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1097 was introduced by Representative Daniel 
Lipinski and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on February 23, 2010. On March 2, 2010 the House 
agreed to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-382, 
N-0 (Roll Call No. 77).

  3.20--H. RES. 1133, RECOGNIZING THE EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF AFRICAN-
AMERICANS WHO HAVE OVERCOME SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES TO ENHANCE INNOVATION 
    AND COMPETITIVENESS IN THE FIELD OF SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1133 recognizes the extraordinary number of 
African-Americans who have overcome significant obstacles to 
enhance innovation and competitiveness in the field of science 
in the United States, honors and recognizes all African-
American innovators who have contributed to scientific 
education and research, directly and indirectly, whose 
contributions have increased economic empowerment in the United 
States, and encourages the Administration to invest in programs 
that proven effective to lessen the achievement gap of African-
Americans as well as other minority and disadvantaged groups in 
the sciences and ultimately strengthen competitiveness in the 
United States.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1133 was introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice 
Johnson and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on March 2, 2010. On March 19, 2010 the House agreed 
to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-399, N-0 
(Roll Call No. 145).

 3.21--H. RES. 1213, RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO IMPROVE THE PARTICIPATION 
     AND PERFORMANCE OF AMERICA'S STUDENTS IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 
 ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) FIELDS, SUPPORTING THE IDEALS OF 
                NATIONAL LAB DAY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1213 supports the ideals of National Lab Day, calls 
upon the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the 
National Science Foundation to continue fostering partnerships 
such as those involved in National Lab Day, and encourages 
scientists, volunteers, and educators to participate in 
National Lab Day.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1213 was introduced by Representative Marcia Fudge 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on March 24, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-378, N-2 (Roll Call 
No. 244).

  3.22--H. RES. 1231, CELEBRATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNITED 
  STATES TELEVISION INFRARED OBSERVATION SATELLITE, THE WORLD'S FIRST 
  METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITE, LAUNCHED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 
 SPACE ADMINISTRATION ON APRIL 1, 1960, AND FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF 
    PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD TO PROMOTE THE 
          PEACEFUL USE OF SPACE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1231 celebrates the achievement of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Television 
Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS I) team who worked 
together to enable the successful launch and operation of TIROS 
I by the United States to establish applications of space 
systems and technology for the benefit of people worldwide. The 
resolution also recognizes the role of the United States space 
program in strengthening the scientific and engineering 
foundation that contributes to United States innovation and 
economic growth.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1231 was introduced by Representative Rush Holt and 
referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology on 
March 24, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

 3.23--H. RES. 1269, COMMEMORATING THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST 
   USE OF THE TELESCOPE FOR ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATION BY THE ITALIAN 
                       SCIENTIST GALILEO GALILEI

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1269 commemorates the 400th anniversary of the 
first use of the telescope for astronomical observation by the 
Italian scientist Galileo Galilei for astronomical observation 
and marks this discovery as one of the major events impacting 
making, and expresses its gratitude for Galileo's expansion of 
the universe and mankind's understanding of his place in the 
cosmos.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1269 was introduced by Representative Patrick 
Tiberi and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on April 15, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed 
to the resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

  3.24--H. RES. 1307, HONORING THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FOR 60 
                     YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE NATION

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1307 recognizes the significance of the anniversary 
of the founding of the National Science Foundation, 
acknowledges that 60 years of National Science Foundation 
achievements and service to the United States have advanced our 
Nation's leadership in discovery, innovation, and learning in 
science, engineering, and mathematics, and reaffirms the House 
of Representatives commitment to support investments in basic 
research, education, and technological advancement through the 
National Science Foundation, one of the premier scientific 
organizations in the world.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1307 was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on April 29, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-370, N-2 (Roll Call 
No. 243).

   3.25--H. RES. 1310, RECOGNIZING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LASER

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1310 recognizes the 50th anniversary of the laser 
and also recognizes the need for continued support of 
scientific research to maintain America's future 
competitiveness.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1310 was introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on April 29, 2010. On May 4, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

    3.26--H. RES. 1388, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL 
                      HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1388 supports the goals and ideals National 
Hurricane Preparedness Week, encourages the staff of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to continue 
educating people in the United States about Hurricane 
preparedness, and urges the people of the United States to 
recognize such a week as an opportunity to learn more about the 
work of the National Hurricane Center in forecasting hurricanes 
and educating citizens about the potential risks of the storms.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1388 was introduced by Representative Mario Diaz-
Balart and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on May 24, 2010. On June 23, 2010 the House agreed 
to the resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-419, N-0 
(Roll Call No. 384).

3.27--H. RES. 1407, SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
                             BUILDING WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1407 supports the goals and ideals of High-
Performance Building Week, recognizes and reaffirms the 
Nation's commitment to high-performance buildings by promoting 
awareness about their benefits and by promoting new education 
programs, supporting research, and expanding access to 
information. The resolution also recognizes the unique and 
important roles that the Department of Energy and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology play with respect to 
building technologies, and encourages further research and 
development of high performance building standards, research, 
and development.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1407 was introduced by Representative Judy Biggert 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on May 27, 2010. On June 22, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules, Y-371, N-20 (Roll 
Call No. 378).

 3.28--H. RES. 1421, RECOGNIZING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APOLLO 13 
 MISSION AND THE HEROIC ACTIONS OF BOTH THE CREW AND THOSE WORKING AT 
 MISSION CONTROL IN HOUSTON, TEXAS, FOR BRINGING THE THREE ASTRONAUTS, 
     FRED HAISE, JIM LOVELL, AND JACK SWIGERT, HOME TO EARTH SAFELY

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1421 recognizes the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 
13 mission and the bravery and heroism of the Apollo 13 
mission, as well as the men and women in mission control. The 
resolution reaffirms the House of Representatives' support of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 
human space flight and recognizes the tremendous advances to 
science and technology in the United States that were spurned 
by the Apollo space program.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1421 was introduced by Representative Ted Poe and 
referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology on 
May 28, 2010. On September 28, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

  3.29--H. RES. 1560, SUPPORTING THE INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF, AND 
 INTEREST IN, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTING CAREERS AMONG THE PUBLIC 
 AND IN SCHOOLS, AND TO ENSURE AN AMPLE AND DIVERSE FUTURE TECHNOLOGY 
    WORKFORCE THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 
                             EDUCATION WEEK

Background and Summary of Legislation
    This resolution supports the designation of National 
Computer Science Education Week and encourages schools, 
teachers, researchers, universities, and policymakers to 
identify mechanisms for teachers to receive cutting edge 
professional development to provide sustainable learning 
experiences in computer science at all education levels and 
encourage students to be exposed to computer science concepts. 
The resolution also encourages opportunities for females and 
underrepresented minorities in computer science and expresses 
support for research in computer science to advance what would 
motivate increased participation in the field.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1560 was introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on July 27, 2010. On September 23, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

3.30--H. RES. 1660, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE 
 INAUGURAL USA SCIENCE & ENGINEERING FESTIVAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND 
                           FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1660 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 
the inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival to promote 
science scholarship and an interest in scientific research and 
development as the cornerstones of innovation and competition 
in America. The resolution also congratulates all the 
individuals and organizations whose efforts will make the USA 
Science & Engineering festival possible, and encourages 
families and their children to participate in the activities 
and exhibits which will occur on the National Mall and across 
America as satellite events to the USA Science & Engineering 
festival.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1660 was introduced by Representative Brian Bilbray 
and referred solely to the Committee on Science and Technology 
on July 27, 2010. On September 28, 2010 the House agreed to the 
resolution under suspension of the rules by voice vote.

     3.31--H. RES. 1714, CONGRATULATING THE ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, 
    PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND STAFF OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
  ADMINISTRATION (NASA) FOR HELPING TO SUCCESSFULLY RESCUE 33 TRAPPED 
        CHILEAN MINERS FROM A COLLAPSED MINE NEAR COPIAPO, CHILE

Background and Summary of Legislation
    H. Res. 1714 congratulates the engineers, scientists, 
psychologists, and staff of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for helping to successfully rescue 33 trapped 
Chilean miners from a collapsed mine near Copiapo, Chile. The 
resolution also recognizes that the experience and knowledge of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has acquired 
through space flight is beneficial to human life on Earth and 
was critical to the successful rescue of the Chilean miners.
Legislative History
    H. Res. 1714 was introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice 
Johnson and referred solely to the Committee on Science and 
Technology on November 15, 2010. On November 16, 2010 the House 
agreed to the resolution under suspension of the rules by voice 
vote.
   Chapter IV--Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the 
 Committee on Science and Technology, Including Selected Subcommittee 
                         Legislative Activities

                4.1--COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

     4.1(a)_Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and Innovation 
                     to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle

                           February 11, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-1

Background
    On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to discuss draft legislation entitled the Electronic 
Waste Research and Development Act of 2009. The purpose of the 
hearing was to discuss ways in which research and development 
can help address the challenge of managing the disposal of 
electronics products in the United States.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Valerie Thomas, Anderson 
Interface Associate Professor at Georgia Institute of 
Technology; (2) Dr. Paul Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III 
Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment and 
Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green 
Engineering, Yale University; (3) Mr. Philip Bond, President of 
TechAmerica; (4) Mr. Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director of the 
Green Electronic Council and Electronic Product Environmental 
Assessment Tool (EPEAT); and (5) Mr. Willie Cade, Chief 
Executive Officer of PC Rebuilders and Recyclers.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by noting that this was 
the Science and Technology Committee's second hearing on the 
problem of electronic waste, or e-waste. He explained that 
Americans are discarding an increasing number of obsolete or 
broken electronic devices and that the majority of these items 
end up in landfills, rather than in the hands of recyclers. In 
addition to raising environmental concerns, this practice 
wastes the valuable materials, such as gold and copper, 
contained in electronics that could be recycled. Moreover, many 
discarded electronics are shipped overseas where low-wage 
workers, often children, disassemble them under unsafe 
conditions. Chairman Gordon then explained his draft 
legislation, which would direct the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to support research and development to make it 
easier and less costly to recycle electronics and to make 
electronics themselves more environmentally friendly. Ranking 
Member Hall talked about the fast pace of innovation and 
improvement in electronic devices. He also mentioned programs 
and guidelines already in place at EPA and wondered how the 
draft legislation would complement these existing programs and 
guidelines.
    Dr. Thomas explained that the electronic supply chain is 
not designed with recycling in mind. She suggested possible 
methods to make recycling easier, such as including an 
identifying tag on electronics (such as a bar code or a radio 
frequency identification tag) that would allow recyclers to 
identify the make and model of a product. She noted too that 
recycling rates are low because the existing collection 
programs are often difficult to use. She expanded upon the 
identification tag idea and suggested that recycling bins could 
be made to scan the identification tags and arrange for pick-
up. Dr. Thomas noted that students are eager to work on 
environmental issues, and the draft legislation would help 
encourage students to work in the engineering field.
    Dr. Anastas testified that e-waste is a serious problem, 
but that it is only one aspect of a much larger problem. He 
said that electronics production is both energy- and resource-
intensive, and more work needs to be done to reduce the 
environmental impact of the entire life cycle of electronic 
products. He also explained that there are existing green 
chemistry and green engineering principles, some of which are 
already in use, which could be used to make electronic devices 
more environmentally friendly. However, he noted that the 
majority of products on the market do not make use of this 
design knowledge. Dr. Anastas named a number of research 
priorities that could help address the e-waste problem and make 
electronics more environmentally sustainable. For instance, he 
suggested that there are a number of ways to use old 
electronics in new applications, and noted that research could 
yield new design options (including new material joining 
options) to aid in disassembly. Finally, Dr. Anastas testified 
that research was imperative in addressing the e-waste 
challenge and in creating a more sustainable electronics 
industry.
    Mr. Bond noted some environmental success in the 
electronics industry, including increased energy efficiency of 
technologies and reduction in the use of toxic substances with 
less harmful materials. He also praised the legislation 
proposed by Chairman Gordon, specifically for authorizing a 
study by the National Academy of Sciences on the disposal of e-
waste, supporting research and development for environmentally 
friendly alternatives, and requiring universities to partner 
with industry to improve the training of undergraduate and 
graduate students.
    Mr. Omelchuck noted that despite their extraordinary 
utility, electronic devices are among the most energy- and 
resource-intensive products in production today. To support his 
assertion, he cited the fact that approximately 80 percent of 
the environmental impact associated with desktop computers 
occurs during the material extraction and manufacturing phase, 
not from the use of the product. As a result, Mr. Omelchuck 
supported prolonging the useful life of each product. With 
regard to recycling, Mr. Omelchuck testified that the most 
important action is to stop irresponsible recycling, where e-
waste is exported to poorer countries and recycled by methods 
that are harmful to human health and the environment. Mr. 
Omelchuck noted that recycling the huge volume of legacy 
electronics was imperative in order to recover valuable 
materials and reduce their volume in landfills; however, he 
also cautioned that any e-waste management system must 
responsibly handle the toxic material in the electronic 
products. Mr. Omelchuck also advocated for a green purchasing 
system that would educate consumers about more environmentally 
friendly electronics, and therefore incentivize producers to 
design products that are more environmentally friendly. 
Finally, he suggested that the legislation under discussion 
include policy and economic research to evaluate funding and 
governance mechanisms for e-waste recycling.
    Mr. Cade discussed the importance of refurbishment in 
addressing the e-waste challenge and testified that e-waste was 
actually a great opportunity to provide computers to people who 
might not otherwise be able to afford such equipment. He 
expressed his support for the legislation but suggested several 
changes. For instance, he suggested clearly defining 
``recycling'' to include activates such as repair and 
refurbishment, and including a definition of ``hazardous.'' 
Throughout his testimony, Mr. Cade advocated for changing 
consumer attitudes about old electronic equipment to ensure re-
use options are well considered.

     4.1(b)_Impacts of U.S. Export Control Policies on Science and 
               Technology Activities and Competitiveness

                           February 25, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-4

Background
    On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, at 10:00 am in room 2318 Rayburn House Office 
Building, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to review the impacts of current export control 
policies on U.S. science and technology activities and 
competitiveness and to examine the findings and recommendations 
of the National Academies study, Beyond ``Fortress America'': 
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a 
Globalized World. There were five witnesses: (1) Lieutenant 
General Brent Scowcroft, Co-chair of the National Academies 
Committee on Science, Security and Prosperity; (2) Mr. A. 
Thomas Young, Co-chair of the Strategic and International 
Studies Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space 
Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls; (3) Dr. 
Claude R. Canizares, Vice President for Research and Associate 
Provost at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (4) Maj. 
General Robert Dickman, Executive Director of the American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon raised concerns over the findings of 
several national reports regarding export controls. Chairman 
Gordon wanted to ensure that the nation's export controls were 
working effectively and without unintended adverse impacts. 
Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-X) expressed that changes were 
needed on export controls, but in a manner that maintains 
American security. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) agreed with 
Ranking Member Hall that changes needed to be made, but he was 
adamant that any changes must provide for careful evaluation of 
future trade partners.
    Lieutenant General Scowcroft provided testimony on the 
National Academies report, ``Beyond `Fortress America': 
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a 
Globalized World.'' Lt. General Scowcroft pointed out that 
current export controls were outdated, and their regulations 
were more applicable to the Cold War era. Lt. General Scowcroft 
added that there was a better way to manage export controls and 
suggested that ``we need to turn to an open mindset and export 
unless there is a reason not to.'' Mr. Young agreed with Lt. 
General Scowcroft's assessment of current export controls. He 
expanded in greater detail about their negative effects on the 
space commercialization industry, and specifically on the 
second and third tier space industrial base. Dr. Canizares 
discussed the diminishing effects that export controls levied 
on America's once dominant scientific leadership. Major General 
Dickman agreed with much of what had been said by the previous 
panelist, but added a sobering statement that described the 
real effects of export controls on the state of America's 
aerospace professionals: ``In a very real sense, we the 
American taxpayer, are subsidizing the development of the 
technical workforce that is building the systems that are 
taking business away from U.S. companies and threatening our 
security.''

        4.1(c)_21st Century Water Planning: The Importance of a 
                      Coordinated Federal Approach

                             March 4, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-6

Background
    On Wednesday, March 4, 2009, with the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held 
a legislative hearing to discuss Federal coordination of water 
research and management policies and Committee draft of H.R. 
1145: the National Water Research and Development Act. The 
third of three such hearings since May of 2008, the meeting 
aimed to address the supplies of clean water and climate change 
impacts on resource availability. Mr. Gordon introduced H.R. 
1145 at the end of the 110th Congress and reintroduced it in 
February of 2009. The bill requires the establishment of a 
National Water Research and Development Initiative to improve 
the federal government's role in water research, development, 
demonstration, data collection and distribution and education 
and technology transfer activities to address changes in U.S. 
water use, quality, supply and demand. The bill also calls for 
the establishment of an interagency committee to ensure the 
implementation of the program.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Henry Vaux, Jr., 
Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley 
and Associate Vice President Emeritus of the University of 
California System; (2) Dr. Peter H. Gleick, Co-Founder and 
President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, 
Environment, and Security; (3) Mr. F. Mark Modzelewski, 
Executive Director of the Water Innovations Alliance; (4) Ms. 
Nancy K. Stoner, Co-Director of the Water Program at the 
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); and (5) Ms. Christine 
Furstoss, General Manager of Technology of GE Water and Process 
Technologies at the General Electric Company.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon called attention 
to projected drought conditions across the U.S. and noted that 
while the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had committed 
some funds to improving water infrastructure, H.R. 1145 is 
needed to fill critical gaps in water research and development 
coordination. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) recalled some of the 
Committee's past water initiatives and called for thorough 
collaboration with both its Senate counterparts and the various 
agencies involved in Federal water research.
    During the witnesses' testimony, Dr. Vaux lamented the 
trend of short-term-focused research initiatives and 
communication problems and provided four recommendations for 
achieving a more efficient use of funds and a comprehensive, 
streamlined research strategy. Dr. Gleick noted the progress of 
the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) in 
coordinating twenty-plus agencies and establishing a national 
water agenda. He also commented on H.R. 1145 and provided 
feedback and suggestions for additions to the bill. Mr. 
Modzelewski lamented low funding levels for water R&D and 
coordination and made suggestions for the bill regarding 
infrastructure assessment, information technology standards, 
the National Science Foundation Centers, and a national water 
pilot testing facility. Ms. Stoner evinced the need for more 
careful attention to national water resources and called for 
consideration of climate change water interactions, advanced 
treatment technologies, pollution prevention, and water use 
monitoring in the U.S. Census. Ms. Furstoss argued for the 
coordination of private industry, academic, and federal 
agencies and emphasized the importance of the relationship 
between water and energy resources.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed the efficacy of alternative and existing 
programs, strategies for effective interagency coordination, 
the possibility of a ``smart water grid,'' treatment of oil-
contaminated water, promising technological applications, 
energy efficient, cost effective treatment systems, reducing 
consumer costs, recent developments in water efficiency, the 
role of the private sector, and effective conservation 
strategies. A major theme was that while water management is an 
intrinsically local issue, a national assessment of resources 
and best practices is critical to address future water 
shortages. The Members and witnesses agreed that the U.S. 
should commit to water management as a global issue through 
international aid, coordination, and information sharing.

     4.1(d)_New Directions for Energy Research and Development at 
                     the U.S. Department of Energy

                             March 17, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-11

Background
    On Tuesday, March 17, 2009, with the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held 
a hearing to examine President Obama's research and development 
priorities and activities at the Department of Energy (DOE) as 
well as opportunities for innovation at DOE under the Offices 
of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), 
Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability, and the Loan Guarantee program, and the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
    Dr. Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy, was the only 
witness. He was sworn in to office on January 21, 2009.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon noted the work of 
Dr. Chu and the Committee in developing the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program and the specific 
challenges of domestic energy production, nuclear waste, and 
wise expenditure of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(ARRA) funds. Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) lauded the 
President's budget support for energy R&D and low carbon coal 
technologies, but called for increased dedication to oil and 
gas research, specifically the Ultra Deepwater and 
Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research 
program.
    During his testimony, Secretary Chu discussed four main 
topics: how to best nurture science and scientists to solve our 
energy and climate change problems; the need to support 
transformational research projects; how DOE can foster research 
collaboration among universities, industry, and other nations; 
and the goal of demonstrating and commercializing next-
generation, clean energy technologies. He expressed his 
commitment to facing the national security and green house gas 
challenges of domestic energy policy, and thanked the Committee 
for its commitment to ARPA-E. Secretary Chu also called for 
increased and focused funding for the basic sciences and a 
stronger commitment to nurturing American intellectual capital 
in the sciences.
    During the question and answer period, Secretary Chu 
discussed various DOE project timelines and the potential for a 
variety of burgeoning technologies at the Department. These 
issues included ARPA-E, carbon capture and sequestration, 
standards and interoperability with emissions trading and Smart 
Grid energy distribution programs, the DOE loan guarantee 
program, peak oil and international security concerns, evidence 
of climate change, vehicle electrification, oil dependency, and 
the state of nuclear plant development.
    Several members brought up the energy issues that directly 
relate to their own districts, including the Ultra Deepwater 
program, commercialization of solar power, corn-based ethanol, 
petroleum, carbon cap-and-trade issues, coal-to-liquid fuel 
production, and solar nanotechnology in paint products. 
Secretary Chu stressed the needs for international cooperation 
on research initiatives and standards development, developing a 
broad and varied ``tool set'' of alternative energy sources, 
increasing consumer product efficiencies, scientific 
cooperation between universities, national labs, and industry, 
and careful consideration of the economic issues that accompany 
new policies and programs.
    Secretary Chu also expressed support specifically for algal 
biofuels, proliferation-resistant nuclear waste recycling, 
technology commercialization initiatives, harnessing the 
national interest to address the Nation's energy issues at the 
individual level, battery development, and accounting for 
economic externalities in the environment, such as carbon.

       4.1(e)_Networking and Information Technology Research and 
                        Development Act of 2009

                             April 1, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-17

Background
    On Wednesday, April 1, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to receive testimony on the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development Act of 2009.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Chris L. Greer, 
Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and 
Information Technology Research and Development; (2) Dr. Peter 
Lee, Professor and Head, Computer Science Department, Carnegie 
Mellon University; (3) Mr. Amit Yoran, Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation; and (4) Dr. Deborah 
Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, 
University of California, Los Angeles
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon described the 
goal of the legislative proposal. He indicated that the 
legislation responded to two categories of recommendations 
included in the assessment of the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program conducted 
by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology (PCAST): the need to strengthen the program's 
planning and coordinating functions and the balance of the 
research portfolio supported by the program.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Greer stated that the 
PCAST recommendations and the interests of the Committee as 
expressed in the proposed legislation were helpful in improving 
the NITRD framework and that the goal of the National 
Coordination Office was the same as the Committee, to enable 
the NITRD program to serve the nation more effectively. Dr. Lee 
expressed his support for innovative, high-risk research and 
the provisions within the proposal that promoted large-scale, 
multidisciplinary research. He also indicated a need to 
increase the number of women and underrepresented minorities 
pursuing degrees in computer science. Mr. Yoran was unable to 
appear before the Committee, but his written testimony was 
included as part of the hearing record. Dr. Estrin added her 
support for the proposed legislation and described the 
importance of research in cyber-physical systems and the role 
of multidisciplinary research centers in advancing networking 
and information technology research.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the security of our networked systems and 
the basic research needed to ensure their reliability and 
integrity, how to improve public-private partnerships in 
networking and information technology and the transfer of 
research results into the marketplace, and obstacles to and 
incentives for increasing the recruitment and retention of 
women and minorities in computer science.

    4.1(f)_Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification of Greenhouse 
    Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and Academic Research and 
                          Monitoring Programs

                             April 22, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-18

Background
    On Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, with the Honorable Bart 
Gordon (D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and 
Technology held a hearing to discuss existing and planned 
federal greenhouse gas (GHG) monitoring and verification 
systems and how these could support research, policy 
evaluation, projections, and compliance with potential climate 
agreements. This hearing was the second on this topic, 
following a Subcommittee meeting on February 24, 2009.
    There were seven witnesses: (1) Dr. Sandy MacDonald, 
Director of the Earth Systems Research Laboratory for the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) Dr. 
Beverly Law, Professor of Global Change Forest Science at 
Oregon State University and Science Chair of the AmeriFlux 
Network; (3) Dr. Richard Birdsey, Project Leader of the 
Climate, Fire, and Carbon Cycle Science for the USDA Forest 
Service and Chair of the Carbon Cycle Scientific Steering 
Group; (4) Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science 
Division for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA); (5) Ms. Dina Kruger, Director of the Climate Change 
Division in the Office of Atmospheric Programs at the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (6) Dr. Patrick D. 
Gallagher, Deputy Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST); and (7) Dr. Albert Heber, 
Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering and 
Science Advisor of the National Air Emission Monitoring Study 
at Purdue University.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon discussed the 
current state of monitoring and requested ideas from the 
witnesses about how to design and implement a more reliable 
federally sponsored nation-wide monitoring system for 
greenhouse gases. Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) echoed the 
sentiment that more robust GHG monitoring and verification 
capabilities are critical to environmental policy-making.
    During the witnesses' testimony, Dr. McDonald discussed how 
further funding at NOAA could help to create a more robust and 
complete emissions data inventory to provide a check on the 
success of a mitigation effort. Dr. Law described the AmeriFlux 
Network and the potential to quantify fluxes from natural and 
managed systems in the context of GHG emissions. Dr. Birdsey 
explained how USDA's inventory and monitoring programs could be 
used to verify GHG mitigation activities and the successes of 
interagency working groups such as the Carbon Cycle Interagency 
Working Group and the Carbon Cycle Steering Group. Dr. Freilich 
defined NASA's role in providing global remote sensing products 
as part of an interagency approach to establishing an all 
encompassing GHG monitoring, measuring, and verification 
program. Ms. Kruger described current EPA activities involving 
GHG monitoring, measuring, and verification and discussed the 
challenges in acquiring reliable international emissions data 
especially from developing nations. Dr. Gallagher highlighted 
how NIST works with other agencies to support climate 
monitoring and GHG measuring. Dr. Heber explained how livestock 
operations, which account for around 2.5% of United States GHG 
emissions, are developing baseline data on which they can 
develop a more informed mitigation scheme.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and the 
panelists discussed international climate modeling programs, 
remote sensing data and standards coordination, monitoring 
resources, regulating carbon credit sources, establishing 
reliable baselines, climate change skepticism, forest 
degradation, gaps in the National Observation Network, GHG 
measuring, ocean acidification, coordination data collection, 
the economics of establishing a mitigation strategy, the carbon 
cycle, and America's role in global GHG emissions.

        4.1(g)_An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for FY 2010

                              May 14, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-26

Background
    On Thursday, May 14, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-TN) 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to examine the Administration's proposed fiscal year 
(FY) 2010 funding for Federal research, development, 
demonstration, and commercial application programs, in 
particular at agencies within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee, and to explore how the 2007 America COMPETES Act 
programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee were treated 
in the budget.
    There was one witness: Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the 
President for Science and Technology, Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy and Co-Chair of the President's 
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon (D-TN) focused on 
supporting the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
strengthening STEM education, and cooperation between the 
federal science agencies. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) commended 
President Obama for continuing the commitment to double funding 
in key science agencies, expressed concern about the NASA 
program, and noted questions he had concerning the President's 
goals for R&D investments in relation to GDP.
    During his testimony, Dr. Holdren discussed the President's 
budget for research and development for the 2010 fiscal year. 
He spoke about the President's initiatives for science, 
technology and innovation, which included increasing R&D 
budgets as well as providing R&D tax credits and establishing 
guidelines for federally-funded stem cell research. The budget 
proposed $147.6 billion in federal funding for research and 
development across all agencies. Holdren's testimony included 
summaries of the R&D and STEM education budgets for NSF, NIH, 
NASA, NIST, NOAA, DOE, EPA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, 
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, 
and the Department of Defense. He also discussed interagency 
initiatives, including the Networking and Information 
Technology R&D program, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 
and the Climate Change Science Program. Holdren stated that the 
challenges facing the United States, including the economy, 
health, energy, the environment, and national and homeland 
security, are seen by President Obama as opportunities for 
science, technology and innovation, and said, ``[the President] 
has been clear about his commitment to providing the resources, 
the incentives, and the ground rules that science, technology, 
and innovation will need in order to realize that potential.''
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists discussed the role of oceans in climate change and 
acidification, the role of social science in research, science 
diplomacy, international cooperation in space technology and 
other space endeavors, integrity in science, the percentage of 
GDP dedicated to R&D, the development of environmentally 
sustainable biofuels, the Blue Ribbon Task Force review of the 
Human Space Flight Program, using Energy Innovation Hubs as 
collaborations between existing institutions to promote energy 
innovation, `green' buildings in relation to net zero energy 
and high performance buildings, energy storage with the Energy 
Frontier Research Centers, including Los Alamos National 
Laboratories, and improving funding for solar and other types 
of renewable energies.

             4.1(h)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request

                              May 19, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-28

Background
    On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-TN) 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
(NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Request, NASA's proposed FY 
2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds provided through the 
Recovery Act. There was one witness: (1) Mr. Christopher 
Scolese, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon began by thanking Mr. Scolese for his 
service as Acting Administrator. He also commented on the 
recent NASA mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. 
Chairman Gordon then went on to state the benefits from 
research and development from NASA as the reason why Congress 
increased funding for NASA. However, he expressed concern with 
the Administration's planned future budgets for NASA.
    Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) first thanked Mr. Scolese for 
his service and stated his belief that NASA is one area of the 
federal budget where increases are justified. He stated his 
approval of the selection of Norm Augustine to lead the 
independent review panel for NASA. Mr. Hall said that he was 
concerned that the budget deleted out-year funding for the 
lunar landing and the heavy-lift Constellation launch vehicle.
    Mr. Scolese began his testimony by noting the increase in 
NASA's budget in the regular appropriation along with allocated 
funds from the Recovery Act. He commented on the status of 
currently planned missions related to science, including the 
James Webb Space Telescope. Mr. Scolese also gave the current 
plans and budget for NASA's human space flight operations. He 
then discussed the independent review of the U.S. human space 
flight program and NASA's role in the review.

     4.1(i)_Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What 
    Should Our Research, Development and Demonstration Strategy Be?

                             June 17, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-35

Background
    On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to examine the various benefits, risks, expenses and 
time frames associated with recycling of spent nuclear fuel. 
The discussion was particularly pertinent due to a national 
commitment to and increasingly apparent need for U.S. energy 
independence and low-carbon means of production. The hearing 
purported to address the inevitable increase in nuclear fuel 
waste from planned growth in the U.S. nuclear energy program, 
including materials slated to retain their radioactive 
properties for thousands of years, and potential technological 
advancements for managing and treating such waste.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy 
Associate Laboratory Director for Argonne National Laboratory, 
(2) Dr. Alan S. Hanson, Executive Vice President for Technology 
and Used Fuel Management at Areva, Inc., (3) Ms. Lisa Price, 
Senior Vice President for GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Chief 
Executive Officer of Global Nuclear Fuel, LLC and (4) Dr. 
Charles D. Ferguson, Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science 
and Technology for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon expressed his 
support for nuclear power as a means to American energy 
independence and noted the eventual need for materials 
reprocessing in a uranium-limited market. He asked the 
witnesses to address the question of whether to move forward 
with current reprocessing techniques or simply use existing 
waste storage systems in anticipation of more advanced 
technological solutions to come. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), 
sitting in for Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX), encouraged 
increased nuclear plant development and the Committee's 
participation in nuclear waste issues, noting his opposition to 
White House plans to abandon the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
repository plans.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Peters provided some 
background information and identified several nuclear research 
and development needs, calling for increased federal funding to 
these ends. He argued for developing fully closed-cycle 
materials treatment process, noting that an open, once-through 
fuel cycle will not be a sustainable practice in the future of 
domestic nuclear power use. Dr. Hanson provided Areva's 
recycling facility perspective, arguing that a robust recycling 
program would contribute to nonproliferation and large 
decreases in waste volume, and called for a near-term 
implementation of nuclear recycling in the U.S. Ms. Price 
detailed GE-Hitachi's suggested approach to and support for 
nuclear fuel recycling, and provided four recommendations to 
the Committee for promoting timely R&D efforts. Dr. Ferguson 
detailed international nuclear reprocessing activities, arguing 
against closed-cycle reprocessing due to proliferation risk and 
current economic conditions.
    The question and answer period focused on economic 
feasibility, development timelines and toxic and volatile 
material safety issues. The witnesses and Members discussed 
geologic repositories for nuclear materials, comparative 
weapons proliferation risk, the distribution and operational 
success of storage facilities in the U.S. and abroad, sodium 
cooled and water moderated nuclear reactors, the comparative 
short- and long-term economic costs of recycling, international 
cooperation, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. The 
panelists also discussed the quantities available of and market 
for pure uranium, the costs of locating and monitoring geologic 
repositories, plant licensing issues, mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, 
the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility, public 
acceptance of nuclear power, anticipated waste management and 
alternative energy needs, subsidy and loan guarantee programs 
and the lifecycle carbon footprints of various means of energy 
production.
    While there was no consensus on the appropriate timeframes 
and resource levels for next generation recycling technologies, 
the Members and witnesses agreed on the need for coordinating 
research and development activities with foreign nations, a 
comprehensive nuclear roadmap weighing pace of technology 
development with increasing clean energy needs, a 
nonproliferation-conscious waste management policy, and a more 
comprehensive, diverse mix of alternatives to petroleum-based 
energy.

     4.1(j)_Strengthening Regional Innovation: A Perspective From 
                            Northeast Texas

                           September 14, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-50

Background
    On Monday, September 14, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Science and Technology Committee held a 
field hearing in McKinney, Texas to examine the importance of 
regional innovation centers to the U.S. economy and global 
competitiveness, and the roles of Federal, state, and local 
governments in supporting such centers.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Carey Israel, President, 
Collin County Community College, (2) Dr. Dan Jones, President, 
Texas A&M University-Commerce, (3) Mr. Patrick Humm, President, 
Hie Electronics, (4) Dr. Martin Izzard, Vice President and 
Director, Digital Signal Processing Solutions R&D Center, Texas 
Instruments, (5) Mr. Bill Sproull, Vice-Chairman, Texas 
Emerging Technology Fund Advisory Committee, and (6) Mr. Tom 
Luce, Chief Executive Officer, National Math and Science 
Initiative.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon noted that 
regional innovation centers are a key component of our national 
competitiveness and that fostering local cultures of innovation 
creates jobs and boosts economic development. Representative 
Hall (R-TX) discussed the need to improve our long-term 
competitiveness along with the benefits derived from the 
innovation and economic growth taking place in Northeast Texas.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Israel shared his 
thoughts about science and technology in higher education, and 
discussed the benefits of local collaboration. Dr. Jones 
testified about initiatives that have been successfully 
implemented at Texas A&M University-Commerce that have 
strengthened the ties between education and industry. Mr. Humm 
talked about his company's role in technology manufacturing, 
the role such companies play in the economy, and the need for 
early stage capital funding for small high tech companies. Dr. 
Izzard focused on the research and education partnerships that 
Texas Instruments has formed within the North Texas innovation 
ecosystem. Mr. Sproull described the Emerging Technology Fund 
and detailed his view on the most important elements necessary 
to develop regional innovation capacity and grow the high-tech 
economy. Mr. Luce discussed the National Math and Science 
Initiative and is role in supporting a much-needed pipeline of 
highly qualified math and science teachers and students to keep 
the U.S. from losing ground to its foreign competitors.
    During the question and answer period, members focused on 
ideas to encourage students interested in teaching to take 
advantage of programs in math and science education. They also 
discussed ways to streamline various bureaucratic issues 
currently impeding innovation.

        4.1(k)_Options and Issues for NASA's Human Space Flight 
    Program: Report of the ``Review of the U.S. Human Space Flight 
                           Plans'' Committee

                           September 15, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-51

Background
    On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to examine the summary report of the Review of U.S. 
Human Space Flight Plans Committee that was established by NASA 
under the direction of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, and to consider implications and related issues for 
NASA.
    There were two panels of witnesses: on the first panel was 
(1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair of the Review of U.S. Human 
Space Flight Plans Committee; on the second panel there were 
(2) Vice-Admiral Joseph W. Dyer USN (Ret.), Chair of the 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) at NASA; and (3) Dr. 
Michael D. Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor of Mechanical 
and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville.
Summary
    In Chairman Gordon's opening remarks, he stated his belief 
that NASA is not given the budget it needs to handle all of the 
projects it is instructed to undertake. Therefore, either the 
budget must be increased, or NASA's responsibilities narrowed. 
Meanwhile, he also said that since so many billions of dollars 
have been invested in the Constellation program, there would 
need to be a very compelling reason to cancel the program. 
Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) began his opening remarks by 
reminding the Committee that the Columbia incident could be 
attributed to NASA's inability to complete projects aimed at 
replacing the ailing Shuttle program. Rep. Hall then questioned 
why it was even necessary to look at new options, since 
previous congresses had already agreed on a program of action. 
Stated that safety, not lowest cost, should always take 
priority.
    Mr. Augustine began by announcing that while many look to 
Mars as the ultimate destination of the Human Spaceflight 
Program, safety concerns made any trip to Mars in the near 
future improbable. Mr. Augustine included four alternatives to 
NASA's baseline program in his written testimony. He told the 
Committee that the imbalance between tasks to be performed and 
funds available made it impossible to execute the current 
program of record. Moreover, the panel determined that NASA's 
budget would need to linearly increase to $3 billion above the 
FY 2010 budget guidance by FY 2014 and then increase by an 
estimated annual inflation rate of 2.4 percent to conduct any 
viable human space flight and exploration program. Mr. 
Augustine summed up his remarks by telling the Committee that 
the great risk involved in human space flight made it 
irresponsible to cut corners on funding.
    The Committee then granted Mr. Augustine's request to be 
joined by another member of his panel, Dr. Edward F. Crawley, 
to help answer any questions the Committee might have.
    Vice-Admiral Dyer opened the second panel by focusing on 
safety and safety-related opportunities and issues. While he 
observed that canceling existing programs and starting over 
would only lengthen the period of time in which the U.S. would 
be incapable of transporting humans into space, he reiterated 
that ASAP did not support extending the Space Shuttle program. 
Vice-Admiral Dyer added to the previous critiques of commercial 
solutions to the gap, saying that the Commercial Orbital 
Transportation Services Project (COTS) was not subject to the 
same human-ratings standards as NASA itself. He observed that 
NASA would do well to develop a better process for integrating 
manned and unmanned systems. Vice-Admiral Dyer also urged the 
Committee to undertake a broader and more transparent 
discussion of the great risks inherent in human spaceflight.
    In his opening statement, Dr. Griffin focused on the recent 
history of NASA's budget. He said that the budget cuts of 1994 
had obviously not worked out. Dr. Griffin pointed out that 
while $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, if NASA funding 
had been kept at the same level from 1993 to the present, there 
would be even more money in the NASA budget than that requested 
by the Augustine committee. He concluded that in order to 
follow through on the directives laid out in the 2005 and 2008 
NASA Authorization acts, Congress must increase NASA's budget.

      4.1(l)_Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-
                       Scale Climate Intervention

                            November 5, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-62

Background
    On Thursday, November 5, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held 
a hearing to introduce the concept of geoengineering, or the 
deliberate modification of climate systems beyond traditional 
mitigation strategies, and explore some of its associated 
scientific, regulatory, engineering, governance, and ethical 
challenges.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Professor John Shepherd, 
Professional Research Fellow in Earth System Science at the 
University of Southampton and Chair of the Royal Society 
Geoengineering working group that produced the report 
Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and 
Uncertainty; (2) Dr. Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental 
Science in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie 
Institution of Washington and a co-author of the Royal Society 
Report; (3) Mr. Lee Lane, Co-Director of the American 
Enterprise Institute (AEI) Geoengineering Project, (4) Dr. Alan 
Robock, professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences 
in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at 
Rutgers University, and (5) Dr. Jim Fleming, Professor and 
Director of the Science, Technology and Society Department at 
Colby College and author of Fixing the Sky: The Checkered 
History of Weather and Climate Control.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon introduced some 
key challenges with geoengineering and described Committee 
plans for future research and international collaboration. He 
warned that geoengineering is not a substitute for a 
comprehensive greenhouse gas mitigation strategy and would 
require years of applied research before deployment.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Caldeira profiled the two 
major categories of geoengineering, solar radiation management 
(SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and called for a multi-
agency research program into both types. Professor Shepherd 
described the goals, considerations and conclusions of the 
Royal Society report and recommended a multidisciplinary 
research initiative on geoengineering, including widespread 
public engagement at a global scale. Mr. Lane argued for the 
economic viability of and environmental and political need for 
stratospheric injections, a solar radiation management 
strategy. Dr. Robock identified some of the major risks and 
uncertainties of geoengineering and noted the problems of 
international disagreement on goals, the interruption of large 
scale solar radiation management, and the impossibility of 
small-scale tests of geoengineering, but argued for a 
comprehensive research program to help inform future climate 
policy decisions. Dr. Fleming provided a historical context of 
weather modification and its concurrent governmental issues, 
arguing that any geoengineering initiative must be 
interdisciplinary, international, and intergenerational.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
witnesses discussed the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 as a 
model for solar radiation management, the potential efficacy of 
greenhouse gas mitigation goals, the need for continued 
mitigation strategies and behavior change, the methane output 
of livestock, the environmental impacts of stratospheric 
injections, and the challenges of international collaboration. 
They also reviewed climate modeling and simulation tools, the 
power of American scientific innovation, skeptical arguments 
against anthropogenic climate change, the possibilities of 
distributed solar panels, the potential roles of several 
federal agencies in geoengineering research and application, 
and how to prioritize the different suggested strategies. The 
panelists and Members agreed that the U.S. should avoid 
applying of geoengineering before performing extensive applied 
research and establishing governance mechanisms, and that a 
research program should be multi-disciplinary and 
internationally coordinated.

    4.1(m)_Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for NASA: 
       What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and 
                            Industrial Base?

                           December 10, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-69

Background
    On Thursday, December 10, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing on the future direction and funding for NASA, and what 
that future held for the U.S. aerospace workforce and 
industrial base.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. David Thompson, 
President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics (AIAA); (2) Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and 
CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); (3) Mr. A. 
Thomas Young, retired Executive Vice-President of the Lockheed 
Martin Corporation; and (4) Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice-Chairman 
and Vice-President of Strategy and Technology at Moog Inc.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon yielded to Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), Chairwoman 
of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, to preside over 
the hearing. Rep. Giffords began by noting that contracts with 
the commercial sector already accounted for 80% of NASA's 
budget. She said that support for NASA was therefore also 
support for the commercial space sector, and the high-paying, 
high-quality jobs it created. Chairman Gordon added that if 
disbanded, the NASA workforce would be very difficult to 
reassemble. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) waived his right to make 
opening remarks, and instead Mr. Olson (R-TX) made a brief 
statement urging the Committee to prevent the aerospace 
industry from the kind of decimation endured by the automotive 
industry. He was also concerned about the long-term effect 
eliminating aerospace jobs would have on encouraging students 
to enter the STEM fields.
    Mr. Thompson spoke on behalf of the AIAA, representing more 
then 36,000 aerospace scientists and engineers. He explained 
that there were insufficient new aerospace engineers and 
scientists to take the places of the increasing number of 
retirees. He claimed that the aerospace sector would therefore 
experience a dramatic decline in its technical workforce over 
the next decade. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that although 
U.S. human spaceflight programs employed less than 20% of the 
country's aerospace workers, they had an enormous influence on 
motivating young people to enter the field of aerospace science 
and engineering in the first place. He concluded from this that 
cuts to U.S. human spaceflight programs would stress an already 
weak sector of the economy. Cutbacks to human spaceflight 
programs could also weaken the industrial base of the entire 
space and national security sector.
    Ms. Blakey began by saying that aerospace talent and 
facilities lost to other industries would be irretrievable. 
Without the inspirational power of NASA programs, it would 
become even more difficult to attract students to the study of 
STEM fields. A commitment to a robust human spaceflight program 
could have an enormous influence in attracting and retaining 
new workers. Ms. Blakey added that the constantly fluctuating 
budgets that have been a staple of the last decade adversely 
affected the production and maintenance of a skilled workforce. 
Moreover, such interruptions or cancellations were catastrophic 
to small firms, whose expertise would then be lost forever.
    Mr. Young remarked that without significant experience and 
continuity of participation, intellectual capability was not 
enough by itself to maintain a successful spaceflight program. 
He thought that the attempt to move faster and go cheaper was 
punching holes in the safety net necessary to prevent human 
errors from warping into catastrophes. Mr. Young insisted that 
the kind of uncompromising discipline necessary for safe 
spaceflight required a permanent investment.
    Dr. Aubrecht, an engineer for the precision motion control 
company Moog, spoke of his company's work on fly-by-wire flight 
control technology. He told the Committee that NASA programs 
gave Moog the opportunity to develop the core technologies and 
core knowledge that it eventually transferred to commercial 
applications. Dr. Aubrecht explained it was common for NASA 
contracts that accounted for only a small percentage of a 
company's sales to form a majority of its research and 
development. He concluded that consistent funding of the 
Constellation program was necessary to carry on this system.

     4.1(n)_America COMPETES: Big Picture Perspectives on the Need 
     for Innovation, Investments in R&D, and a Commitment to STEM 
                               Education

                            January 20, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-70

Background
    On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to examine the role that science and technology play in 
promoting economic security and maintaining U.S. 
competitiveness and to understand the perspective of the 
business community on the reauthorization of the America 
COMPETES Act.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. John Castellani, 
President, Business Roundtable; (2) Mr. Tom Donohue, President, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; (3) Governor John Engler, President, 
National Association of Manufacturers; and (4) Ms. Deborah 
Wince-Smith, President and CEO, Council on Competitiveness.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by discussing the 
America COMPETES Act, which was enacted in 2007. Chairman 
Gordon explained that, prior to the passage of the America 
COMPETES Act, the National Academies of Science published a 
groundbreaking report entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm,'' which included a comprehensive set of recommendations 
to create jobs and further U.S. competitiveness. The 
recommendations from this report were heavily relied upon in 
the development of the COMPETES Act. Among other things, the 
COMPETES Act established grant programs to improve science, 
technology, engineering and math (STEM) education and the 
Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), which has 
already awarded its first round of grants. Chairman Gordon 
noted that the COMPETES Act is scheduled to expire this year 
and expressed his hope that witnesses would be able to provide 
guidance in its reauthorization.
    Mr. Castellani expressed the Business Roundtable's support 
for the reauthorization of COMPETES. He explained that 
investments in research and education provide the tools for 
accelerated technological innovation, which drives productivity 
and growth. Innovation leads to new products and processes, and 
even whole new industries. While the U.S. is currently 
struggling with high unemployment and budget deficits, China is 
pouring billions into research and education, which will 
provide more competition for the American workforce in the near 
future. Mr. Castellani claimed that the state of America's 
public education system is one of the Nation's greatest 
weaknesses. An independent commission the Business Roundtable 
convened found that the gap between worker skills and the needs 
of employers is widening. Strengthening science, technology, 
engineering and math (STEM) education at all levels needs 
focused attention now and in the future.
    Mr. Donohue pointed out that high school dropout rates are 
approaching 30 percent, and nearly 50 percent for minorities. 
American 15-year-olds rank 21st out of 30 in science literacy 
among their peers from developed countries and 25th out of 30 
in math literacy. He therefore strongly supports the 
reauthorization of COMPETES. COMPETES improves the number and 
quality of STEM teachers, increases support and access for STEM 
students, attracts underrepresented groups to STEM courses, 
supports basic research, and establishes programs that will 
help create new forms of energy and commercialize innovations.
    Governor Engler also supported reauthorizing the COMPETES 
Act. He touched on three main topics: ARPA-E, STEM education, 
and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). ARPA-E 
supports research in energy and also attempts to usher in new 
generations of clean, efficient sources of energy. These are 
areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake 
because of technical and financial uncertainty. ARPA-E's first 
round of funding, in May 2009, produced an outpouring of 
applications. Governor Engler emphasized the importance of STEM 
education to providing the necessary foundation for a technical 
workforce. However, he also explained that the government's 
emphasis on STEM skills often begins and ends with the academic 
side of science and math. For manufacturers, the application of 
STEM skills is critical. Programs outlined in the COMPETES Act 
take a step towards better integration of the skills needed by 
employers. Governor Engler highlighted MEP as another key 
program. In previous years, MEP contributed to more than 57,000 
jobs, helped deliver $1.4 billion in cost savings, and played a 
role in generating more than $10.5 billion in sales.
    Ms. Wince-Smith agreed with the other witnesses in 
supporting the reauthorization of COMPETES. She said that 
strength in STEM education for all Americans, irrespective of 
their future careers, should be included in future 
authorizations, as should steady and predictable increases in 
federal research funding, greater coordination across federal 
agencies in innovation policy, and new models for public-
private partnerships, such as ARPA-E. The importance of these 
provisions has increased in the recent years, further 
compounded by the global economic crisis and the highest 
unemployment level in America since the Great Depression. 
Global competition has accelerated, nearing that of the U.S. 
Ms. Wince-Smith stated the United States needs a vibrant and 
diversified high-tech manufacturing sector.

     4.1(o)_The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E): 
    Assessing the Agency's Progress and Promise in Transforming the 
                     U.S. Energy Innovation System

                            January 27, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-72

Background
    On Wednesday, January 27th, with the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held 
a hearing to review the activities of the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) approximately one year after 
its initial funding, and to explore upcoming goals and 
potential improvements to be made in the America COMPETES 
Reauthorization Act of 2010. ARPA-E was proposed in the 
National Academies' report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 
authorized in the 2007 America COMPETES Act, and funded in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Arun Majumdar, Director 
of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E); (2) 
Dr. Chuck Vest, President of the National Academy of 
Engineering; (3) Dr. Anthony Atti, President and CEO of 
Phononic Devices, Inc.; (4) Mr. John Denniston, a Partner at 
the venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins Caufield & Byers; and 
(5) Dr. John Pierce, Vice President of Dupont Applied Sciences-
Biotechnology.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon provided 
background information on ARPA-E and lauded the Agency staff 
for their efforts in standing-up the program. Ranking Member 
Hall (R-TX) expressed several concerns about the structure and 
mission about ARPA-E but committed to work with Chairman Gordon 
and seek to ensure the program's success.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Majumdar described the 
first two program Funding Opportunity Announcements and 
suggested using government purchasing power to create a demand 
pull for American innovations. He also expressed confidence in 
ARPA-E staff and grant recipients, as well as the United 
States' ability to innovate and develop new energy solutions. 
Dr. Vest explained the history that led the Rising Above the 
Gathering Storm committee to suggest the concept of ARPA-E and 
argued that Congress must enable ARPA-E to stick to its mission 
of nimble, goal-oriented research, distinguish itself from 
other energy research and development initiatives, and to 
maintain strong ties to industry and entrepreneurial 
communities. Dr. Atti relayed his experience with Phononic 
Devices, whose research was once supported by DARPA, and 
identified the risks, range of challenges, and key strategies 
for early-stage technological developments. Mr. Denniston 
offered the perspective of the venture capital community, 
illustrated the risks of a Chinese competitive edge on clean 
energy technologies, and urged the Members to extend additional 
resources to ARPA-E. Dr. Pierce explained the role that ARPA-E 
and other funding mechanisms can play to help larger industry 
firms support new longer-term research that firms might 
otherwise abandon because of long lead-times to market, and 
provided recommendations on how the Agency can remain effective 
in the future.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed how ARPA-E can most effectively support 
energy innovation and encourage economic well-being in the 
United States. They explored how to keep manufacturing jobs and 
intellectual property in the U.S., strategies for scaling up 
fledgling technologies, prioritization of goals for ARPA-E, and 
how intellectual property relates to commercialization. Other 
topics included STEM education and federal renewable 
electricity standards, how to leverage government funding to 
attract private investment, helping small businesses achieve 
market breakthroughs, the structure of the ARPA-E grant system 
and its criteria for funding project proposals, the global 
solar power market, and national security. The witnesses agreed 
that the United States should continue to enable high-risk, 
high-reward research initiatives and that American 
technological competitiveness with foreign nations will be 
paramount to the country's economic success in the coming 
decades.

     4.1(p)_The Administration's FY 2011 Research and Development 
                            Budget Proposal

                           February 24, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-78

Background
    On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held 
a hearing to examine the Administration's proposed fiscal year 
(FY) 2011 funding for Federal research, development, 
demonstration, and commercial application programs, in 
particular at agencies within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee. In addition, in preparation for a reauthorization of 
the 2007 America COMPETES Act, the Committee examined the 
status of programs authorized in the 2007 Act, as reflected in 
the Administration's budget request.
    There was one witness: Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the 
President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon spoke about the 
increases in funding for research and development in the 
President's proposed budget in spite of the difficult economy. 
He noted the importance of investing in innovation, discovery, 
and transformative technology as a means to secure future 
economic growth. Ranking Member Hall, in his opening statement, 
expressed concern for some of the Administration's science 
policy decisions, including the plan to modify NASA's human 
space flight program and the elimination of Yucca Mountain as a 
storage site for nuclear waste.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Holdren spoke about the 
Obama Administration's commitment to invigorate American 
economic growth by making targeted investments in science, 
technology and innovation, thus creating more products and 
services, new businesses and industries, and increased American 
competitiveness and high-quality sustainable jobs. He noted 
that the President's R&D budget proposal, which included a 
$61.6 billion investment in civilian R&D, not including 
facilities and equipment, is the very core of America's future 
strength. He also expressed the Administration's understanding 
of the importance of science, technology, and innovation in 
addressing some of the country's most compelling present and 
future challenges. Holdren stated that the President recognizes 
the importance of the National Science Foundation, the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories, and is 
still committed to doubling their budgets.
    Dr. Holdren testified specifically about R&D budgets at the 
Department of Energy, including the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA), as well as the tri-agency program, 
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 
System (NPOESS). Holdren also mentioned funding for the 
National Institutes of Health, the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System (``NextGen''), the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), research under the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative, and the multi-agency U.S. Global 
Change Research Program. Finally, Holdren emphasized the 
Administration's commitment to increase participation and 
performance of American students in science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in order to be 
ranked among the top students globally. The 2011 budget would 
invest $3.7 billion in STEM education programs, including $1 
billion for improving math and science education among K-12 
students.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed innovation hubs and clusters, the proposed 
cancellation of NASA's Constellation program, the NPOESS 
satellite program, STEM education in the NSF budget, R&D 
funding as a percentage of GDP, global climate change and ocean 
acidification, increased collaboration between national 
laboratories and the private sector to drive innovation, Yucca 
mountain as a storage site for nuclear waste and materials, the 
President's commitment to doubling the R&D budget in a tight 
economic situation, the backlog of infrastructure requirements 
at the DOE, agency relationships with OSTP and the America 
COMPETES Act, NASA's lack of ambition in only pursuing Low 
Earth Orbit, the use of natural gas in pedestrian vehicles, the 
politicization of global warming, and concerns about the ``Race 
to the Top'' initiative.

        4.1(q)_NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request and Issues

                           February 25, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-80

Background
    On Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:00 am, the Committee 
on Science and Technology held a hearing on the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 
2011 Budget Request and Issues.
    There was one witness: Charles F. Bolden, Administrator of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary
    Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by commending the five-
year funding increase granted to NASA in the President's new 
budget, as well as other positive features, such as the 
increases for Earth sciences and aeronautics, the investments 
in long-term technology development and the extension of the 
lifetime of the International Space Station (ISS). However, he 
also noted that other features of the new request had not 
gained much support, namely, the radical new approach to human 
spaceflight and exploration. The Chairman expressed his hope 
that the Administrator would address the budget's reliance on 
commercial crew transportation systems.
    Mr. Bolden began his testimony by explaining that NASA's 
future exploration effort would focus not just on our Moon, but 
also on near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars and its 
moons--with Mars as the ultimate destination. By investing in 
the right technology, NASA would be able to map out a more 
realistic path to that final goal. Mr. Bolden said that the 
budget's renewed focus on R&D would produce new opportunities 
for U.S. industry and spur the creation of new businesses. He 
highlighted the sustainability and affordability of the new 
approach. Mr. Bolden said that the lessons NASA had learned in 
the course of the Constellation program would inform the 
Agency's future flagship technology development and 
demonstration program. He further noted the presence of 
investments in heavy-lift R&D, climate change observations, 
aeronautics and education initiatives.

     4.1(r)_The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2011 Research and 
                      Development Budget Proposal

                             March 3, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-81

Background
    On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, with the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Science and Technology Committee held a 
hearing to discuss the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 
research and development budget request for the Department of 
Energy (DOE).
    Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, was the only witness.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon thanked Dr. Chu 
for his leadership at DOE and discussed a recent Energy 
Innovation Summit held by the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) dispensed 
with his opening remarks in the interest of time.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Chu highlighted several 
key elements of the Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal's research 
and development programs. He explained that the DOE's Energy 
Innovation Hubs, ARPA-E, and Energy Frontier Research Centers 
can drive energy technology innovation and job creation, and 
help the United States maintain technological leadership in the 
21st century.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on the following: job creation in the United 
States; leveraging the Department of Defense to help create 
domestic markets; the termination of fossil fuel research and 
development; energy efficiency; licensing of solar and wind 
projects; nuclear research and development programs; the 
decline of oil reserves; problems in the innovation chain; 
nonproliferation; hub-model laboratories; high-performance 
computing facilities; spent nuclear fuel recycling; the 
economic implications of implementing a cap-and-trade system 
for managing carbon emissions from large sources; the state of 
federally-managed and university-based domestic research 
facilities; carbon capture and sequestration and the role of 
coal in a clean energy economy; appliance efficiency standards; 
and wind transmission capacity.

                  4.1(s)_Reform in K-12 STEM Education

                             March 4, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-82

Background
    On Thursday, March 4, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to examine the role of the Federal agencies in 
supporting improvements in K-12 STEM education and promoting 
STEM literacy. The hearing was held in preparation for the 
reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jim Simons, Founder and 
Chairman of Math for America; (2) Ms. Ellen Futter, President 
of the American Museum of Natural History; (3) Dr. Gordon Gee, 
President of Ohio State University; and (4) Dr. Jeffrey 
Wadsworth, President and CEO of Batelle Memorial Institute.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon focused on the 
America COMPETES Act and the need for key stakeholders, 
including those represented on the witness panel, to be 
involved in K-12 STEM education. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) 
spoke about the need to invest in research, development, and 
STEM education and scale up successful programs while still 
maintaining fiscal restraint and reducing the budget deficit.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Simons discussed the need 
to import workers and export jobs because of the shortages in 
the STEM workforce, as well as his ideas about reforming the 
teaching structure to improve STEM education in secondary 
schools. Ms. Futter discussed the powerful role that informal 
science education can play in developing STEM interest and 
literacy, and the need to expand those opportunities in 
COMPETES. Dr. Gee argued for a longer term COMPETES investment 
and spoke about the need for better collaboration between 
institutions of higher education and K-12 schools. Dr. 
Wadsworth argued for a transition to more project-based 
learning in the STEM field.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed the National Science Foundation's Noyce 
program, specialized STEM school models, the discrepancy 
between the United State's K-12 education system and more 
successful institutions of higher education, difficulties in 
hiring qualified teachers and administrators, the need to 
expand partnerships between educational institutions, and tying 
STEM to liberal arts studies, social justice problems and other 
common issues.

        4.1(t)_Fiscal Year 2011 Research and Development Budget 
    Proposals at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 
         National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                             March 10, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-84

Background
    On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to discuss the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 budget 
requests for EPA and NOAA.
    There were two witnesses: (1) Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant 
Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (2) Dr. Jane 
Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon reiterated his 
support for EPA and NOAA and discussed his approval of certain 
aspects of their proposed budgets as well as his concerns about 
other specific areas and sections. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) 
expressed concerns about both proposed budgets, including the 
dissolution of the National Polar-orbiting Operational 
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and the creation of a 
NOAA Climate Service.
    During his testimony, Dr. Anastas discussed the direction 
and specifics of the EPA Fiscal Year 2011 budget request. 
During the question and answer period, Dr. Anastas answered 
questions regarding e-waste, social behavioral studies, and 
ocean acidification. Several members discussed the 2009 
greenhouse gas endangerment finding and the scientific criteria 
used to make that finding.
    During her testimony, Dr. Lubchenco described the 
priorities in NOAA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal, 
including refocusing many of NOAA's climate research and 
outreach activities into a comprehensive Climate Service and 
prioritizing commercial and recreational fishing issues. During 
the question and answer period, Dr. Lubchenco responded to 
Member questions about greenhouse gas monitoring; ocean 
acidification; funding for the Aquarius Lab; harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia; Asian Carp issues; a NOAA Organic Act; 
privatization of the NOAA fleet; environmental remediation of 
the Chesapeake Bay; the restructuring of NPOESS; fish catch 
shares; and NOAA's position on recreational fishing. Dr. 
Lubchenco was pressed to explain how NOAA was reorganizing to 
form the Climate Service without notifying the Committee. She 
reassured the Members that NOAA's overall policies, 
responsibilities and budget allocations would remain largely 
the same, and that NOAA would continue to work closely with its 
authorizing Committees.

      4.1(u)_The Future of Manufacturing: What Is the Role of the 
          Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S. 
                             Manufacturers?

                             March 17, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-87

Background
    On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to receive testimony on the need for U.S. manufacturers 
to adopt innovative technologies and processes in order to 
remain globally competitive, and to determine the appropriate 
role for the Federal government in supporting efforts by U.S. 
manufacturers to innovate.
    There were five witnesses: 1) Dr. Susan Smyth, Director of 
Manufacturing, GM R&D, and Chief Scientist for Manufacturing, 
General Motors Company; 2) Dr. Len Sauers, Vice President, 
Global Sustainability, Procter & Gamble; 3) Mr. Debtosh 
Chakrabarti, President and Chief Operating Officer, PMC Group 
Inc.; 4) Dr. Mark Tuominen, Director, National 
Nanomanufacturing Network; and 5) Mr. Wayne Crews, Vice 
President for Policy and Director of Technology Studies, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by emphasizing the 
importance of the manufacturing sector in the U.S. economy and 
describing the role of innovation and workforce development in 
addressing the challenges of global competition. Ranking Member 
Hall expressed concern that increasing government regulation 
has forced companies to shift resources away from manufacturing 
research and development.
    Dr. Smyth's testimony described General Motors' 
collaborations in advanced manufacturing with the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of 
Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, and voiced support for increased cross-agency 
collaboration and public-private partnerships, as well as more 
funding for manufacturing research and development at NIST and 
DOE. Dr. Sauers discussed how Proctor and Gamble's investments 
in research and development have increased the environmental 
sustainability of their products and operations. He also 
advocated for greater government focus on renewable energy 
research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) education; reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act; 
increased government/industry collaboration through the 
National laboratories; and the development of sound and 
predictable policies, legislation and regulation to foster a 
competitive manufacturing environment. Mr. Chakrabarti proposed 
a three-pronged approach to addressing the increasing global 
competition in chemical manufacturing: government support of 
sustainable chemical manufacturing, transforming existing 
facilities to produce renewable chemicals, and using technology 
to improve productivity. Dr. Tuominen called for an increasing 
government commitment to innovation in manufacturing and 
emphasized the importance of Federal investments and public-
private partnerships in nanomanufacturing research. Mr. Crews 
voiced general skepticism of government regulation and Federal 
funding of research and development.
    The witnesses generally supported greater interagency 
cooperation and public-private partnerships to link research 
with actual manufacturing and bring about manufacturing 
innovation. Several of the witnesses stressed the need to 
include small, medium, and large manufacturers in the planning 
and execution of innovation policy. Mr. Chakrabarti said that 
continuous feedback between industry and government agencies 
was necessary to avoid losing U.S.-developed innovations to 
overseas manufacturers. Dr. Smyth stressed the need for greater 
government involvement in applying new technology. A number of 
the witnesses described the burden of excessive or unstable 
government regulation. The panel supported the use of prizes 
and awards, such as the Malcolm Baldridge award and DARPA Grand 
Challenges, to stimulate innovation in manufacturing and 
confirmed the importance of Federal policies that support 
education and build infrastructure.

    4.1(v)_Geoengineering III: Domestic and International Research 
                               Governance

                             March 18, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-88

Background
    On Thursday, March 18, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to explore the domestic and international governance 
needs to initiate and guide a geoengineering research program 
and which U.S. agencies and institutions have the capacity or 
authorities to conduct geoengineering research. The hearing was 
the third and final in the series, following meetings on 
November 5, 2009 and February 4, 2010.
    There were five witnesses. The first panel consisted of (1) 
Member of Parliament Phil Willis, Chair of the Science and 
Technology Committee in the United Kingdom House of Commons and 
Representative of Harrogate and Knaresborough. The second panel 
included (1) Dr. Frank Rusco, Director of Natural Resources and 
Environment at the Government Accountability Office (GAO); (2) 
Dr. Granger Morgan, Professor and Head of the Department of 
Engineering and Public Policy and Lord Chair Professor in 
Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; (3) Dr. Jane Long, 
Deputy Principal Associate Director at Large and Fellow for the 
Center for Global Strategic Research at Lawrence Livermore 
National Lab (LLNL); and (4) Dr. Scott Barrett, Lenfest 
Professor of Natural Resource Economics at the School of 
International and Public Affairs and the Earth Institute at 
Columbia University.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon welcomed the 
honored guest, Chairman Willis, and emphasized that the 
scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change is 
overwhelming and that a more robust scientific and political 
understanding of geoengineering's potential is needed. Ranking 
Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) expressed reservations about 
geoengineering and dispensed with further remarks in the 
interest of time and courtesy to Chairman Willis.
    After an introduction from Chairman Gordon, Chairman Willis 
testified via live video on the background of the bi-national 
geoengineering inquiry and introduced the U.K. Committee's 
official report on the subject, The Regulation of 
Geoengineering. He delineated some of the report's key findings 
and recommendations, including key governing principles, and 
stressed that while geoengineering would be an extremely 
complex and challenging venture, it would be irresponsible not 
to initiate appropriate regulation and research. During the 
first question and answer period, Chairman Willis and the 
Members discussed the potential for a comprehensive 
international database on geoengineering information and 
activities, the future of geoengineering research in the U.K., 
and additional opportunities for bilateral cooperation. They 
also explored the role of public opinion and the media and how 
the U.K. inquiry process engaged both the public and scientific 
experts.
    During the second panel, Dr. Rusco summarized key findings 
of the Government Accountability Office's ongoing inquiry on 
geoengineering, describing some of the existing, relevant 
research activities in federal agencies and international 
treaties. He also provided support for why some geoengineering 
strategies should be regulated promptly. Dr. Morgan described 
geoengineering research at Carnegie Mellon University and 
argued for a cautious, risk-aware research program on solar 
radiation management. He also argued that the National Science 
Foundation should lead initial research efforts, that 
transparency should be a priority, and that the potential 
environmental impacts of specific research initiatives should 
inform the international agreements and laws intended to 
regulate them. Dr. Long discussed the key questions and 
principles for governance and risk management, and urged that 
identified benefits of any program must clearly outweigh the 
risks. Dr. Barrett assessed the different scenarios in which 
geoengineering might be used, warning that there would 
certainly be winner and loser nations, and recommended seven 
key governance rules.
    During the second discussion period, the Members and 
witnesses explored initial regulatory structures and debated 
the appropriate research and management roles for the U.S. 
Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other federal 
agencies. They also discussed the national security and 
geopolitical impacts of climate change itself and the need for 
adaptive management. All panelists and witnesses agreed that 
unilateral geoengineering could be very dangerous and should be 
avoided. There was also a consensus that geoengineering is a 
highly interdisciplinary, diverse topic and that any research 
initiative may require several federal and university partners.

      4.1(w)_Charting the Course for American Nuclear Technology: 
     Evaluating the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research 
                        and Development Roadmap

                              May 19, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-94

Background
    On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon (D-
TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to discuss the administration's research and 
development options to advance clean and affordable nuclear 
energy technology.
    There were two panels consisting of six witnesses: (1) Dr. 
Warren P. Miller, Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy at the 
Department of Energy; (2) Mr. Christopher Mowry, President and 
CEO of Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc.; (3) Dr. Charles 
Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists; 
(4) Dr. Mark Peters, Deputy Director for Programs at Argonne 
National Laboratory; (5) Mr. Gary M. Krellenstein, Managing 
Director for Tax Exempt Capital Markets at JP Morgan Chase & 
Co.; and (6) Dr. Thomas L. Sanders, President of the American 
Nuclear Society.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon reiterated his 
support for nuclear energy but pointed out that waste 
management issues must be resolved for full scale deployment of 
next generation reactors. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-
CA) expressed frustration with the recent decision to shut down 
Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for spent fuel but did 
thank the Chairman for his shared support of nuclear power.
    During the first panel, Dr. Miller briefly described DOE's 
roadmap for nuclear energy research and development and 
highlighted two programs, the small modular reactor program and 
the modified open cycle program, that work to realize the 
administration's objectives for the future of nuclear energy.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and Dr. 
Miller focused on cost-sharing limitations; global competition; 
Yucca Mountain; supply of uranium; reprocessing of spent fuel; 
alternatives to LWR's and types of SMR's; uranium legacy mine 
cleanup efforts; proliferation risks associated with full-
recycle; modified open cycle; expediting licensure; and the 
economics of nuclear power.
    In the second panel, Mr. Mowry described the Babcock & 
Wilcox mPower reactor and complained that the roadmap's cost-
sharing program doesn't go far enough to mitigate the 
significant capital costs in deploying a SMR. Dr. Ferguson 
pointed out how far behind the United States is in global SMR 
demonstration but suggested that we could still set the 
precedent in waste concerns, safety, reliability, and cost. He 
also asked how we should respond to waste concerns in client 
countries and called for an establishment of market incentives 
for waste disposal. Dr. Peters recommended closed fuel cycles 
as an ultimate goal but urged current funds to go to deployment 
of advanced systems. Representing Argonne, Dr. Peters supported 
the roadmap and encouraged the rapid installment of domestic 
demonstration activities. Mr. Krellenstein spoke to the 
financial-related issues associated with SMR's and the 
potential for the roadmap to improve investment fundamentals 
for nuclear power in the US. Dr. Sanders called the roadmap a 
good start but would rather see more focus on deployment of 
readily available technologies. In his view, the US could and 
should become a major supplier to the global marketplace.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on regaining leadership in the global 
marketplace; the slow permitting process; alternatives to loan 
guarantees and other methods of speeding up deployment; 
competitiveness of SMR's versus fossil fuels; existing SMR 
technology; brownfield deployment; and DOE budget issues. 
Everyone agreed that deploying the readily available 
technologies, finding a waste management solution, and 
minimizing the risk of proliferation should be the DOE's top 
priority.

     4.1(x)_Review of the Proposed National Aeronautics and Space 
                 Administration Human Spaceflight Plan

                              May 26, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-96

Background
    On May 26, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, the 
Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on the 
proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
Human Spaceflight Plan. The purpose of the hearing was to 
continue the examination of the proposed NASA human spaceflight 
plan and to review issues related to the budget, cost, schedule 
and potential impacts of the plan.
    The hearing examined: 1) the Administration's proposed 
goals, strategies and plans for NASA's human spaceflight and 
exploration programs, including the revisions announced by the 
president on April 15, 2010; 2) the assumptions, basis, 
feasibility and sustainability of those plans within the FY 
2011 budget plan and outyear funding plan; 3) the key 
challenges and risks involved in implementing the proposed 
change of course for NASA; and 4) what outstanding questions 
and issues needed to be addressed, and what information was 
needed for Congress' consideration of the proposed future 
direction for NASA's human spaceflight and exploration 
programs.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Charles Bolden, 
Administrator of NASA; (2) Mr. Neil Armstrong, Commander of 
Apollo 11; (3) Capt. Eugene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17; (4) 
Mr. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon (D-TN) opened the hearing by reminding 
Administrator Bolden of the Administration's responsibility to 
demonstrate the feasibility of the new budget for human 
spaceflight. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) said that before 
investing in commercial crew, the government should wait to 
observe the progress of commercial cargo services.
    Administrator Bolden testified that the new budget set the 
agency on a sustainable path, progressing step by step from a 
mission to an asteroid by 2025 to a mission to Mars orbit by 
the 2030s. He said that NASA would build on its work on the 
Orion to develop a Crew Rescue Vehicle which could in the 
future be leveraged into spacecraft for deep-space missions. 
Meanwhile in the present, the construction of a rescue vehicle 
would preserve critical high-tech-industry jobs.
    Chairman Gordon then called in the second panel. In his 
testimony, Mr. Armstrong enumerated the reasons to return to 
the Moon. He said that the lunar vicinity was an exceptional 
location to learn about traveling to more distant and more 
difficult destinations. He also cited the many scientific 
challenges to address regarding Helium-3, platinum group metals 
and how to survive on the lunar surface. Mr. Armstrong added 
that his priorities for the human space program were 
maintaining American leadership, access to low-Earth orbit and 
capability to explore.
    Captain Cernan referred to a letter he wrote along with Mr. 
Armstrong and Mr. Lovell in which they expressed their concerns 
regarding the new plan. He said it would take the private 
sector as long as ten years to access low-Earth orbit safely 
and cost-
effectively. Relying solely on the commercial sector could thus 
lead to abandoning American involvement in the ISS entirely. 
Constellation, on the other hand, had already been debated and 
vetted by Congress and federal agencies from OMB to DoD. He 
said that exploration was necessary to drive technology 
innovation, not the reverse.
    Mr. Young concluded that NASA's success stemmed from its 
meld of institutional continuity and expertise with industry 
capability. He thought that the Administration's proposal 
abandoned this model, leaving NASA with a purely advisory role. 
If implemented, this would be similar to the failed acquisition 
reform the Air Force undertook in the 1990s. Mr. Young also 
said that the proposed FY 2011 budget could not support both an 
adequate ISS program and exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

      4.1(y)_Averting the Storm: How Investments in Science Will 
       Secure the Competitiveness and Economic Future of the U.S.

                           September 29, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-111

Background
    On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
(D-TN) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held 
a hearing to receive testimony from distinguished members of 
the 2005 ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' Committee who 
participated in a recent review of the 2005 report and produced 
an updated report entitled, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 
Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Witnesses commented 
on the findings included in the new report, and offered 
recommendations to the Committee and to Congress on how to 
maintain U.S. competitiveness and economic security for the 
long-term.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, 
retired Chairman and CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation and 
former Undersecretary of the Army; (2) Dr. Craig Barrett, 
retired Chairman and CEO of Intel; (3) Mr. Charles Holliday, 
Jr., Chairman of the Board of Bank of America and retired 
Chairman of the Board and CEO of DuPont; and (4) Dr. C.D. (Dan) 
Mote, Jr., President Emeritus of the University of Maryland and 
Glenn L. Martin Institute Professor of Engineering.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Gordon focused on the 
United States' continuing decline in competitiveness since the 
original Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was released, 
and emphasized the importance of reauthorizing the America 
COMPETES Act during the 111th Congress. Ranking Member Hall (R-
TX) noted that the challenges laid out in the original report 
are even more difficult to confront under the current economic 
circumstances. He suggested that government investments need to 
be made more efficiently and that the private sector, teachers, 
and families need to increase their efforts in addition to the 
ongoing investments of the Federal government.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Augustine lauded the 
success of the 2007 America COMPETES Act but noted that most of 
the funding for COMPETES-authorized programs came from Recovery 
Act appropriations, and that increasing financial constraints 
on the federal budget and university budgets continues to 
threaten American competitiveness. Dr. Barrett spoke about the 
three factors that make up the international `competitiveness 
quotient': the education level of the workforce; the investment 
in new ideas; and the competitive environment, including 
government regulations, taxes, and intellectual property 
protection. He suggested that the United States is not doing 
very well in any of these areas. Barrett also expressed his 
full support for COMPETES, but indicated that the private 
sector needs to get behind these other issues as well.
    Mr. Holliday focused on the importance of developing low-
cost, clean energy, and listed the conditions under which such 
a development would be realistic, including continuity in the 
field of research, $11 billion in funding, geographic clusters 
of technology developers and business partners, and government-
funded or assisted prototype facilities. Lastly, Dr. Mote noted 
that while the America COMPETES Act and other U.S. initiatives 
have had some success, other countries are investing much more 
aggressively in their global competitiveness and the United 
States is farther behind now than in 2005 when the original 
report was released. He argued that science, technology, and 
innovation must become a true priority in order to secure 
future American prosperity and national security.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists discussed why the government should leverage private 
sector research investments, the importance of clean and low-
cost energy to the rest of the American economy, how to keep 
new technology and manufacturing in the United States, how and 
whether to issue visas in order to keep foreign-born, American-
educated STEM students in the U.S., co-location of research and 
manufacturing, connecting K-12 education with workforce 
development, the research and development tax credit, industry 
incentives for keeping jobs in the United States, the corporate 
tax rate, the symbolic importance of passing the America 
COMPETES Act, how to educate leaders and Members of Congress 
about the importance of investing in research, education and 
innovation, how to incentivize the energy sector to invest in 
petroleum alternatives, free-trade agreements and protection of 
American intellectual property, whether to prioritize funding 
for basic research or applied research and commercialization, 
and the importance of having certified teachers for K-12 math 
and science education.

     4.1(z)_Options and Opportunities for Onsite Renewable Energy 
                              Integration

                           November 15, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-113

Background
    On Monday, November 15, 2010, with the Honorable Russ 
Carnahan (D-MO) presiding, the Committee on Science and 
Technology held a hearing to discuss integrating renewable 
energy systems in the built environment. The hearing was held 
in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in Chicago, IL with Mr. 
Carnahan serving as Chairman and Ms. Biggert (R-IL) as Ranking 
Member.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Joseph Ostafi, Regional 
Leader for the Science and Technology Division and Group Vice 
President of HOK; (2) Mr. Michael Lopez, Director of Facility 
Operations for Bolingbrook High School; (3) Mr. Daniel 
Cheifetz, Chief Executive Officer of Indie Energy Systems 
Company; (4) Dr. Jeffrey P. Chamberlain, Department Head for 
Electrochemical Energy Storage and Energy Storage Major 
Initiative Leader of the Chemical Sciences and Engineering 
Division at Argonne National Laboratory; and (5) Ms. Martha G. 
VanGeem, Principal Engineer and Group Manager of Building 
Science and Sustainability of CTL Group.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Mr. Carnahan discussed the role 
of buildings in the Nation's environmental footprint, 
activities of the bipartisan High-Performance Building 
Congressional Caucus, and the opportunities that lie ahead for 
integration of renewable energy systems in the built 
environment. Ms. Biggert presented some examples of high-
performance buildings in and around Chicago, discussed the 
importance of building efficiency programs, and asked the 
witnesses to elaborate on the challenges of deploying some 
technologies.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Ostafi discussed the role 
of architects, engineers, and planners in developing 
innovations and opportunities for on-site renewable energy 
integration and highlighted that political and financial 
obstacles to implementing these programs are still major 
barriers. Mr. Lopez talked about the benefits of integrating 
renewable energy in schools and other environments. Mr. 
Cheifetz described his work to develop onsite geothermal energy 
systems and related monitoring technologies. Dr. Chamberlain 
described a variety of energy storage technologies and their 
role in both small and large scale systems. Ms. VanGeem 
discussed how renewable-ready requirements a compromise between 
cost-effectiveness and the goal of renewable energy in all 
buildings.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on the impact renewable energy integration 
would have on the economy and job creation; initial investment 
versus payback periods; training a new workforce; the ``valley 
of death'' between technology demonstration and 
commercialization; the benefits of new building requirements 
and standards; educating users and business leadership; 
strategies and challenges with ``greening'' school districts; 
saving energy by targeting human behavior; curtain wall 
systems; double-duty renewable energy systems; energy storage 
needs and opportunities; and potential next steps for 
legislation.
              4.2--SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

        4.2(a)_How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring, 
           Reporting, and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions

                           February 24, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-3

Background
    On Tuesday, February 24th, 2009, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and 
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a 
hearing to discuss the federal role in supporting researching 
and development of monitoring technologies, emissions factors, 
models, and other tools necessary to support reliable 
accounting of establishing a baseline for greenhouse gas 
emissions and changes in emissions relative to the baseline 
under a regulatory program for greenhouse gases.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. John Stephenson, 
Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Ms. Jill Gravender, Vice 
President for Policy at The Climate Registry; (3) Ms. Leslie 
Wong, Director of Greenhouse Gas Programs for Waste Management, 
Inc.; (4) Mr. Rob Ellis, Greenhouse Gas Program Manager for 
Advanced Waste Management Systems, Inc.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird emphasized the 
imminent risks of global overheating and ocean acidification 
and called for tools to allow regulated entities to track their 
emissions in order to support an effective GHG mitigation 
strategy. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) discussed his proposal 
for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, an alternative to a cap-and-
trade system for GHG management. He also urged that a GHG 
mitigation system be equitable to American manufacturers, in 
part by applying equitable tax structures to both domestic and 
imported goods.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Stephenson noted that the 
data needs depend on the point at which a regulatory program 
regulates emissions and that existing cap-and-trade programs 
have highlighted the criticality of quality emissions data. He 
also argued that all GHGs, not just CO
2
, must be 
accommodated in a meaningful emissions inventory, and that 
while there are several useful GHG registries in operation, 
none are at the scope or complexity needed for a nationwide 
program. Ms. Gravender provided background on The Climate 
Registry, a voluntary program which requires annual third-party 
verification. She explained that while it is possible for most 
organizations to accurately account for, report, and verify 
emissions today, organizational challenges and scientific 
uncertainties must be addressed. Ms. Wong described Waste 
Management's GHG programs, noting its contributions to 
decreasing landfill emission. She also argued for a phased 
approach to federal reporting requirements and sufficient time 
for the joint Waste Management/EPA testing of landfill gas 
emissions under a variety of conditions before requiring site-
specific reporting of landfill GHG emissions. Mr. Ellis warned 
that with GHG reporting, the consequences of error and 
opportunity for fraud are high without third party 
verification, which Advanced Waste Management Systems provides. 
He described the verification process and emphasized the need 
for due attention to verifiers' potential conflicts of 
interest.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
witnesses discussed upstream versus downstream analysis and 
monitoring, international coordination on GHG monitoring, 
carbon tax structures, how to coordinate federal agencies and 
States, monitoring standards development, methane and water 
vapor, the various existing carbon monitoring and change 
registries. They also reviewed life cycle product pricing, 
preventing carbon market manipulation and fraud, voluntary 
versus mandatory standards and reporting, public information, 
and international carbon control agreements. Not all Members 
and panelists agreed, however, on the scientific evidence of 
climate change, leading some Members to criticize the large 
amounts of government money being spent on monitoring programs.

     4.2(b)_FutureGen and the Department of Energy's Advanced Coal 
                                Programs

                             March 11, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-9

Background
    On Wednesday, March 11, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met 
to discuss the FutureGen program and strategies for 
accelerating research, development and demonstration of 
advanced technologies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
from coal-fired power plants. FutureGen, a collaboration 
between the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry, is 
one of DOE's key initiatives for research, development, and 
demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on 
coal-fired turbines. The program was initiated in 2003 and 
underwent restructuring in January 2008.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Victor Der, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy's Office of 
Fossil Energy, (2) Mr. Mark Gaffigan, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment Team at the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), (3) Dr. Robert J. Finley, 
Director, Energy and Earth Resources Center for Illinois State 
Geological Survey, (4) Mr. Larry Monroe, Senior Research 
Consultant at Southern Company, and (5) Ms. Sarah Forbes, 
Senior Associate, Climate and Energy Program at the World 
Resources Institute.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird stated that the 
problems of overheated gas and ocean acidification are a global 
problem as the use of coal has expanded. Ranking Member Inglis 
(R-SC) stressed the importance of technology breakthroughs to 
retain coal-dependent jobs while controlling carbon dioxide. 
Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) then stated his disappointment at 
the termination of FutureGen during the last Presidential 
Administration and called for a renewed commitment to the 
program.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Der described the current 
state and projected actions for DOE's advanced coal program for 
carbon capture and storage. Mr. Gaffigan summarized the GAO's 
report on the restructured FutureGen program and the 
conclusions for a path forward on policy decisions. He 
emphasized that the restructured FutureGen is fundamentally 
different from the original 2003 program. Dr. Finley provided 
an update on CCS activities at the Midwest Geological 
Sequestration Consortium and information about the injection 
site selection process and site monitoring strategies. Mr. 
Monroe described Southern Company's role in developing and 
demonstrating advanced coal technology with the goal of 
commercial viability, calling cost and timing the two greatest 
challenges for large scale deployment of CCS. Ms. Forbes 
described the World Resources Institute's ongoing activities to 
establish guidelines and recommendations for the deployment of 
carbon capture and storage technologies as well as activities 
and initiatives underway facilitating international 
collaboration on advanced coal technologies.
    During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses 
considered project scalability, potential coal plant emissions 
reductions, lessons learned at the Midwest Geological 
Sequestration Consortium, marketplace carbon pricing, lessons 
from small-scale projects, and public service commission 
challenges. Specific to FutureGen, they examined the reasons 
for program restructuring, cost escalations and 
miscalculations, the details of the cost sharing agreements 
with private industry, future international collaboration and 
sharing of intellectual property, and the importance of 
FutureGen research to inform future climate change legislation. 
It was agreed that for carbon capture and sequestration to be 
successful, there must be incentives for industry to 
participate and greater public access to information about the 
safety of CCS technologies.

       4.2(c)_Examining Federal Vehicle Technology Research and 
                          Development Programs

                             March 24, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-13

Background
    On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
Vehicle Technologies research and development programs, 
including light and heavy duty vehicle development and the 
``FreedomCar'' and ``21st Century Truck Partnership'' programs, 
and to discuss potential program changes.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), (2) Dr. Kathryn 
Clay, Director of Research for the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, (3) Mr. Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President of 
Engineering for BMW of North America, (4) Dr. John H. Johnson, 
Presidential Professor at Michigan Technological University, 
and (5) Mr. Anthony Greszler, Vice President of Government and 
Industry Relations for Volvo Powertrain North America.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird discussed 
challenges faced in federal vehicles research and urged a shift 
in program priorities, stressing the need for a diverse 
portfolio of technologies and more consistent, long-term 
research funding. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) urged innovation 
due to the industry's immense oil consumption and contribution 
to greenhouse gases and recognized Witness Baloga and BMW for 
their innovative practices and economic benefit to South 
Carolina.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Chalk profiled the DOE 
contribution to advanced vehicle technology development, 
stressing the importance of R&D alliances with industry and 
integrated design strategies during economic recession. Dr. 
Clay offered several guiding principles for the Vehicle 
Technology Program, emphasizing diverse and high-risk research 
efforts, and expressed support for DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
Learning Demonstration and Advanced Battery Manufacturing 
Programs. Mr. Baloga provided several program recommendations 
and detailed BMW's innovative projects and priorities, 
including those funded in part by DOE. He emphasized the need 
for research in electric battery and hydrogen-powered vehicles 
and for support of a diverse technology mix. Dr. Johnson 
presented recommendations for priorities and funding levels for 
Vehicle Technologies programs from his perspective as a 
participant of the 21st Century Truck Partnership and the 
National Academy's Committees on Light-Duty Fuel Economy and 
Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy. Mr. Greszler spoke on 
behalf of the industry members of the 21st Century Truck 
Partnership, describing several heavy-duty vehicle specific R&D 
needs and calling for $200 million in federal funding to 
support heavy-duty vehicle development.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists debated the relative merits of various existing 
transportation innovations and the most effective and 
appropriate means of achieving an energy independent, 
environmentally sustainable vehicle fleet. They discussed such 
topics as the distribution of American Reinvestment and 
Recovery Act funding, electric battery research and 
development, domestic job creation, training and retention, 
waste heat recovery and thermal electrics, ethanol and fuel 
efficiency standards, flex fuel vehicles, innovations in fuel 
efficiency, hydrogen fuel, funding levels and sources, and 
European innovations to date. A major theme was the economic 
opportunity the burgeoning vehicle technologies present, both 
for American industry's international leadership and domestic 
job creation. The panelists and Subcommittee agreed that key 
strategies are investment in an array of diverse technologies 
and strong, collaborative research partnerships between 
government, private industry, and universities.

        4.2(d)_Continued Oversight of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration's Geostationary Weather Satellite 
                                 System

                             April 23, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-19

Background
    On Thursday, April 23, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology, 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing to 
discuss the status of the Geostationary Operational 
Environmental Satellite (GOES) series being developed by the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 
satellites are used to detect and track weather systems 
affecting the Western Hemisphere and are managed in 
collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).
    There were three witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director 
of Information Technology Management Issues at the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Ms. Mary Ellen Kicza, 
Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services 
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 
and (3) Mr. George Morrow, Director of the Flight Projects 
Directorate at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird warned of 
interagency friction, budget overruns, and schedule delays with 
the GOES program, but noted how critical the imagery the 
satellites provide are to public health, safety, and economies 
in the U.S. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) expressed concerns 
that a satellite service outage would have great negative 
effects and committed to identifying potential fixes for the 
program.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Powner summarized GAO's 
findings on GOES current costs and schedule estimates, how 
satellite capability and coverage could be affected, and key 
recommendations going forward. Ms. Kicza described steps taken 
at NOAA to provide early warnings of risk and addressed several 
of the recommendations issued in the GAO report on the GOES 
program. Mr. Morrow outlined steps at NASA to minimize costs, 
schedule and performance risks on satellite GOES-R and 
explained its efforts to coordinate closely with NOAA on the 
program.
    During the question and answer period, the Members heard 
from the panelists largely on the circumstances leading to 
budget and schedule overruns and how to incorporate 
recommendations and prevent future problems. They also 
discussed their expectations for GOES, achieving accurate cost 
estimates, the appropriate role for Congress in achieving 
success with the GOES program, and the benefits to be realized 
from such success.

         4.2(e)_Pushing the Efficiency Envelope: R&D for High-
            Performance Buildings, Industries and Consumers

                             April 28, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-21

Background
    On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing on the role of the Department of Energy's 
research and development programs in developing technologies, 
codes, and standards to enable deployment of net-zero energy, 
high-performance buildings and support energy efficiency in 
domestic industries.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), (2) Mr. William 
J. Coad, President of Coad Engineering Enterprises and Chairman 
of the High-Performance Building Council of the National 
Institute of Building Sciences; (3) Mr. Paul Cicio, President 
of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, (4) Dr. Karen 
Ehrhardt-Martinez, Research Staff for the Economic and Social 
Analysis Program at the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE), and (5) Dr. J. Michael McQuade, 
Senior Vice President of Science and Technology at United 
Technologies Corporation.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird noted that 
buildings consume 40% of energy in the U.S. and explained that 
several different government programs must coordinate efforts 
in order to reduce the building and industrial sectors' energy 
use. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) asserted that because price 
signals have not encouraged consumer energy efficiency, 
technology and policy developments may be needed to promote 
more efficient building design.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Chalk noted that every 
gain in building efficiency represents a reduction in 
greenhouse gases and described the Department of Energy's 
initiatives toward the goal of affordable net-zero energy 
residential and commercial buildings by 2020 and 2025, 
respectively. Mr. Coad provided some historical context for the 
development of energy efficient buildings and highlighted the 
urgent need for efficiency in light of the earth's rapidly 
dwindling fossil fuel resources. Mr. Cicio argued for federal 
support of U.S. manufacturing in support of efficiency goals, 
job creation and retention, and global competitiveness. Dr. 
Ehrhardt-Martinez provided information on the role of social 
and behavioral sciences in reducing energy consumption in 
buildings and made suggestions for program changes at DOE. Mr. 
McQuade cited the key role of building efficiency in meeting 
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations 
and called for a $250 million federal investment over five 
years to support the research and development needs for 
optimizing buildings as whole systems.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on how to execute best practices in the 
public, consumer education, the challenges and benefits of 
building retrofits, consistent labeling, green building 
standards, efficiency in federal government buildings, 
implementation of demonstration projects, appropriate funding 
levels, life-cycle energy pricing, and distributing consumer 
information. There was an emphasis on social and behavioral 
research in an integrated approach to energy efficiency and the 
critical role of efficiency in addressing climate change.

     4.2(f)_Expanding Climate Services at the National Oceanic and 
      Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Developing the National 
                            Climate Service

                              May 5, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-24

Background
    On Tuesday, May 5, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology, 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing to 
examine potential features of a national entity for climate 
information collection, presentation, and dissemination, or a 
National Climate Service (NCS), to be administered under the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    There were nine witnesses divided into three panels. On 
Panel I: (1) Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary for NOAA.
    On Panel II: (1) Dr. Arthur DeGaetano, Director of the 
Northeast Regional Climate Center, (2) Dr. Eric J. Barron, 
Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research 
(NCAR), (3) Dr. Philip Mote, Director of the Oregon Climate 
Change Research Institute and Oregon Climate Services at Oregon 
State University, and (4) Mr. Richard J. Hirn, General Counsel 
and Legislative Director for the National Weather Service (NWS) 
Employees Organization.
    On Panel III: (1) Dr. Michael L. Strobel, Director of the 
National Water and Climate Center at the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), (2) Mr. David Behar, Deputy 
to the Assistant General Manager for the San Francisco Public 
Utilities Commission, (3) Mr. Paul Fleming, Manager of the 
Climate and Sustainability Group for Seattle Public Utilities, 
and (4) Dr. Nolan Doesken, State Climatologist for Colorado and 
Senior Research Associate at Colorado State University.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird cited droughts as 
an example of why a National Climate Service is necessary and 
called for regionally- and locally-scaled information resources 
to best implement climate adaptation plans.
    During the witnesses' testimony, Dr. Lubchenco evinced the 
demand for an NCS, identifying its primary purpose as an 
information source for effective decision-making, and pledged 
NOAA's commitment to thoroughly cooperate with other federal 
agencies. During the discussion period, the Members and Dr. 
Lubchenco examined potential structures, coordination 
strategies, and applications of a NCS. They also discussed 
greenhouse gas monitoring, observable evidence of climate 
change, and ocean acidification.
    In Panel II, Dr. DeGaetano identified the key 
characteristics of an effective climate services, including 
partnership and information integration, strong stakeholder 
relationships, interactive climate analyses and decision tools, 
a robust computer infrastructure, and responsiveness to local 
and regional issues. Dr. Barron argued for a comprehensive and 
authoritative data source and presented key recommendations 
from the NOAA Science Advisory Board's Climate Working Group 
Report, Options for Developing a National Climate Service. Dr. 
Mote described the climate change monitoring work of NOAA's 
nine Regionally Integrated Science and Assessments teams 
(RISAs) and offered five RISA recommendations for features of a 
NCS. Mr. Hirn argued that a NCS would duplicate existing 
efforts at the National Weather Service and suggested instead a 
consolidation of standing, disparate climate programs at NOAA 
and NWS. During their discussion period, the Members and 
witnesses considered past successes of climate forecasting, 
more on the NCS structure, current inter-office coordination 
efforts, international coordination, best practices of an NCS, 
and potential changes at NOAA.
    During Panel III, Dr. Stroebel illustrated the information 
management functions of the Snow Survey, the Water Supply 
Forecasting Program, and the Soil Climate Analysis Network 
(SCAN), all under the National Water and Climate Center at 
USDA. Mr. Behar depicted the water utilities industry's need 
for ``actionable science'' via a NCS to inform regional water 
activities. Mr. Fleming identified six essential 
characteristics of a NCS to be strengthened and streamlined 
from the RISA model as a starting point and recommended strong 
collaboration with the water utilities sector. Mr. Doesken 
related how local- and state-level climate experts disseminate 
information and collaborate with regional and federal partners, 
and expressed the American Association of State Climatologists' 
support for a NCS. During their discussion period, Panel III 
and the Members discussed the organizational structure of a 
NCS, interagency coordination, lessons from State climate 
offices, and the prevention of duplicating services within the 
federal government.

       4.2(g)_A New Direction for Federal Oil Spill Research and 
                              Development

                              June 4, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-29

Background
    On Thursday, June 4, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-WA) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in a 
legislative hearing to discuss the current federal research and 
development efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil 
discharges and to receive testimony on the Federal Oil Spill 
Research Program Act of 2009 offered by Representative Lynn 
Woolsey (D-CA).
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Douglas Helton, Incident 
Operations Coordinator at the National Oceanic Atmospheric 
Administration's (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration 
(OR&R), (2) Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land 
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk 
Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection 
Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA ORD), (3) Rear 
Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention Policy for Marine 
Safety, Security and Stewardship for the United States Coast 
Guard (USCG), and (4) Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the 
Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) at the 
California Department of Fish and Game.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird recalled the Exxon 
Valdez and Cosco Busan oil spills, noting that there are oil 
spill mitigation and cleanup needs that remain unmet by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). Rep. Woolsey introduced her 
bill and emphasized that it will coordinate federal research 
and development in a way that ensures interagency cooperation.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Helton expressed concerns 
that the research and development envisioned by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 had not been achieved. Dr. Venosa 
discussed the EPA's Oil Spill Research Program and why oil 
spill research activities should continue in the federal 
government. Admiral Watson described the Coast Guard's current 
role in oil spill research and development, and stated that 
more R&D was needed in this area. Mr. Edinger shared a story on 
an oil spill that occurred in San Francisco Bay and reiterated 
the gaps in oil spill technology that remain an issue today.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
witnesses discussed the potential impacts and needs for Rep. 
Woolsey's bill, which streamlines oil spill R&D from 17 
different agencies down to four: the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Interior's 
Minerals Management Service. Topics discussed included the 
specific role of each agency, inland oil spills, funding needs, 
existing coordination structures, industry and university 
incentives for performing research, the possibility of biofuel 
spills, community engagement and cleanup volunteer training, 
and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Key recommendations 
included allocating research dollars and activities in 
proportion to spill causes, coordinating research and sharing 
information with universities and foreign nations, planning for 
the best use of community volunteer resources, applying 
financial risk assessments to the activities of oil companies, 
further study of Arctic oil spills, improving spill modeling 
technologies for research and monitoring purposes, and 
exploring new applications of existing technologies, such as 
remote sensing, to oil spills. Witnesses agreed that although 
there has been significant improvement in spill mitigation, 
response and restoration efforts since the Exxon Valdez spill 
in 1989, there are still several key areas that need greater 
resources and coordination, particularly in light of the 
nation's growing energy demands.

       4.2(h)_Environmental Research at the Department of Energy

                              June 9, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-30

Background
    On Tuesday, June 9, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-WA) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to 
discuss H.R. 2729 sponsored by Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) to 
formerly authorize the seven existing National Environmental 
Research Parks (NERPs) as permanent research reserves and to 
provide guidance for research, education, and outreach 
activities to be conducted on or in collaboration with the 
Parks. The hearing also examined other climate and 
environmental research programs conducted by the Department of 
Energy (DOE) Office of Science.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Paul Hanson, Ecosystem 
Science Group Leader at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (2) Dr. 
David Bader, Director of the Program for Climate Model 
Diagnosis and Intercomparison, (3) Dr. Nathan McDowell, Lead 
Researcher in the Atmospheric, Climate, and Environmental 
Dynamics Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and (4) Dr. 
Whit Gibbons, Professor Emeritus of Ecology at the University 
of Georgia and Head of the Environmental Outreach and Education 
program at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird commended Rep. 
Lujan for his initiative on the legislation. Rep. Lujan stated 
that H.R. 2729 would provide core funding for an organizational 
structure to support the important work at research parks.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Hanson discussed advances 
in climate change science through DOE's support of terrestrial 
ecosystem research, stressing the need for long-term and large-
scale analysis and identifying several key topics for future 
inquiry. Dr. Bader testified on the importance of climate 
modeling, simulation and prediction and the concurrent needs 
for robust comparative computational systems and scientists. 
Dr. McDowell highlighted the importance of research parks with 
an example of activities conducted at the Los Alamos NERP and 
applauded the Committee's initiative. Dr. Gibbons emphasized 
the educational and public outreach enterprises at SREL and 
emphasized its role in critical advancements in the ecology and 
energy fields.
    During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses 
discussed potential for research park activities, research in 
land remediation, funding sources, specific research park 
projects, environmental degradation and water studies, 
renewable energy source studies, climate modeling and evidence 
of climate change. There was a strong emphasis on the benefit 
of community outreach and education and research opportunities 
for undergraduate and graduate students.

     4.2(i)_Technology Research and Development Efforts Related to 
                      the Energy and Water Linkage

                              July 9, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-41

Background
    On Thursday, July 9, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing on the role of the federal government and 
industry in developing technologies designed to address the 
inextricable link between our energy and water resources and 
how deployment of such technologies could help to avoid 
resource supply disruptions.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Kristina Johnson, 
Undersecretary of Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE); (2) Ms. Anu Mittal, Director of Natural Resources and 
Environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO); 
(3) Dr. Bryan Hannegan, Vice President of Environment & 
Generation at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); (4) 
Mr. Terry Murphy, President of SolarReserve, LLC and (5) Mr. 
Richard L. Stanley, Vice President of the Engineering Division 
at GE Energy.
Summary
    To open the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Baird and 
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) dispensed with any opening 
remarks in the interest of expedience. Dr. Johnson testified on 
DOE's approach to increasing energy and water efficiency, 
emphasizing the relationship between water resources and global 
climate. Ms. Mittal detailed GAO's findings to date in three 
key energy-water studies, identifying key emerging technologies 
in power plant cooling technologies, challenges with biofuel 
production, and specific federal research and development 
needs. Dr. Hannegan profiled current industry research efforts 
and the details of water use as a cooling agent in 
thermoelectric power generation. Mr. Murphy described the needs 
and particular challenges of water use in solar energy 
generation and made suggestions for future policy decisions in 
the field. Mr. Stanley offered four recommendations for public-
private partnerships to address the energy-water link and 
described GE's emerging technologies in the field.
    During the discussion period, the Members and witnesses 
discussed the varied opportunities and limitations for 
modifying water use in energy generation. They identified 
several major themes including the relationship of carbon 
emissions with both water and energy, a need for collaborative 
research and development in industry, academia, domestic 
federal programs, and other nations, the distinction between 
water use and water loss, economic considerations of new energy 
policies, and the need for simultaneous research on water and 
energy due to their interdependency. Other topics included 
projected national population growth and accompanying demand 
for water and energy, uses for grey water, existing energy 
power plant retrofits, a national goal for water reuse, energy 
storage technologies and the Smart Grid, water use in biomass 
crop production, gas turbine efficiency, water demands with 
carbon capture and sequestration at coal plants, water 
desalinization, industry enthusiasm for new technologies, water 
use in cooling nuclear power plants, emissions trading schemes, 
and job creation.

    4.2(j)_New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar Research and Development

                             July 14, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-42

Background
    On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, with the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing to examine the current status of wind and solar 
energy research and development programs, and the need for a 
comprehensive plan to guide future R&D. The Subcommittee 
received testimony on H.R. 3165, sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko 
(D-NY), a bill authorizing a comprehensive program to advance 
wind energy technologies. The hearing also examined advanced 
manufacturing techniques for solar equipment and how both solar 
and wind technologies can help address the United States' 
growing domestic energy needs.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Steve Lockard, Chief 
Executive Office of TPI Composites and Research & Development 
Committee Co-Chair of the American Wind Energy Association 
(AWEA); (2) Mr. John Saintcross, Energy and Environmental 
Markets Program Manager for the New York State Energy Research 
and Development Authority (NYSERDA); (3) Prof. Andrew Swift, 
Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at 
Texas Tech University; (4) Mr. Ken Zweibel, Director of the 
George Washington University Solar Institute; (5) Ms. Nancy 
Bacon, Senior Advisor for United Solar Ovonic and Energy 
Conversion Devices, Inc.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird touched on the 
enormous untapped potential of wind and solar to meet our 
country's energy needs. He highlighted the need for a 
significant upgrade to the transmission grid and substantial 
investments in new generation equipment. Chairman Baird also 
expressed his support for H.R. 3165.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Lockard, Mr. Saintcross 
and Dr. Swift discussed wind energy. Mr. Lockard commended Mr. 
Tonko's bill and recent industry growth but noted difficulties 
in market acceptance and reliability, calling for a sustained 
annual budget of at least $200 million. Mr. Saintcross 
described NYSERDA's efforts in wind energy as a public 
corporation at the state level and suggested further research 
needs in computational modeling and offshore wind energy 
technologies. Dr. Swift commented on wind turbine cost, 
performance, reliability, justified the merits of the proposed 
$200 million investment in wind energy, and highlighted the 
need for workforce education.
    Mr. Zweibel explained that while current solar power costs 
are higher than other renewables, it has the potential for 
greatest payoff over time through domestic competitiveness, job 
creation, carbon reduction and affordability. He also described 
the experience of First Solar, Inc. from its engagement in an 
early government contract for solar film technologies 
development. Ms. Bacon offered the perspective of a private 
solar technologies firm, emphasizing the need for U.S. 
leadership in solar, and explained how distributed 
photovoltaics can address national energy needs with a host of 
concurrent environmental and social benefits.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
witnesses discussed economic and job creation potential, 
offshore wind energy generation, energy storage and battery 
development, government subsidy levels, wind farm efficiency 
research, wildlife safety around wind turbines, service 
reliability, feed-in tariffs and incentives to industry, net 
metering and the smart grid, and solar panel durability. Major 
themes included the importance of economies of scale in wind 
and solar deployment, the need for distributed power generation 
and transmission, and supporting American industry leadership 
and domestic manufacturing. The Members and witnesses agreed 
that a solar roadmap was very much needed, and that government 
investments should work toward wind and solar competing with 
traditional energy resources in the marketplace without 
subsidy.

    4.2(k)_Effectively Transforming Our Electric Delivery System to 
                              a Smart Grid

                             July 23, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-46

Background
    On Thursday, July 23, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held 
a hearing to examine the roles of government and industry in 
transitioning the Nation's current power generation, storage 
and transmission system to a smart grid system. Such an 
overhaul of our aging energy collection and transmission system 
would be designed to promote desirable energy consumption 
patterns and assuage consumer costs.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Ms. Patricia Hoffman, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office 
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, (2) Ms. Suedeen 
Kelly, a Commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC), (3) Dr. George Arnold, National Coordinator 
for Smart Grid Interoperability at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), (4) Mr. Paul De Martini, Vice 
President of Advanced Technology at Southern California Edison 
(SCE), (5) Mr. Jeff Ross, Executive Vice President at 
GridPoint, Inc., and (6) Mr. Michael A. Stoessl, Group 
President for Cooper Power Systems.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird noted the smart 
grid's economic benefits to consumers and the electricity 
transmission industry in addition to its potential contribution 
to climate change mitigation. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) also 
lauded smart grid's potential benefits and expressed his 
interests in the pace of implementation, agency coordination, 
and private-public sector investment sharing.
    During the witness testimony, Ms. Hoffman described how the 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have contributed 
to DOE's smart grid research, development, and demonstration 
activities. Ms. Hoffman also identified key areas for future 
research, such as cybersecurity and phasor measurement units. 
Ms. Kelly detailed FERC's authority over smart grid issues and 
its individual and collaborative research and development 
initiatives to date. Dr. Arnold discussed NIST's efforts in 
grid standards development and called for careful consideration 
of security issues, strong public-private partnerships, and 
international standards compatibility. Mr. De Martini provided 
the private sector perspective on smart technologies in the 
state of California, noting the consumer enthusiasm for an 
updated grid and need for significant R&D and capital 
investment at the Federal level. Mr. Ross argued for empowering 
consumer decision making and called for: development of 
software applications to help utility companies control the 
electric load; more streamlined Federal smart grid incentives 
to industry; and a greater number of technology demonstration 
projects. Mr. Stoessl profiled several key hardware components 
of an effective grid system and commended DOE for their ARRA 
smart grid grants evaluation process.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed the key benefits of a smart grid and the 
most effective steps toward a timely implementation of new 
technologies and immediate energy savings. Topics included 
``smart meters'' and net metering, international 
interoperability standards, the fate of funds allocated to 
smart grid in the ARRA, potential energy production savings, 
peak load management, the need for demonstration projects, 
superconductive materials, job creation, and workforce 
development. The panelists agreed that cooperation between 
agencies, state, and Federal entities, and private industry 
would be critical to smart grid deployment. They also agreed 
that a comprehensive smart grid program must consider cyber and 
national security concerns, and that consumer interfacing, 
information services, and price signals will be key strategies 
to realizing energy savings.

    4.2(l)_Biological Research for Energy and Medical Applications 
             at the Department of Energy Office of Science

                           September 10, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-49

Background
    On Thursday, September 10, 2009, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to discuss the Department of 
Energy's biological research activities as conducted through 
the Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research 
(BER) and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs, and their potential 
practical applications.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Anna Palmisano, Director 
of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) at 
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); (2) Dr. Jay D. Keasling, 
Acting Deputy Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
and Chief Executive Officer of the Joint BioEnergy Institute at 
the U.S. Department of Energy; (3) Dr. Allison Campbell, 
Director of the WR Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences 
Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); (4) 
Dr. Aristides A. N. Patrinos, President of Synthetic Genomics, 
Inc. and (5) Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Director of the Facilities and 
Project Management Division in the Office of Nuclear Physics at 
the U.S. Department of Energy.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird briefly noted some 
of DOE's main biological activities, including the Human Genome 
Project, next-generation biofuels, carbon sequestration, and 
non-commercial isotope production. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) 
also lauded the achievements of the Human Genome Project and 
DOE biofuel development initiatives, noting his personal 
interest in the BER program as it is supported by research 
activities at Clemson University in South Carolina.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Palmisano described BER's 
three major scientific research initiatives: genome-enabled 
biology, climate change, and environmental sustainability and 
stewardship, its three primary facilities, and the new 
bioenergy research centers, and noted that BER seeks to 
coordinate closely to other offices within DOE. Dr. Keasling 
described activities in synthetic biology research at the Joint 
BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), a DOE Bioenergy Research Center 
(BRC). Dr. Campbell reviewed research activities at the 
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) and how the 
Laboratory works with the National Institutes of Health, the 
National Science Foundation, private universities and 
international researchers. Dr. Patrinos described the public-
private partnership between BER and Synthetic Genomics, Inc., 
and recommended that BER be directed to pursue high-risk, high-
reward research, continue to nurture public-private 
collaboration, and redouble its research efforts in genomic 
science. Dr. Gillo delineated the key features and applications 
of the DOE Isotope Program within the Office of Nuclear 
Physics.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists explored opportunities for enabling interagency 
coordination, the potential negative impacts of limiting the 
scope of BER research to just transportation fuels, and the 
need for flexible management structures and funding priorities. 
They also discussed the Office of Nuclear Physics Isotope 
Program, next steps in cellulosic ethanol and biofuels from 
algae, technology commercialization through public-private 
partnerships, beneficial reuse of carbon, nuclear medicine 
issues, BER research on algae and harmful algal blooms, and the 
most appropriate role for government in biological research for 
energy.

    4.2(m)_Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Formulating an Action 
                                  Plan

                           September 17, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-52

Background
    On Thursday, September, 2009, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and 
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a 
legislative hearing to examine research and response needs for 
harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia and how draft 
legislation, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Act of 2009, can help meet those needs. The growth of 
HABs are encouraged by over-accumulation of nutrients in the 
water and can cause hypoxia, a depletion of oxygen in the 
water, that in turn negatively impacts fish and other aquatic 
life.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert Magnien, Director 
of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research at the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (2) Ms. 
Suzanne E. Schwartz, Acting Director of the Office of Wetlands, 
Oceans, and Watersheds at the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, (3) Mr. Dan L. Ayres, Lead Biologist on Coastal 
Shellfish at the Washington State Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, (4) Dr. Donald M. Anderson, Senior Scientist of the 
Biology Department and Director of the National Office for 
Harmful Algal Blooms at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 
(5) Dr. Greg L. Boyer, Director of the Great Lakes Research 
Consortium and Professor of Biochemistry at the State 
University of New York College of Environmental Science and 
Forestry, and (6) Dr. Donald Scavia, Graham Family Professor of 
Environmental Sustainability at the University of Michigan.
Summary
    To open the hearing, Chairman Baird and Ranking Member 
Inglis (R-SC) dispensed with their opening remarks in the 
interest of time. During the witness testimony, Dr. Magnien 
described NOAA's current role in HABs and hypoxia research as 
authorized through the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
Control Act of 1998 (HABHRCA) and identified two key features 
of the new draft legislation that would enhance these existing 
activities and align with NOAA priorities. Ms. Schwartz 
explained EPA's role in HAB and hypoxia mitigation, including 
how the Agency works with individual States, and noted that the 
non-point source toxins that exacerbate HABs have been 
difficult to address. Mr. Ayers relayed the importance of 
mitigation for the U.S. fisheries industry, in particular for 
West Coast aquaculture, and recommended the establishment of a 
regional HAB Event Response Program, as well as the continued 
use of two additional programs, MERHAB (the Monitoring and 
Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms Program) and ECOHAB 
(the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program). 
Dr. Anderson described technologies used to mitigate and 
control HABs and called for authorization of additional 
response and prevention strategies at the national level. Dr. 
Scavia focused on the causes, consequences, and means for 
controlling hypoxia.
    During the question and answer period, Rep. Connie Mack (R-
FL) and Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) joined the Committee Members 
and submitted statements for the record. The Members and 
witnesses discussed the inefficacy of traditional water 
treatment strategies to filter toxins and excess nutrients, the 
trends in ocean ``dead zones'' and their causes, the state of 
control and mitigation strategies today, the economic costs of 
HABs and hypoxia, the role of the EPA in controlling freshwater 
HABs, and research funding needed to study the causes of HABs 
and hypoxia.

     4.2(n)_Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and 
                                  Time

                            October 1, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-54

Background
    On Thursday, October 1, 2009, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to discuss the fundamental physics 
research activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of 
Science conducted through the High Energy Physics (HEP) and 
Nuclear Physics (NP) programs and to examine how these areas of 
study relate to the work of other DOE program offices and 
federal agencies.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Lisa Randall, Professor 
of Physics at Harvard University; (2) Dr. Dennis Kovar, 
Director of the Office of High Energy Physics and former 
Director of the Office of Nuclear Physics at the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE); (3) Dr. Piermaria Oddone, Director 
of the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory; and (4) Dr. 
Hugh Montgomery, Director of Thomas Jefferson National 
Accelerator Facility.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Subcommittee Vice Chairman Paul 
Tonko (D-NY), substituting for Chairman Baird, recalled the 
origins of high energy and nuclear physics research in the U.S. 
through the Manhattan Project during World War II, and noted 
current activities and investment levels for these research 
priorities at DOE. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) expressed his 
personal interest in the topic, noting the capacity of HEP and 
NP to both inspire human curiosity and inform practical 
technological solutions for our daily lives.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Randall described some of 
the fundamental questions high energy physics is exploring and 
warned that the revolutionary applications of some HEP 
developments cannot often be predicted or sought directly. Dr. 
Kovar described American leadership in HEP and NP and the 
resulting benefits to society, calling for sustained federal 
support and federal investments in scientific infrastructure 
and research facilities on American soil. Dr. Oddone described 
American research resources as a beacon to the rest of HEP and 
NP world and noted that the Tevatron at Fermilab or the Large 
Hadron Collider particle accelorators in Geneva, Switzerland 
may soon be able to observe the predicted Higgs-Boson particle. 
He also warned that protecting American leadership is essential 
and described the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel 
(P5) strategic advisory plan for the future of particle 
physics. Dr. Montgomery described the three research thrusts 
that define nuclear physics and noted the practical 
applications of NP in cancer detection, medical testing on the 
heart, national defense and environmental research.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
witnesses explored a number of technical topics in the HEP and 
NP programs, including string theory, next generation particle 
accelerators, and dark energy and matter. There was extensive 
discussion on key strategies for international collaboration 
and how basic science at DOE can realize the taxpayer 
investments. The Members and witnesses agreed that more robust 
outreach and education efforts are needed to communicate DOE's 
research goals to the public.

     4.2(o)_Biomass for Thermal Energy and Electricity: A Research 
                and Development Portfolio for the Future

                            October 21, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-56

Background
    On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to examine the conversion of 
biomass, or renewable organic materials such as wood products, 
animal manures, agricultural crops and wastes, and aquatic 
materials, into thermal energy and electricity (biopower), and 
how the Department of Energy (DOE) and Congress can support 
biopower research and development initiatives.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Don J. Stevens, Senior 
Program Manager of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; (2) 
Mr. Joseph J. James, President of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC; (3) 
Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director of the Strategic Center for Coal 
at the National Energy Technology Laboratory; (4) Mr. Eric 
Spomer, President of Catalyst Renewables Corporation; and (5) 
Dr. Robert T. Burns, Professor of Agricultural & Biosystems 
Engineering at Iowa State University.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird provided some 
general background information on biopower and emphasized its 
immense potential as a fuel source in an increasingly 
greenhouse gas-conscious and fossil fuel-constrained national 
economy. Ranking Member Inglis (R-SC) called for more research 
and technological innovation in renewable biomass fuels and 
noted the recent bioenergy initiatives from Furman University 
and the University of South Carolina and the industry's 
potential to create jobs.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Stevens described the 
technology option of pyrolysis for converting biomass into 
biopower, specifically fast pyrolysis, and pointed to the need 
for stabilization and upgrading as the primary technical 
barrier to pyrolysis and bio-oil development. Mr. James 
described the activities and challenges at Agri-Tech Producers, 
a South Carolina-based company that processes cellulosic 
material for fuel, and provided suggestions for Federal support 
to the biopower industry. Mr. Klara described some technical 
and historical aspects of co-feeding biomass materials with 
coal and described the potential for biological capture of 
CO
2
 through algae cultivation, pointing to biomass 
availability and food security as key challenges affecting the 
scale of bio-energy production in a given region. Mr. Spomer 
described the woody biomass production activities at Catalyst 
Renewables, based in New York State, and recommended 
development and funding priorities for DOE. Dr. Burns discussed 
the research and development needs regarding anaerobic 
digestion of animal manures to produce energy via biogas.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed the contributions of methane to global 
climate change and methane produced by anaerobic digestion of 
manures, strategies for diversifying and improving biopower 
programs at DOE, international intellectual property issues, 
landfill biogas production, and the energy inputs for 
processing the biopower fuel products. They also reviewed 
further activities at Agri-Tech Producers, the relationship of 
controlled deforestation to forest health, soil quality and how 
to protect topsoils, the potential for biopower production in 
urban areas, the sustainability of biopower resources, and the 
option of using forest products from federal lands for biopower 
generation. It was noted that any biopower initiative should 
consider both food security and the energy input needed to 
prepare biomass for conversion, and that biopower should be 
carefully weighed in a carbon credits trading scheme.

          4.2(p)_The Next Generation of Fusion Energy Research

                            October 29, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-61

Background
    On Thursday, October 29, 2009, the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing to examine research activities on fusion energy 
conducted within the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program and 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at DOE and the 
possibilities for international partnerships.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Edmund Synakowski, 
Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences at the U.S. 
Department of Energy, (2) Dr. Stewart Prager, Director of 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), (3) Dr. Thom Mason, 
Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), (4) Dr. 
Riccardo Betti, Assistant Director for Academic Affairs at the 
Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester, 
and (5) Dr. Raymond J. Fonck, Professor of Engineering Physics 
at the University of Wisconsin.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird (D-WA) noted that 
while harnessing fusion energy has thus far proven more 
difficult than expected, recent reviews by the National 
Academies and DOE show the recent improvements in the field and 
potential for future applications. Rep. Ehlers (R-MI), sitting 
in for the Ranking Member, expressed his enthusiasm for fusion 
energy as an alternative to traditional sources.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Synakowski briefly 
described some of the science of fusion energy and technologies 
supporting its development, including the ITER experimental 
fusion reactor in Cadarache, France, and noted three main 
scientific challenges to advancing magnetic fusion. Dr. Prager 
discussed magnetic fusion as informed by the ReNeW report, 
commissioned by DOE, and the fusion activities at PPPL. He 
called for greater research in heat- and neutron-tolerant 
materials and for renewed U.S. leadership in the field as a 
whole. Dr. Mason provided more information on ITER and Oak 
Ridge National Lab's contribution to the project, including how 
ITER and general fusion research can benefit DOE national labs, 
U.S. universities and U.S. industry. Dr. Betti described the 
research needs and status of inertial fusion and noted specific 
needs in federal programs and facilities, including the 
National Ignition Facility and the Office of Fusion Energy 
Sciences at DOE. Dr. Fonck noted four key technical challenges 
in fusion research and the problem of aging experimental 
facilities in the U.S. He also provided a plan for encouraging 
U.S. leadership, a robust fusion energy development program, 
and world-leading fusion science under realistic budgets over 
the next ten to twenty years and expressed his support for H.R. 
3177, the Fusion Engineering Science and Fusion Energy Planning 
Act of 2009.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed how fusion energy can actually become a 
usable consumer product and what the consumer prices might 
ultimately be, the relative merits of fusion to established 
energy sources and its role in the energy mix as a whole, key 
arguments for funding fusion research, and national security 
considerations. They also reviewed some technical features of 
plasmas in high-energy reactors, materials development, 
electrifying our transportation systems, anthropogenic global 
warming and potential carbon contribution of fusion energy, and 
the appropriate homes for fusion research and regulation in the 
federal government. There was some consensus that the U.S. 
should pursue a renewed leadership role in fusion R&D and that 
fusion can not serve as a substitute to energy conservation or 
other renewable energy sources.

     4.2(q)_Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy Technology: Finding the 
                       Path to Commercialization

                            December 3, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-67

Background
    On Thursday, December 3, 2009, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to discuss the role of the Federal 
government and industry in developing technologies related to 
the burgeoning field of marine and hydrokinetic energy 
generation, including wave, current (tidal, ocean and river), 
ocean thermal energy generation devices and related 
environmental monitoring technologies.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Jacques Beaudry-Losique, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy at the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE); (2) Mr. Roger Bedard, Ocean Energy Leader at the 
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); (3) Mr. James 
Dehlsen, Chairman and Founder of Ecomerit Technologies, LLC; 
(4) Mr. Craig Collar, Senior Manager Energy Resource 
Development for the Snohomish, Washington County Public Utility 
District; and (5) Ms. Gia Schneider, Chief Executive Officer of 
Natel Energy, Inc.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird noted that marine 
and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies could fulfill 10% of U.S. 
electricity needs and described the MHK industry's small slice, 
to date, of federal research activities. Ranking Member Bob 
Inglis (R-SC) added that conventional hydropower contributes 6-
9% of the current U.S. electrical supply and expressed 
confidence in the potential of distributed micro-hydro sources 
and marine hydropower from the coastal waters of South 
Carolina.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Beaudry-Losique described 
DOE's marine and hydrokinetics activities and collaborations 
thus far and mentioned the Department's forthcoming industry 
roadmap. Mr. Bedard noted significant progress in MHK 
technologies and cost-competitiveness, calling for long-term 
and consistent federal funding support, but noted the 
challenges for industry to develop cost-effective operations 
given the hostile operating environment and the lack of 
standardized deployment infrastructure. Mr. Dehlsen established 
the distinction between hydropower and hydrokinetics and 
discussed the costs and pace of MHK development and deployment 
in comparison to wind technologies. He also warned against 
discontinuity in federal support of burgeoning technologies. 
Mr. Collar described Snohomish PUD's deployment and monitoring 
of marine ecosystems in preparation for demonstration-scale 
tidal turbine energy devices at Admiralty Inlet and noted how 
difficult or overly burdensome regulatory and licensing 
requirements can preclude pilot R&D projects. Ms. Schneider 
discussed her company's experiences with developing low head 
hydropower sources and provided suggestions for catalyzing 
innovation and overcoming environmental challenges. She also 
argued that retrofitting existing irrigation districts, 
conduits and canals with low-head technologies could provide a 
cost-effective contribution to the energy grid.
    During the question and answer period, the panelists 
informed the Members in better detail of the processes by which 
energy would be generated, what advancements are needed to 
develop these various technologies, and comparative costs and 
benefits of various energy technologies. They discussed the 
problem of outsourced manufacturing and test beds, the pace of 
test bed development, the safety of marine species and other 
ecological concerns, turbine design, hydrokinetic potential in 
the Great Lakes, low head technologies, lessons from Verdant 
Power's experiences in New York State's East River, the impacts 
of MHK installations on scenic views, funding in the American 
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) for MHK, energy production 
in the Gulf Stream waters, and thermal energy potential in the 
oceans. The Members and witnesses also focused on the keys to 
expediting project development, how wave and wind technologies 
could be combined, the challenges of permitting and regulatory 
structures, and the need for consistent, long-term and robust 
federal support of MHK development and deployment.

    4.2(r)_Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering 
                               Challenges

                            February 4, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-75

Background
    On Thursday, February 4, 2010, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Committee on Science and 
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, held a 
hearing to explore the scientific foundation of several 
geoengineering proposals and their potential engineering 
demands, environmental impacts, costs, efficacy, and 
permanence. The hearing was the second in a series on 
geoengineering, following a November 5, 2009 meeting.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. David Keith, Canada 
Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the University 
of Calgary; (2) Dr. Philip Rasch, Laboratory Fellow of the 
Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change Division and Chief 
Scientist for Climate Science at Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory; (3) Dr. Klaus Lackner, Ewing Worzel Professor of 
Geophysics and Chair of the Earth and Environmental Engineering 
Department at Columbia University; and (4) Dr. Robert Jackson, 
the Nicholas Chair of Global Environmental Change and a 
professor in the Biology Department at Duke University.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Baird and 
Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R-SC) dispensed with their opening 
remarks in the interest of time and welcomed the expert 
witnesses.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Keith emphasized the 
distinction between the two types of geoengineering strategies, 
solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal 
(CDR), and compared geoengineering to chemotherapy as an 
unwanted but potentially necessary tool in case of an emergency 
situation. Dr. Rasch described solar radiation management 
strategies and suggested first steps for developing an SRM 
research program, noting that costs could be relatively low but 
that more sensitive climate modeling tools would be needed. Dr. 
Lackner described the CDR strategies of carbon air capture and 
mineral sequestration. He noted that such technologies were 
compatible with a continued global dependence on fossil fuels 
and would address the causes, rather than the symptoms, of 
climate change, but that high costs would be a challenge. Dr. 
Jackson discussed bio- and land-based geoengineering strategies 
in both the CDR and SRM categories. He explained that existing 
regulatory structures and expertise could accommodate many of 
these strategies fairly readily, but that both scalability and 
the foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts on other valuable 
natural resources, including water and biodiversity, would be 
problematic.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
witnesses discussed the front end costs of geoengineering 
compared to traditional mitigation alone, the costs and impacts 
of atmospheric sulfate injections, and creative strategies for 
chemical and geological carbon uptake. They also explored 
public education and opinion on geoengineering, the innovative 
success of the South Carolina company Protera, LLC, the 
potential effects of increased structural albedo, and the 
greatest political challenges of climate management. The 
Members emphasized some existing tools that could reduce the 
need for geoengineering, such as traditional carbon capture and 
sequestration (CCS) strategies, the availability and economic 
viability of fossil fuel alternatives, and energy conservation. 
All the witnesses agreed that a basic research program on the 
subject is likely needed, whether for the ultimate goal of 
deployment or for the sake of risk management.

     4.2(s)_Deluge of Oil Highlights Research and Technology Needs 
                  for Effective Cleanup of Oil Spills

                              June 9, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-98

Background
    On Wednesday, June 9, 2010, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held 
a hearing to explore the research, development, and technology 
needs for the recovery of oil and effective cleanup of oil 
spills.
    There were nine witnesses divided into two panels. On the 
first panel: (1) Mr. Douglas Helton, Incident Operations 
Coordinator for the Office of Response and Restoration at the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Captain 
Anthony Lloyd, Chief of the Office of Incident Management and 
Preparedness at the United States Coast Guard; (3) Ms. Sharon 
Buffington, Chief of the Engineering and Research Branch of 
Offshore Energy and Minerals Management at the US Minerals 
Management Service; and (4) Dr. Albert Venosa, Director of Land 
Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk 
Management Laboratory for the Office of Research and 
Development at the Environmental Protection Agency.
    On the second panel: (1) Dr. Jeffrey Short, Pacific Science 
Director at Oceana; (2) Dr. Samantha Joye, Professor of Marine 
Sciences at the University of Georgia; (3) Dr. Richard Haut, 
Senior Research Scientist at Houston Advanced Research Center; 
(4) Dr. Nancy Kinner, Co-Director of the Coastal Response 
Research Center at the University of New Hampshire; and (5) Mr. 
Kevin Costner, Partner at Ocean Therapy Solutions and WestPac 
Resources.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird expressed 
frustration that the response to the recent BP Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill was inadequate, and he welcomed this hearing 
as an opportunity to learn how to improve incident management 
and response. Ranking Member Hall (R-TX) reiterated his support 
for off-shore drilling. Full Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-
TN) lamented the loss of life as a result of the Deepwater 
Horizon blowout and also called for an improvement of current 
oil clean up technologies.
    In the first panel, Mr. Helton described the research 
priorities that could lead to a better recovery of spilled oil 
and then briefly described NOAA's current activities in the 
Gulf of Mexico. Captain Lloyd listed the U.S. Coast Guard's 
four main oil spill research objectives and accomplishments and 
encouraged the government to maintain interaction between 
federal agencies, the private sector, and non-profits to make 
sure policy and technology breakthroughs are realized. Ms. 
Buffington discussed the oil spill research at DOI related to 
oil and gas exploration on the outer continental shelf and the 
accomplishments of MMS in oil spill research, including the 
Ohmsett National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test 
Facility. In light of the recent oil spill, Ms. Buffington 
suggested that new research priorities be established. Dr. 
Venosa described EPA's oil spill research program, its 
accomplishments, and further research plans.
    During the question and answer session, the Members and the 
panelists discussed the preparedness level of various federal 
agencies; the role of regulators in oil spills; prevention 
measures taken and plans for next-generation response and 
prevention technologies; if one agency should take the lead 
during oil spills; international collaboration in prevention 
research and development; review of the response; the long term 
effects of dispersed oil in the water column; the risk of 
hurricanes in the cleanup efforts; response alternatives; 
interagency communication; and oil spill forecasting. All 
Members were concerned that the risks of deep water drilling 
were overshadowed by the benefits and pressed the panelists to 
comment on this. Several Members expressed frustration that the 
federal agencies may not have done enough to accept and act on 
public ideas of oil dispersion and cleanup. Several Members and 
witnesses agreed that the response was likely inadequate and 
that a shift towards renewable energy is just as important as 
continuing to fund oil spill prevention research and 
development.
    In the second panel, Dr. Short pointed out that the United 
States has the equipment and technology to respond to spilled 
oil, but not at the scale that is currently being seen in the 
Gulf. Dr. Short suggested that NOAA should receive more funding 
for oil spill research and he called for a more aggressive 
regulatory agenda. Dr. Joye discussed the large number of 
unknowns that still exist in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
and called for a continuous monitoring and assessment program. 
Dr. Haut spoke about DOI's 30 day report and the recent 
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) white 
paper. He then called for research into preventing incidents, 
minimizing response times, and determining the value of 
ecosystems in spill-prone areas. Dr. Kinner cited the 
accomplishments of the Coastal Response Research Center, a 
collaboration between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire, 
before identifying the problems that hindered the advancement 
of oil spill technologies prior to the recent spill and her 
suggestions on how to move forward. Mr. Costner largely 
described the development of his oil separation machine and the 
frustration that came with its delayed deployment. He described 
finding himself caught in a catch-22 between development and 
deployment of oil spill technologies.
    During the second question and answer session, Members and 
panelists discussed whether oil spill cleanup and response 
research at the federal level had been underfunded; the impact 
of the Deepwater Horizon spill on the immediate water column; 
the economics that led to the use of chemical dispersants 
rather than collection methods; early warning sensors; 
communication strategies between government agencies, non-
government scientists, and industry; technology transfer 
between research and the marketplace; the possibility of on-
water controlled spills to test technologies; identifying a 
lead agency to manage spills rather than several collaborating 
agencies; and the economics of the spill recovery process.

     4.2(t)_Real-Time Forecasting for Renewable Energy Development

                             June 16, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-100

Background
    On Wednesday, June 16, 2010, the Honorable Brian Baird (D-
WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held 
a hearing to discuss the roles of the public and private sector 
in developing an efficient and accurate real-time forecasting 
system for the integration of variable energy resources into 
electric grids.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Ms. Jamie Simler, Director of 
the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation at the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission; (2) Dr. Alexander MacDonald, 
Deputy Assistant Administrator of Laboratories and Cooperative 
Institutes at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration; (3) Dr. David Mooney, Director of the 
Electricity, Resources, and Building Systems Integration Center 
at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; (4) Dr. Pascal 
Storck, Vice President of 3TIER; (5) Mr. Grant Rosenblum, 
Manager of Renewable Integration at the California Independent 
System Operator; and (6) Dr. Robert Michaels, Senior Fellow at 
the Institute for Energy Research.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird highlighted the 
enormous renewable energy potential the United States has and 
how real-time, reliable forecasting could significantly reduce 
the cost of delivering that energy. Serving as the Ranking 
Member, Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) also stressed the importance of 
reliable forecasting for renewable energy integration. In 
addition, he raised questions about who would be responsible 
for the additional costs associated with energy deployment.
    During the witness testimony, Ms. Simler described the 
feedback FERC received from its January 21, 2009 Notice of 
Inquiry (NOI) that asked what barriers exist in impeding the 
integration of variable energy resources (VERs). She also 
defined centralized forecasts and decentralized forecasts and 
suggested both be available to private industries possibly 
through a consistent, public source such as NOAA. Dr. MacDonald 
discussed NOAA's current activities in supporting the renewable 
energy sector and gave examples of how NOAA could further 
develop its support through improved observation facilities, 
global models, predictions across a range of timescales, and 
high-resolution forecasts. Dr. Mooney agreed that high-
accuracy, high-resolution forecasts are critical to enabling 
cost-effective, reliable, large-scale deployment of renewable 
power generation and that there was significant room for 
improvement over our current forecasting abilities. He 
emphasized how improving the public role in the prediction of 
weather, through better observation methods, higher spatial and 
temporal resolution, and a better understanding of the physical 
systems, could aid the private sector's role of converting 
those predictions into more reliable power plant outputs and 
save millions of dollars. Dr. Storck, representing the private 
industry, agreed that the government should make available 
accurate global and local weather forecasting but not become an 
alternative to the thriving small businesses that already 
provide energy forecasting services. Mr. Rosenblum repeated the 
suggestions of previous witnesses and argued that the federal 
government should improve the quality, quantity, and temporal 
scope of its weather forecasting. Dr. Michaels cautioned the 
committee to support additional funding in forecasting because 
of the yet unproved capabilities of wind energy which is 
largely supported by subsidies.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on the potential economic savings of improved 
forecasting; the roles of the public and private sector in 
forecasting; difficulties in siting new projects; researching 
the storage of energy and its role in integrating intermittent 
energy sources to an existing grid; information gathering and 
sharing; renewable energy's potential for job creation; and the 
difficulties that lie ahead for wind power. The Members and 
witnesses agreed that the public sector needed to improve its 
weather forecasting for the benefit of the private sector and 
that increasing America's renewable energy portfolio is the 
right direction, though there was disagreement over whether it 
created or destroyed jobs.

    4.2(u)_Deepwater Drilling Technology, Research, and Development

                             June 23, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-101

Background
    On Wednesday, June 23, 2010, with the Honorable Brian Baird 
(D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
held a hearing to examine the technologies, standards, and 
practices for safe deepwater drilling operations, and the 
government's role in sponsoring technology development and 
commercial deployment. The hearing was held in light of the 
April 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion at the 
Macondo Prospect site in the Gulf of Mexico. The hearing helped 
to inform H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling 
Technology Research and Development Act.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. James Pappas, Vice 
President, Research Programs at Research Partnership to Secure 
Energy for America (RPSEA); (2) Dr. Benton Baugh, President, 
Radoil, Inc.; (3) Mr. Erik Milito, Group Director, Upstream and 
Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute (API); and 
(4) Mr. Gregory McCormack, Director, Petroleum Extension 
Service, University of Texas, Austin.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird stressed the 
necessity for prioritizing safety in the fast moving, highly-
competitive field of energy technologies and called for users, 
investors, and energy officials to all hold energy corporations 
responsible for accident prevention.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Pappas described the 
programs already underway at RPSEA relating to safety and 
environmental studies. He proposed new programs to conduct 
research and develop technologies that would enhance response 
times to an incident and increase understanding of the 
vulnerable ecosystems in the Gulf. Dr. Baugh delivered a 
favorable opinion on the current safety level of drilling 
equipment from the perspective of a manufacturer. He described 
the multiple levels of testing that all drilling equipment must 
go through and posited that the Macondo well blowout resulted 
from operational failure, rather than equipment failure. Mr. 
Milito addressed API's commitment to maintaining standards and 
industry quality programs and described API's response to the 
BP oil spill, which includes a reviewing of the failed systems, 
improving existing standards, and creating new ones to raise 
the level of safety in the oil industry. Mr. McCormack lamented 
the shift of the petroleum industry over the past 40 years from 
investment-driven to cost-driven and argued that industry 
considers workforce training a cost, rather than an investment. 
He provided suggestions on how the government can help promote 
a better trained workforce.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the safety and improvement of current 
technologies and systems; how to reduce human error through 
better training; responsibilities of different government 
entities (appropriators, regulators, coordinators, legislators) 
in the improvement and deployment of safety systems; the 
drilling moratorium; and an evaluation of government oil and 
gas research and development programs. Both the Members and the 
panelists agreed that many questions could not be answered 
until a full investigation of the Macondo well blowout had been 
completed.

     4.2(v)_A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: The Science, 
                       the Evidence, the Response

                           November 17, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-114

Background
    On Wednesday, November 17, 2010, with the Honorable Brian 
Baird (D-WA) presiding, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to discuss the basic science, 
evidence, and the response to climate change.
    There were twelve witnesses on three panels. On the first 
panel: (1) Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National 
Academy of Science; (2) Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan 
Professor of Meteorology for the Department of Earth, 
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology; (3) Dr. Gerald Meehl, Senior Scientist of the 
Climate and Global Dynamics Division at the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research (NCAR); and (4) Dr. Heidi Cullen, Chief 
Executive Officer and Director of Communications for Climate 
Central. On the second panel: (1) Dr. Patrick Michaels, Senior 
Fellow in Environmental Studies for the Cato Institute; (2) Dr. 
Benjamin Santer, Atmospheric Scientist for the Program for 
Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh 
Professor for the Department of Geosciences and Earth and 
Environmental Systems Institute at The Pennsylvania State 
University; and (4) Dr. Richard Feely, Senior Scientist for the 
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. On the third panel, (1) Rear 
Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator of the U.S. 
Navy; (2) Mr. James Lopez, Senior Advisor to the Deputy 
Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development; (3) Mr. William Geer, Director of the Center of 
Western Lands for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
Partnership; and (4) Dr. Judith A. Curry, Chair of the School 
of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of 
Technology.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Baird discussed 
scientific integrity and called for a greater investment in 
clean energy whether or not the science behind climate change 
is acknowledged or not. Ranking Member of the Full Committee 
Ralph Hall (R-TX) delivered a searing commentary of the Obama 
Administration's plans to institute a cap and trade program and 
called into question the motives behind scientific claims. 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee Bob Inglis (R-SC) called for 
climate scientists to see the coming years under a more 
skeptical Congress as an opportunity to teach.
    During the witness testimony for the first panel, Dr. 
Cicerone spoke about climate change in Earth's history, the 
science of the greenhouse effect, anthropogenic emissions, 
observed changes, and areas for further research. Dr. Lindzen 
questioned the issues of concern around global warming, citing 
the differences between model predictions and observations with 
regards to climate sensitivity. Dr. Meehl delivered a history 
of climatology and then described the stresses of adding GHG 
into the atmosphere, the difference between climate modeling 
and weather modeling, uncertainties in modeling, and the 
implications of global warming. Dr. Cullen explained the 
difference between climate and weather, how we measure 
CO
2
, how we fingerprint CO
2
, and called 
for preemptive action to combat the negative effects of global 
warming. During the question and answer session, the Members 
and panelists discussed the importance of CO
2
 in 
surface temperature; the proportion of record highs to record 
lows; additional forcing effects of water vapor and other 
GHG's; equilibrium response of the climate system to a doubling 
of CO
2
; the challenges of moving toward renewable 
energy; the intersect of science and policy; and the role of 
CO
2
 as a heat absorber.
    During the witness testimony for the second panel, Dr. 
Michaels downplayed the degree to which humans have influenced 
climate, arguing that this influence is less than the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models 
predict. Dr. Santer cited evidence that natural causes alone 
are not sufficient for explaining recent changes in the climate 
system. Dr. Alley discussed climate change as it relates to sea 
level rise in and melting ice sheets. Dr. Feely explained the 
evidence and the negative economic and environmental effects of 
ocean acidification as a result of heightened emissions of 
CO
2
.
    During the third question and answer session, the Members 
and panelists focused on ocean acidification; methods in 
measuring ice sheets, CO
2
 fingerprinting; cooling 
effect of sulfate aerosols; the role of uncertainties in the 
scientific method; the role of the sun in the climate system; 
and disagreements over how Greenland reacted to past warming 
and cooling periods. Dr. Bartlett again called for a shift 
towards renewable energy in the interest of national security 
as well as for environmental considerations.
    During the witness testimony for the third panel, Rear 
Admiral Titley discussed why the Navy is interested in climate 
change and how they are responding to the concurrent 
opportunities and challenges. Mr. Lopez told the Members how 
HUD is working to develop more sustainable, resilient 
communities through partnerships with other agencies and within 
the department. Mr. Geer described his experiences as a 
wildlife biologist working with hunters and fishers to prepare 
for the negative effects of climate change on wildlife 
populations. Dr. Curry argued that the magnitude of 
anthropogenic climate change is uncertain, critiqued the way 
policy should handle the problem, and called for more 
transparent, available data records and models.
    During the third question and answer period, the Members 
and panelists focused on the Navy's approach to weather 
forecasting; the possibility of ice-free conditions in the 
arctic; collaboration between agencies; making housing and 
community infrastructure decisions in light of climate change 
uncertainty; incorporating co-benefits into infrastructure; the 
possibility of a government climate service and suggestions as 
to how it could be structured; predictions of global warming's 
effect on salmonid populations; invasive species; population 
issues surrounding global warming; and the credibility of 
various scientific outlets in the internet age.
           4.3--SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

      4.3(a)_The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
        (ATSDR): Problems in the Past, Potential for the Future?

                             March 12, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-10

Background
    On Thursday, March 12, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, held a hearing to examine weaknesses and problems in 
the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. The 
Subcommittee previously held a hearing on ATSDR's health 
consultation on formaldehyde exposure in FEMA trailers provided 
to Hurricane Katrina and Rita victims in April 2008, and 
subsequently released a staff report on the same topic in 
September 2008. The hearing explored why ATSDR has refused to 
change portions of a health report, described by the EPA as 
``questionable'' and ``misleading,'' regarding asbestos 
contamination on a beach on Lake Michigan in Chicago. In 
addition, a British scientist described the flawed methods 
ATSDR used to investigate depleted uranium exposures among 
residents in Colonie, New York and how he and colleagues 
succeeded in discovering depleted uranium exposures among 20% 
of the resident population they tested there.
    Eight witnesses testified on three panels: (1) Mr. Jeffery 
Camplin, President, Camplin Environmental Services, Inc; (2) 
Dr. Ronald Hoffman, Professor, Tisch Cancer Institute, 
Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; (3) 
Professor Randall Parrish, Head, Natural Environmental Research 
Council (NERC) Isotope Geosciences Laboratory, British 
Geological Survey; (4) Mr. Salvador Mier, Local Resident, 
Midlothian, Texas, and Former Director of Prevention, Center 
for Disease Control; (5) Dr. Henry S. Cole, President, Henry S. 
Cole & Associates, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD; (6) Dr. David 
Ozonoff, Professor of Environmental Health, Boston University 
School of Public Health; (7) Mr. Ronnie Wilson, Former 
Ombudsman, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 
and (8) Dr. Howard Frumkin, Director, National Center for 
Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller stated that ATSDR 
is failing to perform its stated mission of protecting the 
public, producing scientifically flawed analyses with a 
resistance to peer review. Chairman Miller called for a hard 
look at ATSDR because the American people and those dedicated 
to protecting the public's health deserve better, hoping that 
ATSDR could faithfully and effectively perform its stated 
mission. Ranking member Dr. Paul Broun (R-GA) stated that 
although ATSDR's work is complex, the public nevertheless 
deserves to have an agency they can trust and hoped that the 
hearing would help ATSDR learn how it needs to improve.
    During the first panel of witnesses, Mr. Camplin stated 
that ATSDR violated its mission to serve the public by failing 
to use valid science, by not taking responsive public health 
actions, and by providing untrustworthy health information. Mr. 
Camplin said he was there to, ``demand accountability for the 
harm caused to public health by the inexcusable and deliberate 
behavior of ATSDR staff in downplaying elevated levels of 
microscopic asbestos along the entire Illinois Lake Michigan 
shoreline.'' Dr. Hoffman testified to ATSDR's lack of 
scientific integrity and willingness to investigate potential 
environmental causes of a polycythemia vera cancer cluster in 
Pennsylvania, leading to false conclusions and a disregard for 
important scientific evidence. Dr. Parrish drew on his 
experience with ATSDR surrounding the pollution of Colonie, NY, 
saying ATSDR's public health report falsely concluded there was 
no threat of pollution, lacked depth and substance and failed 
to address community concerns with adequate scientific data. 
Mr. Mier testified that ATSDR did not conduct an analysis of 
potential public health harm from cement kilns in Midlothian, 
Texas, that was scientifically sound and that ATSDR ignored 
empirical evidence and lacked the overall ability to perform an 
objective analysis as their stated mission requires them to do.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on ATSDR's deficiencies and benefits of peer 
review. Dr. Broun and panelists discussed ways to fix ATSDR, 
focusing on the need for a new culture and leadership. Mrs. 
Dahlkemper and panelists discussed the geographic prevalence of 
deficiencies and the level of public awareness of public health 
findings. Mr. Bilbray and panelists discussed the specifics of 
asbestos. Mr. Grayson then spoke about Vieques, Puerto Rico and 
Mr. Tonko discussed Colonie, NY with Dr. Parrish. The 
discussion ended with Chairman Miller and Mr. Mier and Dr. 
Hoffman discussing animals as sentinels of human health in 
Midlothian, Texas.
    During the second panel of witnesses, Dr. Cole stated that 
ATSDR must undergo serious changes in the way it approaches and 
conducts science as well as the way it relates to communities 
if it is to deserve tax-payer funding. Dr. Ozonoff discussed 
how work of ATSDR remains disappointing, stressing the agency's 
need for new leadership. Mr. Wilson called for a reorganization 
of ATSDR.
    During the question and answer period for the second panel, 
Chairman Miller and panelists focused on the need for peer 
review within ATSDR and discussed the lack of public exposure 
regarding the public health information gathered by ATSDR. 
Chairman Miller and panelists also discussed how to effectively 
approach inconclusive evidence as well as the difficulty of 
epidemiology, all agreeing that sufficient investigation and 
creativity is required for success. Dr. Broun and panelists 
focused on potential fixes, with Dr. Ozonoff calling for an 
increased passion for public health and research, and Dr. Cole 
arguing that health is holistic and needs the participation of 
many different organizations.
    During the third panel, Dr. Frumkin noted ATSDR's various 
successes and challenges while also stating that ATSDR is 
taking action to improve its approach to carrying out its 
mission, its review of scientific administration processes and 
management practices, and overall improvement of scientific 
procedures.
    During the question and answer period for the third panel, 
Chairman Miller asked Dr. Frumkin if he stood by his decision 
to not look at animals for signs of potential human harm. Dr. 
Frumkin responded that animals are very well-recognized 
valuable sentinels, but that his small agency does not have the 
skill set to look into such matters. Dr. Frumkin also said he 
would be open to looking into a peer review process but was 
concerned that it would hold back the reports from reaching the 
communities in a timely manner.

          4.3(b)_Follow the Money, Part I: Accountability and 
              Transparency in Recovery Act Science Funding

                             March 19, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-12

Background
    On Thursday, March 19, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
held a hearing to examine the accountability and transparency 
provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(hereafter cited as the Recovery Act). Of the agencies 
receiving `stimulus' funds and represented at this hearing, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) received $15.9 billion, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) received $1 
billion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) received $3 
billion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) received $580 million, and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $830 million in 
Recovery Act funding. A second hearing on this topic was held 
on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, entitled ``Follow the Money Part II: 
Government and Public Resources for Recovery Act Oversight.''
    Nine witnesses testified at this hearing: On the first 
panel: (1) Dr. Cora Marrett, Deputy Director (Acting) and 
Senior Accountability Officer, National Science Foundation; (2) 
Mr. Ronald R. Spoehel, Chief Financial Officer, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration; (3) Ms. Ellen Herbst, 
Senior Official for Recovery Implementation, Department of 
Commerce; and (4) Mr. Matthew Rogers, Senior Advisor to the 
Secretary, Department of Energy. Serving as the second panel 
were (1) Mr. Tim Cross, Inspector General (Acting), National 
Science Foundation; (2) Mr. Todd Zinser, Inspector General, 
Department of Commerce; (3) Mr. Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector 
General, Department of Energy; (4) Ms. Eileen Norcross, Senior 
Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University; 
and (5) Ms. Patricia Dalton, Managing Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment Division, Government Accountability 
Office.
Summary
    Chairman Miller opened the hearing by noting that the need 
to spend Recovery Act funds quickly does not relieve agencies 
of the responsibility to distribute and monitor that funding 
with utmost accuracy and accountability. The Chairman 
acknowledged the difficulty of this task, but expressed high 
expectations for the agencies. Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA) 
expressed disappointment with the number of earmarks in the 
Recovery Act, and in his opening statement, focused on the need 
to prevent waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in agencies' 
distribution of funding.
    During the first witness panel, composed of accountability 
officials from science agencies, Dr. Marrett expressed her 
confidence in NSF's ability to meet high standards for 
competitiveness, timeliness, and accountability in distributing 
Recovery Act funding, as well as the readiness of the research 
and education communities to receive it. Mr. Spoehel assured 
the Subcommittee that NASA's preparation for Recovery Act 
activities had been well underway for some time, and that the 
Agency aimed to be consistent with Congressional and Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Ms. Herbst spoke about 
the coordination of the five different Commerce agencies 
receiving stimulus funds, and noted that the Department 
expected to be on time submitting its spending plans to 
Congress. Mr. Rogers spoke about DOE Secretary Chu's four 
objectives in Recovery Act activities: ``get projects underway 
quickly, invest in projects with lasting value, exercise an 
unprecedented degree of transparency and oversight, and deliver 
a tangible down payment on the Nation's energy and 
environmental future.''
    During the question and answer period for the first panel, 
the Members and panelists focused on the timeline for 
distributing Recovery Act funding and whether or not agencies 
are equipped to meet requirements for transparency. Other 
topics discussed included the difficulty in measuring the 
number of jobs created under Recovery Act projects and other 
milestones used to measure success; the need to target the most 
economically depressed areas of the country; ethanol, clean 
coal and the definition of `green' energy; the needs of NOAA's 
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 
System (NPOESS); interagency cooperation; and the ability of 
agencies to manage Recovery Act funds when the amount 
represents a major increase over a typical year's budget. 
Ranking Member Broun also expressed concern with the 
possibility of funding projects which do not meet standards of 
scientific integrity or merit, including, he argued, those 
related to the theory of global warming. Ranking Member Broun 
and Rep. Bilbray (R-CA) both noted their fear of Recovery Act 
census funding being awarded to organizations under criminal 
investigation, including ACORN.
    The second panel was composed of agency inspectors general 
as well as representatives from a regulatory think tank and 
GAO. Mr. Friedman outlined his risk-based oversight strategy 
for evaluating internal controls, effectiveness, metrics for 
success, and fraud awareness at DOE. Mr. Zinzer assured the 
Subcommittee that Commerce had assigned some of its `very best 
people' to lead and oversee Recovery Act activities, and 
identified six areas of risk on which the Office of the 
Inspector General intended to focus. Mr. Cross identified 
stimulus-related challenges unique to NSF, including the 
challenge of significantly, but temporarily, increasing 
staffing levels in order to handle the Recovery Act workload. 
Ms. Norcross of the Mercatus Center spoke to the critical need 
for transparency in stimulus spending in order to restore 
credibility in government. Given the incredible amount of data 
to be collected and analyzed, she called it a ``monumental, if 
not impossible, task for a centralized entity, no matter how 
many auditors and analysts government commits to the job.'' She 
pointed to the possibility of effectively monitoring this data 
via `crowd sourcing,' as in the Wikipedia model of information 
collection, but noted that this would require stronger and more 
specific reporting requirements. Finally, Ms. Dalton spoke 
about the accountability community responsible for overseeing 
Recovery Act spending, which in addition to GAO, includes the 
IGs, state auditors, local government auditors, and the 
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, focusing 
specifically on GAO's role and ongoing risk assessment 
processes.
    The second panel's question and answer discussion focused 
on changes that needed to be made to the federal government's 
procurement processes and to the Recovery.gov reporting 
mechanism. Ranking Member Broun again encouraged the agencies 
not to award funding to ACORN or any organizations under 
investigation for criminal activities. The members and 
witnesses also discussed the Recovery Accountability and 
Transparency Board, composed of ten Inspectors General, and its 
findings to date; further technical issues with the 
Recovery.gov website; and whether or not the agencies were 
equipped to handle the additional workload of Recovery Act 
activities.

            4.3(c)_The Role of Science in Regulatory Reform

                             April 30, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-23

Background
    On Thursday, April 30th, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller 
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight held a hearing examining President Obama's call for 
updating the Federal regulatory review process and the role of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Two 
previous Subcommittee hearings in the 110th Congress focused on 
how the Bush administration used OIRA to block, hinder or 
weaken federal regulation.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Caroline Smith DeWaal, 
Director, Food Safety Program, Center for Science in the Public 
Interest; (2) Rick Melberth, Ph.D., Director, Federal 
Regulatory Policy, OMB Watch; (3) Wesley Warren, Director of 
Programs, National Resources Defense Council; (4) Cary 
Coglianese, Ph.D., Associate Dean and Edward B. Shils Professor 
of Law and Professor of Political Science, University of 
Pennsylvania Law School; and (5) Rena Steinzor, Professor of 
Law, University of Maryland.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller highlighted the 
recent withdrawal of the Bush Administration's Executive Order 
13422. Of the eight points that President Obama directed the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to address in its 
recommendations, Rep. Miller clarified that this hearing would 
focus on three: the relationship between OIRA and the agencies; 
disclosure and transparency; and the role of cost-benefit 
analysis in the regulatory process. Ranking Member Paul Broun 
(R-GA) agreed on the importance of the hearing's topic, but 
noted that people often disagree on whether decisions are made 
based on policy instead of science.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Melberth discussed the 
relationship between OIRA and the federal agencies responsible 
for protecting the public, citing a report which holds that 
agencies and not OIRA should be the decision- and regulation- 
making bodies of the Federal government. Ms. DeWaal identified 
a number of problems with OIRA's regulatory review process, and 
argued that fundamental changes are necessary to eliminate 
delays in processing regulation. Mr. Warren acknowledged the 
important role that OIRA plays, and cautioned against the 
Office's substituting their own scientific judgment instead of 
simply overseeing the agencies' compliance with scientific 
standards, citing political manipulation under the Bush 
administration as one negative consequence of doing so. Dr. 
Coglianese also cautioned against using science as a `cloak' 
for the policy decision-making process, noting that agencies 
sometimes misleadingly suggest that science is the basis for 
political decisions. Ms. Steinzor argued that the OIRA 
Administrator's new role should be helping agencies to pass 
more regulation, not less--and that OIRA should stay out of 
science policy altogether.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on appropriate roles for OIRA and the White 
House in overseeing regulation, separating policy review from 
science review, and potential fixes for OIRA. Other topics 
included creating a more streamlined, reactive regulatory 
review process, decoupling the science process from the policy 
to allow faster updates to risk-oriented science databases, and 
the use of OMB's Performance Assessment and Rating Tool (PART). 
They also discussed EPA's Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS), a centralized review of records, whether the Obama 
administration should retain any features of Executive Order 
13422, and the issue of granting greater public access to OIRA 
communications.

        4.3(d)_Follow the Money, Part II: Government and Public 
                  Resources for Recovery Act Oversight

                              May 5, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-25

Background
    On May 5, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC) presiding, 
the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing 
on the efforts to continue oversight of the accountability and 
transparency provisions in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (hereafter cited as the ``Recovery Act''). 
With the capabilities of the Internet, new channels for 
gathering information increase the opportunity to forestall 
misuse of government resources as they happen, not when they 
are identified in audits months or years later. The Recovery 
Act calls for citizen involvement; the Subcommittee has asked 
the panel how to assure this happens.
    Seven witnesses testified. Panel one consisted of: (1) Mr. 
Earl Devaney, Chairman, Recovery Accountability and 
Transparency Board; and (2) Mr. Gene Dodaro, Comptroller 
General of the United States (Acting), Government 
Accountability Office. On panel two: (1) Dr. Clarence Newsome, 
President, Shaw University (Raleigh, NC), representing the 
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; 
(2) Dr. Gary Bass, Founder and Executive Director, OMB Watch 
(Washington DC); (3) Jerry Ellig, Senior Research Fellow, 
Regulatory Studies Program, the Merctus Center, Georgia Mason 
University (Arlington, VA); (4) Ms. Danielle Brian, Executive 
Director, Project on Government Oversight (Washington DC); and 
(5) Mr. Eric Gillespie, Senior Vice President, Products, 
Technology and Information, Onvia (Seattle, WA).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller expressed 
curiosity and concern regarding the distribution of Recovery 
Act funds, where the money is going and whether it is being 
fairly distributed. He also wondered if the act was improving 
the economy, how many jobs had been saved and how many people 
it has put to work. Additionally, Chairman Miller said the 
hearing would raise some questions about the methods of 
performance reporting. Finally, he touched on the importance of 
protection for potential whistleblowers, a vital part of 
measuring the Act's success and influence.
    Ranking Members Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening 
statement, stated that identifying waste, fraud and abuse is a 
non-partisan endeavor, stressing the need for Congress to, 
``accurately assess the effectiveness of the Act by using 
metrics to track success and evaluate outcomes.'' Furthermore, 
Dr. Broun stated that, ``the American people need to know what 
they got for their money. Since the stimulus bill was sold as a 
means to jumpstart our economy and create jobs, it is important 
to identify baselines, track progress, and evaluate whether 
those outcomes were the result of a stimulus act or by other 
means.''
    During the first panel's testimony, Mr. Devaney discussed 
the efforts and progress of the Recovery Board, saying the 
Board has a dual mission, establishing and maintaining a 
website and coordinating and conducting oversight of Recovery 
funds to help minimize fraud, waste, or mismanagement. The 
Board has also created a Recovery funds working group created 
to foster participation and input from all 28 IGs that oversee 
agencies receiving Recovery Act funds. The Board has also 
developed a procurement checklist to assist federal agencies 
charged with spending Recovery Act funds. Because the states 
also had important oversight roles, the Board sought to develop 
immediate relationships to coordinate Recovery Act 
responsibilities.
    Mr. Dodaro spoke about the efforts of the GAO in 
coordinating with the broader accountability community to 
fulfill GAO's duty of providing bimonthly reviews of the uses 
of the Recovery funds by selected states and localities. Mr. 
Dodaro also discussed a series of recommendations meant to 
strengthen the accountability features at the State level as 
well as the challenges of accountability.
    During the question and answer period for the first panel, 
Members and panelists focused on the issues of information 
transparency and compatibility, protection of whistleblowers, 
indications of success, tracking money at the local level, and 
agency compliance with Recovery Act requirements.
    Opening the second panel, Dr. Newsome recounted the 
problems that historically African American colleges and 
universities encountered when seeking to compete fairly for 
access to Recovery Act funds. Dr. Newsome cited the narrow 
timeframe a recipient was required to stay within upon receipt 
of an award. According to Newsome, ``many of the institutions 
seeking these funds are not planning to use them to begin a new 
program but to take a heretofore isolated program and expand it 
to improve infrastructure and vastly improve academic programs 
by institutionalizing them so they can be studied more 
extensively and more inclusively than the current arrangement 
allows.''
    OMB Watch, according to Dr. Bass, sought improvements to 
the Act's transparency mechanisms. First, making sure lower 
tiers of recipients report information to catch the full 
distribution of funds. The agencies should also be fully open 
about allocation. Given the critical role of reporting 
mechanisms for the public in achieving transparency, Dr. Bass 
focused on the challenges of discerning what kind of data is 
going to be reported, and at what level of detail, and where it 
would be reported. He ended his testimony by saying that we 
need to create a new dialogue for talking about Federal 
spending, allowing new opportunities for sharing information 
and improving the quality of government funded programs.
    Dr. Ellig discussed his and his colleagues' efforts to 
encourage the development, adoption, and use of performance 
measurement and performance information by the Federal 
Government. He also stated his support for the Obama 
Administration's request for agencies to use the Government 
Performance and Results Act's measures and goals in determining 
the results of the Recovery Act spending. Dr. Ellig ended by 
stating that in order to truly gauge the effect of this 
spending and borrowing, macro-economic analysis should be used, 
not only the numbers reported in the database. He said the data 
only gives up some of the picture, and macro-economic analysis 
will help fill in the rest.
    Ms. Brian discussed recommendations for improving resources 
for auditors, investigators and whistleblowers. She said there 
are certain provisions that provide great opportunity for 
oversight while other protections are insufficient or non-
existent, potentially allowing for fraud and misuse of funding. 
She ended by saying that, ``the stars are not in complete 
alignment for taxpayers to benefit from whistleblower 
disclosures, audits and investigations of misconduct in the 
Recovery Act spending, but the weaknesses are fixable.''
    Mr. Gillespie discussed the difficulty of tracking vast 
sums of money as well as various barriers to government 
transparency. He also recommended ways of helping Recovery.org 
become more successful, saying in particular, that, ``in order 
to maximize use and adoption, the data has to be available in 
formats that have low barriers to use.''
    During the question and answer period following the second 
panel, Members and panelists discussed achieving detail in data 
tracking, monitoring job creation, and providing equitable 
funding access. Chairman Miller ended the hearing by stating 
the need for continued oversight and investigation on this 
subject in order to ensure accountability.

                    4.3(e)_The Science of Insolvency

                              May 19, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-27

Background
    On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
held a hearing to examine what it means for a financial 
institution to be ``solvent'' given the complexity of global 
financial markets. In order to do this, the Subcommittee asked 
several prominent economists how the tools of their discipline 
can be used in making determinations of current solvency and 
projections of future solvency on an objective, scientific 
basis.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Director, 
The Earth Institute at Columbia University; (2) Dr. Simon 
Johnson, Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship, MIT 
Sloan School of Management; (3) Dr. Dean Baker, Co-Director, 
Center for Economic and Policy Research; and (4) Mr. David 
John, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller began by calling 
the banking sector ``desperately ill,'' but also noted the 
difficulty of concluding whether a single institution is 
actually insolvent because of the problems of valuing illiquid 
assets. The Chairman also discussed the validity and usefulness 
of stress tests used to evaluate how the largest banks would 
perform in a severe recession. Ranking Member Broun (R-GA), 
noting that ``[y]ou can apply math to finance, but that does 
not make it a science,'' cautioned the Committee against 
relying on scientific or economic models as the sole basis for 
decision making during this financial crisis or in any other 
difficult situation.
    During the testimony, Dr. Sachs stated that while there are 
many things we do not know about the science of insolvency, we 
do know that the high leveraging occurring in major banks 
necessitates regulation. He argued that the FDIC receivership 
model is the best model to use in dealing with financial 
institutions in trouble, and proposed four other standards that 
would better allow the government to prevent major financial 
collapses.
    Dr. Johnson noted three major issues highlighted by the 
current financial crisis: the need to reevaluate incentives for 
financial industry employees; the existence of perverse 
economic and political incentives for the institutions 
themselves; and the need for protection of consumers, who are 
easily taken advantage of during times of economic upheaval.
    Dr. Baker argued that bad mortgages were the real cause of 
the crisis, that a market in residential real estate still 
exists and is capable of properly pricing assets, and that the 
government hasn't reacted correctly to the results of the 
stress tests, whether or not the tests themselves were 
inadequate.
    Mr. John said that the stress tests, although primarily 
designed to distract people from the crisis, had been 
successful and cost-effective. He also stated that unregulated 
sectors of the financial industry--often sectors that are 
relatively new to the industry--are usually where problems 
arise, and that it is difficult, but necessary, for the 
government to establish some control over these sectors of the 
economy.
    During the question period, Members and panelists discussed 
the implications of the stress tests, the current state of the 
mortgage market and how to determine the right size for 
financial firms. Other topics addressed were the validity of 
stress tests; assessment criteria for banks; how to spot a 
further economic downturn in advance; the influence of a 
financial oligarchy; the role of a market-based system; how to 
encourage lending; potential rules to limit systemic risk; the 
possibility of a financial crisis being a symptom of other 
problems; and insurance regulation.

     4.3(f)_Fixing EPA's Broken Integrated Risk Information System

                             June 11, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-33

Background
    On Thursday, June 11, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
held a hearing to examine the new Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS) process in order to make sure it functions more 
efficiently than past IRIS systems, which were documented to be 
mismanaged and ineffective, compromising public health and 
safety.
    There were two witnesses: (1) Dr. Kevin Teichman, the 
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, Office and Research 
and Development, The Environmental Protection Agency and, (2) 
Mr. John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller discussed 
the problems IRIS had in the past and the ways the new system 
has been improved, but wanted to make sure the new process was 
successful. Chairman Miller also said how important this system 
is in maintaining public health, stating that, ``the American 
people need and deserve credible, scientifically sound 
assessments of the health effect of chemical exposures. Ranking 
Member Dr. Broun (R-GA) stated that although there are 
commendable aspects of the new IRIS, he was still skeptical of 
the new process.
    During the witness testimonies, Dr. Teichman discussed how 
the new IRIS system has improved, including its new streamlined 
approach to make sure that more new and updated assessments be 
included in the system, as well as shortening the time it takes 
to make chemical assessments available. Dr. Teichman 
highlighted a few key improvements, including the fact that the 
new process will be managed entirely by the EPA. He also noted 
that there will no longer be an opportunity for another Federal 
agency to prolong the process by asking for additional research 
to be conducted before an assessment can be produced. Third, 
all written comments from other Federal agencies and White 
House offices will become part of the public record. He ended 
his statement by saying that he was confidence that they can, 
``continue to provide critical health risk information to EPA's 
programs and regions that ensure the Agency's actions protect 
the public health.''
    In his testimony, Mr. Stephenson stated that although the 
new system seems to be improved, he saw room for further 
streamlining. He recommended that there be no required time 
frames. He also did not see the purpose of the interagency 
consultation process, particularly the role of OMB or other 
White House offices in the process. Finally, Mr. Stephenson 
stated that there is a need for statutory deadlines for 
completing various activities in order to better ensure the 
viability of the program.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on how to ensure EPA's control of the 
program, the effects of an IRIS listing, how IRIS assessments 
are used, and how to best build transparency into the IRIS 
interagency review process.

    4.3(g)_Continuing Independent Assessment of the National Polar-
          Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

                             June 17, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-36

Background
    On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
met for its ongoing oversight of the National Polar-Orbiting 
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). Without 
the benefits promised by NPOESS, agencies are at risk of losing 
the flow of global data on weather conditions and climate 
change that are critical to serving the needs of the United 
States. In five previous hearings since 2003, the Committee on 
Science and Technology has documented cost overruns and 
schedule delays threatening to cut off critical weather 
information. A recurring issue has been the ineffectiveness of 
the program's Executive Committee (EXCOM), which consists of 
the heads of the three agencies involved. With evidence that 
the management structure is still failing to provide the 
leadership needed for NPOESS program success, this hearing 
investigated the question: Is there hope of repairing the flaws 
of the organization? If not, what should replace it?
    There were three witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director, 
Information Technology Management Issues, Government 
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Chair of 
the NPOESS Independent Review Team (IRT); and (3) Ms. Mary 
Glackin, Deputy Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller discussed the 
long history of this system's failure to complete and launch 
the NPOESS satellite series. Chairman Miller highlighted the 
role of NPOESS data in producing the public's accurate weather 
forecasts and the contribution to understanding climate 
changes. Ranking Member Broun (R-GA) also stated NPOESS's 
problems, including the program's inherent complexity and 
program management problems. Dr. Broun ended by stating that 
every American is impacted by this program, whether they know 
it or not, and that it is the responsibility of lawmakers and 
agencies to make sure everyone receives accurate weather and 
climate information as well as put an end to waste, 
inefficiency and duplication wherever possible.
    During the witness testimony, Mr. Powner discussed the 
GAO's latest NPOESS report, which included NPOESS's continued 
problems as well as GAO's recommendations for near-term and 
long-term improvements. For the near-term, GAO recommended a 
new leadership strategy and the engaged participation of key 
members, as well as a plan to address potential gaps in 
satellite coverage. Long-term recommendations included the need 
for an exit strategy to separate satellite acquisitions for the 
next series of polar orbiting satellites.
    Mr. Young discussed ten findings and recommended corrective 
actions in order to improve upon NPOESS's extraordinarily low 
probability of success. Along with other recommendations, Mr. 
Young stated that the critical issue is the lack of alignment 
of DOD/Air Force and NOAA priorities, recommending that all 
responsibility of program decision-making and implementation be 
assigned to just one organization. Because NOAA would obtain 
the bulk of benefit from NPOESS, the IRT believed NOAA was the 
better choice to serve as the overall manager. However, 
bolstered by an experienced satellite procurement organization, 
either NOAA or the Air Force was capable of completing the 
program.
    Ms. Glackin highlighted the steps the NOAA has taken to 
improve the program including installment of a government 
program manager at the subcontractor facility where the main 
imaging sensor is being developed, and enabling the program to 
better address the ongoing technical problems. Additionally, 
Ms. Glackin stated that the NOAA has been working with DOD and 
NASA to respond to proposed recommendations as well as with the 
leadership of the White House Office of Science and Technology 
Policy to resolve the differences that exist among the 
agencies.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the problem of ensuring interagency 
cooperation, the role of the OSTP, the selection of a 
management strategy, program cost, the coordination of agencies 
and technologies, and the keys to avoiding future problems. In 
the end, however, the Subcommittee indicated that serious 
consideration had to be given to following the IRT 
recommendation to choose a single agency if the primary 
bottleneck was to be untangled. This would require White House 
intervention.

    4.3(h)_The Science of Security: Lessons Learned in Developing, 
           Testing and Operating Advanced Radiation Monitors

                             June 25, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-38

Background
    On Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable 
Brad Miller (D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight, met to examine problems with the 
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to acquire its 
next generation of radiation portal monitors, known as Advanced 
Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs).
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Gene Aloise, Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability 
Office, (2) Dr. Micah Lowenthal, Division on Earth and Life 
Studies, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Research 
Council, The National Academy of Sciences, (3) Dr. William 
Hagan, Acting Deputy Director, Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office (DNDO), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and (4) 
Mr. Todd C. Owen, Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office 
of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller stated that 
preventing the detonation of a nuclear or radiological device, 
a dirty bomb, in the United States has become a top national 
security objective. He also voiced his concerns with the ASP 
program. Ranking Member Dr. Broun (R-GA) hoped DHS would take 
GAO's recommendations seriously. He stated that DHS should, 
``conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the program that 
takes into account updated threat assessments, a review of all 
variations of concepts of operations, potential upgrades to 
existing technologies and independent cost estimates.''
    During the first panel of witnesses, Mr. Aloise discussed 
GAO's most recent report of ASP testing including lessons 
learned from such testing. In all, Mr. Aloise expressed 
concerns about whether the benefits of ASPs justified their 
high cost. Dr. Lowenthal discussed the congressionally mandated 
report from the National Research Council on ASPs. Dr. 
Lowenthal said the report recommends that DHS not proceed with 
further procurement of ASPs until it has addressed the findings 
and recommendations from the report, and until the ASP has been 
shown to be a favored option in the cost-benefit analysis.
    The question and answer period for the first panel began 
with Chairman Miller asking the panel if DHS would have enough 
information to make a decision on the program in October. Both 
witnesses expressed their concern that all the necessary 
testing would not be complete by then. Ranking Member Broun 
then asked the panel to prioritize the upgrade to ASPs within 
the entire global nuclear detection architecture. Chairman 
Miller asked the panel about how the ASP project has been 
managed. Mr. Aloise said that the immature technology was 
pushed through by optimistic assumptions. Rep. Dahlkemper (D-
PA) inquired about what principles should guide DHS in a cost-
benefit analysis, and Mr. Aloise stated that it should be fact 
based judgments from test results.
    During the second panel of witnesses, Dr. Hagan discussed 
DHS's current development and testing of ASPs. He also 
discussed newly implemented steps to improve program 
management. One such improvement, Dr. Hagan said, has been to 
standardize test event planning, as well DHS-wide enhancements 
to program management. Dr. Hagan also said that DHS felt that 
the plans and procedures put in place would give the ASP 
program, ``a strong foundation for future certification and 
acquisition decisions.'' Mr. Owen told the Subcommittee about 
the current capabilities of the CBP to scan incoming materials 
at U.S. borders. Mr. Owen stated that, ``the ASP is expected to 
enhance our detection capability while significantly reducing 
the number of secondary examinations.''
    The question and answer period for the second panel began 
with Chairman Miller asking Dr. Hagan about why there is 
urgency to certify ASP. Dr. Hagan disagreed that DHS was 
rushing the process but said that DHS was moving as fast as it 
could in a thoughtful manner. Dr. Hagan also said that ASP was 
able to identify the source of radiation, which the current 
system cannot do. Ranking Member Broun asked Dr. Hagan about 
ASP's abilities to detect heavily and moderately shielded 
radiation. Dr. Hagan responded that the current system and ASPs 
have limitations with high shielding but other inspection 
methods are used in order to attempt to identify highly 
shielded cargo that could pose a potential threat. The hearing 
closed with Rep. Dahlkemper asking Mr. Owen about the trade-
offs of funding ASPs instead of adding more manpower and about 
the maintenance costs of the ASPs. Mr. Owen said that these 
issues currently need more consideration before CBP can make a 
decision.

       4.3(i)_Providing Aviation Weather Services to the Federal 
                        Aviation Administration

                             July 16, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-43

Background
    On Thursday, July 16, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
held a hearing to examine the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA)'s efforts to reorganize the Aviation Weather Services 
provided by the National Weather Service (NWS). The FAA sought 
changes to improve consistency in aviation weather product and 
services and in hopes of reducing costs. However, the 
justification for the proposed changes had earlier failed to 
convince the Committee on Science on Technology that the 
reorganization was warranted. This hearing intended to learn if 
continuing negotiations between the two agencies had produced a 
more desirable outcome.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Mr. David Powner, Director, 
Information Technology Management Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; (2) Dr. John L (Jack) Hayes, Assistant 
Administrator for National Weather Service, National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and (3) Mr. Richard Day, 
Senior Vice President for Operations in the FAA's Air Traffic 
Organization.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller said that the FAA 
had regularly pressured NWSS for a plan to consolidate aviation 
weather services. FAA's inability to clearly articulate the 
need to be satisfied made it difficult for NWS to respond 
appropriately. FAA's hope to consolidate CWSU activity at a 
single site left many Members concerned about resulting risk. 
Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA) discussed the problematic 
dynamic between FAA and NWS and the need for increased 
coordination, stressing that this relationship has real-world 
implications to both commerce and airline passenger safety.
    GAO reminded the Subcommittee about the results from its 
earlier report examining the dispute. Mr. Powner noted that the 
CWSUs had indeed provided inconsistent product and services to 
FAA, but that the Weather Service had moved forward to improve 
training and product design to eliminate disparities between 
Centers. He also recalled the lack of performance measures to 
ensure high quality of weather observations, and stated the 
multiple proposals to restructure that we were each rejected. 
Changes in the CWSUs would create several major challenges if 
their structure was, indeed, changed.
    Dr. Hayes discussed the NWS's attempts to be responsive to 
FAA. A revised proposal was delivered in June that refined 
service requirements. He promised that the NWS would work 
collaboratively with the FAA to ensure that the proposed 
structure does not degrade aviation weather services. The 
development of baseline performance measures was underway, and 
there would be extensive testing to demonstrate no loss of 
safety before putting the new system into daily operation.
    With his testimony, Mr. Day hoped to allay the Members' 
concerns and to clarify what FAA hoped for from the 
consolidation. FAA hoped that weather services would be 
available to the en route traffic control centers around the 
clock. Applying new technology and measuring service quality 
were other goals from the proposed consolidation. Day assured 
the Subcommittee that the current configuration would not be 
changed until a, ``demonstration and validation show that we 
are able to effectively disseminate the most timely and 
accurate weather forecasting for the safe operation of flights 
in out system.''
    That demonstration and validation requirement was 
repeatedly raised in the question and answer sessions. Mr. 
Powner noted that success in this testing phase was central to 
assuring safety in the system after adoption of the new 
organization. Rep. Miller wondered about the effects of the 
proposed changes on staffing levels for meteorologists and how 
the demonstration could even be conducted without the agreement 
on baseline metrics between the NWS and FAA. At the end, Rep. 
Dahlkemper's (D-PA) questions indicated that the question of 
fixing problems that did not exist was still open.

     4.3(j)_The Risks of Financial Modeling: VaR and the Economic 
                                Meltdown

                           September 10, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-48

Background
    On Thursday, September 10, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller 
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Science and Technology 
held a hearing to examine the role of risk modeling in the 
global financial meltdown. Risk models, and specifically a 
method of risk measurement known as Value-at-Risk, or VaR, are 
widely viewed as contributory to the extreme risk-taking by 
financial institutions that led to the recent economic 
upheaval. Relied on to guide the decisions both of financial 
firms in their assumption of risk and of Federal regulators in 
determining whether such firms held sufficient capital to 
support the risk they assumed, the VaR, whether it was misued 
or not, was involved in inducing or allowing excessive risk. 
The Subcommittee wished to examine the role of the VaR and 
related risk-measurement methods in the world financial crisis; 
the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of the usefulness of the 
VaR; the degree to which the VaR is understood, and may be 
manipulated, within the institutions where it is in use; and 
the capabilities and needs of Federal supervisors who may be 
called upon to work with the VaR in carrying out their 
regulatory duties. From a policy perspective, the most 
important question is how regulators will use VaR numbers 
produced by firms and whether these number provide an 
appropriate guide to setting capital reserve requirements. This 
is the second in a series of hearings on how economic thinking 
and methods have been used by policymakers both inside and 
outside of government.
    Six witnesses testified in two panels. Panel one: (1) Dr. 
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Distinguished Professor of Risk 
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, (2) 
Dr. Richard Bookstaber, Financial Author. Panel two: (3) Dr. 
Gregg Berman, Head of Risk Business, RiskMetrics Group, (4) Dr. 
James G. Rickards, Senior Managing Director, Omnis Inc., (5) 
Mr. Christopher Whalen, Managing Director, Institutional Risk 
Analytics, and (6) Dr. David Colander, Christian A. Johnston 
Distinguished Professor of Economics, Middlebury College.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller (R-NC) 
addressed the problems inherent in the VaR and said that it and 
related risk-measurement methods needed to be evaluated. He 
asked: ``Can mathematics, statistics, and economics produce 
longer-range models--models that could give us early warning of 
when our complex financial system is heading for trouble?'' 
Furthermore, Chairman Miller asked, ``if models cannot be a 
useful guide for regulation, should we just abandon this 
approach and simply increase reserves, reducing profits and 
perhaps some useful economic conduct in the short run, but 
protecting taxpayers and the world economy in the long run?'' 
In his opening statement, Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA) 
emphasized that models are tools that are meant to describe, 
not prescribe. He also pointed out that it is necessary to 
understand and appreciate the complexity of models and that 
understanding the limitations and intended purposes of 
financial models is just as important as what the models 
indicate.
    During the first panel's testimony, Dr. Taleb explained the 
VaR and pointed out the history of financial bubbles, saying: 
``Data shows that banks routinely lose everything earned in 
their past history in single blowups . . . [E]very time society 
bails them out--while bank risk-takers retain their past 
bonuses and start the game afresh. This is an aberrant case of 
capitalism for the profits and socialism for the losses.'' He 
asserted that there are numerous significant problems 
associated with VaR-style risk measurement, charging that the 
VaR is ineffective and lacks robustness; that it encourages 
low-volatility, high-blowup risk taking, which can be gamed to 
suit the Wall Street bonus structure; and that VaR-style 
quantitative risk measurement is the engine behind leverage, 
the main cause of the current crisis. He emphasized the 
immediate need for ``hard,'' non-probabilistic measures rather 
than more error-prone ones.
    Dr. Bookstaber also discussed what VaR is and how it can be 
used and misused, focusing on the limitations of VaR in 
measuring crisis risk. He then discussed the role of VaR in the 
recent market meltdown, concluding with suggestions for ways to 
fill in the gaps left by the limitations of VaR.
    During the first panel's question period, Members and 
panelists discussed whether economic events can be predicted, 
the overall regulation of financial products, how banks become 
too big to fail, Wall Street's dependence on government 
bailouts, and the risks taken by different types of 
institutions. They also discussed incentive structures for 
traders, ways of holding Wall Street accountable for bonuses, 
malpractice in risk management, clawback provisions, credit 
default swaps (CDS), and whether the bailouts and stimulus 
package were necessary to the health of the Nation's economy.
    In the second panel's testimony, Dr. Berman stated that the 
current crisis was not unpredictable, unforeseeable or 
unknowable, but rather was caused by the coupling of two 
fundamental problems: the inability of market participants to 
acknowledge and prepare for the consequences of long-term 
trends, such as a protracted downward spiral in home prices or 
leveraging of the credit market through the use of CDS; and the 
inability of market participants to recognize the exposure they 
had to those trends through holding asset-backed securities and 
other derivative contracts.
    Mr. Rickards charged that the VaR is unreliable because it 
is based on false assumptions, which he explained in detail. He 
put forward policy recommendations designed to limit the scale 
of exposure, controlling cascades and securing informational 
advantage. In particular, he argued, de-scaling can radically 
reduce risk and restore stability not only to individual 
institutions but to the financial system as a whole.
    Mr. Whalen urged that the Members bear in mind the 
distinction between objective and subjective measures when 
discussing the use of models in finance. ``Obtaining a better 
understanding of the role of inserting subjectivity into models 
is critical for distinguishing between useful deployments of 
modeling to manage risk and situations where models are the 
primary failure pathway towards creating systemic risk, and 
thus affect economic stability and public policy,'' he said. 
Mr. Whalen suggested that national interests demand a higher 
standard of tangible proof from ``outcome designers'' of public 
policies. He added: ``If financial markets and the models used 
to describe them are limited to those instruments that can be 
verified objectively, then we no longer need to fear from the 
ravages of Black Swans or systemic risk.''
    Dr. Colander stated that the financial crisis was not due 
to highly technical models, but rather to the way economic 
models are used. He ended with two suggestions: ensure that 
National Science Foundation peer-review panels included 
representatives of a variety of approaches to economics, and 
increase the number of researchers trained to interpret models.
    During the second panel's question period, Members and 
panelists discussed appropriate uses of financial models, 
proposals for avoiding recurrences of financial problems, abuse 
of the VaR, and past attempts to regulate the financial 
industry. Other topics included whether a government agency 
should test financial products for usefulness, consequences of 
``too big to fail,'' and monitoring and analyzing hedge fund 
activity and risk.

      4.3(k)_The Science of Security, Part II: Technical Problems 
             Continue to Hinder Advanced Radiation Monitors

                           November 17, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-63

Background
    On Tuesday, November 17, 2009, the Honorable Brad Miller 
(D-NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, held a hearing to examine continued problems with 
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to acquire 
its next generation radiation monitors known as Advanced 
Spectroscopic Portals (ASPs). This is a follow-up to the 
hearing the Subcommittee held on June 25, 2009, titled: The 
Science of Security: Lessons Learned in Developing, Testing and 
Operating Advanced Radiation Monitors. Since the Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), a DHS component, was created 
in 2005 they have been responsible for researching, developing, 
testing and managing the program. The ASP program is estimated 
to cost $2-to-$3 billion and has been under scrutiny since 2006 
for failing to have clear-cut requirements, an adequate test 
plan, sufficient timelines, development milestones or a 
transparent and comprehensive cost benefit analysis.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Gene Aloise, Director, 
National Resources and Environment, Government Accountability 
Office (GAO), (2) Dr. Timothy M. Persons, Chief Scientist, 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), (3) Mr. Todd Owen, 
Executive Director for Cargo and Conveyance Security, U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), (4) Dr. William Hagan, Acting Deputy Director, 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller pointed out the 
problems found with DHS's radiation monitors, saying that the 
Advanced Spectroscopic Portal monitor (ASP) does not work as 
advertised and does not justify its cost and replacement of 
current generation polyvinyl toluene (PVT) radiation portal 
monitors. Furthermore, Chairman Miller said the Department of 
Energy's approach to identifying radiation should be 
instructive to DHS. He ended by saying DHS still faced a long 
list of tests and validations before they could even speak 
sensibly about replacing PVTs with ASPs. In his opening 
statement, Ranking Member Dr. Broun (R-GA) hoped that the DNDO 
and CBP would be able to update the committee on how they are 
responding to GAO recommendations as well as what to expect 
from them in the future. He also stressed that many of the 
problems confronting the DNDO could have been prevented by 
engaging the end users earlier in the process.
    During the witness testimonies, Mr. Aloise discussed the 
critical failures of ASPs including its performance histories 
and high numbers of false positives for the detection of high-
risk nuclear material. Additionally, Mr. Aloise said that, 
``DNDO's proposed solutions to these critical failures raise 
questions about whether the ASPs will provide any meaningful 
increase in the ability to detect certain nuclear materials.'' 
Dr. Person did not give a spoken testimony since he shared one 
with Mr. Aloise.
    Dr. Owen said that the ASPs, are ``expected to enhance our 
detection capability while significantly reducing the number of 
secondary examinations,'' due to its ability to distinguish 
between actual threats and natural or medical radiation sources 
that are not security threats. Additionally, he stated that, 
``the decision to purchase and deploy ASPs in the operational 
arena will be based on CBPs mission needs and operational 
requirements, a comprehensive cost benefit analysis to include 
a full understanding of the maintenance and operational cost 
and analysis of alternatives and other considerations.''
    Dr. Hagan stated that DNDO has conducted field tests and 
has worked to address all initially identified issues and is 
working to solve the remaining problems. In his opening 
statement Dr. Hagan alerted the Subcommittee and the public to 
the critical shortage his agency and the U.S. government at 
large was encountering with acquiring Helium-3, a critical non-
radioactive isotope that is a key ingredient in radiation 
detection systems to detect neutron emitting radiation sources, 
such as plutonium. The shortage was so severe that Dr. Hagan 
informed the Subcommittee, for the first time, that the 
Administration had halted the use of Helium-3 for radiation 
portal monitors, including the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals 
(ASPs), in September 2010. Members were troubled that neither 
they nor their staffs had been informed of this extremely 
important and far-reaching development prior to the hearing.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists discussed CBP procedures after a primary alarm and 
the effect of false positives, steps taken to reduce false 
positives and negatives, mission critical failure, energy 
windowing to improve PVT performance, and the CBP inspection 
system. They also discussed the helium-3 shortage and potential 
alternative materials, what circumstances ASP's should be 
deployed in, expectations of a cost-benefit analysis on ASPs, 
and metrics and timelines for making decisions about ASPs.

    4.3(l)_Independent Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                             Administration

                            December 3, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-68

Background
    On Thursday, December 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight convened a joint hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for the purpose of 
receiving the annual independent auditor's report on the 
financial status of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA). Ernst & Young, the agency's auditor, had 
issued a so-called ``disclaimed opinion,'' indicating that the 
agency financial statements did not fairly represent NASA's 
accurate financial condition. Since 1990, NASA has invested 
significant time and effort in three attempts to develop an 
acceptable financial management system. While the audit report 
credited NASA with notable progress in correcting its 
weaknesses, Ernst & Young considered efforts to properly value 
legacy equipment on the balance sheets to fall short of 
government accounting standards. The hearing was called to 
determine what would be needed for NASA to receive unqualified 
opinions in subsequent annual audits.
    Testifying at the hearing were: (1) Hon. Paul Martin, the 
newly-appointed Inspector General of NASA (accompanied by his 
deputy, Mr. Tom Howard); (2) Mr. Paul Murrin, Ernst & Young's 
senior auditor for the NASA contract since 2004 and Partner in 
the company's Assurance and Advisory Business Services; and (3) 
Hon. Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's new Chief Financial Officer.
Summary
    Chairman Miller (D-NC) opened the hearing by noting that 
while NASA's independent auditors decided not to render an 
opinion on the agency's fiscal condition in FY2009, NASA had 
nevertheless made significant progress since first being put on 
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) high-risk list 
seventeen years earlier. Nevertheless, this ``disclaimed 
opinion'' did not constitute a passing grade. Chairman Miller 
said that NASA's failure to set an asset value on the Shuttle 
and the Space Station programs was the most significant 
remaining problem. Ernst & Young, the independent auditors, 
also identified environmental liabilities which greatly 
concerned the Chairman. The Chairman then recognized Rep. Broun 
(R-GA), the Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight 
Subcommittee. Rep. Broun was pleased to observe that NASA had 
brought in a single-standards accounting system in place of the 
multiple fiefdoms present in the past.
    Next, the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, Rep. Giffords (D-AZ), gave a brief opening 
statement in which she commended the hard work of the dedicated 
government employees who had brought NASA so close to closing 
the books on the agency's fiscal problems. Rep. Olson (R-TX), 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, 
recognized the work of former NASA CFO Ron Spoehel in realizing 
NASA's progress. Like previous speakers, he emphasized that 
NASA should not be given more funds until Congress was 
confident that current funds were being spent efficiently and 
effectively.
    One of the responsibilities of an agency Inspector General 
is to manage the contract providing for the audit of the 
agency's financial statements by an independent private firm 
every year. Mr. Martin's testimony summarized the results of 
the Fiscal Year 2009 audit, where auditor Ernst & Young was not 
willing to state an opinion on whether the statements ``fairly 
represented'' the agency's assets and liabilities. For the past 
two decades, NASA has struggled with financial management 
systems that have been unable to reliably track and report on 
fund management and control. This has repeatedly been 
highlighted by the Inspector General's office and the 
Government Accountability Office as a primary management 
challenge for NASA.
    According to Mr. Murrin, NASA was in the end unable to 
provide adequate and appropriate documentary evidence that the 
values assigned by the agency to older property, plant and 
equipment used in programs such as the Space Shuttle and Space 
Station. This has been a persistent issue highlighted by 
previous audit reports and the focus of continuous 
collaboration by NASA and Ernst & Young to correct the 
problems. While Mr. Murrin's testimony described the procedural 
changes NASA has applied in its effort to clear this material 
weakness, the audit notes that these are primarily applied to 
current and prospective contracts. The major problem remains 
that the financial controls in previous years failed to 
preserve the required information.
    It falls to Dr. Robinson to manage the corrective actions 
needed to eliminate the weak spots identified by the audit. In 
her testimony, she described the continuing efforts since 2002 
aimed at bringing the upgraded financial management systems 
into compliance with modern standards and best practices. 
Identifying and correcting data discrepancies and improving 
staff skills have occupied much time.
    In the particular item providing for the disclaimer of 
opinion, Dr. Robinson stated that it originated in a 1998 
decision to change the accounting process for space equipment 
so that it was no longer fully captured in the year such 
equipment was obtained. NASA found that its contracting process 
and method failed to adapt to the new accounting requirement 
and thus failed to obtain and retain the records and 
information needed to conform. With the failure to correct this 
deficiency, the gaps in records grew and led auditors to 
express growing discomfort about the effect on the accuracy 
agency financial records.
    In addition to NASA's direction to change agency practice 
in contracting, a new Federal accounting standard is now in 
place that will assist NASA--and other agencies like DOD in 
similar straits--to deal with the missing historical records. 
While significant resources have been applied to reconstruct 
the evidence in an attempt to satisfy the requirement for 
actual documentation, the new standard allows for the 
development of appropriate estimating methods to generate 
reasonable approximations of the property, plant and equipment 
at issue.
    While displeased with the situation, Members also 
recognized that it resulted from poor practices over many years 
and that the agency was hamstrung by the bulk of missing 
information. Much of the discussion with the witnesses 
concerned the need for continuing collaboration to assure that 
the agency and the auditors shared a common view of the proper 
implementation of the new standards for estimation. Members 
also sought assurances that the other risks highlighted in the 
audit report, relating to the calculation of NASA's 
environmental liabilities and the need to finish bringing the 
financial management systems up to legal standards, were not 
waiting to replace legacy asset valuation as the basis for a 
disclaimed opinion in the next audit. The witnesses express 
confidence that NASA would finally begin receiving unqualified 
opinions beginning with the fiscal year 2010 audit.

          4.3(m)_Rare Earth Minerals and 21st Century Industry

                             March 16, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-86

Background
    On Thursday, March 16, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
held a hearing to examine ways of redressing the expected 
imbalance between available supplies of rare earth minerals and 
the Nation's need for them. The hearing also asked why the 
policy structure put in place thirty years ago precisely to 
identify and respond to potential shortages of critical 
materials before they became acute had failed to do its job. 
The United States finds itself dependent on the People's 
Republic of China for a commodity without which it is difficult 
to compete in many high-tech industries. With a near-monopoly 
on supplies of rare earths, the Chinese government threatens to 
limit exports and is trying to induce foreign manufacturing 
firms to locate production facilities in Inner Mongolia. The 
main American rare earths supplier is seeking funds to restart 
its mining operation, which closed in 2002, having suffered 
from low prices as China expanded into the market and from a 
late start on renewing its environmental permits in California. 
Additionally, support for research on rare earths has greatly 
diminished in the United States.
    There were five witnesses. (1) Dr. Stephen W. Freiman, 
President, Freiman Consulting Inc, member, National Research 
Council Committee on Critical Mineral Impacts on the U.S. 
Economy, (2) Dr. Steven Duclos, Chief Scientist and Manager, 
Material Sustainability, General Electric Global Research, (3) 
Dr. Karl Gschneidner, Anson Marston Distinguished Professor, 
Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Iowa State 
University, (4) Mr. Mark Smith, Chief Executive Officer, 
Molycorp Minerals, LLC, and (5) Mr. Terence Stewart, Esq., 
Managing Partner, Stewart and Stewart.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) 
discussed the question of how the United States might compete 
in attracting and retaining manufacturing firms that need 
access to rare earth elements in light of China's current near 
monopoly and its willingness to use this monopoly power to the 
United States' disadvantage. Chairman Miller stated the 
necessity of producing, recovering and recycling rare earth 
materials and of looking for substitutes. Full Committee 
Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), in his opening statement, recalled 
that in 1980 the Committee successfully put forward legislation 
that established a national minerals and materials policy, 
which in part called for support of a ``vigorous, comprehensive 
and coordinated program of materials research and 
development.'' Chairman Gordon noted that this effort had 
fallen by the wayside, saying: ``Now it is time to ask whether 
we need to revive a coordinated effort to level the playing 
field in rare earths in order to support American business and 
American jobs.'' Ranking Member Broun (R-GA), in his opening 
statement, said that rare earths are ``slated to play an 
increasingly important role as we seek to meet out future 
energy needs, remain competitive in the international 
marketplace and continue to defend our Nation.''
    During the witness testimonies, Dr. Freiman outlined the 
supply risks for certain minerals and their implications, 
specifically identifying gaps in minerals information. Dr. 
Freiman recommended that the Federal government enhance the 
types of data and information it collects, disseminates and 
analyzes on minerals and mineral products, especially as these 
data and information relate to minerals whose supplies are or 
may become critical. He also recommended that Federal agencies 
develop and fund activities, including basic science and policy 
research, to encourage U.S. innovation in the area of critical 
minerals and materials to enhance understanding of global 
mineral availability and use.
    Dr. Duclos discussed how GE manages shortages of scarce 
materials and commodities critical to their manufacturing 
operations, as well as what steps the Federal government can 
take to help industry minimize the risks and other issues 
associated with these shortages. He recommended appointing a 
lead agency in the government with ownership of early 
assessment and authority to fund solutions, including 
increasing the Nation's ability to monitor and assess 
industrial materials supply in both the short and long term. He 
also recommended sustained funding for research focusing on 
materials substitutions, recycling technologies, development of 
alternative materials, new systems solutions and manufacturing 
efficiency.
    Dr. Gschneidner discussed the history of rare earth 
research and, in particular, the history of the Department of 
Energy's Ames Laboratory, whose achievements in research may 
prove helpful in the future. He argued that the best way to 
work through the rare-earths shortage now facing the United 
States would be by creating a research center where scientists, 
engineers and technicians would focus on innovations in high-
tech areas.
    Mr. Smith stated that ``disruption in the global supply of 
rare earths poses a significant concern for America's security 
and clean-energy objectives, its future defense needs, and its 
long-term global competitiveness.'' He stressed the need to 
rebuild processing capacity for rare earth metals in the United 
States. Mr. Smith also described Molycorp's ``mining to 
magnets'' strategy, which he touted not only for its potential 
to create new business but also as a catalyst for the United 
States' ``development of a clean-energy economy and the 
resurgence of domestic manufacturing.''
    Mr. Stewart interpreted China's actions in the area of rare 
earth minerals, saying the Chinese government is trying both to 
encourage foreign investors to move production of downstream 
products to China and to ensure low-priced supplies for sectors 
that China has targeted for rapid industrial growth. Mr. Smith 
also made recommendations for the government and private 
sector, including encouraging the U.S. and its trading partners 
to consider a second trade action against China on the range of 
export restraints being imposed on rare earths.
    During the question period, Members and panelists discussed 
ways to overcome the expected imbalance between available 
supplies of rare earth minerals and the nation's need for them, 
including: increasing exploration for domestic sources, finding 
new overseas suppliers, funding research to find substitute 
materials to reduce the amount of rare earths needed in a given 
produce, and increasing the recycling of rare-earth materials.

       4.3(n)_Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the 
                         Helium-3 Supply Crisis

                             April 22, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-92

Background
    On Thursday, April 22, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
held a hearing to examine the causes and consequences of the 
Helium-3 (He-3) supply crisis. He-3 is a rare, nonradioactive 
gas that has been produced in both the United States and Russia 
as a by-product of nuclear weapons development. Tritium, which 
helps boost the yield of nuclear weapons, decays into Helium-3 
gas after approximately 12 years, but has not been produced 
since 1988. The result is a declining supply of He-3. However, 
because it was viewed as an excess commodity after the end of 
the Cold War, He-3 was packaged, managed and sold at cost 
through Department of Energy's Isotope Program in the Office of 
Nuclear Energy. (The Isotope Program was moved to the Office of 
Science in FY2009.) After the September 11, 2001, attack on the 
World Trade Center, demand for He-3 as a radiation detector 
exploded and consumed most of the supply. DOE's failure to 
manage the stockpile with an understanding of future demand, 
supply and needs has had negative consequences not only for 
security devices but for many scientific applications, 
including neutron scattering and cryogenics research.
    In this hearing, the Subcommittee met to discuss the 
processes that the federal agencies are implementing to manage 
and set priorities for use of the limited He-3 supply and to 
discuss the search for alternative sources and gases.
    Six witnesses on two panels testified at this hearing. 
Panel one: (1) Dr. William Hagan, Acting Director, Domestic 
Nuclear Detention Office (DNDO), Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), (2) Dr. William Brinkman, Director of the 
Office of Science, Department of Energy (DOE), accompanied by 
Dr. Steven Aoki, Deputy Undersecretary of Energy 
Counterterrorism and Member of the White House He-3 Interagency 
Policy Committee (IPC) Steering Committee). Panel two: (3) Mr. 
Tom Anderson, Product Manager, Reuter-Stokes Radiation 
Measurement Solutions, GE Energy, (4) Mr. Richard L. Arsenault, 
Director of Health, Safety and Security and Environment, 
ThruBit LLC, (5) Dr. William Halperin, John Evans Professor of 
Physics, Department of Physics, Northwestern University, (6) 
Dr. Jason Woods, Assistant Professor, Radiology, Mallinckrodt 
Institute of Radiology, Biomedical MR Laboratory, Washington 
University in St. Louis and Program Director, Hyperpolarized 
Media MR Study Group, International Society for Magnetic 
Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller stated that the 
impacts of the He-3 shortage are real and painful. Furthermore, 
because of its unique physical properties, He-3 plays a crucial 
role in oil and gas exploration, cryogenics, quantum computing, 
neutron scattering facilities and medical lung imaging 
research. Over the past year, Chairman Miller said, the cost of 
obtaining helium-3 had risen from $200 per liter to more than 
$2,000 per liter. He said that it matters that if DOE had 
noticed the disconnect between growing demand and declining 
supply, it could have managed that stockpile with clear 
prioritization for highest use and led an aggressive and timely 
search for alternatives to helium-3. The Chairman ended by 
noting that the Subcommittee was not as prepared for the 
hearing as they should have been due to the failure of the 
White House and certain agencies to produce documents, or 
explain why they could not, when asked by the Subcommittee. 
Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement, 
expressed his disappointment in the state of our He-3 supply 
and at the tendency to act only after a crisis has emerged. He 
said he hoped that the agencies would assist the Committee in 
meeting its oversight responsibilities in a more cooperative 
fashion and expressed his commitment to work with the Chairman 
to ensure that the Federal Government does a better job of 
predicting and mitigating these supply shortages.
    In the first panel, Dr. Hagan discussed how DNDO became 
aware of the shortage of He-3 and how they have responded to 
it. He also highlighted that DNDO had reduced the number of 
portal monitors using He-3 under the Advanced Spectroscopic 
Portal (ASP) program, the impact of the shortage of DNDO's 
radiological and nuclear detection programs, and finally, the 
status of their work in identifying alternative technologies to 
replace He-3 as a neutron detector. Dr. Brinkman discussed the 
role of DOE in He-3 production and distribution, its 
realization of, and response to, the He-3 shortage, the impact 
of the He-3 shortage, potential alternative sources , and the 
current actions and allocation process.
    During the first panel's question and answer period, 
Members and panelists discussed the failure of the DOE to 
recognize and address the He-3 supply and how to keep an 
inventory of isotopes to avoid another shortage. Other topics 
included shifting the United States away from being the world's 
primary supplier of He-3, funding for the development of He-3 
alternatives and yearly demand of He-3. They also discussed the 
possibility of extracting He-3 from the moon and making He-3 
through other means.
    In the second panel, Mr. Anderson spoke about the impact 
the He-3 shortage has had on GE Energy's business and 
customers. He said that a drop-in replacement technology for 
He-3 did not exist at this time and as many as six different 
neutron detection technologies may be required to best address 
the various performance requirements for different 
applications. Mr. Anderson also said that significant research 
was required immediately to develop new neutron detection 
technologies, and that Federal funding was essential in 
accelerating such development. He also spoke about GE's ideas 
to manage the problem in the future. Mr. Arsenault spoke about 
how the He-3 shortage has impacted his and other companies in 
need of neutron detectors. Specifically, the high cost and low 
availability of He-3 makes it hard for his small company to 
bring new technologies to the market. Furthermore, he said, the 
shortage of He-3 is starting to impact the entire oil and gas 
industry--an industry that is a vital part of national security 
and energy independence.
    Dr. Halperin described how the shortage of He-3 has 
negatively impacted scientific research. He said that he relies 
heavily on He-3 to carry out scientific research at low 
temperatures, which is essential for studying certain 
properties of materials such as superconductivity and magnetism 
and for developing various advanced materials. Low temperature 
research, Dr. Halperin said, is also critical for future 
improvements in metrology and high-speed computation, including 
quantum information technology. Dr. Woods discussed how the 
shortage has impacted his field of He-3 MRIs. He said that He-3 
MRI has illuminated pulmonary ventilation and microstructure. 
Its physical properties make it unique and irreplaceable in 
many instances. Dr. Woods also explained He-3's potential for 
guiding interventions in drug development and how developing 
technology to recycle 2,000 liters of He-3 annually could allow 
for significant and sustained research into the future.
    During the second panel's question and answer period, 
Members and panelists discussed the DOE's failure to 
communicate He-3 supply shortages and the lack of substitutes 
for cryogenics. Other topics included the development of He-3 
alternatives and their viability, the need for Federal research 
and development, and recycling He-3.

       4.3(o)_Preventing Harm_Protecting Health: Reforming CDC's 
                 Environmental Public Health Practices

                              May 20, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-95

Background
    On Thursday, May 20, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, 
met to examine the policies and procedures used by the National 
Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) of the Centers of Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) to assess, validate and release public 
health documents and to detail specific instances where these 
offices have relied upon flawed science and incomplete data to 
draw critical public health conclusions. Resolving these policy 
and procedural issues within ATSDR and ensuring that the CDC's 
public health documents in general rely upon sound scientific 
data to reach public health conclusions is essential to 
ensuring the health and safety of the public. The purpose of 
this hearing was to help lay down a new road map for CDC in 
helping to reform its environmental public health practices, 
largely carried out by NCEH/ATSDR. This was the third hearing 
the Subcommittee held in the past two years to examine the 
performance of ATSDR.
    Five witnesses testified on two panels. Panel one: (1) Ms. 
Cynthia A. Bascetta, Director, Public Health and Medical 
Services, Government Accountability Office (GAO), (2) Mr. 
Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, 
Environment & Justice (CHEJ), (3) Dr. John Wargo, Professor of 
Environmental Risk Analysis, Yale University, (4) Dr. Marc 
Edwards, Charles P. Lunsford Professor, Department of Civil and 
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Panel two: (5) Dr. 
Robin M. Ikeda, MD, MPH, Deputy Director of the Office of 
Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health and 
Acting Director for the National Center for Injury Prevention 
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Summary
    During his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller stated 
that in order for ATSDR and NCEH to succeed, they must no 
longer analyze data that is incomplete, inaccurate, or 
irrelevant to the underlying question without disclosing the 
known limits of the data. Also, the Chairman said ATSDR must no 
longer respond to critics by attacking their knowledge or their 
motives. They have failed, said the Chairman, to have rigorous 
and consistent reviews of study design, data collection and 
quality and analytical methods and conclusions. ATSDR, 
according to the Chairman, also failed to have consistent 
policies and procedures for conducting public health research, 
interventions, and publications. The Chairman said that 
although much of ATSDR's and NCEH's problem is a failure to 
communicate, there is also substantial evidence that their 
quality of science is not as consistent as it should be. 
Ranking Member Dr. Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement, 
discussed ATSDR's history of problems and said that despite the 
complexity and difficulty of the agency's work, the public 
deserves to have an agency that they trust, and hoped the 
hearing would help shed light not only on how the agency can 
better protect public health and safety, but also how it can 
adapt to its evolving mission.
    During the first panel of witness testimonies, Ms. Bascetta 
discussed GAO's April 2010 ATSDR report. She said that GAO 
found that ATSDR's policies and procedures were deficient in 
the three phases of preparation of public health products: (1) 
initiation, which includes a decision by the agency to begin 
work on a public health product and the assignment of staff to 
prepare the product; (2) development, which includes management 
approval to proceed with the development of a product and the 
actual drafting of the public health product; and (3) review 
and clearance, which is the process by which a product is 
internally or externally reviewed and disseminated as a final 
public health product. Mr. Lester, in his testimony, said that 
ATSDR has failed to act on the Center for Health, Environment, 
and Justice's (CHEJ) recommendations to fix ATSDR's inadequate 
and inappropriate methods of assessing health problems, which 
have kept communities from getting the information, assistance, 
and medical treatment they need to protect themselves and their 
children from chemical exposures.
    Dr. Wargo discussed his experience with ATSDR, saying the 
agency's assessments of contamination on the island of Vieques 
contained serious flaws. He said that the central problem is 
cultural in that the agency has misperceived its intended 
mission. Specifically, Dr. Wargo said, ATSDR sees their mission 
as the need to prove danger when it should instead demonstrate 
a reasonable certainty of no harm. Dr. Edwards discussed his 
experience related to the 2001-2004 D.C. lead-in-water crisis, 
saying CDC published a flawed assessment and refused to correct 
the scientific record after the fact, which lead to 
misinformation and false conclusions. He ended his testimony by 
saying that he has found there to be a, ``culture of scientific 
corruption in branches of this important agency and there is no 
evidence it has the capability for self-correction.''
    During the first panel's question and answer period, 
Members and panelists discussed how to fix these agencies, how 
President Obama's cancer panel addressed the risk of 
environmentally caused cancer versus other causes, and the 
failure of the CDC to communicate negative health effects of 
lead poisoning from elevated lead levels during the DC lead-in-
water crisis. Other topics included ATSDR's reactions to 
criticism and recommendations, the residents of Vieques, the 
flaws in the CDC's 2004 cross-sectional study regarding the DC 
lead-in-water crisis, and the need for peer-review of ATSDR's 
critical public health documents.
    During the second panel of witnesses, Dr. Ikeda discussed 
the improvements underway within NCEH and ATSDR, the National 
Conversion, CDC's work on elevated lead in water in Washington 
D.C.'s drinking water and the environmental public health 
issues on the island of Vieques. Dr. Ikeda described the 
various steps CDC is taking to make its work more consistent 
internally and the agency's reanalysis of the DC lead-in-water 
crisis. Dr. Ikeda claimed that CDC's more comprehensive 
analysis did not fundamentally change their 2004 findings. 
ATSDR also re-evaluated its past studies regarding Vieques, 
said Dr. Ikeda, and is in the final stages of completing a 
report that will be peer-reviewed.
    During the second panel's question and answer period, 
Members and panelists discussed how ATSDR can move forward, how 
to correct the record on lead-in-water in DC after CDC 
published a misleading publication in 2004, and how CDC can 
ensure that it receives appropriate samples and data to 
adequately characterize exposure and risk in the future. Other 
topics included how to communicate results better, how to 
implement a peer-review process for CDC, the environmental 
public health issues on the island of Vieques, and what CDC can 
do for families in Washington, D.C. whose children have been 
identified as having lead poisoning that may be due to having 
been exposed to elevated water lead levels in their drinking 
water.

      4.3(p)_Setting New Courses for Polar Weather Satellites and 
                           Earth Observations

                             June 29, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-102

Background
    On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-NC) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
convened to receive testimony on the Administration's proposal 
to restructure the National Polar-Orbiting Operational 
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). After months of 
analysis following the President's inauguration, the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy concluded that returning to the 
state before 1993, where the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) each 
designed, procured and operated satellites intended to support 
their own primary requirements, would be the best chance for 
avoiding gaps in weather and climate data acquisition and the 
threat of interrupted military and civilian forecasting.
    The Subcommittee also invited the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to critique the Administration decision, based on 
its ongoing assessment of the NPOESS program. GAO was able to 
incorporate comments based on its report to the Subcommittee 
discussing a national strategy for Earth observations and 
restoration of capabilities removed from NPOESS at the time of 
its previous restructuring in 2005.
    Five witnesses provided testimony: (1) Hon. Shere Abbott, 
Associate Director, Energy and Environment Division, Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2) Ms. Mary Glackin, 
Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA 
deputy administrator; (3) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate 
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA); (4) Mr. Gil Klinger, Director, Space and Intelligence 
Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, DoD; 
and (5) Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology 
Management Issues, GAO.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Miller outlined the 
history of difficulties and problems NPOESS has had, saying 
that ``we have spent almost $6 billion already on the NPOESS 
program . . . there is not a single completed satellite to show 
for the time and money.'' He said that he hoped its new 
management would solve what has long ailed the NPOESS program. 
Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement, 
described the plethora of problems NPOESS has had in the past 
and questioned the course of the new program since little is 
known about it.
    Having directed the OSTP assessment team that recommended 
splitting the program, Ms. Abbott discussed the process and the 
findings that led to the decision. She said that despite a 
``vision of coordination and efficiency and in spite of 
multiple attempts to improve its execution, the program has 
consistently been behind schedule, over budget and 
underperforming.'' OSTP's task force concluded that significant 
change needed to be made to the management structure, matching 
those of the program Independent Review Team.
    Ms. Glackin discussed NOAA's expanded responsibilities with 
the new Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). Its revamped 
program would draw on the progress that had been made with the 
NPOESS Prepatory Program satellite to provide the follow-on 
satellites in time to avoid gaps in observational coverage. 
NOAA would continue, as it does now, to operate both satellite 
constellations and the ground system delivering the data to 
NOAA and DOD forecasting centers. She said that although the 
transition might take time, NOAA believes it is the right step 
for the United States in its need for uninterrupted, reliable 
weather and climate data from space.
    NASA's role in the new JPSS matches more closely its 
traditional role as NOAA's technical arm. According to Mr. 
Scolese, NASA's role in the restructured program will follow 
the model of the successful Polar Operational Environmental 
Satellite and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 
program. In keeping with the IRT recommendations, NASA's earth 
satellite management expertise at the Goddard Space Flight 
Center will be made available to the JPSS program. NASA will 
also assume leadership of the instrument development programs.
    Having regained responsibility for managing satellites and 
operations in the morning orbit, Mr. Klinger indicated that 
DOD, in cooperation with NOAA/NASA, is completing an analysis 
for fulfilling the morning orbit requirements, which will serve 
as the basis for DOD's portion the restructured program. In its 
initial planning, Klinger indicated that DOD expects to have 
its first Defense Weather Satellite System spacecraft in orbit 
by 2018, and the Department intends to adapt existing NPOESS 
designs and technology to the extent it can.
    Mr. Powner provided a more skeptical outlook on the 
likelihood that NOAA and DOD would easily transition to their 
separate acquisitions. Even with the changes, both agencies 
would still find it necessary to cooperate on data sharing. Mr. 
Powner's primary message to the Subcommittee was that `` . . . 
until an interagency strategy for each earth observation is 
established, and a clear process of implanting it is in place, 
federal agencies will continue to procure their immediate 
priorities on an ad hoc basis, the economic benefits of a 
coordinated approach to investments in earth observation may be 
lost, and the continuity of key measurements may be lost.'' GAO 
also recommended that OSTP accelerate efforts to construct the 
national strategy for earth observations to help in guiding 
decisions on the satellite and ground networks now central to 
our understanding of environmental change around the globe.
    During the question and answer period, Members sought more 
detailed information on the changes underway after OSTP's 
decision, particularly in the DOD program. Ms. Glackin provided 
assurances that the United States would continue to host 
search-and-rescue transponders in orbit, even if it was not 
aboard the JPSS or DWSS spacecraft. Even with the choice to 
disentangle the two agencies, the witnesses continued to 
caution the Members that serious risks remain to completing the 
restructured program and constant attention to cost and 
schedule issues will be needed.

       4.3(q)_Building a Science of Economics for the Real World

                             July 20, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-106

Background
    On Thursday, July 20, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller (D-
NC) presiding, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
met to examine the promise and limits of modern macroeconomic 
theory in light of the current economic crisis. The 
Subcommittee had previously looked at how the global financial 
meltdown of 2008 may have been caused or abetted by financial 
risk models, many of which are rooted in the same assumptions 
upon which today's mainstream macroeconomic models are based. 
But the insights of economics, a field that aspires to be a 
science and for which the National Science Foundation (NSF) is 
the major funding resource in the Federal government, shape far 
more than what takes place on Wall Street. Economic analysis is 
used to inform virtually every aspect of domestic policy. If 
the generally accepted economic models inclined the Nation's 
policy makers to dismiss the notion that a crisis was possible, 
and then led them toward measures that may have been less than 
optimal in addressing it, it seems appropriate to ask why the 
economics profession cannot provide better policy guidance. 
Further, in an effort to improve the quality of economic 
science, should the Federal government consider supporting new 
avenues of research through the NSF?
    Five witnesses testified. (1) Dr. Robert M. Solow, 
Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, MIT; (2) Dr. 
Sidney G. Winter, Deloitte and Touche Professor Emeritus of 
Management, the Wharton School of the University of 
Pennsylvania; (3) Dr. Scott E. Page, Lenoid Hurwicz Collegiate 
Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics, 
University of Michigan; (4) Dr. V.V. Chari, Paul W. Frenzel 
Land Grant Professor of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota; 
(5) Dr. David C. Colander, Christian A. Johnson Distinguished 
Professor of Economics, Middlebury College.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller noted that 
the macroeconomic model known as the Dynamic Stochastic General 
Equilibrium model (DSGE), which underpins a view of the economy 
that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Allen Greenspan 
admitted to be flawed, is still in favor today, both in 
academia and at the world's central banks. The Chairman 
explained that this model, designed as a theorist's tool, is 
now a significant factor in many critical policy decisions, 
with questionable results. The Chairman put forward the 
questions of whether any existing economic models have the 
potential to help the Nation find its way out of the current 
recession and whether the Federal government should use its 
funding of economic science to encourage the development of 
alternative models, since the reigning models have performed so 
poorly. Ranking Member Paul Broun (R-GA), in his opening 
statement, stressed that ``despite the attempts of many to 
develop a scientific panacea for informing economic decisions, 
models are only a tool employed by decision makers and 
economists.''
    During the witness testimonies, Dr. Solow discussed why the 
approach to economics that dominates many elite universities 
and central banks and has great influence in other policy 
circles cannot solve the problems the United States faces. Dr. 
Solow explained that this approach does not offer any guidance 
or insight, and is in any case intrinsically bound to fail 
because it is based on false assumptions. He emphasized, 
however, that although there are huge gaps in our understanding 
of the economy and some models have proven to be flawed, that 
does not mean that macroeconomics as a whole should be 
discarded or discredited. Instead, Dr. Solow said, the 
economics profession must identify and get rid of models that 
do not fundamentally make sense, such as the DSGE, and look for 
alternatives that prove to be useful for practical ends, such 
as informing policy that would counter the recession.
    Dr. Winter, also discussing the shortcomings of the DSGE 
model, focused on the realities of economic life that are 
missing from it. Although all models simplify reality in a way 
that tells the truth while not aspiring to tell the whole 
truth, Dr. Winter said, DSGE is an extreme example of the 
tendency to analyze hyper-stylized versions of economic 
problems, thereby denying or suppressing observable and 
verifiable realities. Dr. Winter continued by discussing the 
important pieces missing from the model, how to integrate those 
missing aspects, and finally, the need to extend the quest for 
policy advice beyond models and their improvement.
    Dr. Page argued for the benefits of using a variety of 
models when trying to understand a complex system such as the 
economy. Complex-systems models, he said, have a particular 
ability to generate insights into complex phenomena, offering 
the pace of innovation and market crashes as examples. Dr. Page 
stressed that while single models are useful in predicting 
physical phenomena accurately, they are less capable of 
predicting economic outcomes because an economy, as a complex 
system, is made up of diverse parts that interact and behave in 
unpredictable ways. Dr. Page called upon economists to ``widen 
our lens and use a crowd of models to predict bounds and the 
likely fluctuations in the economy and to anticipate unintended 
consequences and riskiness of policy decisions . . . ''
    Dr. Chari described the various DSGE models that exist and 
how they have been modified to take into account more factors 
than previous DSGE models. He also discussed why the DSGE 
models failed to see the crisis coming, explaining that a lack 
of historical data and a disregard for experiences of other 
countries on the part of modelers had narrowed the scope of 
possible outcomes. Dr. Chari also said that government funding 
for economics research is a great investment in the Nation's 
future, as it will decrease the probability of another 
financial crisis.
    Dr. Colander stated that two structural changes must be 
implemented in the NSF program funding economics research in 
order to change the incentives that now promote economists' 
basing concrete policy advice on abstract formal models. First, 
diversity in the reviewer pool should be an explicit goal for 
NSF grants in the social sciences. This change, said Dr. 
Colander, would encourage more creative work and provide more 
commonsense feedback from the real world. Dr. Colander's second 
recommendation is to increase the number of researchers trained 
in relating models to the real world, as opposed to just 
constructing models, which, he said, could help reduce the 
likelihood of financial meltdowns in the future.
    During the question period, Members and panelists discussed 
whether and how policy choices by government can be captured by 
DSGE model, as well as the importance of not relying too 
heavily on one model or one set of models and the role of 
scientific and technological development in U.S. growth. Other 
topics included the economic effect of extending unemployment 
benefits, how to use the DSGE model from now on and how policy 
advice based on it should be regarded, and the characteristics 
and merits of alternative models. Members and panelists ended 
by discussing new areas of economics research and the direction 
of government-funded economics research.

     4.3(r)_Camp Lejeune: Contamination and Compensation, Looking 
                          Back, Moving Forward

                           September 16, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-108

Background
    On Thursday, September 16, 2010, the Honorable Brad Miller 
presiding (D-NC), the Subcommittee Investigations and 
Oversight, met to examine the toxic legacy of drinking water 
contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North 
Carolina. The hearing examined the Department of the Navy and 
U.S. Marine Corps' knowledge of past contamination at Camp 
Lejeune, as well as prior and current analyses by the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a sister 
agency of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
regarding toxic exposures at Camp Lejeune. The hearing also 
reviewed current cooperative efforts by the U.S. Navy and ATSDR 
concerning the identification and access to records required to 
complete these studies. In addition, the hearing examined the 
process by which veterans have been compensated for illnesses 
due to environmental exposures at Camp Lejeune and what steps 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Navy were 
currently taking to ensure that Camp Lejeune veterans and their 
dependents are quickly and appropriately compensated for any 
illnesses or health issues related to toxic exposures while 
serving at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base.
    Eight witnesses testified on two panels. Panel one was 
comprised of: (1) Dr. Richard Clapp, Professor Emeritus, 
Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of 
Public Health, environmental health policy consultant and 
member of the ATSDR Camp Lejeune Community Assistance Panel 
(CAP); (2) Mr. Mike Partain, Member ATSDR Camp Lejeune 
Community Assistance Panel (CAP) and breast cancer survivor 
born on Camp Lejeune; (3) Mr. Peter Devereaux, Former Marine 
Corps Corporal and Camp Lejeune veteran diagnosed with breast 
cancer; (4) Mr. Jim Watters, Director, Graduate Medical 
Education, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, former 
Navy Lieutenant, retired Commander, Navy Reserve, Medical 
Service Corps and Camp Lejeune veteran diagnosed with kidney 
cancer; (5) Mr. Michael Hargett, General Director, Anchimeric 
Associates and former co-owner of Grainer Laboratories; Panel 
2: (6) Dr. Chris Portier, Director, Agency for Toxic Substances 
and Disease Registry (ATSDR); (7) Mr. Thomas J. Pamperin, 
Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program 
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department 
of Veterans Affairs; (8) Major General Eugene G. Payne Jr. 
Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics 
(Facilities), Headquarters, United States Marine Corps.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Brad Miller stated that 
as many as one million Marines and their families training and 
living on the base at Camp Lejeune were exposed to toxic 
chemicals in their drinking water, including solvents such as 
trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) and by-
products of fuel such as benzene. He continued by saying, ``We 
will never be certain about all the adverse health consequences 
that come from consuming that toxic cocktail, but we can be 
certain that some Marines and some dependents will develop 
cancers that will shorten their lives. We are certain that the 
Marine Corps failed to close the wells promptly when they were 
informed of the presence of TCE and PCE in their water. 
Instead, they provided that water to their people for two more 
years.'' The Chairman also discussed the failure of the Navy 
and Marine Corps to admit and respond to their mistakes. He 
also discussed ATSDR's 1997 inadequate Public Health Assessment 
of human health hazards posed by Camp Lejeune's drinking water 
supply that it withdrew in 2009, primarily because it failed to 
address benzene contamination on the base. Ranking Member Paul 
Broun (R-GA), in his opening statement, expressed the sacred 
duty the United States government has to take care of its 
troops. Dr. Broun also said that although he is pleased that 
ATSDR is taking steps to further investigate this matter, and 
the VA is working to ensure that Veterans and their families 
are taken care of, this issue simply will not go away and needs 
to be adequately addressed. Furthermore, Dr. Broun said that 
protecting our service members and their families in return for 
their dedication and service is the least we can do.
    During the first panel, Dr. Clapp discussed the input he 
provided to the National Research Council (NRC) committee, in 
the form of a peer review, on the issue of Camp Lejeune's 
drinking water. Dr. Clapp said, ``The degree of contamination 
of drinking water at Camp Lejeune in the years between 1957 and 
1985 is the highest I have observed in my career as an 
environmental epidemiologist.'' He also said that water 
modeling, based on chemical exposures, makes it possible to 
examine the patterns of mortality from a wide range of cancers 
and reproductive outcomes and childhood cancer. Dr. Clapp also 
outlined steps the Department of Veterans Affairs can take to 
address the effects of contamination.
    Mr. Partain provided a detailed account of the water 
contamination at Camp Lejeune. He brought forward a multitude 
of evidence documenting the Navy and Marine Corps' neglect on 
the issue and showed how the Marine Corps' statements do not 
match historical documents. He called for Congress to act on 
this issue since the Navy and Marine Corps are not helping the 
Marines, Sailors, their family members, and base employees 
sickened by the fouled water at Camp Lejeune, despite well 
documented evidence of water contamination.
    Mr. Devereaux discussed how his incurable metastatic breast 
cancer has impacted his life and his family and the disease's 
connection to the contaminated water he drank at Camp Lejeune. 
He also discussed his experience fighting for support from the 
VA, saying that although he finally received full disability, 
many others are not as lucky.
    Mr. Watters discussed how his cancer, renal cell carcinoma, 
has impacted his life as well as his discovery, long after his 
diagnoses, that the Marine Corps and Navy knew of Camp 
Lejeune's water contamination and its connection to health 
problems such as cancer, but did not offer help. Mr. Watters 
also discussed his fight to obtain a disabilities claim with 
VA. Additionally, he said, ``It is my firm belief that the U.S. 
Marine Corps and Department of the Navy leadership have 
abandoned and betrayed their wounded from Camp Lejeune, 
including women and children, and left them to suffer and 
die.''
    Mr. Hargett discussed his experience working with the Navy 
and Marine Corps to test Camp Lejeune's water, and the fact 
that when contamination was found, leadership did not seem to 
do much about it. There is no question, Mr. Hargett said, that 
military personnel, dependents, and base personnel were exposed 
to the hazard and that corrections were eventually 
accomplished, but the poor interest from the Deputy Utilities 
manager lead him to believe that the corrective actions were 
slow.
    During the first panel's question and answer period, 
Members and panelists discussed the inconsistency between the 
Marine Corps statements about Camp Lejeune and scientific data. 
Members and panelists also discussed the appeals process for 
obtaining benefits through the VA, the rarity of male breast 
cancer in the general population as opposed to the population 
from Camp Lejeune, and the documented diseases associated with 
exposure to PCE, TCE and benzene.
    During the second panel of witness testimonies, Dr. Portier 
provided background on ATSDR's health assessments on Camp 
Lejeune and the primary drinking water contaminants at Camp 
Lejeune. Dr. Portier also discussed ATSDR's current activities 
concerning Camp Lejeune, describing its work on water modeling 
as a way to provide the best possible estimates on the levels 
of chemical exposures for different populations.
    Mr. Pamperin discussed what the VA has done to determine 
whether studies, such as the one done by the NRC, provided a 
sufficient scientific basis for determining whether the 
population of Camp Lejeune has, in fact, ``suffered adverse 
health effects as a result of exposure to contaminants in the 
water supply.'' Mr. Pamperin also discussed the VA's claim 
process, and ended by saying that the VA awards benefits to 
Veterans who have demonstrated that they are suffering due to 
adverse exposures at Camp Lejeune, but there is not, in their 
eyes, sufficient evidence to justify all claims for Camp 
Lejeune Veterans.
    Major General Payne opened his testimony by stating that 
the welfare of Marines and their family members as well as 
civilian employees has always been of paramount importance to 
the Marine Corps and Navy. Major General Payne discussed his 
knowledge of past water contamination at Camp Lejeune, saying 
that at the time, in the 1980s, there were inconsistent 
findings concerning the water's chemical contamination. He also 
said that there were no drinking water regulations in place 
banning the existence of TCE or PCE at the time of their 
discovery. He outlined the steps they took to investigate 
contamination and to notify those who were exposed to 
contaminants, well as their cooperation with ATSDR and other 
health initiatives. He ended by saying, ``currently, scientific 
studies haven't determined reliably whether diseases and 
disorders experienced by former residents and workers at Camp 
Lejeune are associated with their exposure to contaminants in 
the water supply because of shortcomings and methodological 
limitations.'' Both Dr. Clapp and Dr. Portier, however, pointed 
out that there is a wide body of valid scientific studies that 
have determined public health harm from exposure to the same 
chemicals discovered in the drinking water supplies at Camp 
Lejeune.
    During the second panel's question and answer period, 
Members and panelists discussed the influence of lawyers on the 
second panel's testimonies and the apparent discrepancies in 
Major General Payne's and Mr. Pamperin's testimonies and 
supporting documents. They also discussed how the conclusions 
reached by the NAS report compare to the evidence gathered and 
reported by ATSDR over the last 20 years. They ended by 
discussing the VA claims process and its fairness, as well as 
the lack of urgency on behalf of the Marine Corps and Navy to 
address the problem of toxic contaminants in the drinking water 
supplies at Camp Lejeune when they were first discovered.
          4.4--SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

          4.4(a)_Beyond the Classroom: Informal STEM Education

                           February 26, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-5

Background
    On February 26, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education 
held a hearing to explore the potential for informal STEM 
learning to engage students in math and science in ways that 
traditional formal learning environments cannot, as well as the 
ways in which informal STEM education can complement and 
enhance classroom STEM studies. Furthermore, the Subcommittee 
received testimony on the National Academies report entitled, 
``Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, 
and Pursuits.''
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, 
Division Director, Division of Research on Learning in Formal 
and Informal Settings, Education and Human Resources 
Directorate, National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Phillip Bell, 
Professor, College of Education, the University of Washington, 
Seattle; (3) Ms. Andrea Ingram, Vice President of Education and 
Guest Experiences, Museum of Science and Industry-Chicago; (4) 
Mr. Robert Lippincott, Senior Vice President for Education, the 
Public Broadcasting Service; and (5) Dr. Alejandro Grajal, 
Senior Vice President of Conservation, Education, and Training, 
the Chicago Zoological Society.
Summary
    Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by describing the wide 
variety of educational activities that can take place outside 
of the traditional classroom, and highlighted the role informal 
education can play in promoting student interest and 
participation in the STEM fields, particularly for individuals 
from groups historically under-represented in STEM. Ranking 
Member Ehlers (R-MI) echoed Chairman Lipinski's sentiment that 
informal educators are uniquely positioned to engage students 
and the general public. Mr. Ehlers also noted that there are 
unique challenges to assessing and evaluating the effectiveness 
of informal STEM education.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy described 
the National Science Foundation's investment in informal STEM 
education programming and research. In his testimony, Dr. Bell 
described the findings and recommendations of the National 
Academies report entitled, ``Learning Science in Informal 
Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits.'' Dr. Bell also 
highlighted the research and activities of the Learning in 
Informal and Formal Environments Center, or LIFE Center, an 
NSF-funded collaboration of the University of Washington, 
Stanford University, and SRI International. In her testimony, 
Ms. Ingram described the Museum of Science and Industry's 
activities to promote STEM learning, specifically through the 
museum's Center for the Advancement of Science Education whose 
programming reaches both the general public as well as students 
on school organized field trips, and the Institute for Quality 
Science Teaching which partners with local schools and 
universities to improve teacher training. Dr. Lippincott 
described STEM educational programming offered by PBS, and the 
role of digital and electronic media in exciting youth about 
the STEM fields. Dr. Grajal described the activities of the 
Chicago Zoo, specifically highlighting their extensive teacher 
training programs and their partnerships with the Chicago 
Public School System.
    During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused 
on: the need for improved coordination of informal and formal 
STEM education activities and the importance of partnerships 
between informal and formal educators, challenges to assessing 
STEM learning in informal environments and barriers to 
developing better metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of 
informal STEM education, and the challenge of reaching students 
and teachers from areas with limited access to traditional 
informal learning environments such as museums or zoos.

       4.4(b)_Coordination of International Science Partnerships

                             March 24, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-14

Background
    On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to receive testimony on draft 
legislation to recreate a committee under the National Science 
and Technology Council for the coordination and planning of 
international science and technology activities and 
partnerships between and among Federal research agencies and 
the Department of State.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Jon C. Strauss, Chairman 
of the National Science Board Task Force on International 
Science; (2) Dr. Norman P. Neureiter, Director of the Center 
for Science, Technology and Security Policy, American 
Association for the Advancement of Science; (3) Mr. Anthony 
``Bud'' Rock, Vice President for Global Engagement at Arizona 
State University; and (4) Dr. Gerald Hane, Managing Director, 
Q-Paradigm.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the 
importance of international cooperation in science and 
technology (S&T) and the history of mechanisms for interagency 
coordination of international S&T activities. He then stated 
that the purpose of the hearing was to receive comments on the 
potential purpose, uniqueness, and efficacy of an interagency 
coordinating committee for international S&T as described in 
the proposed legislation. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) agreed 
on the importance of international S&T cooperation and of 
interagency cooperation on this topic and stated that he 
supported the goals of the draft legislation.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Strauss elaborated on the 
recommendations in the National Science Board report on 
international science and engineering partnerships, including 
the recommendation for an interagency committee that served as 
the basis for the proposed legislation. Dr. Neureiter stated 
that he supported the proposed legislation and offered some 
specific recommendations about its role. He also recommended 
that the legislation go further by helping to create a 
dedicated fund for high priority S&T cooperation. Mr. Rock 
stated that an interagency coordinating committee should first 
and foremost be assigned the lead responsibility to define the 
international dimensions of cross-cutting national research 
priorities, that is, research and development areas that 
require coordinated investment across multiple agencies. Dr. 
Hane was unable to appear at the hearing due to unforeseeable 
travel delays.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on the specific recommendations for how the 
interagency committee proposed in the draft legislation should 
and should not function, for example who should chair, what the 
priorities of the committee should be, and how its role must be 
unique from other interagency committees and individual 
agencies. Members also asked panelists about other 
recommendations for strengthening international S&T 
cooperation, including recommendations to specific agencies 
such as the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development. Panelists also discussed how 
partnerships are initially formed between foreign science 
ministers and organizations and U.S. counterparts, but they 
suggested that the interagency committee is not an appropriate 
point of contact.

                       4.4(c)_Cyber Security R&D

                             June 10, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-31

Background
    On Tuesday, June 10, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science held 
a hearing to explore the state of federal cybersecurity 
research and development and the adequacy of cybersecurity 
education and workforce training programs.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Seymour Goodman, 
Professor of International Affairs and Computing and Co-
Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center, Georgia 
Institute of Technology; (2) Ms. Liesyl Franz, Vice President, 
Information Security and Global Public Policy, TechAmerica; (3) 
Dr. Anita D'Amico, Director, Secure Decisions Division, Applied 
Visions, Inc.; (4) Dr. Fred Schneider, Samuel B. Eckert 
Professor of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, 
Cornell University; and (5) Mr. Timothy Brown, Vice President 
and Chief Architect, CA Security Management.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the 
benefits of information technology, but also the vulnerability 
of our networks to cyber attack. He cited the rising cost of 
cyber crimes to the federal government, businesses and 
individuals, and emphasized the role of cybersecurity R&D and 
education in improving the security of cyberspace. Ranking 
Member Ehlers (R-MI) expressed the importance of improving 
cybersecurity for both the Federal Government and the private 
sector and the need to foster trust and information exchange 
between the public and private sector in the pursuit of common 
goals.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Goodman discussed the 
need for technical advancements in cybersecurity, but stressed 
that advancements in non-technical areas such as human 
behavior, policy, and economics are also critical. Ms. Franz 
spoke about the importance of increasing public-private 
collaborations and the role of the private sector in 
cybersecurity. She recommended the establishment of a formal 
mechanism for industry input into the federal cybersecurity R&D 
portfolio. Dr. D'Amico discussed the role of the social 
sciences in cybersecurity, and how the Federal Government 
should foster collaborations between computer scientists and 
social scientists in order to increase system security and 
usability. Dr. Schneider spoke about increasing long-term 
investments in cybersecurity R&D and expressed concern that 
currently funded research is reactive rather than visionary. 
Mr. Brown testified about the value of moving scientific 
advancements from the laboratory to the marketplace.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the need for cybersecurity professionals 
to receive a multidisciplinary education, including in 
technical and non-technical areas, the need to design security 
into hardware and software from the beginning, risks in the 
supply chain, and research needed to detect component 
modifications. The question and answer period also included a 
discussion of incentives to improve the adoption of 
cybersecurity measures, increasing consumer understanding of 
cybersecurity risks, and ways to increase technology transfer 
and foster university-industry research partnerships.

           4.4(d)_Agency Response to Cyberspace Policy Review

                             June 16, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-34

Background
    On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation and 
the Subcommittee on Research and Education held a joint hearing 
to review the response of the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to the findings and 
recommendations in the Administration's 60-day Cyberspace 
Policy Review.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Ms. Cita Furlani, Director, 
Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (2) Dr. Jeannette 
Wing, Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer & 
Information Science & Engineering, NSF; (3) Dr. Robert F. 
Leheny, Acting Director, DARPA; and (4) Dr. Peter Fonash, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Cyber Security 
Communications, DHS.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Wu cited his displeasure 
with the effectiveness of previous government-funded 
cybersecurity efforts and their levels of success. Chairman Wu 
stated that this hearing would highlight the progress of the 
four Federal agencies tasked with bolstering and maintaining 
federal cybersecurity standards and what steps are being taken 
for future improvements. Ranking Member Smith cited both the 
previous and current Administration's commitment to the issue 
of cybersecurity and said that, while there exists a consensus 
for a strong bipartisan commitment to bolstering cybersecurity 
both domestically and abroad, the country is still at the 
earliest stages of doing so and that Congress must balance the 
haste to find solutions with careful deliberation on the 
solutions they choose. He wondered if enough effort is being 
placed on cybersecurity research and development efforts, 
whether $30 billion dollars is an appropriate amount to invest 
in cybersecurity, and how we can improve the security of 
private sector networks as well as public domains. Chairman 
Lipinski stressed the need for more information sharing between 
the public and private sectors and the challenges of 
incentivizing agencies to better address the problems of 
cybersecurity, as well as deficiencies in the information 
technology education field. He called for a change in the 
culture of how Americans practice their computer hygiene and 
for the formation of a secure and resilient cyberspace for not 
only the Federal Government, but the private sector as well.
    Ms. Furlani said that NIST accelerates the development and 
deployment of information and communication systems that are 
reliable, usable, interoperable, and secure. She asserted that 
NIST is actively engaged with private industry, academia, non-
national security federal departments and agencies, the 
intelligence community, and other elements of the law 
enforcement and national security communities in coordinating 
and prioritizing cyber security research, standards 
development, standards conformance demonstration, and cyber 
security education and outreach.
    Dr. Wing said that many cyber security measures deployed 
today capitalize on fundamental research outcomes generated 
decades ago. NSF agrees with the recent 60-Day Cyberspace 
Policy Review that a national strategy to secure cyberspace in 
both the near- and the long-term must include investments in 
fundamental, unclassified, open, long-term research. Many of 
the cyberspace security methods used today were developed by 
the open research community, many with an application in mind 
other than security.
    Dr. Leheny talked about DARPA's role in cybersecurity 
research and advancement, and specifically mentioned one 
program, which develops a National Cyber Range. This range will 
be a vehicle for significantly advancing progress in cyber 
understanding and capabilities, serving as a tool for rapid, 
realistic, and quantitative simulation assessment of cyber 
technologies. He also talked about coordinating research with 
other agencies, noting that--in general--program managers 
engage with their counterparts in other agencies to scope out 
the best way forward to achieve a specific research goal.
    Mr. Fonash said that DHS leads a multi-agency approach to 
coordinate the security of federal, civil, and executive branch 
networks. He said that the United States Computer Emergency 
Readiness Team (US-CERT) serves as the focal point for the 
security of federal civil executive branch networks. Agencies 
report instances to US-CERT, which then provides guidance to 
agencies on enhancing detection capabilities and works with 
them to mitigate information security incidents. DHS has also 
led the Comprehensive Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) effort to 
establish a front-line defense for the federal executive 
branch. DHS also has plans to deploy EINSTEIN, an intrusion 
detection system. He said that DHS works with industry and 
government partners to secure the Nation's critical 
infrastructure networks.

    4.4(e)_Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in STEM 
                                 Fields

                             July 21, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-45

Background
    On July 21, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education 
held a hearing to examine current research findings, best 
practices, and the role of the federal agencies in increasing 
the interest of girls in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) in primary and secondary school, and 
addressing the challenges that deter young women from pursuing 
post-secondary STEM degrees.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief 
Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of 
Science (AAAS); (2) Dr. Marcia Brumit Kropf, Chief Operating 
Officer, Girls Incorporated; (3) Dr. Sandra Hanson, Professor 
of Sociology, Catholic University; (4) Ms. Barbara Bogue, 
Associate Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics and 
Women in Engineering, Penn State College of Engineering; and 
(5) Ms. Cheryl Thomas, President, Ardmore Associates LLC.
Summary
    Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by describing the 
disproportionately low number of women earning undergraduate 
degrees in certain STEM fields such as engineering, computer 
science, and physics. He stressed that broadening the STEM 
pipeline is critical to our Nation's economic competitiveness. 
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) echoed Chairman Lipinski's 
sentiment, also citing statistics that demonstrate the 
disparities in the participation of women in STEM.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Leshner discussed some of 
the efforts of AAAS to increase the participation of women in 
the STEM fields. He spoke about the challenges women face in 
the scientific workforce and stressed that even among women who 
do attain STEM degrees, many leave careers in science because 
of work environments and institutional cultures that do not 
support them and their needs related to balancing work and 
family life. Dr. Kropf suggested that a major constraint for 
women is the often perpetuated stereotype regarding gender and 
the STEM fields, mainly that men are innately better at STEM 
and are better suited for careers in STEM. She also stressed 
the unique role informal learning can play in attracting women 
to STEM. Dr. Hanson described her own research, which suggests 
that young girls do not start out with low achievement in STEM, 
rather they begin to lose interest at many points along the 
pipeline, often due to a lack of support and encouragement. She 
echoed Dr. Kropf's claim regarding stereotypes, arguing that 
textbooks need to have more pictures of women scientists. She 
also stressed the importance of looking at the intersection of 
gender and race when examining barriers to increasing the 
participation of underrepresented groups in STEM. Dr. Bogue 
discussed the need for improved assessments and evaluation 
techniques in order to better determine effective mechanisms to 
recruit and retain women in the STEM fields. Dr. Thomas 
stressed the negative impact of stereotypes, asserting that 
girls are often deterred from pursuing STEM studies because 
generally they are thought of as being reserved for men. She 
discussed the need for girls to have strong, positive, female 
role models in the STEM fields.
    During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused 
on: the importance of positive role models and mentors for 
girls, the need to provide schools with better resources to 
encourage young girls, the role of informal and hands-on 
learning to encourage interest and participation of 
underrepresented groups in STEM, and the role sports and other 
out-of-school activities can play in increasing the confidence 
of young girls and thus their willingness to pursue studies and 
career tracks historically thought of as reserved for men.

       4.4(f)_A Systems Approach to Improving K-12 STEM Education

                             July 30, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-47

Background
    On July 30, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education 
held a hearing to examine how the many public and private 
stakeholders in an urban K-12 system can work together to 
improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 
education inside and outside of the classroom.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Wanda Ward, Acting 
Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and Human 
Resources, National Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Ms. Maggie 
Daley, Chair, After School Matters; (3) Mr. Michael Lach, 
Officer of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools; (4) 
Dr. Donald Wink, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department 
of Chemistry, and Director of Graduate Studies, Learning 
Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago; 
and (5) Ms. Katherine Pickus, Divisional Vice President, Global 
Citizenship and Policy, Abbott.
Summary
    Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by discussing the need 
for more students to participate in education in the STEM 
fields. He stated that there will be a wave of Americans 
retiring from these fields and students in this country need to 
enroll more frequently if the U.S. is to continue to lead in 
the global economy. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) noted that the 
hearing would help Members develop a greater appreciation of 
the particular challenges facing large urban school districts 
in their efforts to implement STEM education programs.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Ward stated that the NSF 
vision is aligned with STEM priorities in the America COMPETES 
Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She also 
stated that it is important to utilize technology to enhance 
learning. Ms. Daley talked about the importance of informal 
education and hands on learning. She noted that students in her 
program have higher graduation rates, lower dropout rates, and 
fewer course failures, and mentioned the need for government 
support of programs such as hers. Mr. Lach discussed the 
challenges and economic constraints facing the public school 
system in Illinois, and introduced key strategies to address 
these challenges. He also stressed the importance of 
partnerships between universities, businesses, museums, and 
laboratories. Dr. Wink discussed the importance of improving 
instruction and engaging students and STEM experts 
simultaneously. Ms. Pickus stated that it is essential to 
create a culture in which there is more interest in science. 
She also emphasized the importance of partnerships between 
programs with proven records and educational institutions.
    During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused 
on: the need to keep principals and administrators engaged and 
to make sure they have high expectations for both teachers and 
students to show proficiency in STEM content, the need to put 
accountability tools and supports in place to help poor 
minority students achieve, the importance of effective training 
for teachers, the challenges facing rural districts and the 
need to use computers for distance learning, the importance of 
partnerships among university science and education faculty, 
public schools, and other STEM institutions such as museums, 
the salary differences between urban and suburban school 
districts and the effects of the differential on science and 
math education, and whether it would be beneficial for the city 
of Chicago and other cities if the mayor was dedicated and 
gathered decision makers together.

          4.4(g)_Investing in High-Risk, High-Reward Research

                            October 8, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-55

Background
    On Thursday, October 8, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to examine mechanisms for funding 
high-risk, potentially high-reward research, and the 
appropriate role of the federal government in supporting such 
research.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Neal F. Lane, Malcolm 
Gillis University Professor and Senior Fellow, James A. Baker 
III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; (2) Dr. James 
P. Collins, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences, 
National Science Foundation (NSF); (3) Dr. Richard D. 
McCullough, Professor of Chemistry and Vice President of 
Research, Carnegie Mellon University; and (4) Dr. Gerald M. 
Rubin, Vice President and Director, Janelia Farm Research 
Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski stated his 
concern that the peer-review system has become too conservative 
in its funding decisions, expressed the Subcommittee's 
intention to address high-risk, high-reward research during the 
reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, and indicated his 
interest in hearing about appropriate mechanisms to support 
such research. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized the 
importance of addressing transformative research within the 
basic research portfolio.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Lane described 
recommendations for NSF from the American Academy of Arts and 
Sciences' report on high-risk, high-reward research, including 
the establishment a targeted program to support high-risk 
research, the development of metrics to evaluate the success of 
the program, and the creation of other policies and mechanisms 
to support high-risk research. Dr. Collins testified that NSF 
is currently exploring methods and measures to understand the 
contributions of high-risk research and to inform future 
investments. Dr. McCullough indicated that the current peer-
review system is not conducive to high-risk research and 
offered a number of recommendations, including the 
establishment of a specific program for high-risk research, and 
the development of special review panels to evaluate high-risk 
research proposals. Dr. Rubin described the way in which the 
Howard Hughes Medical Institute supports cutting-edge research 
and the premise of their investigator program which is ``people 
not projects.''
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the need for a diversity of funding 
mechanisms to support high-risk research, including the seed 
funding, prizes, and support for individuals over specific 
projects. Members and panelists also discussed the need to 
change the culture of review panels and the reward criteria at 
institutions of higher education in order to encourage more 
high-risk research.

                  4.4(h)_Engineering in K-12 Education

                            October 22, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-57

Background
    On October 22, 2009, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education 
held a hearing to examine the potential benefits of, challenges 
to, and current models for incorporating engineering education 
at the K-12 level.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Linda Katehi, Chair, 
National Academy of Engineering Committee on K-12 Engineering 
Education, and Chancellor, University of California, Davis; 
(2)Dr. Thomas Peterson, Assistant Director for Engineering, 
National Science Foundation (NSF); (3) Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis, 
President and Director, Museum of Science, Boston and Founder, 
National Center for Technological Literacy; (4) Dr. Darryll 
Pines, Dean and Nariman Farvardin Professor of Engineering, A. 
James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland, 
College Park; and (5) Mr. Rick Sandlin, Principal, Martha and 
Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, 
Texarkana, Texas.
Summary
    Chairman Lipinski opened the hearing by describing the 
growing effort to develop effective models for teaching 
engineering education at the K-12 level, and expressed his 
interest in learning how the integration of engineering 
concepts in K-12 math and science teaching could be used to 
improve student achievement in all STEM fields. Ranking Member 
Ehlers (R-MI) noted the unique and important role engineering 
could play in elementary and secondary education, while 
stressing the importance of building a strong research base 
regarding the teaching and learning of engineering in the K-12 
classroom.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Katehi described the 
findings and recommendations of the National Academy of 
Engineering study, entitled ``Engineering in K-12 Education.'' 
Specifically, she emphasized the benefits of an integrated 
approach to STEM education, the need to improve professional 
development opportunities in engineering education for K-12 
teachers, and the role engineering education can play in 
increasing participation of individuals from underrepresented 
groups in STEM. Dr. Peterson described investments made by the 
National Science Foundation in K-12 engineering education and 
research. Dr. Miaoulus described the Museum of Science Boston's 
activities to promote engineering literacy, specifically, the 
development of engineering curriculum for elementary students, 
the offering of teacher professional development opportunities, 
and the development of university curricula to train future 
teachers in engineering education principles. Dr. Pines 
described outreach efforts, including student summer programs 
and teacher professional development activities, supported by 
the University of Maryland, School of Engineering. Mr. Sandlin 
described the students' experience and the curriculum offered 
at the Martha and Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering 
Elementary School.
    During the discussion period, Members and witnesses focused 
on: the relationship between engineering education and 
technological literacy, NSF's investments in K-12 engineering 
education and coordination of the programs being managed by 
NSF's Engineering Directorate and the Education and Human 
Resources Directorate, activities to increase student 
engagement and recruitment into engineering, and professional 
development for K-12 teachers.

     4.4(i)_Strengthening Undergraduate and Graduate STEM Education

                            February 4, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-76

Background
    On Thursday, February 4, 2010, the Honorable Daniel 
Lipinski (D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education held a hearing to examine the current state 
of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education 
in undergraduate and graduate institutions. In particular, in 
preparation for the Committee's reauthorization of the America 
COMPETES Act, the hearing focused on the role of the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) in strengthening STEM education at 
U.S. colleges and universities.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, 
Acting Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources at 
the National Science Foundation; (2) Mr. Rick Stephens, Senior 
Vice President for Resources and Administration at the Boeing 
Company, and Chair of the Aerospace Industries Association's 
(AIA) Workforce Steering Committee; (3) Dr. Noah Finkelstein, 
Associate Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at 
Boulder; (4) Dr. Karen Klomparens, Associate Provost and Dean 
for Graduate Education at Michigan State University; and (5) 
Dr. Robert Mathieu, Professor and Chair of Astronomy and 
Director of the Center for the Integration of Research, 
Technology and Learning (CIRTL) at the University of Wisconsin 
at Madison.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the 
significant increase in foreign investment in the STEM fields, 
arguing that the U.S. needs to increase its own investment in 
STEM education in order to keep up with the global pace of 
competition and innovation. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) 
similarly noted the importance of investing in STEM education, 
and he expressed concern that the fiscal year 2011 NSF budget 
did not include funding increases for university-based programs 
supporting the training of STEM teachers.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy discussed 
NSF's mission as it relates to education, and described a 
number of the Foundation's programs specifically designed to 
help strengthen STEM education. Mr. Stephens discussed the 
skills shortage in the aging science and technology workforce, 
noting that defense contractors are particularly limited 
because they often can only employ U.S. citizens. He also 
discussed the negative portrayal of scientists and engineers in 
the media, and described AIA's efforts to combat these 
stereotypes.
    Dr. Finkelstein argued that higher education is the 
``critical lynchpin'' of the STEM education system, and noted 
that despite knowing what needs to be done, successful models 
of teaching and learning are not widespread in the STEM 
community; scientists and educators are not applying scientific 
methods to the problem of fixing STEM education itself. Dr. 
Klomparens discussed the challenge of recruiting students to 
the STEM fields, and recommended establishing better 
connections between K-12, undergraduate and graduate 
institutions. Dr. Mathieu focused on inadequate teacher 
preparation and attrition as two of the major barriers to a 
STEM-qualified workforce.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on metrics for and evaluations of NSF's 
education initiatives, the chasm between schools of education 
and science communities, the need for institutional support and 
structure in order to scale up successful programs, the 
effectiveness of using NSF CAREER awards and modified incentive 
structures to encourage better teaching practices, the 
characteristics of engineering schools which produce the most 
effective workers, and the use of media to change perceptions 
of the STEM fields.

          4.4(j)_The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S. 
                              Universities

                           February 23, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-77

Background
    On Tuesday, February 23, 2010, the Honorable Daniel 
Lipinski (D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education held a hearing to examine the research and 
research training infrastructure of our universities and 
colleges, including research facilities, and 
cyberinfrastructure capabilities, the capacity of the research 
infrastructure to meet the needs of U.S. scientists and 
engineers now and in the future, and the appropriate role of 
the Federal government in sustaining such infrastructure.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Leslie Tolbert, Vice 
President for Research for the Graduate Studies and Economic 
Development at the University of Arizona; (2) Mr. Albert 
Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business at 
Pennsylvania State University; (3) Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice 
President for Academic Affairs and Provost at the Medical 
University of South Carolina, and Chair of the State of South 
Carolina EPSCoR Committee; and (4) Dr. Thom Dunning, Director 
of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski noted the 
importance of maintaining and modernizing research 
infrastructure to ensure that federal research funding can be 
used efficiently and on the most cutting-edge research. He 
asked that the witnesses comment on how federal dollars should 
be balanced between infrastructure needs and direct research 
costs. Ranking Member Ehlers expressed concern about the need 
to improve academic research infrastructure, but also noted 
that the National Science Foundation's expertise and mission is 
in funding peer-reviewed basic research and suggested that NSF 
might not be an appropriate venue for infrastructure funding.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Tolbert noted that 
increased mandates and reporting requirements, specifically for 
research compliance, are increasingly consuming the 
``facilities and administration'' reimbursements that have been 
traditionally used to offset infrastructure costs. She also 
noted, as a representative from a state university, that state 
funding for new buildings and building maintenance is very low, 
and commended federal programs such as the Academic Research 
Infrastructure program and the Major Research Instrumentation 
and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 
programs for helping to cover these expenses. Mr. Horvath noted 
that from a financial management perspective, major 
infrastructure investments are particularly complicated and 
expensive to establish and maintain, and that recent 
uncertainty about funding and the consequences of the economic 
downturn have made it even more difficult to fund new 
infrastructure and to continue servicing debt on previous 
projects.
    Dr. Raymond discussed South Carolina's Experimental Program 
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) grants from NSF and 
NASA and the effect these grants have had on the state's 
research infrastructure and capacity. He also suggested 
improvements to that program, including dividing it into 
research, education, and workforce components, increasing 
funding, and adding new funds for maintenance of existing 
research facilities as well. Dr. Dunning focused specifically 
on cyberinfrastructure needs as related to high-performance 
computing, including the need for increased user support at 
universities, his concern about too-frequent competitions for 
supercomputing contracts, balance between software and hardware 
needs, and networks and their limited data capacities.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the infrastructure maintenance deficit, 
the United States' competitiveness in supercomputing relative 
to other countries, American students' declining interest in 
computer science fields, state and industry support for higher 
education investments, linking research investments to regional 
economic goals, collaboration between federal agencies on 
research funding, how infrastructure affects universities' 
ability to compete with other American universities or with 
foreign universities for top faculty and graduate students, 
productivity loss due to infrastructure needs, administrative 
burdens on research grant recipients, how EPSCoR could help 
smaller universities, community colleges, technical colleges 
and minority-serving institutions, and the effect of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on infrastructure 
demands.

    4.4(k)_The National Science Foundation's FY 2011 Budget Request

                             March 10, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-83

Background
    On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to examine the priorities in the 
National Science Foundation's FY 2011 budget request. In 
addition, in preparation for reauthorization of the 2007 
America COMPETES Act, the Subcommittee examined core 
activities, initiatives, and policy directions for research, 
infrastructure, education and workforce training at the 
Foundation.
    There were two witnesses: (1) Dr. Arden Bement, Director of 
the National Science Foundation (NSF); and (2) Dr. Steven 
Beering, Chair of the National Science Board (NSB).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski expressed his 
support for the overall increase in the NSF budget, but also 
expressed concern about the lack of increase or, in some cases, 
the decrease in funding in specific areas--namely the Education 
and Human Resources Directorate, research infrastructure 
funding, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative budget. 
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) also expressed concern regarding 
funding for education programs at NSF, especially for the Math 
and Science Partnerships program and the Noyce program.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Bement noted that the 8 
percent increase in the overall budget keeps the Foundation on 
track to double its budget, as recommended in the America 
COMPETES Act. He also said that the main driver for the budget 
was the National Innovation Strategy, and went on to summarize 
specific programs and areas of the budget that reflect the 
Administration's priorities with respect to innovation and STEM 
education. Dr. Beering discussed the implications of the 
National Science Board's recently issued biannual statistical 
report, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, and encouraged 
Congress to fund in full the President's NSF budget request.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists discussed a number of issues, including science 
diplomacy, NSF's role in federal STEM initiatives and in 
partnering with the Department of Education, the budget for the 
Engineering and Human Resources directorate, energy 
independence, scientific integrity, NSF's proposed 
consolidation of Broadening Participation programs, research 
commercialization, research infrastructure, Recovery Act 
spending, and transformative research.

                4.4(l)_Broadening Participation in STEM

                             March 16, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-85

Background
    On Tuesday, March 16, 2010, the Honorable Marcia Fudge (D-
OH) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to examine institutional and cultural 
barriers to broadening the participation of students from 
underrepresented groups pursuing degrees in science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), efforts to 
overcome these barriers at both mainstream and minority serving 
institutions, and the role that Federal agencies can play in 
supporting these efforts.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Head 
of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs, 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, (2) Dr. 
Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor of Higher Education, 
University of Southern California, (3) Dr. Keivan Stassun, 
Associate Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt 
University, (4) Dr. David Yarlott, President of Little Big Horn 
College, and (5) Ms. Elaine Craft, Director of the South 
Carolina Advanced Technological Education National Resource 
Center, Florence-Darlington Technical College.
Summary
    In her opening statement, Vice Chairwoman Fudge stated the 
need to produce more scientists and engineers, in addition to 
creating a more STEM-literate workforce in order to fill the 
growing number of technical jobs. She further emphasized the 
need to develop all of the STEM talent the nation has to offer, 
including by increasing the number of underrepresented minority 
students pursuing STEM degrees, to meet the workforce demands. 
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) suggested that while some progress 
had been made in attracting and retaining underrepresented 
minorities in STEM, the overall numbers are still discouraging 
and that he was interested in learning how the Federal 
government could leverage successful programs. Ms. Fudge and 
Mr. Ehlers both expressed interest in hearing the panelists' 
opinion on the National Science Foundation's proposal to 
consolidate a number of broadening participation programs.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Malcom outlined the data 
trends for the participation of women, minorities, and persons 
with disabilities in STEM and expressed the need to improve 
federal coordination of broadening participation efforts. 
Malcom also stated that in addition to diversifying the student 
population, we need to focus on increasing the number of 
individuals from underrepresented groups within STEM faculty. 
Dr. Dowd described the role of community colleges in improving 
the participation of Hispanic students in STEM, and the 
importance of institutional change in increasing STEM 
diversity. Dr. Stassun described the partnership between Fisk 
University and Vanderbilt University to transition students 
from Fisk's STEM master's degree programs to Vanderbilt's Ph.D. 
degree programs. Stassun outlined the key strategies of the 
successful program, which included recruiting minority students 
with unrealized potential, strong mentorship, and dedicated 
faculty. Dr. Yarlott described the importance of the National 
Science Foundation's Tribal Colleges and Universities Program 
(TCUP) as well as the unique challenges faced by tribal 
colleges and the communities they serve. He offered several 
recommendations on how to modify TCUP and other NSF-funded 
programs to better serve tribal colleges. Ms. Craft described 
the central role community colleges have to play in broadening 
the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM. She 
emphasized the need to improve STEM teaching and the 
opportunity that exists to integrate STEM topics into remedial 
courses that most community colleges students need to take 
prior to pursuing a STEM degree.
    During the question and answer period, the Members and 
panelists focused on the importance of diversifying the STEM 
faculty to provide role models for minority students, the 
negative impact the lack of financial support has on a 
student's decision to pursue a STEM degree, the need to improve 
teaching strategies and methodologies, the importance of easing 
the transfer of students from community colleges to 4-year 
institutions, and the need to provide incentives such as a 
broader impacts review criterion at all Federal science 
agencies in order to encourage faculty and institutions of 
higher education to focus on broadening participation efforts.

        4.4(m)_From the Lab Bench to the Marketplace: Improving 
                          Technology Transfer

                             June 10, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-99

Background
    On Thursday, June 10, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to examine the process by which 
knowledge and technology are transferred from academic 
researchers to the private sector, and to identify best 
practices, policies, and other activities that can facilitate 
the commercialization of federally funded research for the 
benefit of society and the economic competitiveness of the 
United States.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Dr. Thomas W. Peterson, 
Assistant Director of the Directorate for Engineering at the 
National Science Foundation; (2) Ms. Lesa Mitchell, Vice 
President of Advancing Innovation at the Ewing Marion Kauffman 
Foundation; (3) Mr. W. Mark Crowell, Executive Director and 
Associate Vice President for Innovation Partnerships and 
Commercialization at the University of Virginia; (4) Mr. Wayne 
Watkins, Associate Vice President for Research at the 
University of Akron; (5) Mr. Keith L. Crandell, Co-founder and 
Managing Director at ARCH Venture Partners; and (6) Mr. Neil D. 
Kane, President and Co-founder of Advanced Diamond 
Technologies, Inc.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski discussed the 
need to turn discoveries at the academic level into 
economically productive products, companies and jobs, 
especially in light of increasing technological competition 
from other countries. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized 
his desire to learn about partnerships between universities, 
industry, and the National Science Foundation.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Peterson described NSF's 
role in supporting translational research, and focused on NSF's 
Engineering Research Centers, the Industry/University 
Cooperative Research Centers, and NSF's Small Business 
Innovation Research and Small Business Tech Transfer programs 
as examples of ways in which NSF has been able to successfully 
support technology transfer and commercialization of new 
technologies in academia. Ms. Mitchell called for an increase 
in transparency of federally funded research, for funding 
agencies to become more involved in the technology transfer 
process, and for an increase in funding for proof-of-concept 
centers and commercialization education programs. Mr. Crowell 
noted the change in the technology transfer sector from being 
largely reactive in the 1980s and 1990s to being highly 
sophisticated and driven by best practices today, especially in 
concentrated areas of entrepreneurial activity.
    Mr. Watkins focused on the need for university 
administrations to demonstrate commitment to innovation and 
technology transfer, the need for tech transfer offices to be 
flexible and adaptable, the appropriate roles that government 
can play in the innovation process, and on the need for 
universities, industry, and government to collaborate 
effectively in the technology transfer process. Mr. Crandell, 
drawing from his experience as a venture capitalist, discussed 
the importance of commercialization metrics, the need to focus 
added funding on the top one percent of scientists, a realistic 
standard of conduct that relies on actual conflict of interest 
and not the appearance of such, encouragement of exclusive 
licenses, and his desire for investor-backed companies to 
qualify for SBIR grants. Lastly, Mr. Kane focused on the 
barriers that he has encountered in attempting technology 
transfers from universities and federal labs, including 
transaction costs of executing licenses, problems with 
conflicts of interest or visas for foreign nationals wanting to 
work in the United States, and the so-called ``valley of 
death,'' or the gap between applied research and commercial 
traction.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists discussed whether inventors or technology transfer 
offices should control patent licensing, if the United States 
has an advantage in industrial innovation and startup 
companies, whether the link between research and 
commercialization is an appropriate funding venue for the 
National Science Foundation, given that its focus is on basic 
research, how to alter the academic landscape or tenure 
structure to reward innovation and entrepreneurship as well as 
traditional research publishing, potential changes in visa 
policies to accommodate research and technology transfer needs, 
how promising university-industry relationships are identified, 
and how NSF might facilitate those interactions, the STAR 
METRICS initiative, and the qualities of an effective 
technology transfer office.

                      4.4(n)_21st Century Biology

                             June 29, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-103

Background
    On Tuesday, July 21, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to examine the future of the 
biological sciences, including research occurring at the 
intersection of the physical sciences, engineering, and 
biological sciences, and to examine the potential these 
emerging fields of interdisciplinary research hold for 
addressing grand challenges in energy, the environment, 
agriculture, materials, and manufacturing.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Chair of 
the National Academy of Sciences and Board on Life Sciences and 
Professor for the Department of Cellular and Molecular 
Pharmacology at the University of California in San Francisco; 
(2) Dr. James Collins, Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural 
History and the Environment at the Department of Ecology, 
Evolution & Environmental Science at Arizona State University; 
(3) Dr. Reinhard Laubenbacher, Professor of the Virginia 
Bioinformatics Institute and Department of Mathematics at 
Virginia Tech; (4) Dr. Joshua N. Leonard, Assistant Professor 
at the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at 
Northwestern University; and (5) Dr. Karl Sanford, Vice 
President of Technology Development at Genencor.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski expressed 
excitement about the potential of the ``new biology'' field, as 
well as his desire to learn more about the possibility of 
finding critical solutions to real-world problems at the 
intersection of biology and other fields, including the 
physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics. He also asked 
the witnesses for recommendations on how the National Science 
Foundation can foster interdisciplinary research and improve 
STEM education for students interested in these 
interdisciplinary fields. Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) 
discussed the emerging trend of using interdisciplinary 
research to solve problems, and expressed concern that graduate 
students receiving interdisciplinary training might end up with 
an overly broad scientific background rather than developing 
disciplinary expertise.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Yamamoto focused on the 
findings and recommendations of a National Research Council 
report, A New Biology for the 21st Century, which found that 
the field suffers from lack of recognition and inadequate 
support. He also noted the report committee's recommendation 
that life scientists and physical scientists should be 
collaborating on research to address grand challenges in four 
areas: food, energy, the environment, and health. Dr. Collins 
discussed the need for institutions to be innovative and 
adaptable when dealing with interdisciplinary research, stating 
the need to lower ``barriers that block the ready flow of 
knowledge and ideas between, for example, academic departments, 
funding agencies, or the public and private sector.'' Dr. 
Laubenbacher spoke about the role of mathematics in new 
biology, the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations and 
cross-agency coordination and the need for the Federal 
Government to support such initiatives. Dr. Laubenbacher also 
discussed workforce training including, interdisciplinary Ph.D. 
programs, integrated curricula and research experiences at the 
undergraduate level, faculty development opportunities, and 
inspiring future scientists.
    Dr. Leonard discussed the emerging field of synthetic 
biology and the importance of funding high-risk, high-reward 
projects in the field. Dr. Sanford stated that the future of 
biological research is in the ``Golden Triangle'' of 
information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology; each 
field has enormous potential in its own right, but would be 
further empowered if they collaborated to address society's 
challenges. He also stressed the importance of continued 
investment in research, education, business, and legal 
developments, transparency, and data-based decision making.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists focused on the role of the National Science 
Foundation in fostering interdisciplinary research, how to 
train future interdisciplinary scientists, the position of the 
United States relative to other countries in the field of 
synthetic biology, how to ensure that the private sector is 
engaged in this field and in bringing federally-sponsored 
research discoveries to the marketplace, and how the current 
regulatory guidelines apply to synthetic versus natural 
genomics.

        4.4(o)_Behind the Scenes: Science and Education at the 
                        Smithsonian Institution

                             July 21, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-107

Background
    On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, the Honorable Daniel Lipinski 
(D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and Science 
Education held a hearing to examine the Smithsonian 
Institution's research activities, educational programs, and 
management of scientific collections, as well as the 
intersection between those missions.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. G. Wayne Clough, 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; (2) Ms. Claudine 
Brown, Director of Education at the Smithsonian Institution; 
(3) Dr. Eldredge ``Biff'' Bermingham, Director of the 
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; and (4) Ms. Shari 
Werb, Assistant Director of Education at the National Museum of 
Natural History.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski noted the need 
for Congress to take a more active role in oversight of the 
Smithsonian Institution (SI) given that the majority of its 
budget comes from federal appropriations, and the importance of 
the Institution's research and education activities. He also 
expressed interest in learning more about the Smithsonian's 
coordination with other federal agencies and SI's efforts to 
improve management and sharing of scientific collections. 
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) discussed his own history with the 
Smithsonian as the former Chairman of the House Administration 
Committee, and argued that the Institution plays a unique role 
in federal science and education activities.
    During the witness testimony, Secretary Clough gave an 
overview of how the Smithsonian's activities are uniquely 
diverse and distinctive relative to other science and education 
entities, highlighting the ability of SI to conduct long-term 
studies and its possession of some of the largest scientific 
collections in the world. He also discussed the two `Grand 
Challenges' in the Smithsonian's strategic plan that 
specifically relate to science. Ms. Brown explained her role as 
the first-ever Director of Education, in which she will 
coordinate the 32 museum and research center education offices 
and help to disseminate the curricula and digital teaching 
tools developed by the Smithsonian. Dr. Bermingham spoke about 
the research projects at the Smithsonian Tropical Research 
Institute in Panama, or STRI, which is unique in its field 
because its data dates back for nearly a century's worth of 
collections, as STRI is not tied to the traditional grant-
making schedule as universities and other research centers 
often are. Ms. Werb focused on museum-level education and 
outreach activities, including exposure to research and mentor 
programs.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists discussed science diplomacy and the Smithsonian's 
international presence, the Smithsonian's infrastructure 
backlog and funding shortages, the need for Congress and the 
Federal Government to recognize the Smithsonian as a research 
institution rather than as a network of museums, and to fund it 
accordingly, the value of the Smithsonian as an educational 
resource, non-governmental revenue sources, the `service' 
component of Smithsonian research versus traditional university 
research, fellowship programs at SI, and collaboration with 
national labs.

          4.4(p)_The Science of Science and Innovation Policy

                           September 23, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-109

Background
    On Thursday, September 23, 2010, the Honorable Daniel 
Lipinski (D-IL) presiding, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science Education held a hearing to examine the current state 
of science and technology policy research, how this research 
informs policymaking, and the role of the federal government in 
fostering academic research and education in this emerging 
interdisciplinary field.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Julia Lane, Program 
Director of the Science and Science and Innovation Policy 
program at the National Science Foundation (NSF); (2) Dr. 
Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director of the Consortium for Science, 
Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University; (3) Dr. Fiona 
Murray, Associate Professor of Management in the Technological 
Innovation & Entrepreneurship Group at MIT Sloan School of 
Management; and (4) Dr. Albert H. Teich, Director of Science & 
Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science (AAAS).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Lipinski spoke about the 
need for Congress to have accurate data in the Science of 
Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) field in order to ensure 
that Members have the necessary information to allocate federal 
dollars and oversee programs efficiently and effectively. 
Ranking Member Ehlers (R-MI) noted that Congress needs an 
updated guidance document for science and innovation policy, 
and also emphasized the importance of ensuring measurable 
returns on scientific research investments.
    During the witness testimony, Dr. Lane noted that SciSIP 
efforts are particularly important because ``you can't manage 
what you can't measure, and what you measure is what you get'' 
with respect to science and research programs. She also 
emphasized the importance of collecting better data, as the 
STAR METRICS program is doing, and the importance of developing 
a bottom-up, no-burden empirical data infrastructure to be made 
available to all science agencies and recipients of federal 
funding. Dr. Sarewitz agreed that it is hard to envision 
effectively steering the research enterprise without SciSIP's 
efforts and data, but also noted that SciSIP must be careful to 
focus on outcome-based science rather than outputs, and on the 
need for better relationships and collaboration between those 
doing the research and those who will use it to affect policy 
decisions.
    Dr. Murray noted that recent SciSIP work has been centered 
on two developments: the development of and investment in a 
massive scientific data infrastructure, and the social science 
methodologies involved in program and policy evaluation. She 
also noted the need to focus on lower-level distribution 
strategies for SciSIP research, rather than emphasizing 
national and agency-level policymaking. Dr. Teich focused on 
the need to establish a working SciSIP community, and to bridge 
the gaps between different disciplines and between researchers 
and government workers to ensure that these dialogues are 
effective and ongoing.
    During the question and answer period, Members and 
panelists discussed the role of the Appropriations Committee in 
evaluating federal science programs, scientists' ability to 
characterize and measure social outcomes of research and 
development spending, how to better collect and use data to 
support the SciSIP field, how to effectively and persuasively 
educate Members of Congress about the importance of science 
policy, and the kind of academic programs and initiatives 
needed to produce interdisciplinary, science policy-focused 
career paths.
               4.5--SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

       4.5(a)_Cost Management Issues in NASA's Acquisitions and 
                                Programs

                             March 5, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-7

Background
    On Thursday, March 5, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing to examine the status of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) efforts 
to improve the cost management of its acquisitions and 
programs. The hearing focused on (1) the results of the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recently completed 
assessments of selected large-scale NASA projects and its 
designation of NASA acquisition management as a ``high-risk'' 
area, (2) the causes of cost growth and schedule delays in NASA 
acquisitions and (3) the agency's progress in addressing them. 
There were three witnesses: (1) Christopher Scolese, Acting 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; (2) Ms. Christina T. Chaplain, Director of 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management for the Government 
Accountability Office; (3) Gary P. Pulliam, Vice President of 
the Civil and Commercial Operations at The Aerospace 
Corporation.
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords expressed that the hearing was the 
first step in the subcommittee's oversight of NASA's 
acquisition and program management. She admitted NASA's cost 
management and schedule issues would not be a simple fix and it 
would take a collaborative effort to improve practices. Ranking 
Member Olson (R-TX) echoed Chairwoman Giffords sentiment on the 
challenges that lay ahead, but also shared her optimism over 
the progress NASA had achieved so far.
    Acting Administrator Scolese testified about internal and 
external factors that affect NASA's cost and schedule growth, 
and stated that some factors were outside of the 
administration's control. However, he was pleased to report 
that NASA had made improvements in standards for project 
lifecycle milestones and accountability for their stakeholders.
    Ms. Chaplain testified that NASA had a history of failing 
to address and correct its poor cost estimating practices. 
However, Ms. Chaplain stated that in the most recent assessment 
of NASA's large-scale projects, GAO found that ``improvements 
have been made, but problems still exist.'' Mr. Pulliam's 
testimony described four main causes of NASA's cost growth and 
schedule delays, and offered a rationale for why some of those 
problems still existed.

            4.5(b)_Aviation and the Emerging Use of Biofuels

                             March 26, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-15

Background
    On Thursday, March 26, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the House Committee on Science and 
Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics convened a 
hearing to review the status of federal and industry research 
and development (R&D) efforts to develop and demonstrate the 
safe and cost-effective use of biofuels in civil aviation. The 
hearing focused on (1) what research was needed to determine 
the optimal characteristics of both aircraft engine 
technologies and biofuels to minimize harmful emissions while 
maintaining aircraft safety and reliability and maximizing 
performance? (2) What were the most realistic aviation biofuel 
options over the long term, and what will be required to 
achieve widespread use of biofuels in aviation? (3) What steps, 
if any, was the federal government taking to assess the 
viability of biofuels for aviation or to facilitate their 
widespread use in aviation? (4) What were the results of the 
recently completed aviation biofuels demonstrations?
    There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate 
Administrator of Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) Dr. 
Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientist of the Federal Aviation 
Administration and Environmental Lead for the Commercial 
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative; (3) Dr. Alan H. Epstein, 
Vice President of Technology and Environment at Pratt & 
Whitney, United Technologies Corporation; (4) Mr. Billy M. 
Glover, Managing Director of Environmental Strategy at Boeing 
Commercial Airplane Company; and (5) Mr. Holden E. Shannon, 
Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security at 
Continental Airlines.
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords opened the hearing by remarking that 
America faced big challenges to achieve energy independence and 
protect and preserve its environment; a challenge that aviation 
would play a role in resolving. She raised concerns that the 
``odds of success will be reduced without an integrated 
federal/private sector approach to evaluating the potential 
benefits and costs of aviation biofuels, including a systematic 
plan to understand their impacts on both existing and future 
aircraft technology.'' Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) shared 
Chairwoman Giffords concerns and suggested the federal 
government should help fund research to end our dependence on 
foreign sources of energy.
    Dr. Shin testified that ``NASA has initiated a modest 
research effort in 2007 that builds upon the existing expertise 
in fuel chemistry and processing, combustion, and gas turbine 
engines to address some of the challenges associated with the 
application of these fuels for aviation.'' Dr. Shin stated that 
it would take a concerted effort by multiple government 
agencies, aerospace industries, academia, and biofuel producers 
to successfully implement widespread use of biofuels in 
aviation.
    Dr. Maurice testified that the FAA had ``identified a 
number of options that can replace petroleum jet fuel without 
the need to modify aircraft, often referred to as drop-in 
fuels.'' However, she was quick to admit that biofuels in 
aviation still faced challenges in certification, 
quantification of environmental impacts, and infrastructure and 
deployment.
    Dr. Epstein testified that testing had shown ``an engine 
can be designed to reduce fuel consumption if it can be assured 
that all aircraft fuel was largely bio-jet fuel.'' In his 
conclusion, Dr. Epstein proclaimed that the remaining 
challenges were not in the realm of propulsion engineering but 
rather belonged to the business community, biological and 
chemical engineers, ecologists, and lawmakers.
    Mr. Glover testified that Boeing's main goal was to 
facilitate rapid commercialization of the biofuel industry and 
capture the opportunities it offered the aviation industry. He 
voiced Boeing's shared sentiment with the other witnesses that 
government played a role in supporting the commercialization 
and development of aviation biofuels in order to make a 
successful transition.
    Mr. Shannon testified on behalf of Continental that 
airlines have a strong economic incentive to reduce their fuel 
consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions.

        4.5(c)_Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and 
                            Commercial Users

                             April 28, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-22

Background
    On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing to examine the challenges space traffic 
management and orbital debris posed to civil and commercial 
space users. The Subcommittee explored potential measures to 
improve information available to civil and commercial users to 
avoid in-space collisions as well as ways to minimize the 
growth of future space debris. The hearing focused on the 
following questions and issues: (1) What were the current and 
projected risks to civil and commercial space users posed by 
other spacecraft and space debris? (2) What information and 
services were available to civil and commercial space users in 
terms of real-time data and predictive analyses? (3) What could 
be done to minimize the growth of space debris? (4) What was 
the level of coordination among military, civil, and commercial 
space users in the sharing of space situational awareness 
information? (5) Have shortcomings been identified by civil and 
commercial space users with regards to the availability of 
situational awareness information they need? (6) How were these 
shortcomings being addressed? (7) Have civil and commercial 
space users identified their long-term situational awareness 
needs? What options were being considered to address them?
    There were four witnesses: (1) Lt. Gen. Larry D. James, 
Commander, 14th Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and 
Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, U.S. 
Strategic Command; (2) Mr. Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist 
for Orbital Debris, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; (3) Mr. Richard DalBello, Vice President of 
Government Relations Intelsat General Corporation; (4) Dr. 
Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George 
Washington University.
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) started by stating that people 
commonly see space as endlessly large and expansive and that 
the recent collision of two orbiting satellites is a reminder 
just how crowded space has become. The Chairwoman then stated 
the Subcommittee hopes to answers question about whether the 
incident was a rare fluke or not and about the U.S.'s current 
ability to help prevent potential satellites collisions. 
Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) began his opening remarks on how 
the Iridium-Kosmos collision should serve as a reminder that 
space-faring nations can no longer be complacent on this issue. 
He also stressed the need for space traffic management with 
intensive monitoring programs.
    During the opening testimonies, General James explained 
what the Joint Functional Component Command (JFCC) for Space 
was doing in terms of tracking orbital objects. He also stated 
that the Air Force Space Command ``will continue to work 
closely with the commercial and foreign space communities to 
understand their evolving needs and desires for space 
situational awareness . . . ''
    Mr. Johnson stated the U.S. needed to limit space debris 
because the debris remains in low-Earth orbit for long periods 
of time. He also spoke about NASA's role in the matter.
    Mr. Dalbello talked about what the commercial satellite 
industry was doing in terms of tracking and the process of 
inter-company and government cooperation.
    Dr. Pace spoke about the need for international and 
industry cooperation and concerns about the need for improving 
tracking data accuracy.

    4.5(d)_External Perspectives on the FY 2010 NASA Budget Request 
                           and Related Issues

                             June 18, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-37

Background
    On Thursday, June 18, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics heard from advisory and other stakeholder bodies on 
issues relevant to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).
    There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. John C. Marshall, member 
of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); (2) Dr. Kenneth 
M. Ford, Chair of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC); (3) Mr. 
Robert M. Hanisee, Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee of 
NAC; (4) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Chair of the National 
Academies' Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB); (5) 
Dr. Berrien Moore III, member of the National Academies' Space 
Studies Board (SSB); (6) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice-President for 
Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords instructed Members to dispense with 
opening statements in order to ensure sufficient time for the 
subcommittee to hear all spoken witness testimonies before 
10:30 votes.
    Mr. Marshall spoke first, and told the subcommittee that 
from the perspective of the ASAP, priority in the NASA budget 
ought to be given to making sure safety was not sacrificed due 
to reduced funding. In his view, allocating sufficient 
resources to extend the shuttle program without compromising 
safety would leave NASA with insufficient resources to fulfill 
its other directives, and endanger the future of the entire 
space program. Mr. Marshall also called for a redefinition of 
NASA's exploration missions, since recent budget cuts made the 
current exploration program unsustainable. He announced that 
while ASAP was pleased with NASA's compliance with the 
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 
there were still risks that could not be mitigated without 
extensive redesign of the shuttle. Mr. Marshall also discussed 
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. He then listed a 
few areas ASAP believed NASA could pay more attention to in 
fostering a culture of safety.
    Dr. Ford focused on three areas critical to the future of 
America's space program: developing new space transportation 
architecture, reestablishing a technology R&D program, and, 
most importantly, securing stable funding linked to a stable 
purpose. Dr. Ford saw the accelerated development of a heavy-
lift launch vehicle as a crucial first step in modernizing 
space transportation, and ensuring access to the International 
Space Station (ISS), since commercial transport and the Ares I 
project would not be available for many years to come.
    Mr. Hanisee began his remarks with a discussion of NASA's 
past managerial and financial tangles. He said that although 
problems like the anarchic accounting systems of ten autonomous 
centers have been reined in, the intractable issue of property 
accounting continued to muddy the fiscal waters. Legacy assets 
like the Space Shuttle, and the ISS were particularly 
problematic from an accounting point of view. One possible 
solution would be to write off the troublesome assets as 
Research and Development.
    Dr. Colladay focused his testimony on technology 
development. He thought that R&D programs at NASA were driven 
too much by the needs of the moment. While there have been 
significant advances from technology developed to fill known 
program needs, especially in environmentally responsible 
aviation, a long-term, research-driven technology development 
program would reinvigorate the agency's capabilities. Moreover, 
such a program should be organized so as to support not just 
NASA, but also commercial space programs and other government 
agencies. However Dr. Colladay also expressed concern that NASA 
lacked sufficient funds to properly pursue new technologies, or 
even to accomplish preexisting program goals.
    Dr. Moore spoke of the need to balance NASA's disparate 
priorities. While he felt that the 2010 budget was a distinct 
improvement over 2009, Dr. Moore stated that NASA should still 
try to clamp down on costs, to do more with less, or simply try 
to do less. He reported that the Earth Science Decadal missions 
in particular were in dire financial straits. The agency ought 
to cut back on its programs, and be more careful about 
selecting programs in the first place, in order to avoid the 
excessively expensive and focus on the possible. Cutting back 
on the number of NASA Centers and National Labs would be a good 
start.
    Mr. Stevens expressed concern over the insufficient funding 
of the Ares V and the Lunar Lander in the current NASA budget, 
and the imminent loss of jobs associated with those projects. 
He also urged the Subcommittee to continue funding ISS without 
taking funds away from other critical programs. Mr. Stevens 
said that another great disappointment in the FY 2010 budget 
was the decrease in funding for NASA education initiatives, 
which he hoped the Subcommittee would correct in future 
budgets. Mr. Stevens also recommended that commercial space 
launch indemnification be extended for at least another 5 
years, as its elimination would drive even more launch business 
overseas.
    The hearing was adjourned due to votes.

      4.5(e)_Enhancing the Relevance of Space to Address National 
                                 Needs

                             July 16, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-44

Background
    On Thursday, July 16, 2009 the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on enhancing the relevance of space 
activities to address national needs. The hearing (1) examined 
how recent reports by the National Research Council and The 
Space Foundation characterized the relevance of space-related 
activities, particularly their role in improving the health, 
economic well-being, and the quality of life of all Americans; 
(2) reviewed what should be done to maintain and enhance that 
relevance; and (3) analyzed whether enhanced awareness of the 
contributions from space-related activities would result in 
inspiring future generations of Americans.
    There were four witnesses: (1) General [U.S. Air Force, 
retired] Lester L. Lyles, Chair of the Committee on the 
Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 
Aeronautics & Space Engineering Board of the National Research 
Council; (2) Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Board of Directors of the 
Space Foundation; (3) Ms. Deborah Adler Myers, General Manager, 
Science Channel, Discovery Communications; and (4) Mr. Miles 
O'Brien, Journalist.
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) starts off by indicating the 
40th anniversary of Apollo and how it is one of the most 
significant achievements of the U.S. space program. She 
proceeds to indicate that America's space program must be 
relevant to the broad national needs to continue support from 
Congress and by the American people. She then asks that if we 
have an exciting and relevant space program, but the American 
people don't hear about it, then is it relevant?
    Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) starts his opening statement by 
indicating that NASA has high public support but suffers when 
put in a list of competing goals. He continues and says that to 
improve, we must make sure our human spaceflight goal is 
adequately funded, and that the mission has to be effectively 
conveyed.
    General Lyles testified that the US still has the 
preeminent civil space program. He then mentioned that his team 
generated six goals, such as to sustain and expand our 
leadership in science.
    Ms. Smith followed and said that space was relevant in 
every American's life and that the U.S. needed to acquire more 
civilian and national security space systems. She added that 
not taking the initiative will require the U.S. to be more 
reliant on foreign space systems.
    Ms. Myers indicated that the space community struggled 
against the cliche that science was dry and boring. At the 
Science Channel, Ms. Myers noted that they developed television 
programming and reached out to their audience on Facebook and 
Twitter.
    Mr. O'Brien testified that the engineers at NASA lack 
communication skills. He proposed that NASA missions should all 
have a public relations requirement where the message should be 
part of the mission, and not an afterthought. Mr. O'Brien also 
proposed that there needed to be money set aside for such 
operations.

      4.5(f)_Strengthening NASA's Technology Development Programs

                            October 22, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-58

Background
    On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on NASA's efforts to define advanced concepts 
and develop innovative technologies. The hearing examined (1) 
the opportunities, challenges, and issues identified in 
external reviews associated with NASA's analysis of advanced 
concepts and long-term development of technology; (2) NASA's 
progress in responding to the provisions in NASA Authorization 
Acts and recommendations from external reviews associated with 
technology development; and (3) NASA's efforts to collaborate 
and coordinate with other federal agencies on technology 
development issues.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert D. Braun, Co-
Chair of the National Research Council's Space Engineering 
Board Committee to Review the NASA Institute for Advanced 
Concepts; (2) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Vice-Chair of the 
National Research Council's Aeronautics and Space Engineering 
Board Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil 
Space Program; (3) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate 
Administrator of NASA.
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords opened the hearing by stating that all 
three witnesses, as well as the subcommittee, would probably 
agree that NASA has been under-investing in technology 
development. However, she added that the under-funded 
technology development programs cannot and should not be funded 
from NASA's other, already under-funded, projects. Ranking 
Member Olson suggested that NASA might be better served if it 
returned to a more centralized structure, to encourage long-
term rather than momentary goals.
    Dr. Braun began his testimony by asserting that the 
original organization of the NASA Institute of Advanced 
Concepts (NIAC) was effective. However Dr. Braun allowed that 
modifications to both NIAC and NASA would improve NIAC's 
effectiveness, especially the reestablishment of aeronautics 
and space systems technology development enterprise within 
NASA. In his view, NASA ought to focus its efforts on short-
term, mid-range missions and long-term, strategic technology 
investments. To this end, Dr. Braun recommended that NASA 
establish a formal program to direct the development of a 
selected set of technologies.
    Dr. Colladay started off by observing that long-term 
advanced research and development (R&D) did not happen in 
industry, because the pay-off was too distant, or in academia 
in the absence of sustained government funding. To revitalize 
NASA's long-term technology development, Dr. Colladay 
recommended technology R&D be independent of NASA's other major 
programs, with an organizational structure modeled along the 
lines of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). 
This hypothetical technology mission area ought to reach 
outside NASA, to engage with commercial space companies as well 
as other government agencies and departments. Moreover, before 
embarking on this new program, there should be a comprehensive 
assessment of the current state of the art advanced space 
technology. Dr. Colladay concluded by asserting the importance 
of technology relevance and transition.
    Mr. Scolese began by reporting that recent National Academy 
reviews of NASA suggested that NASA ought to shift its emphasis 
from technologies for flight to the development of game-
changing technology. The timeframe for such technology 
investment should be 10-20 years. An independent management 
structure would be best suited to the early stages of these 
projects. Mr. Scolese added that NASA did invest in 
technological development in a limited way through its 
partnership program, as well as through its mission and 
engineering programs, despite its lack of a long-term 
development program. He said that NASA has also increased its 
outreach efforts to outside groups, joining with other 
government organizations to fund life science research on the 
International Space Station.

        4.5(g)_The Growth of Global Space Capabilities: What's 
                      Happening and Why It Matters

                           November 19, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-65

Background
    On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords (D-AZ) presiding, the House Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on the growth of global space 
capabilities, and why they matter.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Marty Hauser, Vice 
President for Research and Analysis at the Washington 
Operations of the Space Foundation; (2) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice 
President for Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries 
Association; (3) Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy 
Institute at George Washington University; (4) Dr. Kai-Uwe 
Schrogl, Director of the European Space Policy Institute; (5) 
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director of the Secure World 
Foundation.
Summary
    Mr. Hauser began his testimony by reporting that most 
space-faring nations now had the same space capabilities as the 
U.S. He said that more than 60 countries had space agencies, 
and many of them were increasingly willing to share their 
expertise with countries not as far along. He added that 
America was losing its competitive position in launch, 
manufacturing, and service capabilities. He further noted that 
while there were commercial opportunities in the expansion of 
launch capabilities, there was also the threat of competition. 
Mr. Hauser told the Subcommittee that if America wished to 
retain its primacy in space, Congress would have to bite the 
financial bullet, and give NASA the funds it needs to succeed.
    Mr. Stevens identified three areas in which the U.S. was 
losing its leadership in space: satellites, human spaceflight, 
and launch systems. He was especially concerned that the U.S. 
commercial space launch industry only had 15% of the global 
market. Mr. Stevens reminded the Subcommittee that space 
capabilities, especially launch systems, could easily be 
translated into military capabilities; in other words, the loss 
of U.S. superiority in space was a threat to national security 
as well as to national pride. He agreed with the Chairwoman's 
emphasis on international cooperation, but added that any such 
deals should avoid threatening America's industrial base or 
national security. For Mr. Stevens, the International Space 
Station (ISS) was an example of a successful cooperation, and 
therefore should be extended through 2020.
    Dr. Pace used his opening statement to remind the 
Subcommittee that the geosynchronous arc gets more crowded 
every year. He laid out the Chinese government's plans for the 
next decade, which culminated with a three-man space station in 
2020. Dr. Pace said that if the U.S. did not make plans beyond 
the ISS, America would essentially be bowing out of the human 
spaceflight business. He explained that space tourism and 
commercial spaceflight, though valuable, could hardly sustain a 
major international cooperative human spaceflight effort. Dr. 
Pace believed that the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 
still offered the clearest and most practical way forward for 
the U.S. space program.
    Dr. Schrogl provided European perspectives on the expansion 
of space-faring capabilities around the world, and the 
implications of that expansion on trans-Atlantic relations. In 
his view, space-based security concerns were a promising area 
of trans-Atlantic cooperation. A similar cooperation was highly 
necessary in the regulation of space as a strategic economic 
area. Dr. Schrogl also hoped that future years would see more 
trans-Atlantic cooperation on the less-urgent but equally vital 
area of space exploration.
    Dr. Williamson shared the Secure World Foundation's 
insights on the growth of world space capabilities, and why 
those changes were vital to U.S. interests. Like previous 
panelists, he noted the scientific and commercial opportunities 
created by the nascent space programs of other nations. Dr. 
Williamson added that an increasing amount of space debris made 
the lack of any effective governance of the global commons of 
outer space a more acute problem every day. In his view, the 
U.S. could best ensure its own orbital security by engaging 
with emerging space states regarding adherence to international 
best practices. Dr. Williamson said that assisting new space 
states was also an opportunity for the U.S. to flex its soft 
power, to use its technological and economic capabilities to 
influence foreign policymakers. He also added that working with 
states to build space capacity would create a larger market for 
U.S. goods as well as a long-term sustainable security climate 
in space based on cooperation rather than competition and that 
ITAR reform would go a long way in this regard as well.

            4.5(h)_Ensuring the Safety of Human Spaceflight

                            December 2, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-66

Background
    On December 2, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a 
hearing focused on issues related to ensuring the safety of 
future human space flight in government and non-government 
space transportation systems. The hearing examined (1) the 
steps needed to establish confidence in a space transportation 
system's ability to transport U.S. and partner astronauts to 
low Earth orbit and return them to Earth in a safe manner, (2) 
the issues associated with implementing safety standards and 
establishing processes for certifying that a space 
transportation vehicle is safe for human transport, and (3) the 
roles that training and experience play in enhancing the safety 
of human space missions.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. Bryan D. O'Connor, Chief 
of Safety and Mission Assurance at the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA); (2) Mr. Jeff Hanley, Program 
Manager of the Constellation Program at NASA; (3) Mr. John C. 
Marshall, member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); 
(4) Mr. Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial 
Spaceflight Federation; (5) Dr. Joseph R. Fragola, Vice 
President of Valador, Inc; and (6) Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, 
USAF (ret.).
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) opened the hearing by saying 
that while human spaceflight would never be risk-free, Congress 
must understand the fundamental crew safety issues when making 
decisions about the program. She said that NASA's Constellation 
program took the recommendations of the Columbia Accident 
Investigation Board (CAIB) very seriously, and that any 
alternative approach would therefore have to prove itself at 
least as safe as Ares and Orion.
    Rep. Hall (R-TX) reminded the Subcommittee that the 
Astronaut Office had recommended, back in 2004, that a crew 
escape system module be included in any new launch vehicle, and 
insisted that this would continue to be the case. Rep. Olson 
(R-TX) added that the space program ought not to take advantage 
of the astronauts' pioneering spirit and fall short on safety 
issues. He also said that the increased participation of 
commercial providers would entail great changes at NASA, not 
necessarily for best.
    Mr. O'Connor began by explaining the mission of the Office 
of Safety and Mission Assurance. He said that many of the 
programs planned by his office were being implemented at the 
new NASA Safety Center in Cleveland. In his view, working with 
NASA's Russian counter-parts on Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and 
the International Space Station (ISS) had been an invaluable 
learning experience on different safety procedures. Mr. 
O'Connor added that his office was also investing 2009 Recovery 
Act funds in supplementing activities related to technologies 
that enable commercial human spaceflight capabilities.
    Mr. Hanley focused on outlining how the Constellation 
Program had sought to improve crew safety above and beyond the 
features of previous crewed aircraft. He said that the design 
goal of the program was a 10-fold increase in astronaut safety 
relative to the shuttle missions. He also reported that NASA 
was developing a new integrated test and verification plan as 
part of its design review process.
    Mr. Marshall criticized the Augustine Report for its 
oversimplified approach to safety issues. Mr. Marshall believed 
that because commercial providers had no reason to develop 
strong safety guidelines on their own, NASA had to lay down and 
police a set of guidelines on their behalf. He insisted that 
safety was the greatest weakness of the COTS program, and NASA 
would have to oversee construction carefully to ensure that 
companies did not take on undue risks in an effort to cut costs 
or speed up production.
    Mr. Alexander spoke for the 20 member organizations of the 
Commercial Spaceflight Federation. He regarded commercial crew 
transport as complementary, not competitive, with NASA's 
mission. Mr. Alexander claimed that since low-Earth orbit was 
an easier and more focused destination than those intended for 
the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the commercial program 
would be more cost-effective. He agreed with previous speakers 
that safety was the paramount concern of all those involved in 
spaceflight programs, commercial or otherwise. He suggested 
that the FAA should retain its licensing authority over 
aircraft, while NASA would have oversight in its capacity as 
customer.
    Dr. Fragola described his four laws for a safe space 
launcher design. To begin with, the design must be as 
inherently safe as possible. Secondly, the crew should be put 
at the top of the rocket, as far away from the source of 
failure as possible. There must also be a credible abort 
trigger set, and finally, the design should include a tested 
abort system that allows for a safe crew escape and recovery. 
Dr. Fragola said that under these criteria, the Ares I was the 
safest vehicle around, two to three times safer than the 
alternatives. This was because of its reliability and its 
benign abort conditions.
    General Stafford stated that while he strongly agreed with 
the majority of the findings of the Augustine Report, there 
were a few he objected to. His disagreements with the report 
began with its recommendation that the responsibility for 
transportation of crew and cargo to the ISS be given to 
commercial contractors exclusively. First of all, commercial 
cargo transport would require the construction of costly, time-
consuming autonomous transfer vehicles. Secondly, safe delivery 
of a crew to the ISS required the successful combination of a 
human-rated launch vehicle, the spacecraft itself, and the 
launch abort system. The Augustine Report lacked an in-depth 
analysis of these vital safety issues. General Stafford did not 
see what entity other than NASA could credibly establish and 
verify appropriate standards for human spaceflight.

    4.5(i)_Independent Audit of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                             Administration

                            December 3, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-68

Background
    On Thursday, December 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight convened a joint hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for the purpose of 
receiving the annual independent auditor's report on the 
financial status of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA). Ernst & Young, the agency's auditor, had 
issued a so-called ``disclaimed opinion,'' indicating that the 
agency financial statements did not fairly represent NASA's 
accurate financial condition. Since 1990, NASA has invested 
significant time and effort in three attempts to develop an 
acceptable financial management system. While the audit report 
credited NASA with notable progress in correcting its 
weaknesses, Ernst & Young considered efforts to properly value 
legacy equipment on the balance sheets to fall short of 
government accounting standards. The hearing was called to 
determine what would be needed for NASA to receive unqualified 
opinions in subsequent annual audits.
    Testifying at the hearing were: (1) Hon. Paul Martin, the 
newly-appointed Inspector General of NASA (accompanied by his 
deputy, Mr. Tom Howard); (2) Mr. Paul Murrin, Ernst & Young's 
senior auditor for the NASA contract since 2004 and Partner in 
the company's Assurance and Advisory Business Services; and (3) 
Hon. Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's new Chief Financial Officer.
Summary
    One of the responsibilities of an agency Inspector General 
is to manage the contract providing for the audit of the 
agency's financial statements by an independent private firm 
every year. Mr. Martin's testimony summarized the results of 
the Fiscal Year 2009 audit, where auditor Ernst & Young was not 
willing to state an opinion on whether the statements ``fairly 
represented'' the agency's assets and liabilities. For the past 
two decades, NASA has struggled with financial management 
systems that have been unable to reliably track and report on 
fund management and control. This has repeatedly been 
highlighted by the Inspector General's office and the 
Government Accountability Office as a primary management 
challenge for NASA.
    According to Mr. Murrin, NASA was in the end unable to 
provide adequate and appropriate documentary evidence that the 
values assigned by the agency to older property, plant and 
equipment used in programs such as the Space Shuttle and Space 
Station. This has been a persistent issue highlighted by 
previous audit reports and the focus of continuous 
collaboration by NASA and Ernst & Young to correct the 
problems. While Mr. Murrin's testimony described the procedural 
changes NASA has applied in its effort to clear this material 
weakness, the audit notes that these are primarily applied to 
current and prospective contracts. The major problem remains 
that the financial controls in previous years failed to 
preserve the required information.
    It falls to Dr. Robinson to manage the corrective actions 
needed to eliminate the weak spots identified by the audit. In 
her testimony, she described the continuing efforts since 2002 
aimed at bringing the upgraded financial management systems 
into compliance with modern standards and best practices. 
Identifying and correcting data discrepancies and improving 
staff skills have occupied much time.
    In the particular item providing for the disclaimer of 
opinion, Dr. Robinson stated that it originated in a 1998 
decision to change the accounting process for space equipment 
so that it was no longer fully captured in the year such 
equipment was obtained. NASA found that its contracting process 
and method failed to adapt to the new accounting requirement 
and thus failed to obtain and retain the records and 
information needed to conform. With the failure to correct this 
deficiency, the gaps in records grew and led auditors to 
express growing discomfort about the effect on the accuracy 
agency financial records.
    In addition to NASA's direction to change agency practice 
in contracting, a new Federal accounting standard is now in 
place that will assist NASA--and other agencies like DOD in 
similar straits--to deal with the missing historical records. 
While significant resources have been applied to reconstruct 
the evidence in an attempt to satisfy the requirement for 
actual documentation, the new standard allows for the 
development of appropriate estimating methods to generate 
reasonable approximations of the property, plant and equipment 
at issue.
    Much of the discussion with the witnesses concerned the 
need for continuing collaboration to assure that the agency and 
the auditors shared a common view of the proper implementation 
of the new standards for estimation. Members also sought 
assurances that the other risks highlighted in the audit 
report, relating to the calculation of NASA's environmental 
liabilities and the need to finish bringing the financial 
management systems up to legal standards, were not waiting to 
replace legacy asset valuation as the basis for a disclaimed 
opinion in the next audit. The witnesses express confidence 
that NASA would finally begin receiving unqualified opinions 
beginning with the fiscal year 2010 audit.

      4.5(j)_Key Issues and Challenges Facing NASA: Views of the 
                           Agency's Watchdogs

                            February 3, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-73

Background
    On February 3, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a 
hearing on the key issues and challenges facing the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as seen by the 
agency's ``watchdogs''--the NASA Inspector General, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). Leveraging the unique 
perspectives these organizations developed in the course of 
their work at NASA in the areas of management, mission 
execution, and security and safety oversight, the hearing 
examined (1) the critical issues and challenges facing NASA 
that warrant congressional attention and (2) the corresponding 
commitment, initiatives, and policies needed by NASA to 
successfully address these issues and challenges. Separate 
hearings would address NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request 
as well as the administration's human space flight strategy 
after they are announced.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Hon. Paul K. Martin, 
Inspector General, NASA; (2) Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO; (3) Vice-
Admiral Joseph W. Dyer [U.S. Navy, Ret.], Chair, ASAP.
Summary
    Mr. Martin identified five critical challenges facing NASA: 
(1) transitioning from the Space Shuttle to a new generation of 
space vehicles; (2) enhancing risk management techniques; (3) 
improving the agency's financial management; (4) addressing 
systemic weaknesses in acquisition and contracting processes; 
and (5) ensuring the security and integrity of NASA's 
information technology (IT) systems.
    Ms. Chaplain concurred with Mr. Martin on the issues facing 
NASA, listing as NASA's main challenges retiring the Space 
Shuttle, completing and operating the International Space 
Station (ISS), acquiring complex systems for research, 
improving financial management and protecting IT systems. She 
added that however broad the changes proposed in the 
President's new budget, they did not alter these basic 
concerns. However, Ms. Chaplain also noted that previous 
commercial approaches did not succeed because they lacked sound 
government insight and oversight.
    Vice-Admiral Dyer quoted the conclusion of his panel's 2009 
report, emphasizing that the Ares I was designed with an 
emphasis on safety, and any new approach would have to 
guarantee an equal or greater safety level. He called on NASA 
to create clear Human Rating Requirements (HRR) for potential 
commercial contractors. Vice-Admiral Dyer added that managing 
the transition of the shuttle workforce would now be doubly 
important.

     4.5(k)_Proposed Changes to NASA's Exploration Program: What's 
        Known, What's Not, and What Are the Issues for Congress?

                             March 24, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-91

Background
    On March 24, 2010 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on the administration's proposed changes to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 
exploration program.
    There were two witnesses: (1) Mr. Douglas Cooke, Associate 
Administrator for the Explorations Systems Mission Directorate 
at NASA; and (2) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin (Ret.).
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords (D-AZ) opened the hearing by noting 
that the President's budget had been found deficient by the 
Congress and the American people. She added that in cancelling 
the Constellation program, the new budget was ending a 
successful program in which the government had already invested 
five years and $14 billion. Moreover, she remarked that 
cancellation would deprive the U.S. of assured access to LEO. 
Ranking Member Olson (R-TX) reminded the Subcommittee that the 
President's new budget was far from a fait accompli, and that 
the final decision rested with Congress, not the Executive. He 
remarked that he disagreed with NASA's cancellation of 
procurement activities and the Constellation Program.
    Mr. Cooke began by confirming that the ultimate destination 
in human spaceflight remained Mars. He said that to further 
this goal, the FY 2011 budget would fund three new programs 
aimed at expanding the capabilities of America's human 
spaceflight program. While commending those who worked so 
diligently on the Constellation program, Mr. Cooke affirmed the 
need for commercial groups to take over transit to and from 
LEO, leaving NASA free to go beyond.
    In oral testimony, Mr. Young strongly condemned the 
proposed cancellation of the Constellation program. He said 
that neither Soyuz nor industry provided a long term solution 
to the problem of American access to LEO. While commercial 
industry should be encouraged, it was still a long way from 
being able to satisfy human space transportation needs. 
Therefore, the U.S. ought to commit instead to developing a 
heavy-lift capability along the lines of the Ares I. Mr. Young 
added that what NASA needed was a Plan A, such as could not be 
found in the budget proposal. If enacted, the proposed budget 
would lead to an irreversible deterioration of America's 
aerospace workforce.

        4.5(l)_Mitigating the Impact of Volcanic Ash Clouds on 
                   Aviation_What Do We Need to Know?

                              May 5, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-93

Background
    On May 5, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding, 
the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the 
research needed to improve our understanding of the impact of 
volcanic ash clouds on aircraft and aircraft operations and 
what could be done to mitigate that impact. Last year, when the 
Mount Redoubt volcano erupted southwest of Anchorage, one of 
the operating airlines grounded its fleet, diverted flights and 
wrapped the engines of its parked planes in plastic sealant. 
More recently, the eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull 
volcano paralyzed air travel in Europe for six days, 
inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of passengers around the 
world and causing airline revenue losses of at least $1.7 
billion.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Tony Strazisar, Senior 
Technical Advisor for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission 
Directorate [Substituting for Associate Administrator Jaiwon 
Shin]; (2) Dr. Jack A. Kaye, Earth Science Division at NASA; 
(3) Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior VP for NextGen and Operations 
Planning at the FAA's Air Traffic Organization; (4) Captain 
Linda M. Orlady, Executive Air Safety Vice Chair of the Air 
Line Pilots Association, International; and (5) Mr. Roger 
Dinius, Flight Safety Director at GE Aviation.
Summary
    Chairwoman Giffords remarked that she concluded from the 
recent eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland that 
aviation regulators have insufficient scientific data either to 
track the density and position of volcanic ash clouds or to 
comprehend the full extent of their effect on aircraft. She 
urged the FAA to work with NASA, pilots and aircraft 
manufacturers in marshalling U.S. resources to deal with the 
issue.
    Ranking Member Olson wondered how deeply the Federal 
Government should invest in researching such rare events. 
However he added that the events following the eruption of 
Eyjafjallajokull made such research more plausible, and perhaps 
there were similarly obscure hazards that may have been 
overlooked.
    Dr. Strazisar testified regarding NASA's past experience 
with the impact of volcanic ash on aircraft. He said that 
volcanic ash ingestion is rare because the established practice 
is to avoid flight in the vicinity of volcanic debris. Dr. 
Strazisar shared with the committee the experience of a NASA 
DC-8 research plane that in February of 2000 flew through the 
edge of an ash cloud produced by Iceland's Heckla volcano. Even 
though that encounter only lasted seven minutes, disassembling 
the engines revealed significant damage invisible to the naked 
eye. Improving forecasts and operational procedures could go a 
long way towards providing a solution for air traffic 
management.
    Dr. Kaye said that NASA's Earth Science program, through 
its 13 earth-observing missions, fed critical information on 
volcanic debris to NOAA and other agencies. The new satellites 
the Earth Science division would be launching over the next 
year would further augment this data stream. Since volcanic 
eruptions are the only sources of sulfur dioxide large enough 
to be detected by satellite, NASA and NOAA could then provide 
accurate, near real-time information on the location of sulfur 
dioxide emissions, which can be particularly useful in the 
first few days after an eruption.
    Ms. Cox reiterated that accidents and incidents caused by 
encounters with volcanic ash are quite rare. She said the FAA 
treats volcanic ash much like a major weather event. According 
to Ms. Cox, the relatively constrained airspace over Europe 
limited the options available to the European Union (EU) in its 
response to the Eyjafjallajokull eruption. Since NextGen 
focuses on quality and delivery of information, it would aid 
operators and flight traffic controllers in getting the 
necessary data.
    Capt. Orlady observed that in addition to engine and 
windshield damage, volcanic gases also pose a serious threat to 
the health of crew and passengers alike. She said that a lack 
of standardization of available forecasts complicated European 
handling of the recent air travel disruption. She added that 
her organization, ALPA, advocated complete avoidance of 
volcanic ash until a deeper understanding of engine tolerance 
was achieved. Better detection mechanisms, more vigorous 
certification processes, and new procedural training exercises 
will also help.
    Mr. Dinius said that ash clouds had three significant 
effects on airplane engines: (1) corrosion of compressor 
blades; (2) plugging of cooling holes; and (3) accumulation on 
hot parts. He added that GE recommended avoiding flight into 
visible ash, but further research into ash clouds and their 
impact on commercial engines could reduce the risk of flying 
through one.
             4.6--SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

       4.6(a)_An Overview of Transportation R&D: Priorities for 
                            Reauthorization

                           February 12, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-2

Background
    On Thursday, February 12, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review the research, development, and deployment 
activities of the Department of Transportation (DOT). The 
hearing also focused on issues related to the funding, 
planning, and execution of current research initiatives and how 
these efforts fulfill the strategic goals of both Federal and 
State Departments of Transportation, metropolitan 
transportation organizations, and industry.
    There were five witnesses: (1) The Hon. Paul Brubaker, 
Former Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology 
Administration (RITA) at the U.S. DOT; (2) Dr. Elizabeth 
Deakin, Director of the University of California Transportation 
Center at the University of California, Berkeley; (3) Mr. 
Amadeo Saenz, Jr. PE, Executive Director of the Texas 
Department of Transportation (TxDOT); (4) Mr. Robert Skinner, 
Executive Director at the Transportation Research Board (TRB); 
and (5) Mr. David Wise, Acting Director of Physical 
Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO).
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Wu expressed his hope 
that transportation planners would use the latest available 
technologies and research results in the infrastructure 
projects planned under proposed economic stimulus funding. He 
also expressed his concern about a lack of prioritization and 
coordination in national transportation research and 
development efforts and how this lack of prioritization and 
coordination resulted in a less efficient and effective 
research and development program. Ranking Member Smith noted 
the timeliness of the hearing with transportation funding in 
the proposed economic stimulus bill. He stressed the importance 
of technology transfer to getting the results of research from 
the lab to the road.
    Former Administrator Brubaker opened by noting that he had 
not been as successful as he had hoped in streamlining the 
decision-making processes during his tenure at RITA. However, 
he was satisfied that transparency with respect to research and 
development funding had improved. Even so, he felt that it is 
currently ``impossible'' to ensure that research funds are well 
used, and he argued that RITA should have more resources and 
authority to fulfill its research coordination role per the 
Mineta Act (P.L. 108-426). He also recommended monitoring the 
progress and performance of research by metrics agreed to in 
advance.
    Dr. Deakin recommended an outcome-based funding strategy 
for research that would focus on meeting societal goals, such 
as increased access to transportation options or reduced 
congestion. She noted a lack of coordination between government 
agencies, the academic researchers, and the private sector. In 
addition, she recommended that University Transportation 
Centers (UTCs) be awarded via competition, rather than 
earmarked in legislation.
    Mr. Saenz gave several examples of the benefits of 
transportation research in Texas, noting that his agency 
estimated a return of five to one for gains in efficiency per 
research dollar. He urged the Federal Government to provide 
ready-to-use, documented systems to states and other end-users 
and repeated the importance of a set of system-wide goals and 
metrics for transportation research.
    Mr. Skinner advocated for the improvement of technology 
transfer programs, and greater inclusion of stakeholders in 
major decisions regarding resource allocation for surface 
transportation research and development. He echoed Dr. Deakin's 
support for competitively-awarded research funding and stressed 
the importance of an intermodal approach to transportation.
    Mr. Wise assessed RITA's progress in implementing 2006 GAO 
recommendations to strengthen coordination and planning for 
research and development across DOT. For instance, the agency 
has improved the coordination, review, and performance 
measurements of DOT's research and development programs. He 
noted, though, that RITA had not developed performance goals to 
measure its own performance.
    Members asked the witnesses to give their thoughts on 
developing a more coordinated, comprehensive surface 
transportation R&D program. Mr. Brubaker emphasized the need to 
lay out clear goals for the research agenda, and require 
measurable outcomes for funded projects. Mr. Skinner concurred, 
but noted the enormity and challenge of the task. Dr. Deakin 
noted that other countries have been more successful in 
creating metrics for assessing progress.
    The witnesses also stated the need to improve technology 
transfer. Mr. Wu expressed concern that institutional, social, 
and cultural inertia within the transportation field slowed 
progress in implementing new ideas and technologies, an 
observation with which several witnesses agreed. Mr. Saenz 
noted his positive experience with TxDOT field offices where 
many different types of professionals work together, fostering 
more idea exchange and collaboration. Dr. Deakin remarked that 
much of the know-how for improving organizational structures 
and partnerships exists in business schools and within the 
social sciences.
    Members also questioned the witnesses about the best 
mechanism for funding the UTC program. Mr. Brubaker argued that 
the current, heavily-earmarked system meets the needs of many 
stakeholders and should not necessarily be changed. In 
contract, Dr. Deakin, Mr. Skinner, and Mr. Saenz argued in 
favor of a completely competitive process. However, Dr. Deakin 
and Mr. Skinner agreed that many of the earmarked centers are 
successful, and that earmarks allow universities to strengthen 
their centers to enable them to compete at a later time. They 
also noted the important contributions UTCs make to workforce 
development. Witness opinions were also mixed on the question 
of the UTC matching requirements. Dr. Deakin and Mr. Brubaker 
were ambivalent, while Mr. Skinner strongly advocated an 
increase in the Federal UTC match from 50 percent to 80 percent 
to allow universities more freedom to pursue basic research.

    4.6(b)_Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: The 
       Role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

                             March 10, 2009

                        Hearing Volume No. 111-8

Background
    On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review the scientific and technical issues raised by 
the recently released National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report 
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path 
Forward. The hearing discussed issues related to the accuracy, 
standards, reliability, and validity of forensic science, as 
well as how the expertise of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) in forensics related research, 
developing standards and certified test methodologies, and 
performing laboratory accreditation may be leveraged to 
implement some of the recommendations in the report.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Pete Marone, Director of 
Technical Services at the Virginia Department of Forensic 
Science; (2) Ms. Carol Henderson, Director of the National 
Clearing House for Science, Technology and the Law; Professor 
of Law at Stetson University College of Law; Past President of 
the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; (3) Mr. John Hicks, 
a retired Director of the Office of Forensic Services at New 
York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the 
former Director at the FBI Laboratory; (4) Dr. J.C. Upshaw 
Downs, Coastal Regional Medical Examiner at the Georgia Bureau 
of Investigation; and (5) Mr. Peter Neufeld, Co-Founder and Co-
Director of The Innocence Project.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Wu noted that the NAS 
report recommended new standards and accreditation to ensure 
validity, accuracy, and reliability in forensic science. He 
said that the report suggests creating a new agency to oversee 
the forensics discipline, but wondered how much of a role NIST 
could take in developing new standards as an already-
established agency. Ranking Member Smith talked about the 
important contributions that forensic science make in law 
enforcement, both in convicting the guilty and protecting the 
innocent, but noted that continued improvement is necessary.
    Mr. Marone, a member of the committee who wrote the NAS 
report, grouped the 13 recommendations of the report into four 
categories: funding, research, standardization, and education. 
With respect to funding, he emphasized that finances should not 
be taken away from DNA projects, but rather more money should 
be given to the other disciplines. As to research, Mr. Marone 
said that there were two types of research needs: that for 
experienced-based disciplines (i.e. fingerprints and tool 
marks) and that for disciplines that are well-validated (i.e. 
those based on biological or chemical analysis). He said that 
all laboratories need to be accredited, but pointed out that 
many already were on their own initiative. Mr. Marone admitted 
that NIST has expertise in standardization, but he said that 
NIST does not have all the necessary knowledge that a forensics 
oversight agency should have.
    Ms. Henderson advocated for a three-step approach: 
immediate action that uses existing federal resources to 
address scientific standards, interim action to evaluate 
strategic policy directions and strategies and explore 
innovative solutions, and a long-term goal of creating a 
National Institute of Forensic Sciences (NIFS) as envisioned by 
the NAS report. Ms. Henderson mentioned NIST as an agency that 
would be well-suited to promote scientific standards and noted 
that NIST had already contributed to the core science in 
several areas of forensic science. Ms. Henderson mentioned that 
Australia has its own NIFS, but it took 20 years to get off the 
ground.
    Mr. Hicks divided the recommendations in the NAS report 
into four categories: methods development and standardization, 
laboratory accreditation and quality assurance, research and 
training, and resource requirements. He said that Congress has 
already helped the laboratories in the last three categories 
considerably, but noted that more work needs to be done on 
methods development and standardization. Mr. Hicks thought that 
an expanded role for NIST would be the most effective and 
efficient way to bring about the needed improvements in the 
forensics community.
    Dr. Downs pointed out that many of the recommendations in 
the NAS report support the need for standardization, 
specifically with respect to standardization of reports and 
terminology. He said that the report correctly indicates that 
NIST should be a partner in setting some of these standards, 
particularly in areas where its expertise overlaps with what is 
needed; however, he believes that the day-to-day application of 
forensic testing should be overseen elsewhere. He does not 
think that NIST would be the best place for areas such as 
accreditation and certification.
    Mr. Neufeld addressed the cases in which DNA showed that 
other forensic sciences were incorrect. He said that 20 years 
before DNA was used in courtrooms, it was the subject of 
extensive and relevant basic and applied research. Due to this 
research, DNA analysis has a scientifically-proven method. He 
argued that other forensic sciences were created largely for 
law enforcement use, and so they are not nearly as rigorous as 
DNA analysis.
    Mr. Wu highlighted that, according to the NAS report, with 
the exception of DNA matching, the commonly used forensic tests 
such as fingerprint analysis, ballistic testing, hair matching, 
pattern recognition, and paint matching are based more on a 
worker's experience than on rigorous scientific protocols. He 
asked the witnesses how sound the science is behind forensic 
testing. Mr. Marone answered the question by saying that 
existing methods are valid in some circumstances, but more 
research is needed. Dr. Downs added that many of the workers 
learn by experience; however, they do need standardized 
training. He also made the point that forensic science is often 
funded by law enforcement agencies, which do not always provide 
a bias-free environment.
    Four of the five witnesses said that an independent NIFS 
agency should be created, but Ms. Henderson underlined that 
this should be a long-term goal and that more should be done 
with the existing infrastructure found at NIST, the National 
Institute of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the 
Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Hicks also advised using 
NIST for many of the forensic science needs. When Chairman Wu 
asked how much this new agency would cost, or how much was 
currently spent on forensics in the existing infrastructure, 
nobody could specify an amount.

         4.6(c)_The Role of Research in Addressing Climate in 
                     Transportation Infrastructure

                             March 31, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-16

Background
    On Thursday, March 31, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to address the research agenda required to mitigate the 
environmental impact of transportation infrastructure, with an 
emphasis on climate changes. Witnesses addressed the components 
of such an agenda and possible implementation strategies.
    There were five witnesses: (1) The Hon. David Matsuda, 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT); (2) Ms. Catherine Ciarlo, Transportation 
Director for Portland, Oregon Mayor Sam Adams; (3) Dr. Laurence 
Rilett, Director of the University of Nebraska Transportation 
Center; (4) Mr. Steve Winkelman, Director of Transportation 
Programs for the Center for Clean Air Policy; and (5) Mr. Mike 
Acott, President of the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Wu highlighted the 
progress of national environmental standards--from the mandate 
of catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline in the 1970's to 
the now-recognized need to consider the impacts of the 
transportation system as a whole on the environment. He hoped 
the witnesses would describe the types of knowledge and tools 
transportation officials will need to minimize the impacts on 
climate. Ranking Member Smith stressed the importance of 
ensuring that the $600 million in DOT surface transportation 
research funding is aligned with the key objectives and 
outcomes desired of the transportation system. He also 
expressed concerns about the potential costs and impacts of a 
national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions and 
the possible negative effects of a vehicle-miles-traveled based 
tax system on rural areas like Nebraska.
    Mr. Matsuda noted the Administration's commitment to 
aggressive action to reduce the impacts of climate change and 
expressed DOT's continued work on abating greenhouse gas 
emissions in the transportation system. He gave an overview of 
research and development activities at DOT related to this 
agenda, such as land use planning and automobile fuel economy. 
He also highlighted the Center for Climate Change and 
Environmental Forecasting and its recent report on The Impacts 
of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and 
Infrastructure.
    Ms. Ciarlo described Portland's efforts to reduce the 
impact of the transportation sector on the climate, a result of 
long-term planning and investments. She discussed future plans, 
emphasizing the need for more data and better models of traffic 
patterns. For example, to better manage traffic to reduce 
emissions, planners need better data on vehicle miles traveled, 
mode choice, and trip patterns. She emphasized the need for 
basic research to help gather and use this data.
    Dr. Rilett addressed the particular challenges of freight 
traffic. He also testified on the need for more detailed travel 
data. For instance, many transportation models input average 
speeds, but these often do not reflect the acceleration/
deceleration cycles of individual drivers. The distribution of 
speeds is often more important than the average speed. This 
micro-level data will also be useful in simulating and planning 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
    Mr. Winkelman reiterated the need for models and tools to 
allow planners to assess the cost, benefits, and ``co-
benefits'' (such as reduced congestion) of various emissions 
reduction strategies. He also emphasized that planners need to 
be able to measure per-capita emissions, as well as measure how 
emissions change in response to the implementation of different 
types of infrastructure and transportation policy.
    Mr. Acott discussed environmentally sustainable asphalt 
pavement technology under development or currently being 
deployed. These include warm-mix asphalt, increased use of 
recycled asphalt pavement material in fresh asphalt pavements, 
and porous pavement. He suggested that further evaluation of 
the performance of these pavements and documentation of their 
life cycle environmental costs would help accelerate their 
deployment.
    Mr. Wu asked the witnesses to describe more thoroughly the 
data and information needs cited that would support the 
reduction of emissions from the surface transportation sector. 
He also asked the witnesses to clarify what frequently cited 
``performance measures'' related to climate and otherwise 
actually measure. Ms. Ciarlo and Mr. Winkelstein reiterated the 
need for data and models to aid in planning and discussed how 
appropriate metrics are often difficult to define and rely on 
many different types of data. Mr. Rilett remarked that data is 
not synonymous with information, but that through well-
developed performance measures, data can provide useful 
information on the performance of the transportation system and 
the need for comprehensive, measurable metrics to produce 
useful information.

       4.6(d)_The Role of SBIR and STTR Programs in Stimulating 
                Innovation at Small High-Tech Businesses

                             April 23, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-20

Background
    On Thursday, April 23, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to examine the role of the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) programs in supporting innovation at small high-tech 
firms and how, in turn, this promotes the economic welfare of 
the Nation.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert Berdahl, 
President of the Association of American Universities; (2) Mr. 
Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of Biotechnology Industry 
Organization (BIO); (3) Dr. Sally Rockey, Acting Deputy 
Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH); and (4) Mr. Jere Glover, Attorney and Executive 
Director of the Small Business Technology Council.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Wu noted that the SBIR 
and STTR programs were established 25 years ago and very few 
changes had been made to them. However, in those 25 years, the 
importance of small high-tech firms to the innovation of 
products, services, and technologies has increased 
significantly. He stated that these programs need to be 
structured so that the Nation gets the greatest return for its 
investment. In her opening statement, Ms. Biggert discussed her 
hope that future legislation would further define what a small 
business is so that the programs are not abused. She expressed 
her opposition to increasing the percentage of money set-aside 
for these programs from the agencies' research budgets.
    Dr. Berdahl spoke from the point of view of the 
universities. He stated that, for the most part, the SBIR and 
STTR programs are working well as they are currently structured 
and funded. He thought that the definition of ``small 
business'' needs to be changed to include businesses that have 
venture capital backing. He also suggested a new program that 
would provide funding to help research discoveries make it to 
the marketplace.
    Mr. Greenwood agreed with Dr. Berdahl that new legislation 
needs to define small businesses to include businesses that are 
backed by venture capital. He also noted that legislation needs 
to redefine the process under which the number of employees is 
determined and pointed out that, in its current state, the 
process excludes many companies that should qualify.
    Dr. Rockey concurred with the previous witnesses. She 
emphasized the importance of flexibility in the program.
    Mr. Glover spoke from the point of view of a small business 
and fully supported the SBIR program in its current form. He 
said that other countries are replicating the SBIR program and 
that the program that will keep America competitive. He 
suggested more funding for the program.

       4.6(e)_Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards 
            Reduction Program: R&D for Resilient Communities

                             June 11, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-32

Background
    On Thursday, June 11, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program (NEHRP) in preparation for reauthorization.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Jack Hayes, Director of 
NEHRP, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 
(2) Dr. Michael Lindell, Director of the Hazards Reduction and 
Recovery Center, and Professor of Landscape Architecture & 
Urban Planning, Texas A&M University; (3) Professor Thomas 
O'Rourke, Thomas R. Briggs Professor of Engineering, School of 
Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University; (4) Dr. 
Jim Harris, P.E., President, J. R. Harris & Company; and (5) 
Mr. Kenneth Murphy, Director, Oregon Office of Emergency 
Management and Immediate Past President, National Emergency 
Management Association (NEMA).
Summary
    Chairman Wu opened the hearing by noting that NEHRP has 
made significant progress in improving earthquake safety. He 
then remarked that the Federal Government supported research 
and development for other types of hazards--such as windstorms, 
tsunamis, and wildfires--but that much of that research was 
stove-piped. He advocated for a more coordinated approach to 
hazard mitigation research and development and supported 
education programs that encouraged public adoption as a key 
element of any successful hazard mitigation program. Finally, 
Chairman Wu stated that in addition to discussing a coordinated 
approach to federal hazards research and development funding, 
he hoped to discuss how NEHRP could be improved in the coming 
reauthorization. Ranking Member Smith reiterated the importance 
of earthquake prevention, citing the statistic that there is a 
99% probability that the state of California will experience an 
earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater within the next 30 
years.
    Dr. Hayes reported on the implementation of the changes 
made to NEHRP in the last reauthorization, including 
establishing NIST as the lead agency for the program, creating 
an interagency coordinating committee and an external advisory 
committee, and requiring a new strategic plan. He noted that 
the participating agencies have increased their coordination 
efforts, mentioning that in addition to the high-level 
interagency coordinating committee, they had also established a 
new Program Coordination Working Group to assess how well the 
proposed strategic plan will address gaps needed to fulfill the 
mission of the program. Dr. Hayes also discussed the content of 
the strategic plan and described current work taking place at 
NEHRP agencies. Such work included advances in earthquake 
mapping and monitoring, and contributions to earthquake 
building codes and practices.
    Dr. Murphy discussed the active engagement many emergency 
managers have with NEHRP and recommended better integration of 
NEHRP in key emergency management activities, such as all-
hazard preparedness and encouraging the adoption of mitigation 
measures. Dr. Murphy cited many of the challenges facing 
emergency managers, which include handling recurring disasters, 
such as windstorms, and earthquakes, which are rarer but can be 
much more devastating. He testified that increasing funding 
levels and maintaining its singular focus on earthquakes were 
two of the most important principals for the NEHRP 
reauthorization. Dr. Murphy discussed some of the important 
collaborations between the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) and states in helping citizens prepare for earthquakes, 
and advocated for improving tools used by emergency managers, 
such as hazards models and public warning systems.
    Professor O'Rourke stated that NEHRP is the ``backbone'' 
for seismic protection in the U.S. He noted that the annualized 
cost of a major earthquake in the U.S. could be $6 billion and 
tens of thousands of causalities. Professor O'Rourke was 
complimentary of NIST's leadership and the contributions of the 
interagency coordinating council in helping to oversee the 
program. However, he advocated for significantly more funding 
because many important earthquake hazard mitigation priorities 
were receiving little to no funding. In particular, Professor 
O'Rourke focused on a number of important earthquake 
engineering research areas that could greatly improve the 
resilience of buildings and infrastructure to earthquakes. 
Among these, he discussed the need for more focus on 
``lifelines,'' or infrastructure critical to helping a 
community cope with and recover from an earthquake. Professor 
O'Rourke also advocated for increased efforts with respect to 
technology transfer and mitigation measurement. He recommended 
that more funding from FEMA to state earthquake programs could 
help meet this goal. Additionally, Professor O'Rourke noted 
that NERHP was a crucial ``incubator'' for the technologies and 
ideas needed to mitigate the effects of other disasters. 
Finally, he testified that inserting NIST as the lead agency 
for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program could help 
improve windstorm mitigation efforts, and he suggested that 
efforts to coordinate or consolidate other natural hazards 
research and development within the Federal Government should 
wait until the National Research Council makes recommendations 
to preserve the research necessary and unique to each hazard, 
while leveraging common work across all hazards.
    Dr. Lindell explained that his remarks were substantially 
based on the findings of the National Science Foundation's 
Second Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards and the 
National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Disaster Research in 
the Social Sciences. He discussed the role of social science in 
protecting communities from natural disasters, noting that 
social scientists seek to understand how different demographic 
and social factors contribute to vulnerability, test the 
effectiveness of hazard mitigation programs, and work with 
emergency managers and others to improve the adoption of hazard 
mitigation measures. Dr. Lindell noted that, in the past, NEHRP 
had supported social science but that the program could make a 
greater effort to support social science and collaborations 
between social scientists, physical scientists, and engineers. 
He also named a number of high priority areas for hazard 
mitigation social science, such as assessing the vulnerability 
of different populations and detailing the post-impact actions 
of communities hit by natural disasters. Finally, Dr. Lindell 
strongly supported a coordinated, multi-hazard approach to 
hazard mitigation research and development.
    Dr. Harris commented on the improvements in interagency 
coordination since the last NEHRP reauthorization, noting that 
the agencies were working together closely to craft a new 
strategic plan and that FEMA was engaged in productive 
partnerships with the US Geological Survey (USGS) and NIST on 
several important projects. He noted that, in order to achieve 
the strategic plan's goal of earthquake resilient communities, 
technology transfer needs to be integral to the program and 
offered suggestions, such as expanding efforts to identify 
research needs from the perspective of design professional to 
increase the likelihood of success for technology transfer 
efforts. Finally, Dr. Harris addressed the need to increase 
research and development across all hazards. He offered his 
opinion that, since wind engineering was less complex than 
earthquake engineering, researchers focused their efforts on 
earthquakes even though windstorm damage is a much more 
frequent occurrence. Dr. Harris said that there was a 
significant role for the Federal Government in collecting 
engineering design-related data about all types of hazards, 
from earthquakes to windstorms to snow loads.
    During the question and answer period, the witnesses 
emphasized the importance of social science in increasing the 
rate of adoption of mitigation measures. The witnesses lauded 
NIST's efforts at coordinating NEHRP activities across the 
different agencies and recommended that NIST lead any related 
programs, such as the windstorm program. In addressing other 
hazards, the witnesses agreed that a multi-agency, NEHRP-like 
structure could be effective. However, they emphasized that 
earthquakes are a unique challenge and that NEHRP should not 
lose its earthquake focus.

           4.6(f)_Agency Response to Cyberspace Policy Review

                             June 16, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-34

Background
    On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation and 
the Subcommittee on Research and Education held a joint hearing 
to review the response of the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to the findings and 
recommendations in the Administration's 60-day Cyberspace 
Policy Review.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Ms. Cita Furlani, Director, 
Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (2) Dr. Jeannette 
Wing, Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer & 
Information Science & Engineering, NSF; (3) Dr. Robert F. 
Leheny, Acting Director, DARPA; and (4) Dr. Peter Fonash, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Cyber Security 
Communications, DHS.
Summary
    In his opening statement, Chairman Wu cited his displeasure 
with the effectiveness of previous government-funded 
cybersecurity efforts and their levels of success. Chairman Wu 
stated that this hearing would highlight the progress of the 
four Federal agencies tasked with bolstering and maintaining 
federal cybersecurity standards and what steps are being taken 
for future improvements. Ranking Member Smith cited both the 
previous and current Administration's commitment to the issue 
of cybersecurity and said that, while there exists a consensus 
for a strong bipartisan commitment to bolstering cybersecurity 
both domestically and abroad, the country is still at the 
earliest stages of doing so and that Congress must balance the 
haste to find solutions with careful deliberation on the 
solutions they choose. He wondered if enough effort is being 
placed on cybersecurity research and development efforts, 
whether $30 billion dollars is an appropriate amount to invest 
in cybersecurity, and how we can improve the security of 
private sector networks as well as public domains. Chairman 
Lipinski stressed the need for more information sharing between 
the public and private sectors and the challenges of 
incentivizing agencies to better address the problems of 
cybersecurity, as well as deficiencies in the information 
technology education field. He called for a change in the 
culture of how Americans practice their computer hygiene and 
for the formation of a secure and resilient cyberspace for not 
only the Federal Government, but the private sector as well.
    Ms. Furlani said that NIST accelerates the development and 
deployment of information and communication systems that are 
reliable, usable, interoperable, and secure. She asserted that 
NIST is actively engaged with private industry, academia, non-
national security federal departments and agencies, the 
intelligence community, and other elements of the law 
enforcement and national security communities in coordinating 
and prioritizing cyber security research, standards 
development, standards conformance demonstration, and cyber 
security education and outreach.
    Dr. Wing said that many cyber security measures deployed 
today capitalize on fundamental research outcomes generated 
decades ago. NSF agrees with the recent 60-Day Cyberspace 
Policy Review that a national strategy to secure cyberspace in 
both the near- and the long-term must include investments in 
fundamental, unclassified, open, long-term research. Many of 
the cyberspace security methods used today were developed by 
the open research community, many with an application in mind 
other than security.
    Dr. Leheny talked about DARPA's role in cybersecurity 
research and advancement, and specifically mentioned one 
program, which develops a National Cyber Range. This range will 
be a vehicle for significantly advancing progress in cyber 
understanding and capabilities, serving as a tool for rapid, 
realistic, and quantitative simulation assessment of cyber 
technologies. He also talked about coordinating research with 
other agencies, noting that--in general--program managers 
engage with their counterparts in other agencies to scope out 
the best way forward to achieve a specific research goal.
    Mr. Fonash said that DHS leads a multi-agency approach to 
coordinate the security of federal, civil, and executive branch 
networks. He said that the United States Computer Emergency 
Readiness Team (US-CERT) serves as the focal point for the 
security of federal civil executive branch networks. Agencies 
report instances to US-CERT, which then provides guidance to 
agencies on enhancing detection capabilities and works with 
them to mitigate information security incidents. DHS has also 
led the Comprehensive Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) effort to 
establish a front-line defense for the federal executive 
branch. DHS also has plans to deploy EINSTEIN, an intrusion 
detection system. He said that DHS works with industry and 
government partners to secure the Nation's critical 
infrastructure networks.

       4.6(g)_Assessing Cybersecurity Activities at NIST and DHS

                             June 25, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-39

Background
    On Thursday, June 25, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to assess the cybersecurity efforts of the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). The hearing solicited the 
input of private sector experts on how federal cybersecurity 
activities can enhance privately-owned critical infrastructure, 
better monitor federal networks, and more clearly define 
cybersecurity performance with metrics and success criteria.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Greg Wilshusen, 
Director, Information Security Issues, Government 
Accountability Office (GAO); (2) Mr. Mark Bregman, Executive 
Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Symantec 
Corporation; (3) Mr. Scott Charney, Corporate Vice President, 
Trustworthy Computing Group, Microsoft Corporation; and (4) Mr. 
Jim Harper, Director, Information Policy Studies, Cato 
Institute.
Summary
    Chairman Wu expressed his continued displeasure with the 
overall state of cybersecurity efforts at NIST and DHS, despite 
substantial funding and effort. He reviewed the recommendations 
made in the Administration's Cyberspace Policy Review and cited 
the need for objectives and metrics for cybersecurity 
performance based upon real-world outcomes. Ranking Member 
Smith addressed the Committee's strong position to shape the 
debate over government cybersecurity efforts through its 
jurisdiction over NIST and DHS. He further emphasized that, 
while broad agreement exists over the need for stronger public-
private partnerships in these efforts, precise details for the 
future of these relationships remains largely undefined.
    Mr. Wilshusen stated that GAO has, over the past three 
years, consistently reported that DHS has yet to fully satisfy 
its key responsibilities, including those for coordinating and 
protecting cyber-critical infrastructures. He highlighted some 
of DHS's shortcomings and explained that GAO has made 
approximately 90 recommendations to assist DHS in addressing 
these issues, most of which are still not fully satisfied. He 
said that NIST has developed a significant number of standards 
and guidelines for information security and assists 
organizations in implementing security controls.
    Mr. Bregman said that Symantec has seen a marked 
improvement in DHS in their engagement with the private sector; 
however, the company feels that more can be done by the 
department and private sector jointly. He said that DHS has 
also taken a lead role in educating and raising awareness on 
the issue. Mr. Bregman said that the private sector has not 
formally been asked to participate in DHS's global supply chain 
initiative, despite the fact that much of the supply chain the 
government cares about is in the hands of the private sector. 
He feels that NIST's funding is not adequate and should be 
increased; he also said that NIST should work with the private 
sector to ensure agreed-upon standards, protocols, and 
requirements are accomplished in reasonable timelines.
    Mr. Charney thought that DHS should set security control 
policy articulating minimum cybersecurity baselines, goals, and 
outcomes, as well as develop processes to exchange and foster 
implementation of best practices so that agencies can more 
quickly achieve higher levels of security when necessary. Mr. 
Charney thought that NIST should create government-wide 
standards to help agencies meet the security control policy set 
by DHS. DHS and NIST should develop their goals and standards 
based on data from outside agencies, which will evolve with the 
current threats.
    Mr. Harper encouraged Congress to keep true critical 
infrastructure off the public internet. He also mentioned that 
the Federal Government is a large market actor, and it should 
therefore use this influence in shaping the market by setting 
high security standards in its purchases. He said that the 
liability of products is a more effective way to solve security 
problems than regulating the market as liability is an open-
ended process. Regulating products can be tricky and, when done 
incorrectly, can distort markets or threaten privacy and civil 
liberties.

           4.6(h)_Reauthorization of the FIRE Grants Program

                              July 8, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-40

Background
    On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Honorable Benjamin Lujan 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to examine the Assistance to Firefighter Grant (AFG) 
and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) 
Grant programs, in preparation for their reauthorization.
    There were two panels with a total of seven witnesses. 
Panel one included: (1) The Hon. Bill Pascrell, Representative 
of New Jersey's 8th District. Panel two included: (2) The Hon. 
Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (3) Chief Jeffrey 
Johnson, First Vice President, International Association of 
Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 
in Aloha, Oregon; (4) Chief Jack Carriger, Stayton, Oregon Fire 
District First Vice Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council 
(NVFC); (5) Mr. Kevin O'Connor, Assistant to the General 
President, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF); 
(6) Chief Curt Varone, Division Manager, Public Fire Protection 
Division, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); and (7) 
Mr. Ed Carlin, Training Officer, Spalding Rural Volunteer Fire 
Department, Spalding, Nebraska.
Summary
    Mr. Lujan opened the hearing by noting the importance of 
AFG and SAFER to local fire departments and public safety. He 
expressed hope that the reauthorization legislation could 
achieve a balance between rural and urban areas, and meet the 
needs of fire departments in many different areas of the 
country. Ranking Member Smith emphasized further that these 
grants provide critical assistance to rural communities.
    The Honorable Bill Pascrell discussed his involvement in 
the creation of the Assistance to Firefighter Grant program in 
the 106th Congress, and he praised the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the programs. Mr. Pascrell stated the pressing 
need for up-to-date fire and emergency equipment in communities 
and called for Congress to reauthorize the grant programs.
    Deputy Administrator Manning discussed the popularity of 
the grants among fire departments. He also stated that data 
show a possible correlation between the receipt of grant 
funding and lower fire-related deaths and injuries in the 
community and among firefighters.
    Chief Johnson advocated restructuring the SAFER program to: 
offer three-year, rather than five-year, grants; require a 20 
percent match for each of the three years rather than an 
escalating matching requirement; and remove the maximum 
allowable amount a department may receive per firefighter. Base 
salaries vary widely from city to city and a cap would prevent 
a department in a more expensive city from taking advantage of 
the grants. He stated that both grants should support improved 
regionalism--departments that consolidate and cover larger 
populations, while cutting duplication--by raising the cap for 
larger departments. Chief Johnson urged the establishment of 
centers of excellence in fire safety research to help conduct 
research to improve firefighter health and public fire safety. 
Finally, Chief Johnson recommended giving the secretary of 
Homeland Security the authority to waive the matching 
requirements for AFG and SAFER for departments facing extreme 
economic hardship.
    Chief Carriger stressed the importance of the grants to 
rural fire departments. He also stated that more data, and 
better means to evaluate the effectiveness of grants, would be 
helpful in strategic planning. In support of this, he 
recommended FEMA support a third Fire Service Needs Assessment. 
Chief Carriger discussed the need to eliminate the matching 
requirement for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants.
    Mr. O'Connor acknowledged the benefits of the AFG program, 
but stated his opinion that current rules and practices skew 
the awards to favor smaller, rural departments. To remedy this, 
he called for each type of fire department--career, volunteer, 
and combination--to receive a minimum of 30 percent of the AFG 
funding each year. The remaining 10 percent of the funds would 
be open for competition by all fire departments. He also 
recommended that Congress raise the maximum allowable grant a 
department may be eligible for and lower the AFG matching 
requirement to 15 percent for fire departments serving large 
populations. He echoed Chief Johnson's requests for the SAFER 
program.
    Chief Varone spoke about the research conducted by NFPA on 
the Nation's need for the fire service and the impact the grant 
programs have had on alleviating those needs. He argued for 
eliminating the matching requirement for Fire Prevention and 
Safety grants, or for a waiver for those facing demonstrated 
economic hardship, and called for a minimum of five percent of 
funding to be designated for fire service-based emergency 
medical services. He then explained that fire prevention is 
best achieved through education, utilization of the latest 
technologies, and enforcement of the latest codes.
    Mr. Carlin's testimony described the limited funding 
typically available for volunteer fire departments. He 
testified that AFG money is a critical source of funding for 
equipment and education for volunteer firefighters and that 
reducing AFG funding puts those departments in peril.
    During the question and answer period, Mr. Manning said 
that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 
111-5) and the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 
111-32) provided a waiver, similar to the ones that Chief 
Johnson and Mr. O'Connor were calling for AFG, for SAFER funds 
for FY2009 and FY2010. The waivers recommended by the panel 
would likely work in the same fashion, though he admitted that 
determining criteria for waivers would be difficult.

        4.6(i)_The Potential Need for Measurement Standards to 
         Facilitate Research and Development of Biologic Drugs

                           September 24, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-53

Background
    On Thursday, September 24, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to discuss measurement science, standard and technology 
that need to be developed in order to (a) facilitate the 
discovery and development of biologics, including biosimilars; 
(b) reduce manufacturing costs for biologics and improve the 
ability to monitor quality during the manufacturing process; 
(c) provide tools to shorten the amount of time needed for the 
research, development and regulatory approval of biologics; and 
(d) ensure that patients receive life saving medicines that are 
both safe and effective.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Dr. Anthony Mire-Sluis, 
Executive Director, Global Product Quality and Quality 
Compliance, Amgen, Inc.; (2) Dr. Patrick VJJ Vink, Senior Vice 
President and Global Head of Biologics, Mylan GmbH; (3) Dr. 
Steven Kozlowski, Director, Office of Biotechnology Products, 
Office of Pharmaceutical Science, Center for Drug Evaluation 
and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and (4) 
Dr. Willie May, Director, Chemical Science and Technology 
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST).
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by reflecting on the vital 
role of metrology in scientific progress and on the Committee's 
history of promoting new technologies by addressing their 
metrology needs. He called for a constructive dialogue with 
specific regard to how NIST might be able to take a more active 
role in the biologic drug development process. Ranking Member 
Smith remarked on the promise of personalized medicine, 
stressing the importance of strong intellectual property laws 
as incentives for innovation.
    Dr. Mire-Sluis discussed the benefits of strong testing 
standards for both patient safety and cost-efficiency. Citing 
the high cost and financial risk of new drug development, he 
emphasized the importance of maintaining intellectual property 
protections. He also commended the Committee on its passage of 
the America COMPETES Act in the 110th Congress.
    Dr. Vink addressed the importance of regulatory reform from 
the perspective of the generic manufacturing industry. Unlike 
Europe, he noted that the U.S. does not currently have a 
regulatory pathway for biosimilars, which would allow companies 
to bypass the expensive clinical trial stage by demonstrating 
comparability to an approved product. He noted that existing 
regulations already tolerate a certain amount of ``creep'' in 
the makeup of branded drugs, resulting from small manufacturing 
changes. He proposed that, with NIST's help, data on the new 
version and original version might be paired to form regulatory 
goalposts for generic biosimilars. He further proposed that the 
FDA might condition a brand's exclusive rights to a new 
biologic on its voluntary provision of reference materials to 
be published for analytical testing purposes by other 
companies.
    Dr. Kozlowski offered a general description of the 
complexities of biologics, and identified three development 
challenges that could be overcome with the help of improved 
measurement standards: the assessment of post-translational 
modifications; three-dimensional structure; and protein 
aggregation.
    Dr. May spoke about NIST's expertise in measurement science 
and outlined areas where that expertise could be applied to 
biologic drug development, including determining the structural 
similarity of two drugs and measuring the presence of 
manufacturing contaminants.
    During the question and answer period, Dr. Mire-Sluis and 
Dr. Vink both reported that their institutions had had positive 
experiences in working with NIST in the past, and expressed 
confidence in their expertise. In response to Mr. Smith's 
question about the extent of overlap between the FDA and NIST, 
Dr. Kozlowski and Dr. May suggested that effective 
collaboration necessitated a certain amount of overlap between 
the two, particularly given NIST's lack of regulatory 
authority.
    Mr. Wu asked Dr. Vink whether the lack of an approval 
pathway in the U.S. pushed Mylan and other generic drug 
manufacturers to focus their business elsewhere. Dr. Vink 
confirmed that his company had been more active in biologic 
drug development in Europe and Japan, but stated that they were 
optimistic about regulatory changes in the U.S.

         4.6(j)_Cybersecurity Activities at NIST's Information 
                         Technology Laboratory

                            October 22, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-59

Background
    On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review recommendations made in the Cybersecurity 
Policy Review that may be appropriate for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the proposed 
reorganization of the NIST Information Technology Laboratory 
(ITL).
    There were six witnesses: (1) Ms. Cita Furlani, Director, 
Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (2) Dr. Susan Landau, 
Distinguished Engineer, Sun Microsystems; (3) Dr. Phyllis 
Schneck, Vice President of Threat Intelligence, McAfee; (4) 
Professor Fred Schneider, Samuel B. Eckert Professor of 
Computer Science, Cornell University; (5) Mr. William Wyatt 
Starnes, founder and CEO, SignaCert, Inc.; and (6) Mr. Mark 
Bohannon, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Public 
Policy, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA).
Summary
    Both Chairman Wu and Ranking Member Smith stated the 
importance of NIST's capabilities and expertise in being able 
to solve the problems of cybersecurity for both the federal 
government and the public. The witnesses focused on a range of 
issues regarding the Computer Security Division (CSD) 
reorganization and the possibility of the division becoming a 
stand-alone lab within NIST, the importance of legislation that 
is not geared towards ``country-specific government-created 
technology standards'', and the Administration's 60-Day 
Cyberspace Policy Review.
    Ms. Furlani stated that NIST focuses on a range of issues 
other than the protection of federal information technology 
(IT) systems. These issues include collaboration with other 
organizations to coordinate and prioritize cybersecurity 
research, standards development, standards conformance 
demonstration, and cybersecurity education and outreach 
activities. She said that NIST has developed security control 
guidelines for both Federal agencies and private sector 
systems. NIST has followed the guidelines of the 60-Day Review 
and has worked with several government agencies to create a 
committee geared towards online identity management. NIST has 
also been involved in developing international standards. 
Finally, because of the negative feedback on NIST's plans to 
reorganize the CSD, NIST has indefinitely postponed its plans.
    Dr. Landau commended the importance of the CSD and its 
research work on cybersecurity. She stressed the importance of 
NIST in regards to international dialogue where its purpose was 
to act as an impartial scientific agency. She believes NIST 
should play a larger role in creating technological standards 
that would be geared towards protecting privacy online. In 
addition, Dr. Landau agreed that there had been problems with 
the recent reorganization plans of the CSD, and she believes 
that the CSD should be elevated to the level of laboratory.
    Dr. Schneck testified that the ITL should work with the US 
Government in developing international standards on 
cybersecurity. She believes that innovation, cybersecurity, and 
international standards are tied together in developing a 
better strategy to secure systems. NIST, an already world-
respected organization in cybersecurity research, can aid in 
implementing a strategy encompassing these three aspects. In 
addition, she strongly believes that such legislation does not 
contain country-specific government-created technology 
standards for cybersecurity.
    Professor Schneider did not support the most recent 
reorganization plans of the CSD as it would have become 
difficult to manage and fund. While reorganization to degree is 
sensible, he believed that the previously proposed plan is 
inadequate.
    Mr. Starnes prefers the term `cyber assurance' over 
`cybersecurity' as it encompasses both malicious activity and 
non-malicious activity. He highlighted this because 90% of 
failures in complex systems result from non-malicious activity. 
He would like cyber assurance to function in such a way that 
any interference is deterred. He is an avid supporter of the 
Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP), which would ensure 
such systems are put into place and take a more offensive 
position to cybersecurity, which he believes is a shortfall in 
the 60-Day Review.
    Mr. Bohannon holds a similar stance to Dr. Landau and 
advocated for the CSD to become a stand-alone laboratory. He 
believes that this would allow for the CSD to attain the funds, 
manpower, and support for its needs. It would encourage NIST to 
work along with the private sector and political leadership to 
work in the international arena and prevent the implementation 
of country-specific laws that would undermine the protection of 
IT systems from violators.

      4.6(k)_Developing Research Priorities at DHS's Science and 
                         Technology Directorate

                            October 27, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-60

Background
    On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review activities at the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Brad Buswell, Acting 
Undersecretary, Science and Technology Directorate, Department 
of Homeland Security; (2) Dr. Phil Depoy, Chairman, Homeland 
Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee; (3) Mr. 
David Berteau, Senior Adviser and Director, Defense Industrial 
Initiatives Group, Center for Strategic and International 
Studies; and (4) Dr. Cindy Williams, Chair, Committee on the 
DHS S&T Directorate, National Academy of Public Administration; 
Shapiro Visiting Professor of International Affairs, The Elliot 
School of International Affairs, George Washington University.
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by thanking the S&T 
Directorate for increasing its funding for basic research--now 
20% of its portfolio--and for creating a 13th Integrated 
Product Team (IPT), which was a result of a recommendation from 
a previous hearing. Chairman Wu followed his praise with 
concern that IPT operations were inconsistent. In addition, he 
expressed concern over the lack of a comprehensive threat 
assessment as a foundation for determining research priorities.
    Mr. Buswell stated that the S&T Directorate has 
successfully restructured its delivery of advanced technology 
so that it is able to respond to its customers' near-term and 
long-term technology capability needs. He addressed the 
concerns regarding risk assessment and stated that the S&T 
Directorate relies on its customers to incorporate the threat 
assessment into its research. He highlighted the importance of 
basic research, discussing its impact on future technology 
development and encouraging the development of a scientific 
workforce through the research conducted by their national 
laboratories and university-based centers. He said that the S&T 
Directorate's strategic plan will be updated in the Quadrennial 
Homeland Security Review so that it will align more with the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) guidance.
    Dr. Depoy testified that the Homeland Security Science and 
Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) provided a review in 
2008 of the S&T Directorate transition projects and IPT 
structure. HSSTAC concluded that, over the two years of review, 
the S&T Directorate provided the structure and direction, 
developed processes to analyze capability gaps, established a 
customer interface in the IPTs, and expanded the University 
Centers of Excellence Program for students to perform basic 
research in Homeland Security concerns. However, the panel also 
found that the S&T Directorate's strategy was too broad and not 
adequate for providing guidance on research topics. Dr. Depoy 
stated that regardless of some of the program's shortcomings, 
IPTs have improved the S&T Directorate.
    Mr. Berteau recommended that the strategic plan for DHS 
stem from a broad homeland security enterprise-wide plan as 
there is so much of homeland security that is outside DHS, and 
even outside the federal government. In order to fix the 
shortfalls of the program, budgets should be built to address 
the capability gaps in question.
    Dr. Williams chaired a panel of the National Academy of 
Public Administration (NAPA) from June of 2008 to June of 2009 
that studied the S&T Directorate. The panel reviewed two 
distinct strategic plans--an internal plan to guide its own 
work and a federal-wide plan for civilian efforts to counter 
chemical, biological and other emerging terrorist threats--and 
found that they failed to meet federal government standards and 
did not address long-term goals. In addition, stakeholders were 
not specific involved in the development of the strategic 
plans. The panel found that there was much discrepancy in 
different IPTs with respect to results achieved, customer 
satisfaction, and process. In addition, the panel found several 
holes in the basic research portfolio and highlighted that 
basic research projects were awarded without competition and 
without scientific peer review.
    The questions portion of the hearing was dominated by 
concerns over the program structure and research capabilities 
of DHS. Risk assessment was a major topic. Dr. Williams pointed 
out that risk and threat assessment are crucial to creating and 
maintaining a functional strategic plan. Mr. Buswell replied 
that DHS is currently attempting to meet outlined needs with 
the help of the Quadrennial Review on the S&T Directorate's 
strategic plan. Mr. Berteau and Dr. Depoy both emphasized that 
the strategic plan should be an enterprise-wide effort, not 
just for the S&T Directorate. Dr. Williams made a few 
recommendations regarding milestones as a means of review for 
projects within the S&T Directorate to which Mr. Buswell 
partially agreed, debating how these milestones should be 
defined.

       4.6(l)_The Research and Development Portfolio Required to 
       Support the Priorities of the Department of Transportation

                           November 19, 2009

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-64

Background
    On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing on the components of a surface transportation research 
and development portfolio to support the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's goals of safety, economic competitiveness, 
environmental sustainability, and community livability. The 
hearing also addressed the necessary steps for the Department 
of Transportation to implement its research and development 
agenda and the most effective practices for ensuring the latest 
research and development is utilized.
    There were six witnesses: (1) the Honorable Polly 
Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); (2) the Honorable 
Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology 
Administration (RITA); (3) Mr. Neil Pedersen, Administrator, 
Maryland State Highway Administration; Vice Chair, American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
(AASHTO) Standing Committee on Highways; (4) Ms. Ann Flemer, 
Deputy Executive Director, Policy, Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission, Oakland, California; Vice Chair, Intelligent 
Transportation Society of America; (5) Mr. Alan Pisarski, 
Independent Consultant; and (6) Mr. Robert Skinner, Executive 
Director, Transportation Research Board (TRB), The National 
Academies.
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by noting that the Secretary 
of Transportation's four stated goals of safety, economic 
competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and community 
livability were laudable, but expressed concern that the goals 
lacked specificity and would be difficult to measure. He said 
that the purpose of the hearing was to better understand the 
Secretary's definitions for these priorities and discuss the 
research and development agenda needed to help achieve these 
goals.
    Ms. Trottenberg identified the DOT Office of Policy's role 
of providing research to support transportation policymakers, 
and discussed the development of the USDOT's 2010-2015 
Strategic Plan, as well as the Secretary's goals for the 
Department. She noted that research was an important component 
of each of these goals and briefly discussed one high-level 
interagency partnership between the USDOT, the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency to support the goal of Creating Livable Communities. Ms. 
Trottenberg also acknowledged that in the past the DOT had not 
always ensured research was effectively translated into safer 
and more efficient transportation by policymakers, suggesting 
that implementation of new technologies was an area that 
demanded more focus.
    Mr. Appel outlined the institutional layout of RITA, which 
was charged by Congress to coordinate collaborative multi-modal 
research and development. He then highlighted existing programs 
and new initiatives that will support the Secretary's four 
overarching goals, including driver behavior studies, freight 
coordination surveys, and the development of new types of 
strong structural materials.
    Mr. Pederson identified a number of research needs to 
support the Secretary of Transportation's four major goals. His 
proposed research agenda focused on the lack of data and 
information faced by transportation officials, hindering their 
ability to meet larger policy goals. For example, Mr. Pederson 
discussed the need for cost-benefit information to help 
transportation planners mitigate the impact of transportation 
projects on the environment and the need to deploy automated 
data-collection technologies to help assess the impact of 
traffic safety measures. He also discussed the need for the DOT 
to support the ``full innovation'' cycle of research projects 
from basic research to implementation. As part of this, Mr. 
Pederson emphasized the importance of engaging in technology 
transfer activities such as web-based tools to educate 
transportation professionals. Finally, he recommended against 
earmarking research funds at the expense of existing projects.
    Ms. Flemer discussed the experience of the San Francisco 
Bay Area, which has set performance targets in fatality rates, 
commute time, affordability, and emissions goals. Drawing from 
the Bay Area's experience in attempting to measure the 
performance of its transportation facilities, she recommended 
that data collection technologies, such as sensors and GPS-
based technologies, be uniformly deployed nationwide. She also 
criticized the DOT for not providing more leadership and 
assistance to state and local agencies on transportation data 
collection efforts. Additionally, Ms. Flemer advocated for the 
Smart Cities and Communities Initiative, a pilot program that 
would implement ``smart'' infrastructure, provide real-time 
information to travelers, and collect transportation data in 
select test cities.
    Mr. Pisarski expressed skepticism about some of the DOT's 
major goals and criticized the Department for failing to take a 
leadership role in data collection needs. He was particularly 
critical of the Livable Communities goal, arguing that, among 
other issues, an aging and increasingly specialized workforce 
was unlikely to transition from driving to alternative modes of 
transportation. Mr. Pisarski also criticized the DOT for 
failing to perform assessments of data needs for transportation 
planners and pointed to a general lack of leadership in 
coordinating and setting data collection priorities across the 
modal agencies within DOT.
    Mr. Skinner reported on the status of transportation 
research projects and listed a number of areas that would 
benefit from increased research, according to findings from 
expert panels within the Transportation Research Board. He 
named a number of research areas related to the Secretary's 
goals, including comparative lifecycle emissions research on 
different modes of transportation and alternative taxation 
programs such as vehicle miles traveled fees.

    4.6(m)_Commerce Department Programs to Support Job Creation and 
           Innovation at Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers

                            January 21, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-71

Background
    On Thursday, January 21, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to learn about the challenges faced by small and 
medium-sized manufactures, as well as entrepreneurs marketing 
new technology. The hearing also addressed Department of 
Commerce initiatives to address these challenges and examined 
how those programs can be made most effective for these 
enterprises.
    There were four witnesses: (1) The Honorable Dennis F. 
Hightower, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; (2) Ms. Jennifer Owens, Vice President, Ann Arbor 
Spark: (3) Ms. RoseAnn B. Rosenthal, President and CEO, Ben 
Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania; (4) 
Mr. Michael Coast, President, Michigan Manufacturing Technology 
Center.
Summary
    Chairman Wu opened the hearing by explaining that the 
health of the manufacturing sector is crucial to the health of 
the economy as a whole, but that U.S. manufacturers, even 
before the recent economic downturn, faced significant 
challenges. Chairman Wu stated that, in the face of increasing 
competition, capitalizing on our research and development 
efforts would be critical to growing the U.S. manufacturing 
sector.
    Deputy Secretary Hightower identified several high-level 
priorities for the Commerce Department to improve U.S. economic 
competitiveness, including tapping the potential of new green 
and blue industries, expanding exports through trade promotion 
efforts, and transforming the Department of Commerce into a 
more integrated, efficient, and effective service provider. In 
support of these goals, Deputy Secretary Hightower described 
several new initiatives, as well as the existing Manufacturing 
Extension Program. These initiatives included the Office of 
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which will help set federal 
policies and programs to encourage high-growth 
entrepreneurship, and the CommerceConnect program, launched to 
provide manufacturers with a one-stop-shop for the suite of 
services the Department of Commerce provides, such as export 
promotion and research and development partnerships. Finally, 
Deputy Secretary Hightower praised the success of the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, noting that, 
for over 20 years, it has delivered $1.4 billion in cost 
savings annually and $9.1 billion in retained or increased 
sales. He cited the President's 2010 budget, which proposed to 
double MEP funding over seven years.
    Ms. Owens noted that her region, Ann Arbor, has been able 
to weather the financial storm better than others through the 
strength of the university and the entrepreneurs it fosters. 
However, she noted that the manufacturing sector, critical to 
Michigan, was facing extremely uncertain times. She therefore 
thought that CommerceConnect was a critical program to help 
guide small manufacturers during the economic crisis. However, 
she urged the Department of Commerce to utilize existing 
networks of state and local economic developers. She testified 
that it would be more efficient for the Department to educate 
these workers on Commerce services. She noted that existing 
programs, like MEP, were very successful, and that 
manufacturers who were able to quickly retool their processes 
for new products had been better able to handle the economic 
downturn. Finally, Ms. Owens testified that federal programs 
were helpful, but that the biggest crisis facing manufacturers 
in the short-term was a lack of access to capital.
    Ms. Rosenthal described the role of Ben Franklin Technology 
Partners in helping to commercialize new technology and in 
contributing to the economic health of the region. As an 
example of this role, she described the Nanotechnology 
Institute, a partnership between several Philadelphia-area 
universities and Ben Franklin Technology Partners, that has 
helped license new technologies and spur start-ups. Ms. 
Rosenthal also testified about the lack of venture capital 
funding available to support the early stages of 
commercialization for new technologies. For that reason, Ben 
Franklin Technology Partners has helped raise pre-seed capital 
to fund promising new technologies before they are proven 
enough to attract venture capital funding. In addition, Ms. 
Rosenthal offered five guiding principles for redirecting 
existing federal dollars and updating programs in order to 
maximize its impact on innovation and job creation. These 
recommendations were: ensure that goals are clear and non-
conflicting and that they keep the ultimate objective--economic 
growth through entrepreneurial innovation--at the forefront; 
take an approach that is less prescriptive and more receptive 
to new models and allows program design to be driven by the 
specific challenges and opportunities at regional, state, and 
local levels; be flexible in implementation, enabling timely 
response as conditions change; chose programs that focus on 
reducing the barriers to collaboration and innovation; and 
chose designs that catalyze institutional and private 
involvement and investment over time. She went on to describe 
how these principles could re-shape existing programs, such as 
the Economic Development Administration's University Centers 
for Economic Development program.
    Mr. Coast described the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
program and the vital assistance it has provided to Michigan 
manufacturers. He also provided recommendations to help ensure 
the success of the CommerceConnect pilot program: the program 
should have a permanent staff that know the Commerce programs 
thoroughly, as well as other business assistance programs; each 
service-providing program at the Department of Commerce needs a 
designated point of contact that is tasked with addressing 
CommerceConnect clients' needs; and CommerceConnect should 
establish pilot programs in other cities before a full scale 
program is launched.

    4.6(n)_Passenger Screening R&D: Responding to President Obama's 
      Call to Develop and Deploy the Next Generation of Screening 
                              Technologies

                            February 3, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-74

Background
    On Wednesday, February 3, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review the airline passenger screening-related 
research, development, testing, and deployment activities of 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and 
Technology (S&T) Directorate, the DHS University Centers of 
Excellence, the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), and the Department of Energy National Laboratories.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Brad Buswell, Deputy 
Undersecretary of the Science and Technology Directorate, 
Department of Homeland Security; (2) Dr. Penrose Albright, 
Principal Associate Director for Global Security, Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory; (3) Dr. Bert Coursey, Program 
Manager, Coordinated National Security Standards Program, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology; and (4) Dr. 
Sandra Hyland, Senior Principal Engineer, BAE Systems
Summary
    Chairman Wu opened the hearing by expressing his 
disappointment in the lack of attention DHS has paid in the 
past to public acceptance issues. He cited two reports by the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one published in 1997 and 
one published in 2007, both of which identified the need to pay 
more attention to public acceptance issues in the deployment of 
passenger screening technologies. He explained that public 
acceptance of body-scanning technologies must be assessed and 
was disappointed that the witnesses' written testimony did not 
indicate that their respective agencies had a comprehensive 
plan for conducting and using effective public acceptance 
research.
    Mr. Buswell explained that DHS S&T's research and 
development priorities are primarily driven through their 
Capstone Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), in which customers 
and stakeholders have a lead role. Mr. Buswell said that DHS 
S&T works closely with the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) and other DHS offices to ensure the 
research the S&T Directorate is conducting has a clear path to 
deployment. Mr. Buswell also stated that the S&T Directorate 
uses Community Perceptions of Technology panels that include 
informed experts from industry, public interest, and community-
oriented organizations to identify potential acceptance issues, 
although he gave no indication as to whether they discussed 
issues with passenger screening.
    Dr. Albright said that the National Laboratories combine 
computer simulation codes, diagnostics, and an environment 
where both theoretical and experimental chemists, physicists, 
engineers, and materials scientists can work together to 
provide a detailed understanding of the science of energic 
materials, their effect on aircraft structures, their impact on 
existing detection systems at the passenger checkpoint, and how 
systems might be improved to enhance aviation security. The 
labs apply this expertise to the needs of the Department of 
Energy, DHS, Department of Justice, and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA). As part of that effort, DHS brought three 
labs together--Sandia, Los Alamos, and Livermore--to create a 
program called the National Explosives Engineering Sciences and 
Security Program. This program has included the evaluation and 
characterization of explosive formulations, the assessment of 
catastrophic damage, rapid assessment of technical and 
performance of emerging detection systems and their 
applications.
    Dr. Coursey stated that NIST is involved in measurement 
standards for a wide variety of detection methods. In each of 
these areas, NIST is working in collaboration with DHS, 
industry, academic partners, and end users. Dr. Coursey said 
that NIST has been involved in a multi-year effort with the 
Transportation Security Laboratory since 2003 to engage in 
research that supports standards and measurement needs for 
trace explosives screening. He explained that, when screening 
travelers, it is important to deploy technology and processes 
that provide the highest level of security while keeping the 
traveling public moving efficiently through checkpoints. To 
facilitate that, NIST conducts biometric usability studies that 
help ensure that screening systems are easy, efficient, and 
intuitive for travelers and inspection agents alike.
    Dr. Hyland talked about the reports the NAS published on 
implementation issues associated with new technologies. She 
mentioned the 1996 NAS report, which described the technical 
advances in security screening, the associated legal issues, 
and the issue of public acceptance. She said that the study 
identified four issues most relevant to the public acceptance 
of technologies: health, privacy, convenience, and comfort. The 
report noted that this technology would most likely only be 
accepted if the perceived threat level were high. In light of 
the recent attempted bombing on Christmas, Dr. Hyland thought 
it was time to revisit the question of acceptance. The study 
found that, at the time, there had been very little research of 
the public acceptance of screening technologies, and when this 
topic was revisited relative to the committee's work on the 
whole-body imagers in 2007, that had not changed. Dr. Hyland 
said that the best way to gauge public acceptance is through 
field tests.

     4.6(o)_How Can NIST Better Serve the Needs of the Biomedical 
                Research Community in the 21st Century?

                           February 24, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-79

Background
    On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to examine ways in which the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) could better serve the needs of 
the biomedical community.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Thomas M. Baer, 
Executive Director, Stanford Photonics Research Center, Ginzton 
Lab; (2) Sharon F. Terry, MA, President and CEO, Genetic 
Alliance; and (3) Dr. Daniel Sullivan, Professor and Vice 
Chair, Research in Radiology, Duke University Medical Center 
and Science Advisor, Radiologic Society of North America.
Summary
    Chairman Wu opened the hearing by explaining the importance 
of metrology in the biologics industry--better metrology 
science may lead to better care for patients, better treatment 
options for doctors, and earlier, more accurate diagnoses of 
disease. These efforts may also contribute to saving billions 
of dollars each year in medical costs. He pointed to NIST as an 
agency that could help develop new, innovative processes to 
provide service and support to the biomedical industry.
    Dr. Baer stated that there has been a technological 
revolution leading to tremendous progress in the life sciences 
over the past several decades, and particularly over the last 
30 years. He noted that one area in which remarkable advances 
have been made is in technology that allows for very precise 
analysis of DNA, RNA, and proteins and that many of these 
advances were developed here in the U.S. Dr. Baer stated that 
there are several biotechnology-based industries that depend on 
these technological advancements, one of which is health care. 
He explained that NIST is responsible for making sure data 
obtained in biomedical research is of high quality, and for 
developing the technology and software to extract from this 
data the critical elements that can be used in diagnosing 
diseases. Currently, NIST does not have a life science 
laboratory focused on the biomedical and healthcare industries 
or on enhancing the technology that has evolved over the last 
several decades through measurement science. He suggested that 
NIST may want to form a separate operating unit and laboratory 
focusing on the bioscience and healthcare areas.
    Ms. Terry said that she entered the biomedical health care 
industry because her children developed a genetic-based 
disease, pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PSA), for which no cure 
existed. She presented an example of patient-driven 
translational research based on her experience with PSA. She 
stated that her research into finding appropriate treatment 
intervention for PSA has been hampered by current limitations 
in measurement science. She also noted that diagnosis and 
screening for this disease are difficult because each provider 
of biomedical tests and therapies is creating its own system, 
leading to widespread inconsistencies in biomedical testing for 
PSA and several other genetic diseases. Even simple tests from 
one lab cannot always be compared to similar tests from another 
lab because of a lack of appropriate reference standards. 
Instead, every manufacturer of diagnostic test kits applies its 
own standard references and controls. The Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) is challenged with ascertaining the 
accuracy and precision of these technologies based on the 
manufacturer-supplied standards. Ultimately, the FDA must trust 
the manufacturers in the absence of any other alternative. Ms. 
Terry testified that NIST must take a leadership role in 
creating the standards necessary to integrate new technologies 
into medicine. She testified that NIST should: create a life 
sciences infrastructure catalog and distribution system for 
reference materials and standards for quality assurance for all 
clinical diagnostic tests; integrate measurement standards and 
technologies into the FDA regulatory regime; partner with the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) on resolving the 
measurement challenges at the intersection of patient care; and 
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the life sciences to 
determine the highest needs for measurement science.
    Dr. Sullivan said that it is increasingly clear that the 
value of medical scans would be significantly greater if 
radiologists could extract more objective, quantitative 
information from scans, rather than relying on their 
subjective, qualitative interpretations. He noted that NIST can 
be a critical participant to help manufacturers meet this need. 
Dr. Sullivan testified that NIST needed to develop reference 
materials, standards, and validation procedures in the 
biomedical imaging area, especially for computerized axial 
tomography (CAT/CT) scans, positron emission tomography (PET) 
scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, and medical 
optical imaging scans. To determine the metrology needs for the 
biomedical imaging community, Dr. Sullivan suggested that NIST 
appoint an advisory board made up of both industry experts and 
representatives of the imaging device users. A NIST-managed 
user facility that could be used by industry and academic 
developers to test their devices under standardized, controlled 
conditions would be an important asset. Finally, he stressed 
that there is a critical need for a neutral broker, trusted by 
the public, to develop an accreditation and performance levels 
program with associated policies and procedures and that NIST 
is ideally suited to perform this role.

     4.6(p)_NIST Structure and Authorities, Its Role in Standards, 
         and Federal Agency Coordination on Technical Standards

                             March 23, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-89

Background
    On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to review the proposed re-alignment of operational 
units at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), examine the current role that NIST plays in technical 
standards, and examine the need for Federal agencies and 
departments' coordination on technical standards.
    There were five witnesses: (1) The Honorable Patrick 
Gallagher, Director, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST); (2) Dr. James Serum, President, Scitek 
Ventures, LLC and Past Chair, NIST Visiting Committee on 
Advanced Technology (VCAT); (3) Mr. Craig Shank, General 
Manager, Interoperability at Microsoft; (4) Mr. Philip 
Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation; and (5) Mr. 
Andrew Updegrove, Partner, Gesmer Updegrove, LLP.
Summary
    Chairman Gordon opened the hearing by pointing out that the 
current NIST lab structure dates from 1988 and the technologies 
of today are much more multi-disciplinary and integrated in 
scope and function than they were when the current structure 
was devised. He looked forward to discussing the role that NIST 
should play in coordinating federal government standards policy 
development.
    Dr. Gallagher talked about his proposal for reorganizing 
the NIST labs. Currently, NIST has seventeen line organizations 
that all report directly to the Director or Deputy Director of 
NIST. Because of significant turnover in those positions, this 
is an unstable structure. Dr. Gallagher has proposed to 
organize NIST senior management by eliminating the current 
Deputy Director position and replacing it with three Associate 
Directors- one in charge of the laboratory programs, one in 
charge of NIST's external programs, and one in charge of 
management resources. This proposal has already been approved 
by the Department of Commerce (DOC) and by the Administration 
and is currently being evaluated by the appropriate 
Appropriations Subcommittees. Dr. Gallagher has also proposed a 
reorganization of NIST's laboratories. He believes the labs 
should be organized by mission, creating a vertically-
integrated structure where a single laboratory would be 
responsible not only for the basic research and development 
activities, but also for all the components related to 
delivering products and services of that laboratory to NIST 
customers. This would make organizations more customer-focused 
and responsive. Dr. Gallagher's proposal is based on input from 
the NIST Leadership Team, the NIST VCAT, the DOC, and other 
NIST and external stakeholders.
    Dr. Serum strongly supports Dr. Gallagher's proposal of the 
reorganization of NIST. He said that an effective, efficient 
organization must have clearly defined responsibilities, single 
ownership of goals, and accountability for achieving results. 
The reorganization of the labs, as Dr. Gallagher has proposed, 
would accomplish this goal. Dr. Serum stated that he thought 
the Director of NIST should hold the rank of Under Secretary as 
this would bring parity to his peers within the DOC and would 
allow the Director to participate in all the activities 
afforded to an Under Secretary. Dr. Serum complemented NIST for 
its coordination role in the area of Smart Grid, and indicated 
that this should be used as a model and applied to other areas 
of national priority where standards development is required.
    Mr. Shank stated that effective technical standards can 
help promote innovation, fuel market growth, and drive 
corresponding job development. Technology changes rapidly; new 
standards will enable deployment of new solutions and encourage 
development of innovative products and services. Cloud 
computing is becoming more popular. With this new technology 
come new responsibilities, including the need to protect 
privacy of users, the security of their data, and to enable 
interoperability between systems--all areas where standards can 
play an important role. Mr. Shank believes that Dr. Gallagher's 
proposed realignment for NIST will enhance its overall 
effectiveness in the standards system. He also said that NIST 
could serve as a convener to facilitate the exchange of 
information and collaboration among federal agencies on 
domestic and international standards policy issues.
    Mr. Wennblom supports Dr. Gallagher's proposed 
reorganization of NSIT, and believes these changes should 
improve management stability and customer orientation.
    Mr. Updegrove said that while the cross-sectoral solutions 
can, and usually do, evolve over time, the urgent challenges 
such as cybersecurity and the rising cost of healthcare do not 
permit us the luxury to allow normal market forces to provide 
timely solutions for such complex multi-disciplinary problems. 
NIST can play an important role in providing the standards 
tools needed in such instances. The development and deployment 
of standards is essential to creating new technologies and new 
product markets and therefore to jobs creation and maintaining 
a healthy balance of trade. He argued that we must charge a 
single agency, NIST, with the role of tracking emerging needs 
for public-private coordination with marshalling facts and data 
for lawmakers and the Administration.

        4.6(q)_Supporting Innovation in the 21st Century Economy

                             March 24, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-90

Background
    On Wednesday, March 24, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to examine factors that drive innovation, as well as 
those that impede it. This hearing also discussed the role of 
the Federal Government in promoting innovation.
    There were five witnesses: (1) The Honorable Aneesh Chopra, 
Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of the United States, White 
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2) Dr. 
Mark Kamlet, Provost, Carnegie Mellon University; (3) Dr. Rob 
Atkinson, President, the Information Technology & Innovation 
Foundation (ITIF); (4) Dr. Dan Breznitz, Associate Professor, 
the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Georgia Institute 
of Technology; and (5) Mr. Paul Holland, General Partner, 
Foundation Capital.
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by stating that expert 
economists have found that 50 to 90 percent of U.S. economic 
growth in the 20th Century, especially after World War II, was 
attributable to innovation, rather than a growth in immediate 
economic inputs such as labor and resources. He explained that 
it was therefore crucial to support the Administration's recent 
efforts at spurring innovation. He then said he hoped that this 
hearing on supporting innovation in the American economy would 
be the first of several on the topic.
    Mr. Chopra noted that innovation is the foundation for 
durable, sustainable expansion in employment and economic 
growth. He stated that, while past debates had centered heavily 
on the appropriate level of involvement by the Federal 
Government in driving innovation in the private sector, the 
Obama Administration sought to strike a balance and focus on 
areas ``that only government can provide.'' He further 
explained that this included supporting basic research and 
associated infrastructure; providing a jump start to innovation 
in areas of national importance; and setting an open 
environment for competition and innovation. Mr. Chopra provided 
a number of programmatic and policy examples in support of 
these broad ideas. For example, he talked about the 
Administration's $130 million plan for Energy Regional 
Innovation Clusters, greater efforts to promote U.S. exports, 
and technology research, development, and deployment efforts in 
areas of national importance, including Smart Grid and 
Healthcare Information Technology. Mr. Chopra also announced 
the creation of a new subcommittee of the National Science and 
Technology Council devoted to providing high-level leadership 
on technical standards for areas of high national importance.
    Dr. Kamlet discussed Carnegie Mellon University's 
experiences in promoting technology transfer and 
entrepreneurship, and offered thoughts on how his university's 
experiences might be helpful in the national policy debate 
about spurring innovation. He explained the importance of the 
Bayh-Dole Act in promoting the commercialization of university 
research. Dr. Kamlet then explained his university's solution 
to protracted conflicts that arise during negotiations between 
faculty and universities regarding the intellectual property 
rights to their inventions, which the university has dubbed: 
``5% go in peace.'' Dr. Kamlet credited this, and several 
related policies, for having doubled the rate of new start-ups 
by Carnegie Mellon faculty. He also noted that in addition to 
attracting existing businesses such as Google and Caterpillar 
to collaborate with university researchers, Carnegie Mellon 
collaborates with regional economic development organizations 
to create a fertile ground for growth for Carnegie Mellon 
start-ups. Finally, Dr. Kamlet offered three suggestions from 
Carnegie Mellon's experience that could be applicable to 
national innovation policy: (1) encourage the federal 
government to provide small, targeted investments to help 
bridge the gap between the end of basic research and the point 
where private investment funding can support startup 
development; (2) identify niche areas for federal science 
funding where synergy can be created between basic research and 
technology development that will accelerate commercialization; 
and (3) establish policies to rejuvenate industry-university 
collaborations, such as enacting a Bayh-Dole Act equivalent for 
university-industry collaboration.
    Dr. Atkinson testified that, in 2000, the US was the leader 
among the countries of the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) in a collection of indicators 
of competitiveness, such as the funding of basic research, the 
level of education of the population, and the availability of 
capital to invest in innovation. However, by 2009, the US had 
fallen to number six in these indicators, mainly because the US 
had invested in these areas at a slower rate than its 
competitors. He also stated his belief that the country's lack 
of innovation over the past decade contributed to the recent 
financial crisis because there were not enough good innovation 
opportunities in which to invest. Dr. Atkinson argued that in 
order to stem this decline, the U.S. needs a national 
innovation strategy that will support, among other things, 
systematic partnerships between industry, academia, and 
government, as well as funding for commercialization, to 
encourage innovation. He also emphasized the importance of STEM 
education in an overall innovation strategy.
    Dr. Breznitz offered his views that stimulating and 
promoting innovation is a critical role of government, and that 
it is a very different from favoring or promoting specific 
industries. He noted the importance of experimentation and 
flexibility in supporting innovation because the markets and 
products in many cases are not yet defined. Dr. Breznitz stated 
that a further challenge facing governments in supporting 
innovation is the globally fragmented nature of production, 
which makes it difficult to predict how innovation policies 
will support job growth. Dr. Breznitz suggested that 
governments must meet three challenges in order to successfully 
spur innovation: establishing trust between themselves and 
private actors, coordinating R&D across different institutional 
actors, and motivating private actors to innovate in a way that 
contributes to the domestic economy. He then discussed some of 
the practices of other countries in supporting innovation, from 
providing funds to private actors in order to research new 
technologies and create innovation to providing funds to public 
actors to do the same. He also gave examples of a third 
governmental role, that of the government acting as a 
facilitator in creating relationships between public and 
private sector actors. Dr. Breznitz noted how other nations, 
such as Israel and Taiwan, had utilized these different 
approaches, and summarized the impacts of their endeavors.
    Mr. Holland explained the mechanisms venture capitalists 
use to support new companies and new products and services and 
noted the significant role venture capital has played in 
creating high-tech industries and major companies such as 
Intel, Genentech, and Google. He also talked about the 
significant concentration of venture capital funds in the 
Silicon Valley area, crediting the region with a strong ``risk-
taking'' culture. Mr. Holland noted that while the availability 
of venture capital in other areas of the country, like Boston 
and North Carolina's Research Triangle, had grown over the last 
40 years, the availability of such capital in Asia, Eastern 
Europe, and South America, has grown significantly in recent 
years. With the rise of ``viable competitors,'' Mr. Holland 
said that his industry saw a need to increase the support for 
basic research, and for new, innovative programs, such as the 
Department of Energy's ARPA-E program. He also urged for 
greater support of STEM education. Mr. Holland cited the 
statistic that 25% of venture-backed public companies were 
founded by immigrant entrepreneurs. He explained that 
immigration reform that welcomes talented foreigners is 
critical to US innovation policy. Finally, Mr. Holland 
discussed the negative impact on the venture capital industry 
of tax policy that would charge ordinary income tax rates on 
capital gains and the vital necessity of strong intellectual 
property protection to the venture capital industry.

        4.6(r)_Interoperability in Public Safety Communications 
                               Equipment

                              May 27, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-97

Background
    On Thursday, May 27, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to discuss the status of a suite of technical 
standards, known as Project 25, or P25, that are designed to 
allow digital land mobile radio systems from different vendors 
to be interoperable.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. David Boyd, Director, 
Command, Control & Interoperability, Science and Technology 
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (2) Mr. 
Dereck Orr, Program Manager, Public Safety Communications 
Systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 
(3) Dr. Ernest L Hofmeister, Senior Scientist, Harris 
Corporation; (4) Mr. John Muench, Director of Business 
Development, Motorola Inc.; and (5) Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, 
President, International Association of Fire Chiefs, and Chief, 
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Aloha, Oregon.
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by noting that ensuring 
interoperable communication equipment for first responders is 
critical to protecting the safety of first responders and the 
public they serve. He explained that the purpose of the hearing 
was to examine the status of the P25 standard needed to ensure 
that emergency responder radios from different manufacturers 
will interoperate. Chairman Wu stated his concern that, after 
two decades, the entire standard was not yet complete, and that 
public safety agencies did not realize that equipment labeled 
as ``P25'' was not based on a complete set of standards. In 
addition to addressing the question of the status of the 
standards, he noted that the hearing would also address 
conformance testing for these products, for which he stated his 
strong support.
    Dr. Boyd explained that, given the thousands of public 
safety agencies nationwide and the billions of dollars worth of 
legacy equipment that these agencies now use, the most 
practical approach to achieving interoperability for voice and 
data is to use a ``systems-of-systems'' approach. However, 
standards are the key to linking together many disparate 
systems, and he noted that in the case of voice services for 
land mobile radios, comprehensive standards are lacking. Dr. 
Boyd described how, for many of the interfaces that comprise 
the P25 standard, documents essential for testing the standard 
had not yet been completed by the standards developers. He 
stressed the importance of both the testing documents and 
performing the tests themselves in discovering problems that 
might interfere with interoperability. It was noted throughout 
the hearing that the radio manufacturers involved in the P25 
standards process opposed more rigorous conformity assessment 
testing, designed to test the manufacturer's equipment against 
the standards. Dr. Boyd testified that DHS and NIST had 
discovered interoperability problems four years ago while 
testing radio equipment labeled as P25, and he strongly urged 
for the inclusion of conformity assessment testing in the DHS 
Compliance Assessment Program. These conformity tests would 
ensure that the radios function as intended and that they will 
interoperate with equipment manufactured in the future.
    Mr. Orr gave an overview of the P25 standards development 
process and NIST's role in supporting P25 development and 
testing. He then detailed four issues with P25 that he believed 
were hampering progress towards interoperability, as well as 
open competition in the marketplace for public safety 
equipment. First, only one and a half of the eight interfaces 
in the suite of the standards needed for interoperability and 
competition as defined by P25 are complete. Second, as a result 
of the lack of complete standards, only a fraction of any P25 
system purchased today is truly standards based. Third, many 
public safety agencies believe that when they purchase a system 
labeled P25 that it is based on a complete set of standards. 
Fourth, there is no industry-led compliance assessment and 
certification program. He further explained that the DHS/NIST 
P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) was developed with the 
expectation of incorporating the more rigorous conformity 
assessment testing, in addition to other tests. Mr. Orr 
testified that industry has opposed the inclusion of such 
tests, arguing that they are overly burdensome and redundant to 
other testing required by the CAP. Mr. Orr testified that he 
believed conformity assessment testing was crucial to ensure 
that the radios will perform as intended. Therefore, he was 
pleased to report that over the past two months, industry 
participants in P25 have expressed more willingness to actively 
participate in the identification of relevant conformance tests 
for the P25 CAP. Mr. Orr hoped to have a fully functional CAP 
program within two years.
    Dr. Hofmeister described the extensive number of P25 
standards that had been developed by industry engineers. He 
argued that while some have accused the P25 process of being 
slow, it has moved at a similarly deliberate speed as other 
consensus-driven standards development processes. He also 
expressed Harris' belief that since 2005, the P25 standards 
process was moving at full industry and user support capacity. 
Dr. Hofmeister further testified that in Harris' view, the P25 
process had made strong progress toward the original goals, 
citing the completion of the common-air-interface, which allows 
portable radios from different manufacturers to interoperate, 
and the fact that there were now over 15 vendors supplying P25 
products. Dr. Hofmeister also described the testing 
manufacturers perform to ensure their products meet the P25 
standard and noted that he did not feel that conformance 
assessment testing would provide any additional assurance to 
justify the cost to the manufacturers.
    Mr. Muench opposed the characterization of P25 as slow or 
incomplete. He pointed to a plethora of technical documents 
produced by industry engineers to support and define the P25 
standard. He also stated that 70 percent of the U.S. population 
is covered by a P25 land mobile radio system. Mr. Muench also 
testified that P25 manufacturers actively interacted with one 
another to test equipment and ensure interoperability. He noted 
that Motorola had posted compliance testing results for all of 
its products to the DHS website, as required by the CAP. 
According to Mr. Muench, the original goals of P25 had been met 
(i.e., voice interoperability), but that work continues on 
standards for new technologies and features. However, he stated 
that he believed the standards were ``functionally complete.'' 
He also described the standards setting process, noting that it 
was critical to include law enforcement, fire, police, and EMS, 
as well as industry. Finally, Mr. Muench advocated for Congress 
to dedicate the D block of spectrum exclusively to public 
safety.
    Chief Johnson explained the importance of P25 to first 
responders across the country. He noted the progress that 
participants have made on P25, but called on them to complete 
the standards and ensure that the radios public safety buy 
``will indeed work interoperably.'' He also offered his vision 
of the future of public safety communications, which included 
building a dedicated broadband network that would ensure 
interoperable mission-critical voice and data communications. 
To achieve this, Chief Johnson echoed Mr. Muench in calling for 
the dedication of the D block spectrum for public safety use.

        4.6(s)_Smart Grid Architecture and Standards: Assessing 
                       Coordination and Progress

                              July 1, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-104

Background
    On Thursday, July 1, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to examine the progress of the development of a common 
framework and interoperability standards for the smart grid and 
to discuss how standards affect the development of the smart 
grid and the deployment of smart grid technologies.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. George Arnold, National 
Coordinator for Smart Grid, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST); (2) Mr. Mason Emnett, Associate Director of 
the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC); (3) Mr. John McDonald, Director 
of Technical Strategy and Policy Development, GE Energy; (4) 
Mr. Conrad Eustis, Director of Retail Technology Development, 
Portland General Electric; and (5) Ms. Lillie Coney, Associate 
Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by discussing the need to 
upgrade the Nation's 100 year old electricity grid to enable 
more efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, 
increase the use of renewable energy, and make the electric 
grid a more reliable network. He noted that these are the 
promised benefits of a new ``smart grid'' technology, and that 
open technical standards were critical to realizing these 
benefits. In addition to assessing the progress of the 
standards process, Mr. Wu also stated that he was interested in 
progress being made by the smart grid community in addressing 
privacy and security challenges, as well as international 
outreach efforts to ensure U.S. leadership in smart grid 
technologies.
    Dr. Arnold described NIST's engagement with industry, 
government, and consumer stakeholders to help it fulfill its 
congressionally-mandated responsibility to coordinate the 
development of standards for the smart gird. He also discussed 
progress on the three-phase plan NIST launched in April of 2009 
to expedite the development and adoption of smart grid 
interoperability standards. Phase 1, completed in January of 
2010 after receiving input from over 1,500 stakeholders, 
included a high-level reference model, the identification of 
immediately applicable standards as well as high priority 
standards gaps, and a description of the strategy to establish 
requirements and standards for smart grid cybersecurity. Phase 
2, formally launched in November of 2009, established the Smart 
Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP), based on a public-private 
partnership model, to guide the development of new standards. 
Dr. Arnold noted that the SGIP will also help guide Phase 3 of 
the plan, which will focus on testing and evaluation of the 
standards. Finally, Dr. Arnold mentioned that the NIST-led 
cybersecurity working group will publish cybersecurity 
guidelines for the smart grid in July to 2010 and that his 
office was actively engaging internationally to highlight the 
U.S. smart grid framework and encourage the harmonization of 
standards used in different countries.
    Mr. Emnett discussed FERC's role in developing a nationwide 
smart grid and its interaction with NIST in adopting standards 
to achieve that goal. To carry out this role, Mr. Emnett noted 
that, once FERC is satisfied that sufficient consensus exists 
on a particular standard, it will initiate necessary rulemaking 
to adopt the standards into regulation. However, he also noted 
that while FERC may adopt smart grid standards that go beyond 
its traditional jurisdiction to regulate the sale and 
reliability of power over crossing lines, its ability to 
enforce these standards would remain limited. Mr. Emnett also 
noted the good working relationship between FERC and NIST, 
saying that where FERC had identified priorities for smart grid 
standards, NIST had incorporated these into the Phase 1 
framework. Finally, Mr. Emnett testified that FERC was hesitant 
to let the lack of standards hinder deployment of smart grid 
technologies, and was therefore establishing interim rate 
policies to encourage adoption and increase the body of 
knowledge available about smart grid technologies.
    In addition to noting that smart grid technologies are 
essential to addressing our nation's energy demand, security, 
and environmental challenges, Mr. McDonald discussed the 
importance of standards and the role of NIST and the SGIP in 
meeting the need for smart grid standards. Given the need to 
balance public sector and private sector business, Mr. McDonald 
stated several principles that should guide the government's 
engagement in private sector standards activities, including 
encouraging consensus-based adoption of technical standards, 
promoting international standards development, utilizing 
federal R&D to support standards development, and educating 
stakeholders to accelerate deployment of standards. Mr. 
McDonald also commented that NIST and the SGIP have gained 
interest and traction worldwide on the smart grid framework 
developed in Phase 1 of the NIST smart grid plan.
    Mr. Eustis testified that Portland General Electric has 
been involved in smart grid-related projects since 2001, 
including by installing new metering technology for renewable 
energy sources and new equipment to help the utility maintain 
reliability. Mr. Eustis was supportive of NIST's efforts and 
testified that the testing phase of the NIST roadmap was the 
most critical in ensuring the success and adoption of smart 
grid technologies. He also stated his view that successes for 
the smart grid in its early phases will be more probable if the 
focus remains on simple transactions between utilities and 
their customers, and more feature-rich modifications wait for 
later. Finally, he identified several high priority standards, 
including a standardized USB-like socket that would enable 
demand response programs for home appliances, a standardized 
method for allowing electric vehicles to charge at the most 
opportune time, and a standardized method to send and receive 
electricity usage data across a multitude of applications.
    Ms. Coney advocated for the inclusion of privacy 
considerations in the development of smart grid technologies 
and standards. She discussed many ways in which consumer 
privacy could be compromised by the flow of data through the 
power grid, the most serious of which could threaten the 
personal safety of individuals and families by disclosing 
information about the occupancy of their homes or their 
personal habits. She noted that EPIC, along with other privacy 
advocacy organizations, had been welcomed by NIST to 
participate in generating recommendations for smart grid 
standards and cyber security measures. Ms. Coney further noted 
that EPIC was pleased by initial efforts on drafting privacy 
guidelines and recommendations for the NIST Smart Grid Cyber 
Security Guidelines, but that the organization would withhold 
judgment until it saw the finalized recommendations.

       4.6(t)_Planning for the Future of Cyber Attack Attribution

                             July 15, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-105

Background
    On Thursday, July 15, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to discuss attribution in cyber attacks, and how 
attribution technologies have the potential to affect the 
anonymity and privacy of internet users.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. David Wheeler, Research 
Staff Member, Information Technology and Systems Division at 
the Institute for Defense Analyses; (2) Mr. Robert Knake, 
International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; (3) 
Mr. Ed Giorgio, President and Co-Founder, Ponte Technologies; 
and (4) Mr. Marc Rotenberg, President, Electronic Privacy 
Information Center.
Summary
    Chairman Wu opened the hearing by explaining the importance 
of attributing cyber attacks. However, he also expressed his 
concern about the potential implications of attribution 
technologies to personal privacy and anonymity on the internet.
    Dr. Wheeler defined the term `attribution' to mean 
`determining the identity or location of an attacker or an 
attacker's intermediary'. He said that there is a concern that 
if attribution technologies are developed, governments with 
abusive human rights records could acquire these technologies 
and redeploy them in order to suppress freedom of speech and 
democracy movements. Finally, Dr. Wheeler said that most 
commercial companies view identifying attackers as a law 
enforcement or military task, not a commercial one. Therefore, 
if a government wants the ability to attribute attacks, it may 
need to pay for that ability directly, including the research 
and development process.
    Mr. Knake said that, for high-end threats, attribution will 
almost certainly be possible due to the limited number of 
actors that possess the capability to present a national 
security challenge in cyberspace. Such an attack would take 
significant investment of time, money, and highly-skilled 
specialists. While technical attribution may only provide 
limited evidence of who is behind an attack, traditional 
intelligence and law enforcement investigation can make up the 
difference. For lower-level threats, Mr. Knake does not support 
ironclad attribution. He said that cyber criminals would likely 
be able to maneuver around attribution technologies while 
average users would experience a near-total loss of privacy. 
Additionally, attribution technologies would not force foreign 
regimes to cooperate in investigations. Instead, Mr. Knake 
advocated for increased accountability in cyberspace. He said 
that non-cooperation in investigating international cyber 
attacks should be taken as a sign of culpability. States should 
be held responsible for securing their national cyberspace and 
should have an obligation to assist when their citizens or 
systems within their country are involved in cyber attacks.
    Mr. Giorgio said that post-attack attribution is not 
effective. He recommended the creation of a multi-protocol 
Internet, where sensitive commercial and financial networks 
would require transmission using new protocols that have 
accountability and attribution built into their design. He also 
said that transparency is important; without it, bad actors 
emerge. Finally, he said that giving control to a trusted third 
party is the only way to ensure that private information 
remains private and that users can remain anonymous. In his 
opinion, government has not yet earned the trust to perform 
this role; a lot more transparency and oversight is needed 
before government can be given that trust.
    Mr. Rotenberg expressed his fear that governments could use 
attribution technologies for purposes unrelated to cyber 
security. He noted that they could have a real impact on human 
rights and freedom of expression because attribution can 
influence individuals considering the expression of unpopular 
or controversial views. He said that the U.S. has a very strong 
constitutional right to speak anonymously, and that there has 
been only one case where an internet identification case has 
been upheld (for convicted sex offenders in Utah).

        4.6(u)_Progress on P25: Furthering Interoperability and 
             Competition for Public Safety Radio Equipment

                           September 23, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-110

Background
    On Thursday, September 23, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to discuss the status of the Project 25 (P25) standard, 
remaining challenges, and explore how the status of P25 affects 
an array of stakeholders.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Tom Sorley, Deputy 
Director Radio Communication Services, City of Houston 
Information Technology Department; (2) Ms. Ellen O'Hara, 
President, Zetron; (3) Mr. Marvin Ingram, Senior Director, 
ARINC, Public Safety Communications; and (5) Mr. Russ Sveda, 
Manager of the Radio Technical Service Center, Department of 
the Interior.
Summary
    Chairman Wu began the hearing by noting that it was the 
Subcommittee's second hearing on the interoperability of public 
safety radios. He summarized the main findings from the 
previous hearing--mainly, there was disagreement among all of 
the P25 participants on the progress of the P25 process toward 
completion and the level of testing necessary to ensure that 
the equipment is P25 compliant. He then stated that he was 
pleased to have an opportunity to hear from individuals 
involved in the building, operating, and testing of public 
safety radio systems.
    Mr. Sorley testified that designing and purchasing a P25 
system can be a challenge for a public safety agency, 
especially small rural agencies with few resources. He said 
that most public safety officials who write the specifications 
for a radio system do not know enough about the suite of P25 
standards to properly specify their requirements. This lack of 
understanding can lead to the unintentional purchase of 
proprietary components for the system. Since radios are hardly 
ever replaced all at once, proprietary features placed on top 
of standardized components can significantly limit later 
attempts to purchase radios or other equipment from different 
vendors, hindering competition and lower prices in the market 
for public safety radios. Mr. Sorley recommended the inclusion 
of more public safety representation in the P25 standards 
development process to help alleviate this problem. Mr. Sorley 
also reported on the status of the P25 Compliance Assessment 
Program (CAP). He stated that while the major manufacturers had 
shown more willingness earlier in the year to comply with a 
more rigorous testing program, more recently they had returned 
to their previous stance against more rigorous conformity 
assessment tests.
    Ms. O'Hara described the P25 Console Subsystem Interface 
standard (CSSI), which is designed to allow consoles from any 
manufacturer to interoperate with other hardware in a P25 radio 
system. However, Ms. O'Hara testified that, currently, only 
three of the seven P25 radio network vendors are compliant with 
the CSSI standard. Customers who purchase radios from the other 
four network vendors are limited to those vendors' particular 
proprietary consoles. Ms. O'Hara expressed her concern that 
competition and customer choice are limited by the slow 
adoption of the open standards for CSSI. She recommended that 
the Federal Government set a date within the next twelve months 
after which it will no longer award grants to purchase P25 
networks that are not compliant with the CSSI standard. Ms. 
O'Hara also expressed Zetron's support for more rigorous 
testing.
    Mr. Ingram offered three main points in his testimony: 
standards drive innovation and competition in any marketplace--
technology is not a barrier to finalizing P25 standards--and 
finalizing communications standards and adoption of compliance 
and conformance testing are imperative to fully solving the 
interoperability problem. Mr. Ingram said that more 
manufacturers are making P25-compliant equipment. However, 
manufacturers that offer complete P25 networks are not offering 
completely standards-based systems. Mr. Ingram also noted that 
vendors of proprietary systems have taken advantage of the 
delay in the development of standards, and thus competition has 
been stifled. Mr. Ingram was also a proponent of more rigorous 
testing to ensure that all products are manufactured to the 
standard.
    Mr. Sveda said that the Department of the Interior adopted 
the P25 standards in 1996 and has designed and installed its 
own systems with P25 compliant components since then. Even 
though the Department has invested 14 years in this technology, 
they are still unable to install a P25 compliant system without 
significant engineering and customization.

       4.6(v)_Standards for Health IT: Meaningful Use and Beyond

                           September 30, 2010

                       Hearing Volume No. 111-112

Background
    On Thursday, September 30, 2010, the Honorable David Wu 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a 
hearing to examine the progress by the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS), the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), and non-governmental health information 
technology (IT) stakeholders in establishing standards for 
health IT, providing guidance for their implementation, and 
creating a mechanism to certify that health IT products comply 
with the established standards.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. David Blumenthal, 
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Office 
of the National Coordinator (ONC), HHS; (2) Ms. Kathleen M. 
Roberts, Associate Director for Federal and Industrial 
Relations, Information Technology Laboratory, NIST; (3) Ms. 
Joyce Sensmeier, Vice President, Informatics, Healthcare 
Information and Management Systems Society; (4) Dr. Dick 
Gibson, President, Oregon Health Network; (5) Ms. Deven McGraw, 
Director of the Health Privacy Project, Center for Democracy 
and Technology; and (6) Ms. Deb Bass, President and CEO, Bass & 
Associates, Inc.
Summary
    Chairman Wu opened the hearing by saying that, although 
many people take for granted the ability to share information 
quickly and seamlessly, the health care industry is still 
surprisingly paper-based and largely unaided by IT. He noted 
that IT has implications for both lowering the cost and raising 
the quality of health care. Chairman Wu hoped the witness could 
provide an update on the implementation of the health IT 
standards development requirements of the HITECH Act and also 
offer insight into areas in need of improvement. Ranking Member 
Smith added that many citizens seek health care across state 
lines, and so access to these patients' Electronic Health 
Records (EHRs) is necessary both close to home and out of 
state.
    Dr. Blumenthal said that since the HITECH--Health 
Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health--Act 
passed in February 2009, HHS has established two new federal 
advisory committees, completed three rulemakings with the 
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and strengthened 
coordination throughout the Executive Branch of health IT. The 
HITECH Act established the Health IT Policy and Standards 
Committees, which issued recommendations on the development and 
maintenance of specific vocabularies to improve 
interoperability and formed an interdisciplinary privacy and 
security Tiger Team of experts. This Tiger Team has provided 
valuable guidance to ONC and HHS on privacy issues. With the 
advice of these committees and external consultation, ONC 
completed three independent rulemakings to implement meaningful 
use stage 1: the first rule established the EHR incentive 
program and defined meaningful use stage 1; the second defined 
EHR standards, implementation specifications, and certification 
criteria to support meaningful use; and the third established a 
temporary certification process. HHS has already authorized 
three certification bodies.
    Ms. Roberts said that NIST has been collaborating with 
industry and others to improve the health care information 
infrastructure since the 1990s. While health IT standards 
development is strengthened by an open process for both the 
public and private sector, it is hampered by the fact that many 
standards development organizations are working in parallel to 
provide standards. This can sometimes lead to conflicting, 
overlapping, or redundant standards. NIST testing activities 
reduces the cost of developing IT systems by accelerating the 
standards development efforts and ensuring that standards are 
implemented correctly. Under the temporary health IT 
certification program, testing organizations authorized by ONC 
will use the NIST tests to evaluate EHR software and systems so 
health care providers have confidence in the systems they 
purchase. In addition, NIST is advising ONC on the process by 
which testing organizations will be authorized to test and 
certify the EHR systems. Current priority areas include 
security standards, usability standards, and medical device 
interoperability standards.
    Ms. Sensmeier voiced three areas of concern with the 
process under the HITECH Act. First, data transport and basic 
security are areas where selective standards are necessary for 
achieving interoperability. Under the current process, EHR 
vendors will be forced to support all available transport 
methods or risk developing software that may not meet future 
interoperability needs. Second, selecting multiple standards 
for the same criterion is problematic. Currently, vendors and 
providers are forced to choose to either support one standard 
or support them all, which can be costly. Third, the timing of 
identifying and selecting the standards in subsequent rules is 
important. To ensure optimal software development and testing, 
the final rules for meaningful use and standards should be 
available 18 months before the next stage. Ms. Sensmeier 
recommended that HHS publish implementation guidance for all 
selected standards; publish standards for data transport, 
financial transactions, security, and health information 
exchange; publish the process and schedule for harmonizing 
standards; and set up one repository for access to all 
standards and implementation guides.
    Dr. Gibson said that the meaningful use final rule has been 
well-received by health care providers. However, more standards 
are needed, including one that transmits provider text notes 
and one that exports and imports patient information directly 
between EHRs. He also called for a complete directory for 
health Internet addresses so that providers could send 
encrypted information directly to future providers and 
emergency departments could locate data from patient's previous 
providers. He said that EHRs need to be able to accommodate 
providers still on paper records. Finally, Dr. Gibson said that 
providers need an EHR functionality requirement for quality 
measure reporting and a national model for patients' privacy 
consent.
    Ms. McGraw voiced her concern with the problems associated 
with securing patient's privacy while using EHRs. She said that 
HIPAA--the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act--contains privacy and security regulations, but because 
EHRs change the way health information is exchanged, additional 
regulations are needed. She admitted that the HITECH Act did 
advance the security of information, but said that there are 
still gaps to address. A recent survey of large health care 
organizations indicated that fewer than half of these 
organizations conduct the annual risk assessment required by 
HIPAA's security rule. She also stated that the HIPAA security 
rule is extremely flexible in that it does not require 
particular functionalities. Finally, she said that while 
meaningful use requires a risk assessment where the 
functionalities are defined, regulatory bodies are not clear 
with providers about using them.
    Ms. Bass said that three areas contributed to Nebraska's 
success in achieving meaningful use: extensive and persistent 
stakeholder engagement, physician engagement, and sharing 
knowledge among states. She urged the ONC to use this success 
as guidance for other states.
                                Appendix

                              ----------                              






<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                          VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            FISCAL YEAR 2010
    The President released a summary of the FY10 budget request on 
February 26, 2009. The Committee is very pleased that the budget 
summary recognizes the benefits that science and technology and 
research and development investments have for our country's economic 
competitiveness, energy security, job growth, and environmental health. 
The Committee notes that many of the priorities proposed in the budget 
summary are consistent with those outlined in two of the Committee's 
major authorizing bills signed into law during the 110th Congress--the 
America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140). In addition, many of the 
priorities in the budget summary build upon the science and technology 
funding that was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(P.L. 111-5). The Committee looks forward to reviewing the detailed 
budget request later this spring. The following are the Committee's 
views on key priorities in the budget summary related to programs 
within the Science and Technology Committee jurisdiction.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

    The budget provides $18.7 billion for NASA in FY10. The FY09 
omnibus appropriations bill provided $17.8 billion and the Recovery Act 
provided $1 billion. The budget summary is generally consistent with 
the priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422), 
including support for Earth science and climate change monitoring; 
human and robotic space exploration; completion of the International 
Space Station; aeronautics research to transform the air traffic 
control system and support more efficient aircraft; and retirement of 
the Space Shuttle in 2010, with the possibility of one additional 
flight. However, further details will be needed to better assess the 
Administration's specific budget priorities for NASA.
    The Committee believes that NASA should continue to engage in the 
most cutting-edge research and serve as inspiration for the next 
generation of scientists and engineers. To do this, NASA will need the 
resources to fulfill each of its diverse missions--space exploration, 
science, aeronautics research and development, and education. The 
Committee plans to move a multi-year NASA reauthorization this year to 
further direct and balance the agency's programs.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

    The budget provides $7 billion for NSF in FY10. The omnibus 
provided $6.5 billion and the Recovery Act provided $3 billion for the 
agency. The budget increases support for high-risk, high-reward 
research; early-career researchers through the Graduate Research 
Fellowship and Faculty Early Career Development programs; partnerships 
between two-year colleges and the private sector to train science and 
engineering technicians; and climate change research and education.
    The Committee notes that since its creation in 1950, NSF has been 
tasked with strengthening science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics (STEM) education at all levels. NSF's education programs 
are unique in their peer review processes, their linkage to higher 
education, and their resulting capacity to develop new and improved 
educational materials and assessments, create better teacher training 
techniques, and move promising ideas from research to educational 
practice. In particular, the Committee supports robust funding for the 
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, which is helping to recruit 
and train the next generation of K-12 STEM teachers by providing 
scholarships for students to earn a degree in a STEM field while 
learning content-oriented pedagogy and following a streamlined path 
toward teacher certification. NSF is also uniquely positioned to help 
broaden participation in STEM fields at all levels, in particular 
through institutional capacity building grants and grants that 
integrate research and education.

Department of Energy (DOE)

    The budget provides $26.3 billion overall for the Department of 
Energy in FY10, and notes that the budget request will support:

        
  Significant increases in funding for basic research 
        and world-leading scientific user facilities to support 
        transformational discoveries and accelerate solutions to our 
        Nation's most pressing problems--including the development of 
        clean energy;

        
  The transition to a low-carbon economy through 
        increased support of the development and deployment of clean 
        energy technologies such as solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, 
        and low-carbon emission coal power;

        
  Smart grid technologies and other investments to 
        modernize and enhance the electric transmission infrastructure 
        to improve energy efficiency and reliability; and

        
  Early commercial deployment of innovative, clean 
        energy technologies through loan guarantees.

    The Committee is pleased that the budget supports these areas, 
including increased funding for the DOE Office of Science (in addition 
to the $4.8 billion provided in the omnibus and $1.6 billion provided 
in the Recovery Act) to: improve our understanding of climate science; 
continue the U.S. commitment to international science and energy 
experiments; and support graduate fellowships that will train students 
in critical energy fields. In addition, the Committee supports the 
Administration's goal of accelerating research, development, 
demonstration, and commercialization of clean energy technologies and 
the Administration's call for increased investment in carbon capture 
and storage (CCS) technologies (in addition to the $3.4 billion 
provided in the Recovery Act and additional funds provided in the 
omnibus for coal and CCS).
    The Committee also agrees with the budget increase for ``promising 
but exploratory and high-risk research proposals that could 
fundamentally improve our understanding of climate, revolutionize 
fields of science, and lead to radically new technologies.'' Along 
these lines, the Committee strongly supports aggressive implementation 
of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) at DOE. As 
recommended by the National Academies and authorized in COMPETES, ARPA-
E will be tasked with high-risk, high-reward energy technology 
development, especially research that is too cross-cutting or multi-
disciplinary to fit into the current DOE stovepipes. ARPA-E will bring 
together the best and the brightest from all sectors--national labs, 
academia, and the private sector--give them resources and autonomy, and 
get bureaucracy out of their way. The omnibus and the Recovery Act 
provided a total of $415 million for ARPA-E. The National Academies 
recommended that the program grow to $1+ billion annually.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

    The budget supports investment in our country's economic 
competitiveness by promoting innovation in U.S. manufacturing and 
advancing science, standards, and technology at the Department of 
Commerce. Given that, as the budget summary notes, manufacturing 
employment has hit a 60-year low, the Committee is pleased that the 
budget supports small- and medium-sized businesses through $125 million 
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and $70 million for 
the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) in FY10. Both of these programs 
were consistently reduced or zeroed-out by the previous Administration 
despite both programs' strong record of creating jobs and providing a 
large return on investment.
    The Committee also supports FY10 funding for NIST research and 
facilities at the levels authorized in COMPETES.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

    The budget prioritizes prediction and monitoring of weather and 
climate at NOAA, providing $1.3 billion to fund the development and 
acquisition of weather satellites and climate sensors. The omnibus 
provided $966 million and the Recovery Act provided $600 million for 
these activities. The Committee is encouraged that funds are provided 
to restore several climate sensors; expand the computing capacity NOAA 
needs to maintain the continuity of climate data records; and develop 
more refined models to project climate change impacts at a more refined 
scale.
    In addition, the Committee is pleased that the budget summary notes 
the importance of funding to ``advance climate and ocean research, 
including efforts to understand and monitor ocean acidification.''

Department of Transportation

    The budget notes that the Administration plans to work with 
Congress to reform surface transportation programs to make investments 
in a more sustainable future. The Committee supports this goal and 
plans to move legislation this year to restructure and refocus surface 
transportation research and development programs to better address 
congestion, maximize energy efficiency, and reduce environmental 
impacts.
    The budget provides $800 million for the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to support the Next Generation Air Traffic Control 
System (Next Gen), a long-term effort to improve the efficiency, 
safety, and capacity of the air traffic control system. The Committee 
strongly supports Next Gen, including both the FAA and NASA research 
and development components of the program. The Committee's position on 
the FAA component of Next Gen is included in HR 915, the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

    The budget provides $355 million to enhance cybersecurity 
technology research and development and make private and public sector 
cyber-infrastructure more resilient and secure. The Committee has long 
been at the forefront of addressing cybersecurity issues, which only 
grow in importance as more and more of our infrastructure and economy 
are dependent on computers and the Internet. The Committee looks 
forward to reviewing further details of the Administration's plans in 
this area.
    The Committee also plans to move legislation this year to ensure 
that DHS aligns its research priorities with the most critical threats 
and homeland security needs and ensures that the technology developed 
meets reliable testing and evaluation standards as well as the needs of 
end-users. The Committee expects to include in these efforts research 
on technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles and tunnel detection 
to improve border security.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    The budget provides $3.9 billion for research, regulation, and 
enforcement at EPA, a significant increase compared to previous years. 
In recent years, the Committee has noted the need for increased funding 
for research and development at EPA to ensure that regulations are 
scientifically sound and cost effective. The EPA Science Advisory Board 
has also recommended increased budgets for the Office of Research and 
Development since 2005. The Committee is encouraged by the proposed 
increase and would expect that this budget level will allow for funding 
of initiatives such as the assessment of the health and safety of 
nanotechnology products, developing clean-up standards for 
methamphetamine contamination, and assessment of the impacts of climate 
change on society and ecosystems.

Small Business Innovation Research

    The budget summary does not specifically reference the Small 
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology 
Transfer (STTR) programs. However, the Committee believes these 
programs are another important tool to promote economic growth, job 
creation, innovation, and the commercialization of new technologies 
into the marketplace. The Committee plans to move legislation similar 
to HR 5819 from the 110th Congress to increase investment in these 
programs and refocus that investment to better meet the needs of small 
businesses in emerging industries.

Department of State and International Programs

    The budget provides additional funding for key programs that 
advance U.S. foreign policy goals, including funding for energy 
initiatives and programs addressing global climate change. The 
Committee recognizes the need for better coordination of international 
science and technology efforts to better leverage both the expertise 
and resources throughout the world to address global challenges (such 
as energy and climate change, among others) and the diplomatic benefit 
of international science and technology activities. The Committee plans 
to move legislation on this issue and looks forward to seeing a more 
detailed budget request to support these activities.

              SEC. 321 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

    Under Sec. 321 of S. Con. Res. 70 (the FY2009 Budget Resolution), 
committees were directed to review programs within their jurisdictions 
to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in program spending.
    In the 110th Congress, the Science and Technology Committee 
reestablished the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight to help 
identify instances of waste, fraud, and abuse that could create savings 
for the Federal taxpayer.
    During the past two years, the Committee has run a very aggressive, 
wide-ranging oversight operation. House Rule X sets the Committee's 
jurisdiction, but the legislative jurisdiction assigned to the 
Committee is narrower than the oversight jurisdiction. Rule X also 
assigns the Committee special oversight responsibility for ``reviewing 
and studying, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs, and Government 
activities dealing with or involving non-military research and 
development.'' The Committee appreciates the special function entrusted 
to it and will continue to tackle troubled programs and search for 
waste, fraud, and abuse in non-military research and development 
programs regardless of where it may be found.
    In the last Congress, the Committee collectively authored almost 
250 oversight letters and held 80 oversight hearings. The Committee is 
committed to building on this record in the 111th Congress. The 
Committee also routinely works with GAO and the Inspectors General of 
our agencies to maintain detailed awareness of the work of those 
offices. Currently, the Committee has 30 accepted requests for work 
pending with GAO and more will be developed over the coming months.
    Government waste and contractor abuses were an important focus of 
the work of the Committee during the 110th, and this area will gain 
renewed attention in the 111th. In the 110th, work by the Committee led 
to Appropriations reductions of $17.8 million with another $1.5 million 
in Federal property identified for reclaiming from a contractor. The 
Committee also identified a program that had misspent hundreds of 
millions of dollars during a computer acquisition; that program has 
since been significantly restructured. Finally, the Committee has been 
working with GAO and other Committees to instill rigor and transparency 
into the proposed acquisition of new radiation portal detection 
monitors; that work has kept between $2 billion and $3 billion from 
being committed to acquiring immature and unproven technologies.
    The Committee has also kept pressure on NOAA to rein in contractor 
costs and improve performance in the acquisition of next generation 
weather and climate satellites, which have experienced a multi-billion 
dollar cost overrun. It is hard to calculate the savings that come from 
the Committee's work in this area, but it is likely that without this 
oversight, the cost overruns would be even higher.
    In the 111th Congress, the Committee will expand its work on 
identifying contractor abuses and cost savings by undertaking a wide-
ranging review of contracts let by our agencies in the past few years. 
The Committee will be looking for specific instances of abuse and 
lessons on how to better manage contract competitions and awards so 
that taxpayers know their money is being well spent.
    A more detailed description of the Committee's planned oversight 
activities can be found in the Committee Oversight Plan: http://
democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/111th%20Oversight%20Plan.pdf.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

List of Signatures

1. Rep. Bart Gordon

2. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan

3. Rep. Lincoln Davis

4. Rep. Charlie Wilson

5. Rep. Brian Baird

6. Rep. Lynn Woolsey

7. Rep. Steve Rothman

8. Rep. Gary Peters

9. Rep. Daniel Lipinski

10. Rep. Paul Tonko

11. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper

12. Rep. Brad Miller

13. Rep. Jerry Costello

14. Rep. David Wu

15. Rep. Marcia Fudge

16. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

17. Rep. Parker Griffith

18. Rep. Harry Mitchell

19. Rep. Russ Carnahan

20. Rep. Ben Chandler

21. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson

22. Rep. Alan Grayson
                      MINORITY VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            FISCAL YEAR 2010
    It is important that we continue to make appropriate investments in 
science and technology research, development, and math and science 
education in order for the United States to remain a world leader in 
competitiveness and innovation. While Committee Republicans agree with 
the Majority that the Administration's budget summary ``recognizes the 
benefits that science and technology and research and development 
investments have for our country's economic competitiveness, energy 
security, job growth and environmental health,'' we are also mindful 
that in the current economic environment, the nation faces numerous and 
difficult budgetary decisions that will require our careful 
consideration, diligent oversight, and appropriate action.
    We are pleased that the budget summary continues to build on the 
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act 
(COMPETES) (P.L. 110-69) by keeping America on track to double the 
funding for physical sciences and engineering at the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy (DOE), 
but have some concerns that the Administration may be accelerating this 
funding beyond authorized levels. While we were disappointed that the 
House Leadership and Appropriators did not adequately fund these 
agencies in the FY08 Omnibus (P.L. 110-161), we are skeptical about the 
unprecedented amounts currently being appropriated and the rate at 
which this is occurring, with no oversight. The Administration 
considers the $5 billion ``investment in key science programs'' 
included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus) (P.L. 
111-5) to be a ``significant down payment'' toward doubling the funding 
for NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science, in addition to the full-
year amounts requested in the FY09 Omnibus. There are only 6 months 
left in FY09.
    The Administration's budget summary offers only the overall budget 
request amounts for each agency and provides a brief narrative on 
Administration policies, which gives some limited guidance for NSF and 
NASA. Unfortunately, we do not have top line budget numbers for the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NIST, DOE 
Office of Science and a number of other Science and Technology 
Committee jurisdictional areas such as the Department of Transportation 
research and development, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
the U.S. Fire Administration, and interagency programs such as the 
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the Networking Information 
Research and Development program (NITRD), or the Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction program.
    Along with the Majority, we look forward to receiving a more 
detailed budget request.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

    The Committee has sought to enable NASA to succeed as a multi-
mission agency in carrying out the goals expressed in the NASA 
Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422). In general, Committee 
Republicans concur with the Majority that the budget seems consistent 
with the priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, including 
retirement of the Space Shuttle following completion of the 
International Space Station and one additional flight to deliver the 
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. We applaud the Administration's 
reaffirmation of NASA's initiatives to return humans to the Moon by 
2020 as part of a robust space exploration program, while also 
stimulating the private-sector to develop and demonstrate commercial 
crew and cargo delivery services to the International Space Station.
    We are encouraged that the Administration's budget provides $18.7 
billion for NASA in FY10. However, additional details are needed to 
adequately evaluate the Administration's goals and intent. For example, 
it is unclear whether the ``new space flight systems for carrying 
American crews and supplies to space'' is the Constellation System 
already under development. With Constellation, NASA is in the midst of 
a once-in-a-generation development of a new human launch system. This 
is the largest launch vehicle development since the beginning of the 
Space Shuttle program, with the added requirement of being capable of 
safely returning humans to the Moon. We are concerned that the flat 
funding profile in the Administration's out year projections may be 
unrealistic for such a large scale development effort without 
jeopardizing NASA's ability to successfully accomplish its portfolio of 
missions.
    We also endorse the Administration's commitment to modernize our 
nation's air traffic control network by allocating $800 million to the 
Next Generation Air Transportation System. This multi-agency program, 
led by the FAA and NASA, requires a high level of research, 
development, and validation to ensure mission success. A robust, safe 
and efficient air transportation system, capable of handling three-
times current traffic levels, is fundamental to promoting economic 
growth as well as maintaining our quality of life.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

    The FY10 budget request for NSF is $7 billion. This is $1.1 billion 
less than what was authorized in COMPETES; however, NSF also received 
$3 billion in the Stimulus and is slated to receive another $6.5 
billion in the FY09 Omnibus for roughly a six-month period. Committee 
Republicans support a robust budget request for NSF, but remain 
concerned that we not exceed current authorization amounts. We hope to 
see FY10 increases spread across all of the research fields NSF 
supports in the more detailed budget.
    With regard to education, we agree with the Majority that NSF has 
an important and unique role to play in strengthening science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all 
levels. We further agree with the Majority that the FY10 budget should 
provide, to the extent practical, sufficient funding for the Robert 
Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program in order to achieve the goals set out 
in COMPETES. We note that the budget summary highlights the Advanced 
Technological Education program (ATE) and the Graduate Research 
Fellowship and Faculty Early Career Development programs, all programs 
that were also emphasized in COMPETES, but fails to mention the 
COMPETES-authorized Math and Science Partnerships program (MSP).
    The budget summary makes climate change research and education a 
priority. We note that NSF currently funds numerous research and 
education programs that address climate change.

Department of Energy (DOE)

    In general Committee Republicans agree with the Majority's views on 
the budget summary for the DOE. However a majority of us in the 
Minority continue to be opposed to the establishment of an Advanced 
Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). Those of us in opposition 
maintain the view that creating a new agency to do work that is 
currently being done at the DOE is not a justified use of the limited 
funds available to the Department, and we support the Department's 
previous decision to not establish ARPA-E, but to engage in ARPA-E-type 
projects within the current DOE structure.
    We also express our deep disappointment that the President's budget 
summary proposes to repeal the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional 
Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Program that was established 
in Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Section 
999H(a) sets the funding for this program at a level of $50-million-
per-year provided from Federal lease royalties, rents, and bonuses paid 
by oil and gas companies--not taxpayers. It should be clear that the 
overall program was initiated and carried out to reach energy known to 
exist in the areas targeted--energy that was impossible to produce 
without new technology--and that the required technology would be 
eventually paid for from the energy captured. The funds are to be 
directed towards research specifically targeting four areas: ultra-
deepwater resources, unconventional natural gas and other petroleum 
resources, technology challenges of small producers, and research 
complementary to these areas. While we are wholly supportive of 
research into renewable and alternative forms of energy, we feel that 
domestically produced oil and natural gas will continue to play an 
important role in powering our country and must therefore receive 
support to increase our domestic supply and reduce our foreign 
dependence. The budget summary appears to focus solely on coal within 
the area of fossil energy research and development. We are pleased that 
research into carbon capture and storage is playing a prominent role in 
the budget summary, but we encourage the Budget Committee to continue 
to recognize the importance of oil and natural gas research and 
development to our country's future.
    We note the President's proposal to scale back the Yucca Mountain 
program to ``those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission'' and hope that this announcement and decision 
does not have a detrimental effect on building new nuclear plants in 
the United States, but would rather expedite research and development 
into reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the next generation of 
nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is just the type of clean energy 
technology that will reduce dependence on foreign oil that President 
Obama talks about in his budget blueprint.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

    The Department of Commerce's NIST supports U.S. innovation and 
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, 
and technology to enhance economic competitiveness and address 
important societal challenges. The Administration's FY10 budget summary 
does not include an overall agency total for NIST, but specifies a 
request of $70 million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and 
$125 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).
    NIST's core research and facilities programs are widely recognized 
as well-managed, high-leverage activities supported by world-class 
researchers. Accordingly, Committee Republicans continue to believe 
these activities should receive priority in the budget, and, along with 
MEP and TIP, be funded in accordance with the levels authorized in 
COMPETES. Additionally, we intend to continue close oversight of NIST's 
budget and activities, and hope to work with the majority and the 
Administration to ensure appropriate and effective use of taxpayer 
dollars. Of particular interest will be NIST's recently created 
external construction grant program, which received a dramatic increase 
in the stimulus bill even though the program has not been authorized or 
formally reviewed and considered by the Committee.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

    Committee Republicans agree with the Majority regarding support for 
the FY10 funding request of $1.3 billion for satellite and instrument 
acquisitions at NOAA. However, we believe this request is a substantial 
increase compared to previous years, requiring much greater oversight 
by the Committee of NOAA's plan to use them.

Department of Transportation (DOT)

    The budget summary does not include information on research and 
development activities at DOT (most DOT R&D is funded through mandatory 
spending), but does note that the Administration intends to work with 
Congress to reform transportation programs as we near expiration of the 
2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: 
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Committee Republicans welcome this 
commitment to reform, and look forward to working with the Majority, 
the Administration, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
to produce a responsible bill that strengthens Federally-funded 
transportation R&D programs.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

    The Administration's budget summary does not include information on 
science and technology activities at DHS, except to note that $355 
million is requested for cybersecurity activities that include research 
and development. Committee Republicans are pleased to see cybersecurity 
highlighted as a key priority in the budget and look forward to 
reviewing further details on DHS programs in this area. We also look 
forward to reviewing budget details for major programs within our 
jurisdiction--the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), and firefighter grants programs--which 
together total over $2 billion. We also welcome the Majority's 
commitment to pursue legislation to better align DHS research 
priorities to address the most critical threats and departmental needs.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Committee Republicans share the Majority's view that investments in 
research and development will be beneficial in the form of greater 
cost-efficiency of environmental protection programs. However, we 
believe that any increase in funding levels should be done with 
thoughtful consideration. The $3.9 billion FY10 budget request for 
research, regulation and enforcement is almost an 18 percent increase 
over the FY09 request. Although we are aware that funding level 
requirements for research and development go through cycles, this 
budget request increase, by nearly one-fifth, may be out of proportion 
to what is needed; therefore, the minority would encourage increased 
oversight of EPA's research and development agenda.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                          VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            FISCAL YEAR 2011
    President Obama transmitted his budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 
to Congress on February 1, 2010. The Committee on Science and 
Technology is pleased that the budget request includes significant 
investments in civilian research and development and is generally 
consistent with the funding priorities laid out in the America COMPETES 
Act. The Committee strongly shares the President's interest in putting 
the country on a fiscally sustainable path and recognizes the need to 
make tough choices to restore fiscal discipline. At the same time, the 
Committee agrees with the Administration .that investments in science 
and innovation play a crucial role in ensuring our nation's long-term 
economic security and meeting the challenges of the future.
    The following are the views of the Committee on Science and 
Technology on the budget for programs within the Committee's 
jurisdiction.

National Science Foundation

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of 
Federal funding for non-biomedical basic research conducted at colleges 
and universities. The budget request includes $7.424 billion for NSF in 
Fiscal Year 2011, an 8.0 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2010 enacted 
funding. This level of funding keeps the budget of NSF on a doubling 
path, consistent with the funding goals laid out in the America 
COMPETES Act. The Committee is pleased with the proposed increases to 
the Research and Related Activities budget at NSF, and supports efforts 
to increase funding for programs focused specifically on innovation.
    The Committee notes that, since its creation in 1950, NSF has been 
tasked with strengthening science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) education at all levels. NSF's education programs 
are unique in their peer review processes and their resulting capacity 
to develop new and improved educational materials and assessments, 
create better teacher training techniques, and move promising ideas to 
practice. The Committee supports funding NSF at a level that will 
ensure adequate and sustained support for its STEM education programs, 
particularly for the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and the Math and 
Science Partnerships Program, and is concerned that the budget request 
may not be sufficient to meet this goal.
    The Committee will be moving legislation this year to reauthorize 
the National Science Foundation as part of the reauthorization of the 
America COMPETES Act.

Department of Energy

    The Committee supports the budget request for the wide range of 
basic and applied research activities at the Department of Energy, 
including for the activities of the Office of Science, the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, and the Office of Nuclear Energy.
    The Office of Science funds basic research and world-class 
facilities that play an integral role in maintaining technological 
competitiveness. Recognizing the important link between the Office of 
Science and long-term economic prosperity in the United States, the 
America COMPETES Act authorized significant funding increases for the 
Office. As such, the Committee welcomes the Fiscal Year 2011 budget 
request of $5.1 billion for the Office of Science. This funding level 
represents a 4.4 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels.
    As envisioned by the National Academies' 2005 report, Rising Above 
the Gathering Storm, and authorized by the America COMPETES Act, the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is responsible for 
funding high-risk, high-payoff, game-changing research and development 
projects to meet the nation's long-term energy challenges. The mission 
of ARPA-E is to overcome technological barriers in the development of 
energy technologies by sponsoring 'research and technology development 
that industry is unlikely to undertake alone. The Committee strongly 
supports robust funding levels for ARPA-E. The America COMPETES Act 
authorized funding of $300 million for ARPA-E in its first year of 
operation with a significant ramp up in funding over the next few 
years. The Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bill and the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided ARPA-E with $415 million in 
funding for its first two years. The budget request for ARPA-E in 
Fiscal Year 2011 is $300 million. While the Committee appreciates the 
budget request, it urges a funding level more consistent with the 
funding trajectory envisioned in the America COMPETES Act.
    The President's budget request includes $2.35 billion for the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), representing a 
5.0% percent increase from the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. The 
Committee is pleased that the budget request includes significant 
increases in funding for select large-scale demonstrations, vehicle 
technology research, and the development of innovative new building 
technologies for increased energy efficiency, but is disappointed to 
see level and decreased budget requests for specific renewable 
programs.
    The President is requesting $503 million for research and 
development at the Office of Nuclear Energy, an 8.0% percent increase 
over the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. Close to 80 percent of this 
request is dedicated to the Fuel Cycle R & D and Reactor Concepts RD & 
D programs. The Committee believes that the United States must have an 
inclusive portfolio to meet its growing need for energy and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, and recognizes nuclear power as a legitimate 
component of that portfolio. For this reason, the Committee supports 
research and development efforts to meet the technological challenges 
posed by expanded nuclear power production.
    The Committee intends to move legislation this year to reauthorize 
the activities of the Office of Science and ARPA-E. The Committee also 
intends to draft and move legislation to authorize a comprehensive 
nuclear research and development program at the Department of Energy.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

    The Committee is pleased that the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request 
provides funding increases for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) to advance technological innovation and economic 
competitiveness. The budget request for NIST for Fiscal Year 2011 is 
$918.9 million, a 7.3 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2010 
enacted level. This funding level is consistent with the doubling path 
set out in the America COMPETES Act.
    The Committee strongly supports the $10 million increase proposed 
for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). TIP awards cost-shared 
grants to small companies and joint ventures for the development of 
high-risk, high-reward technologies that meet critical national needs. 
The Committee recognizes TIP as an important tool in increasing 
technological innovation in this country, and supports efforts to 
provide the program with the funding it needs to complete its mission.
    The Committee also strongly supports the $5 million increase 
proposed for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The MEP program 
is a public-private partnership in all 50 states and Puerto Rico that 
provides technical assistance for small manufacturers to modernize 
their operations and adapt to foreign competition. The increase in the 
Fiscal Year 2011 budget request would be used for innovation services 
for small and medium-sized manufacturers to accelerate technology 
adoption, promote environmentally sustainable practices, support market 
diversification, and improve workforce capabilities.
    Finally, the Committee is supportive of the request for $69.4 
million for Scientific and Technical Research and Services for focused 
investments in areas of national priority. In the face of increased 
global competitiveness, the Committee supports NIST's efforts to work 
with industry to address green manufacturing and construction, 
cybersecurity, the metrology to support the growth and potential of 
biopharmaceuticals, advanced solar technologies, and disaster resilient 
buildings and infrastructure.
    The Committee will move legislation this year to reauthorize the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology as part of the America 
COMPETES Act reauthorization.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    The budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 includes $19 billion for 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an increase 
of 1.5 percent over the enacted Fiscal Year 2010 level. The Committee 
is pleased that the budget request provides increased support for 
NASA's Earth Science Decadal Survey missions, aeronautics R & D on 
``green aviation'', extending the operation and utilization of the 
International Space Station to at least 2020, and exploration-related 
technology development activities. At the same time, the decision to 
cancel funding for the Constellation Program and to increase investment 
in the development of commercial crew human spaceflight vehicles 
represents a significant shift in policy that requires careful and 
deliberate consideration by the Committee on Science and Technology. 
The congressional budget justification from NASA, providing detailed 
information about the proposed changes, was only made available to the 
Committee on February 22, 2010 and is currently under review.
    The Committee intends to move a multi-year reauthorization of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration this year.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    The Committee is pleased that the budget request for Fiscal Year 
2011 includes a 17 percent increase in funding for the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The bulk of the proposed 
increase in funding at NOAA is for the National Environmental Satellite 
Data Information Systems Office and, more specifically, for the Joint 
Polar Satellite Systems (formerly the National Polar-orbiting 
Operational Environmental Satellite System). The Committee recognizes 
that the data provided by the Joint Polar Satellite Systems is critical 
for several key U.S.: economic sectors, as well as national defense 
needs, and requires appropriate investment. At the same time, the 
Committee strongly supports adequate funding for the Office of Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Research and the National Weather Service, and is 
concerned that chronic underfunding may erode some of NOAA's mission-
critical services.

Environmental Protection Agency

    The Committee has long advocated increased funding for research and 
development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that 
regulations are scientifically sound and cost effective. The Committee 
appreciates that the budget request includes a slight increase in 
funding for research and development at EPA, despite a proposed 
reduction in overall EPA funding. The budget request for Fiscal Year 
2011 includes $847 million for Science and Technology programs and a 
$24.5 million transfer from the Superfund account to support Superfund-
related research.

Department of Transportation

    The Committee supports robust funding for research and development 
at the Department of Transportation, consistent with the commitment 
outlined in SAFETEA-LU. The Committee is pleased that the Research and 
Innovative Technology Administration at the Department of 
Transportation has received a funding increase in the Fiscal Year 2011 
budget request (from $13 million to $17 million) and welcomes proposed 
increases for Research, Development, and Technology programs at the 
Federal Highway Administration (from $643.6 million to $652.8 million) 
and Research and Development at the Federal Transit Administration 
(from $14.8 million to $33.1 million). The Committee hopes to move 
legislation this year to reauthorize surface transportation research 
and development programs at the Department of Transportation.
    The President's budget request provides $190 million for research, 
engineering, and development at the Federal Aviation Administration, a 
decrease of $500 million below Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels. The 
Committee supports the efforts of the FAA to conduct research, 
engineering, and development to. improve the national airspace system's 
capacity and safety, and urges a budget for these programs sufficient 
to carry out these responsibilities. In particular, the Committee 
supports the significant increase in funding, including a sizable 
increase in the research, engineering, and development budget, for the 
Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (Next Gen). The budget 
request includes $1.143 billion in funding (up from $868 million in 
Fiscal Year 2010 enacted) for all Next Gen programs at FAA, including 
$77.5 million in research, engineering, and development-related funding 
(up from $72 million in FY 2010).

Department of Homeland Security

    The budget request includes $1.018 billion for the Department of 
Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, representing a 
1.2% increase from the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. This increase is 
the result of the movement of the Department's Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office research program to the Science and Technology 
Directorate. Without the DNDO research programs, the budget request 
represents a 9.7% reduction in funding from Fiscal Year 2010 levels for 
the Science and Technology Directorate. The Committee strongly supports 
the work of the Science and Technology Directorate, and wants to ensure 
that it has the resources it needs to carry out the research and 
development required to keep our nation safe.
    The Committee intends to move legislation this year to reauthorize 
the activities of the Department's Science and Technology Directorate.

              Sec. 425 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE

    Section 425 of S. Con. Res. 13, the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget 
Resolution requires committees to review programs within their 
jurisdiction and make recommendations to reduce wasteful Federal 
spending to promote deficit reduction and long-term fiscal 
responsibility.
    House Rule X assigns the Science and Technology Committee special 
oversight responsibility for ``reviewing and studying, on a continuing 
basis, all laws, programs, and Government activities dealing with or 
involving non-military research and development.'' The Committees 
appreciates this special oversight jurisdiction and makes the 
identification of waste, fraud, and abuse in all non-military research 
and development programs a top priority.
    To support its important oversight work, in the 110th Congress, the 
Science and Technology Committee reestablished the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight to help identify instances of waste, 
fraud, and abuse that could create savings for the Federal taxpayer. 
The Subcommittee continues to oversee a wide-ranging and detailed 
oversight operation, conducting investigations into instances of 
wasteful spending and holding oversight hearings to ensure that 
taxpayer dollars are spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. 
The Committee's legislative subcommittees are also regularly involved. 
in overseeing spending at their agencies, aggressively pursuing any 
allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse.
    In 2009, the Committee collectively authored many oversight letters 
and held at least l6 oversight hearings. The Committee also worked 
closely with the Government Accountability Office (GAO)and the 
Inspectors General of its agencies on allegations of wasteful spending. 
Currently, the Committee has dozens of accepted requests for work 
pending with GAO and more are currently under development.
    The Committee's oversight into government waste and contractor 
abuse has resulted in real savings to taxpayers. Most recently, 
following extensive oversight by the Committee, the Department of 
Homeland Security announced on February 25, 2010 a decision to cancel 
the plan to deploy advanced radiation monitors at ports and border 
crossings around the country. This program had been the subject of 3 
hearings and multiple letters from the Committee focusing on the 
excessive costs and inefficiencies of the proposed technology. 
Cancellation of the program will save taxpayers at least $1.5 billion 
in acquisition costs.
    The Committee is committed to building on this record in Fiscal 
Year 2011. The Committee will continue work already underway in the 
areas of: computer system acquisitions, contractor costs and 
performance in the acquisition of next generation weather and climate 
satellites, procurement, conflict of interest and program management at 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, conflict of interest 
issues at the Department of Energy, and efforts to consolidate aviation 
weather services. In addition, the Committee will continue its 
aggressive oversight of funding appropriated in the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act, to ensure that funding is spent as intended.
    A more detailed description of the Committee's planned oversight 
activities can be found in the Committee Oversight Plan for the 111th 
Congress: http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/
111th%20Oversight%20Plan.pdf.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

List of Signatures

1. Rep. Bart Gordon

2. Rep. David Wu

3. Rep. Brian Baird

4. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper

5. Rep. Daniel Lipinski

6. Rep. John Garamendi

7. Rep. Steven Rothman

8. Rep. Jerry Costello

9. Rep. Jim Matheson

10. Rep. Lincoln Davis

11. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan

12. Rep. Charlie Wilson

13. Rep. Paul Tonko

14. Rep. Russ Carnahan

15. Rep. Alan Grayson

16. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson

17. Rep. Marcia Fudge

18. Rep. Ben Chandler

19. Rep. Gary Peters

20. Rep. Brad Miller

21. Rep. Donna Edwards

22. Rep. Lynn Woolsey
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                      MINORITY VIEWS AND ESTIMATES
                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            FISCAL YEAR 2011
    It is important that we continue to make appropriate investments in 
science and technology research, development, and math and science 
education in order for the United States to remain a world leader in 
competitiveness and innovation. While Committee Republicans agree, with 
the Majority that the Administration's budget summary ``recognizes the 
benefits that science and technology and research and development 
investments have for our country's economic competitiveness, energy 
security, job growth and environmental health,'' we are also mindful 
that in the current economic environment, the nation faces numerous and 
difficult budgetary decisions that will require our careful 
consideration, diligent oversight, and appropriate action.
    We are pleased that the budget summary continues to build on the 
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act 
(COMPETES) (P.L. 110-69) by providing funding for physical sciences and 
engineering at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST), and the Office of Science 
at the Department of Energy (DOE), but have some concerns that in the 
quest to get stimulus money out the door, the Administration may be 
accelerating this funding beyond authorized levels with little to no 
direction on spending. We are skeptical about the claims of the 
Administration regarding the number of jobs created by the funding that 
was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and remain 
concerned about the lack of oversight of the funding for these 
programs.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

    The FY11 budget request for NSF is $7.4 billion. This $551.9 
million increase is 8 percent increase over the FY10 estimate. While 
Committee Republicans recognize that the budget request falls below the 
amounts authorized in the America COMPETES Act (COMPETES), we also note 
that in addition to the $596 million in stimulus funds obligated for 
FY10, an additional $450 million remains unobligated. We support a 
robust budget request for NSF, but remain concerned that we not exceed 
current authorization amounts.
    With regard to education, we agree with the Majority that NSF has 
an important and unique role to play in strengthening science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all 
levels. We further agree with the Majority that the FY11 budget should 
provide sustained support for K-12 programs, including the Noyce 
Teacher scholarship program and the Math and Science Partnership 
Program.
    The FY 11 budget request continues to make climate change research 
and education a priority throughout the Foundation. NSF currently funds 
numerous research and education programs that address climate change 
across all directorates; however, the FY11 budget request continues to 
direct funding specifically to climate change. By continuing to single 
out a specific area of research over myriad others for targeted 
funding, this budget request hinders NSF's ability to support all 
science and engineering disciplines, potentially depriving funding for 
other much needed basic research.

Department of Energy (DOE)

    In general Committee Republicans agree with and support the 
Administration's focus on basic research in this budget, particularly 
the efforts to place the Office of Science on a doubling path as called 
for by the America COMPETES Act. However, we note that the $300 million 
request for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), if directed 
to the Office of Science, would be sufficient to provide for full 
funding along the doubling path endorsed by the America COMPETES Act 
and the Obama Administration. A majority of Republicans opposed the 
creation of ARPA-E in part due to concerns that it would divert funding 
from the Office of Science and impede the doubling effort. This budget 
appears to validate these concerns.
    Further, those of us in opposition to ARPA-E continue to have 
concerns regarding the suitability of the DARPA model applied to the 
energy sector as well as the continued lack of clarity regarding the 
scope and mission of the agency. Accordingly, we believe that high-
risk, high-reward R&D projects be funded through the traditional DOE 
structure and prioritized against existing applied energy technology 
programs. More broadly, we also remain concerned by the overall lack of 
clarity in the budget with respect to the numerous programs with 
overlapping goals and similar activities. In particular, the budget 
does not effectively articulate the details of and distinctions between 
energy technology development programs, such as the ARPA-E, Energy 
Innovation Hubs, Energy Frontier Research Centers, and traditional 
applied technology programs. Accordingly there appears to be a high 
potential for overlap and duplication of effort that must be addressed 
before funding increases for these programs move forward.
    Committee Republicans are also disappointed and concerned with the 
impact of the proposed budget on American energy independence. While 
the budget's emphasis on renewable energy and energy efficiency 
programs will certainly contribute to energy independence, its hostile 
approach to supply side factors associated with energy independence--
primarily, expanding traditional sources of domestic energy--is 
disturbing. For example, we are deeply disappointed that the 
President's budget summary proposes to eliminate the Ultra-Deepwater 
and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Program 
established in Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
58). Section 999H(a) sets the funding for this program at a level of 
$50-million-per-year provided from Federal lease royalties, rents, and 
bonuses paid by oil and gas companies--not taxpayers. It should be 
clear that the overall program was initiated and carried out to reach 
energy known to exist in the areas targeted--energy that was impossible 
to produce without new technology--and that the required technology 
would be eventually be paid for from the energy captured. The funds are 
to be directed towards research specifically targeting four areas: 
ultra-deepwater resources, unconventional natural gas and other 
petroleum resources, technology challenges of small producers, and 
research complementary to these areas.
    Additionally, while we are wholly supportive of research into 
renewable and alternative forms of energy, we feel that domestically 
produced oil and natural gas will continue to play an important role in 
powering our country and must therefore receive support to increase our 
domestic supply and reduce our foreign dependence. The budget 
eliminates funding for research and development in fossil energy and 
appears to focus funding solely on carbon capture and sequestration 
research and development associated with coal fired electricity 
generation and industrial sources. We are pleased that research into 
carbon capture and storage is playing a prominent role in the budget 
summary, but we encourage the Budget Committee to continue to recognize 
the importance of oil and natural gas research and development to our 
country's future. The domestic oil and natural gas industry experienced 
nine (9) percent job growth from 2002-2008. With the Administration's 
recent focus on jobs proposals in the budget that stymie job growth 
should be fully examined.
    While we commend the administration's efforts to provide additional 
loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and support efforts to focus 
research and development into reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and 
the next generation of nuclear plants, we note the President's 
determination that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option and the 
subsequent decision to withdraw, with prejudice, the license 
application for the Yucca Mountain repository program raises 
significant regulatory and legal issues that may not only adversely 
affect the licensing and construction of a new fleet of nuclear power 
plants, but also may impact existing operating nuclear plants and 
license renewals. We believe that it is premature to withdraw this 
application, which has already cost the American taxpayers upwards of 
$10 billion, prior to consideration of all the options for disposal of 
nuclear waste by the Blue Ribbon Commission. Nuclear energy should be 
fully supported as the type of clean energy technology that will reduce 
dependence on foreign oil and all options should be allowed to be 
considered with regard to addressing spent fuel.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

    The Department of Commerce's NIST supports U.S. innovation and 
industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, 
and technology to enhance economic competitiveness and address 
important societal challenges. The Administration's FY11 budget request 
for NIST is $918.9 million, a 7.3 percent increase over the FY10 level. 
This amount does not reflect the recently announced $123 million in 
FY10 stimulus funds for the NIST Construction Grant program (NCGP) to 
build new university research facilities or the $180 million in 
stimulus funds to maintain and renovate current NIST facilities.
    NIST's core research and facilities programs are widely recognized 
as well-managed, high-leverage activities supported by world-class 
researchers. Accordingly, Committee Republicans agree with the Majority 
that these activities should receive priority in the budget; and, along 
with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the Technology 
Innovation Program (TIP), be funded in accordance with the levels 
authorized in COMPETES.
    At the same time, Committee Republicans intend to continue close 
oversight of NIST's budget and activities and hope to work with the 
Majority and the Administration to ensure appropriate and effective use 
of taxpayer dollars. Of particular concern is oversight for the new 
NCGP program, which received Stimulus funds but was not authorized by 
Congress or formally reviewed and considered by this Committee. Also, 
Committee Republicans are concerned that even though the Construction 
of Research Facilities (CRF) request is $22.2 million below the FY10 
levels (not including Stimulus funding), it is still $124.8 million. 
Given that NIST received $180 million in Stimulus funds to address 
maintenance and renovation at its facilities, we would like a more 
thorough accounting of how these funds are being used in FY10 and the 
need for additional funding in FY11.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

    NASA is at a critical juncture. The agency is preparing to retire 
the Space Shuttle at the end of this year without a successor vehicle 
in place. Our nation faces the prospect of sending hundreds of millions 
of dollars to Russia over several years to buy seats on their launcher 
until a replacement vehicle is in place. Given this national challenge, 
the President's FY2011 budget request of $19.0 billion for NASA, which 
represents an increase of $276 million (1.5%) over FY2010 enacted, is 
justified. While we are supportive of this increase, we differ 
significantly on the direction of the agency.
    The FY2011 budget request reflects a radical departure for the 
agency. It cancels NASA's successor to the Space Shuttle, the 
Constellation program, which would be capable of launching astronauts 
to the International Space Station as well as to destinations beyond 
low Earth orbit. Two successive Congresses (109th and 110th) under 
different party leadership have overwhelmingly supported Constellation 
in NASA authorization bills. Over the last five years taxpayers have 
invested $9.1 billion on Constellation, and NASA engineers are 
confident that most of its technical challenges have been addressed. To 
cancel this program now without reaping the benefits of this investment 
would be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. It also jeopardizes our 
nation's ability to return humans to space as quickly and safely as 
possible, and could have detrimental effects on our national security 
and global preeminence.
    In place of Constellation, the FY2011 budget increases spending for 
technology research and development activities that someday may provide 
new propulsion, sensor, and materials capabilities for yet-to-be-
determined missions. It also shifts money toward a commercial crew 
program ($500 million in FY2011; $5.8 billion over five years) to seed 
the development of commercial entities proposing to launch humans into 
low Earth orbit. Without offering any proof or programmatic details, 
the budget proposal assumes that commercial launch providers will be 
able to offer human spaceflight services that are safer, faster, and 
cheaper. Committee Republicans have long supported the development of 
commercial cargo services and have ensured that authorization bills 
include funding for commercial cargo ventures. But, we also believe 
that until these entities can demonstrate an ability to safely put 
cargo into space it is not prudent to gamble American lives.
    Committee Republicans are also concerned that the FY2011 budget 
significantly increases NASA's spending for Earth Sciences, adding $381 
million (27%) over the FY2010 enacted, and $1.8 billion over four years 
(FY2011-FY2014) compared to FY2010. The other science divisions receive 
modest increases or are flat-funded. Earth Science will eventually 
consume 40% of the agency's overall science program, crowding out 
funding for exciting science missions flown by the astrophysics, 
planetary sciences, and heliophysics communities.
    The Committee believes it is imperative for NASA to maintain world 
leadership in human spaceflight capabilities. We are at the tipping 
point with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, and many industry 
experts firmly believe the Constellation program is the safest and most 
prudent investment. Given that the Science and Technology Committee has 
deliberated on this issue for several years and advanced bipartisan, 
broadly-supported legislation, it is disconcerting that this budget 
proposal suggests such a radical and unsupported direction for the 
agency.

Department of Commerce--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
                    (NOAA)

    Committee Republicans have reservations about the FY11 budget 
request for NOAA of $5.6 billion, an $806 million (17 percent) increase 
over the FY10 enacted level. This substantial increase reflects several 
momentous policy decisions that have not been vetted by the Committee 
on Science and Technology.
    The minority notes a significant change in this budget request from 
previous budget requests with the dissolution of the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) tri-agency 
program with NASA and DOD, and the creation of the Joint Polar 
Satellite System (JPSS), in which NOAA will be solely responsible for 
the cost of development and procurement of instruments for polar-
orbiting weather satellites. The DOD is currently reviewing its options 
in moving forward with its own separate weather satellite system. 
Severing the tri-agency venture is a drastic attempt to ensure the 
prevention of potential data gaps in weather and climate information in 
the next few years. Over the last several Congresses, the Committee has 
held numerous hearings regarding the problems and delays in NOAA's next 
generation of satellites. However, we have not yet had a chance to 
evaluate the implications of this decision since it was announced just 
prior to the release of the President's budget.
    Although this separation is still in transition with no clear path 
forward and no plan how to get there, NOAA has submitted a budget 
request that would cover the increased expense of building this 
satellite system independently. Accordingly, the minority believes that 
the FY11 request for $2.2 billion for the National Environmental 
Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) is premature at this 
time. This request is $810.5 million (58 percent) above the FY10 
enacted levels as a result of the JPSS program. We believe that this 
radical shift in policy requires much more oversight and scrutiny by 
Congress and we strongly urge a more comprehensive policy be developed 
before moving forward with this plan.
    Committee Republicans are extremely hesitant about the request of 
$464.9 million for the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research (OAR), 
which is a $15.7 million (3.5 percent) increase over FY10 enacted 
levels. Coupled with the $170 million OAR received in stimulus funding, 
this increase represents a continued commitment to enhance climate 
change research. While another increase at this time also begs the 
question of fiscal responsibility, our chief concern is that NOAA has 
recently announced its intent to establish a NOAA Climate Service as a 
new line office. This announcement came after the release of the 
President's budget, so it was not included in the FY11 request. It is 
our understanding that NOAA intends to request a reprogramming from the 
Appropriations Committees which will simultaneously move several key 
programs into the new line office, including the physical science parts 
of climate research and modeling from OAR, 3 data centers from NESDIS, 
and the climate observing network from the National Weather Service 
(NWS). As a result, OAR will be left with approximately $200 million 
and will become nothing more than a collection of random research 
programs.
    The minority does not support NOAA's plan for creating a Climate 
Service for both policy and process reasons. We are extremely concerned 
that moving research into an operational program office will leave the 
research needs vulnerable since operational priorities will take 
precedence. NOAA has had experience with research suffering in an 
operational office in the past and the result was the NWS research 
components were moved to OAR in order to keep the focus of NWS on 
operations. With this proposal, NOAA is choosing to ignore the lessons 
of the past.
    Furthermore, by moving the essential climate research programs into 
a new line office, NOAA abandons the interdisciplinary benefits gained 
by housing physical climate research with research from other 
scientific branches. The proposed Climate Service will attempt to 
provide adaptation products, which require the successful integration 
of biological, physical, environmental and social sciences into 
products and tools. However, the focus on solely the physical science 
research as part of the Climate Service indicates a shortsighted 
approach to meeting future climate product demands. One only needs to 
look at the National Integrated Drought Information System program 
(MIDIS) and its success to see the need to integrate many different 
types of science pulled from many different sources to provide a 
complete picture of impacts and tools for planning. Finally, OAR would 
effectively be crippled by the removal of half its research program and 
funding, thus weakening overall science at NOAA.
    Therefore, we do not support the increase request for climate 
research in OAR until we can be satisfied that any new Climate Service 
would not irreparably harm research, as this current plan most 
certainly does, and until NOAA reorganization proceeds through proper 
legislative channels, including consideration by the Committee on 
Science and Technology, which is the appropriate course of action for a 
reorganization of this magnitude.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    Committee Republicans share the Majority's view that investments in 
research and development will be beneficial in the form of greater 
cost-efficiency of environmental protection programs. However, we are 
concerned that EPA's request includes funding for the promulgation of 
regulations that Congress does not yet support. The $847 million FY11 
budget request for science and technology is a 0.1 percent increase 
over the 2010 enacted levels. Despite the heavy focus of the EPA budget 
on the anticipated implementation of a host of new regulations 
triggered by the EPA's endangerment finding finalized in December 2009, 
we are extremely concerned that only $16.9 million of the Climate 
Protection Program budget request is for science and technology, a 
$2.9. million decrease from FY10 enacted levels. As this is the program 
under which the Agency intends to promulgate these new regulations, 
such a request is indicative of EPA's ``putting the cart before the 
horse'' mentality in planning to create and implement new regulations 
that reduce greenhouse gas emissions with very little consideration of 
the need to develop the technology that would be required to do so.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration--Research, Development and Technology
    The FY2011 budget request provides $400.57 million for FAA research 
and development activities, a $11.53 million (3%) reduction below 
FY2010 enacted. Agency R&D is spread across four accounts:

        1.  Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST). The 
        FY2011 budget request provides $15.75 million for OCST, a $510 
        thousand (3%) increase over FY2010 enacted. OCST is responsible 
        for licensing and regulating commercial space launches and 
        reentries to ensure compliance with standards designed to 
        protect public safety. In addition, OCST encourages the 
        commercial space launch industry to maintain pace with latest 
        technological improvements in launch hardware and practices, 
        and it serves to promote the growth of the US industry.

        2.  The Research Engineering and Development account (Aviation 
        Trust Fund), with an FY2011 request of $190.00 million, 
        compared to $190.50 million enacted in FY2010. RE&D conducts 
        research to support a safe, efficient and environmentally 
        acceptable aviation system in five key areas: air traffic 
        services, airport technology, aircraft safety, human factors, 
        and the environment.

        3.  A portion of the Facilities & Equipment account (Aviation 
        Trust Fund) dedicated to engineering, development, test and 
        evaluation, with an FY2011 request of $155.16 million, a 10% 
        reduction compared to FY2010 enacted.

        4.  A portion of the Airports Improvement Program account 
        (Aviation Trust Fund) with an FY2011 request of $42.22 million, 
        a 13% increase compared to FY2010 enacted.

    At a programmatic level we support the FAA's budget request for 
development and implementation of NextGen, our nation's future air 
traffic management (ATM) System.
    NextGen technologies will ensure that our national airspace system 
can readily accommodate future growth while maintaining the highest 
levels of safety. Whether speaking about NextGeri R&D, or NextGen 
generally, it is essential these efforts be supported.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
    The FY2011 budget request provides $17.2 million for RITA, a $4.2 
million (32%) increase over FY2010 enacted. RITA is responsible for 
coordinating DOT's research and development programs, as well as 
coordinating and developing Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) 
technology, PNT policy coordination, and spectrum management. RITA is 
the program manger for the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning 
System. Most of the requested increase will support maintenance and 
equipment capitalization for the PNT services, especially through its 
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System.
    We also support the proposed funding levels for research and 
development for the Federal Highway Administration ($652.8 million in 
FY2011, a 1% increase over FY2010 enacted) and the Federal Transit 
Administration ($33.1 million in FY2011, a 124% increase over FY2010). 
Both of these essential activities will help America develop 
transportation solutions needed to sustain economic growth.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    The FY11 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security's 
Science and Technology Directorate is $1.02 billion, a 1.2 percent 
increase from the FY10 level. This increase reflects the movement of 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office's transformative research program 
to S&T. Without the program transfer, S&T funding would be 9.7 percent 
below FY10 funding levels. Committee Republicans are in strong 
agreement with the Majority that the work of the Science and Technology 
Directorate is important, and we will work to ensure that it has the 
resources it needs to carry out the research and development required 
to keep our nation safe.
    Recognizing the importance of both Assistance to Firefighter Grants 
(AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) 
grants to our Nation's fire departments, Committee Republicans remain 
concerned that with the consolidation of the Firefighter Assistance 
Grants Program into the State and Local budget line, the AFG program 
will continue its declining trend of funding. We strongly encourage the 
Administration to make sure that both grant programs, AFG and SAFER, 
remain balanced.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

Members who signed:

Ralph Hall

James Sensenbrenner

Lamar Smith

Judy Biggert

Todd Akin

Randy Neugebauer

Bob Inglis

Michael McCaul

Mario Diaz-Balart

Brain Bilbray

Adrian Smith

Paul Broun

Pete Olson
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                        HISTORY OF APPOINTMENTS

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                 FOR THE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

January 6, 2009--H. Res. 8

Bart Gordon, Tennessee, was named Chairman of the Committee on Science 
and Technology.

January 6, 2009--H. Res. 12

Ralph Hall, Texas, was named as Ranking Member of the Committee on 
Science and Technology.

January 9, 2009--H. Res. 38

Republican Members assigned to the Committee on Science and Technology:

Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Lucas, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. 
Akin, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. McCaul of 
Texas, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Smith of 
Nebraska, Mr. Broun of Georgia, and Mr. Olson.

January 21, 2009--H. Res. 74

Democratic Members assigned to the Committee on Science and Technology:

Mr. Gordon, Mr. Costello, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, 
Mr. Baird, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Giffords, 
Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Griffith, 
Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. 
Chandler, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Hill, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, 
Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mr. Grayson, Ms. Kosmas, and Mr. Peters.

January 22, 2009--H. Res. 78

Mr. Smith of Nebraska (to rank immediately after Mr. Bilbray) was 
appointed to the Committee on Science and Technology.

November 19, 2009--H. Res. 921

Mr. Garamendi (to rank immediately after Mr. Griffith) was appointed to 
the Committee on Science and Technology.

December 20, 2009

Mr. Griffith resigned from the Committee on Science and Technology.

May 6, 2010--H. Res. 1334

Mr. Garamendi to rank immediately after Mr. Peters.

                      RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE OF

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                 FOR THE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                CONTENTS
Rule 1. General Provisions

         In General (a)

         Subcommittees (b)

         Vice Chair (c)

         Order of Business (d)

         Use of Hearing Rooms (e)

         National Security Information (f)

         Availability of Publications (g)

         Committee Website (h)

         Motion To Go To Conference (i)

         Conference Committees (j)

         Other Procedures (k)

Rule 2. Regular, Additional, and Special Meetings

         Regular Meetings (a)

         Additional Meetings (b)

         Special Meetings (c)

Rule 3. Meetings and Hearings Generally

         Opening Statements (a)

         Addressing the Committee (b)

         Requests for Written Motions (c)

         Open Meetings and Hearings (d)

         Audio and Visual Coverage (e)

Rule 4. Consideration of Measure or Matter

         In General (a)

         Notice (b)

         Submission of Amendments (c)

         Suspended Proceedings (d)

         Investigative or Oversight Reports (e)

         Germaneness (f)

Rule 5. Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power

         In General (a)

         Sensitive or Confidential Information (b)

Rule 6. Quorums and Voting

         Quorums (a)

         Voting by Proxy (b)

         Requests for Record Vote (c)

         Postponement of Proceedings (d)

Rule 7. Hearing Procedures

         Announcement of Hearing (a)

         Witness Statement; Testimony (b)

         Minority Witnesses (c)

         Extended Questioning of Witnesses by Members (d)

         Additional Questions for the Record (e)

         Additional Hearing Procedures (f)

Rule 8. Procedures for Reporting Measures or Matters

         Filing of Reports (a)

         Supplemental, Minority, or Additional Views (b)

         Contents of Report (c)

         Immediate Printing; Supplemental Reports (d)

         Private Bills (e)

         Report Language on Use of Federal Resources (f)

Rule 9. Other Committee Publications

         House Reports (a)

         Other Documents (b)

         Joint Investigation or Study (c)

         Post Adjournment Filing of Committee Reports (d)

Rule 10. General Oversight and Investigative Responsibilities

         In General (a)

         Oversight (b)

         Investigations (c)

Rule 11. Subcommittees

         Establishment and Jurisdiction of Subcommittees (a)

         Ratios (b)

         Ex-Officio Members (c)

         Referral of Legislation (d)

         Procedures (e)

         Consideration of Subcommittee Reports (f)

Rule 12. Committee Records

         Transcripts (a)

         Keeping of Records (b)

         Availability of Archived Records (c)

         Property of House (d)

RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    (a) IN GENERAL.--The Rules of the House of Representatives, as 
applicable, shall govern the Committee and its Subcommittees, except 
that a motion to recess from day to day and a motion to dispense with 
the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies 
are available, are privileged motions in the Committee and its 
Subcommittees and shall be decided without debate. [House Rule XI 1(a)]

    (b) SUBCOMMITTEES.--The rules of the Committee, as applicable, 
shall be the rules of its Subcommittees. [House Rule XI 1(a)]

    (c) VICE CHAIR.--A Member of the majority party on the Committee or 
Subcommittee shall be designated by the Chair of the Committee as the 
Vice Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case maybe, and 
shall preside during the absence of the Chair from any meeting. If the 
Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee are not present 
at any meeting of the Committee or Subcommittee, the Ranking Majority 
Member who is present shall preside at that meeting. [House Rule XI 
2(d)]

    (d) ORDER OF BUSINESS.--The order of business and procedure of the 
Committee and the subjects of inquiries or investigations will be 
decided by the Chair, subject always to an appeal to the Committee.

    (e) USE OF HEARING ROOMS.--In consultation with the Ranking 
Minority Member, the Chair of the Committee shall establish guidelines 
for the use of Committee hearing rooms.

    (f) NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION.--All national security 
information bearing a classification of secret or higher which has been 
received by the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be deemed to have 
been received in Executive Session and shall be given appropriate 
safekeeping. The Chair of the Committee may establish such regulations 
and procedures as in the Chair's judgment are necessary to safeguard 
classified information under the control of the Committee. Such 
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by any 
Member of the Committee or any other Member of the House of 
Representatives who has requested the opportunity to review such 
material.

    (g) AVAILABILITY OF PUBLICATIONS.--To the maximum extent feasible, 
the Committee shall make its publications available in electronic form, 
including on the Committee website. [House Rule XI 2(e)(4)]

    (h) COMMITTEE WEBSITE.--The Chair of the Committee shall maintain 
an official Committee website for the purpose of furthering the 
Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, including 
communicating information about the Committee's activities to Committee 
Members and other Members of the House. The Ranking Minority Member of 
the Committee may maintain a similar website for the same purpose, 
including communicating information about the activities of the 
minority to Committee Members and other Members of the House.

    (i) MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE.--The Chair is directed to offer a 
motion under clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever 
the Chair considers it appropriate. [House Rule XI 2(a)(3)]

    (j) CONFERENCE COMMITTEES.--Recommendations of conferees to the 
Speaker shall provide a ratio of majority party Members to minority 
party Members which shall be no less favorable to the majority party 
than the ratio of the Committee.

    (k) OTHER PROCEDURES.--The Chair of the Committee, after 
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, may 
establish such other procedures and take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out these rules or to facilitate the effective 
operation of the Committee.

Rule 2. REGULAR, ADDITIONAL, AND SPECIAL MEETINGS

    (a) REGULAR MEETINGS.--Unless dispensed with by the Chair of the 
Committee, the meetings of the Committee shall be held on the second 
(2nd) and fourth (4th) Wednesdays of each month the House is in session 
at 10:00 a.m. [House Rule XI 2(b)]

    (b) ADDITIONAL MEETINGS.--The Chair of the Committee may call and 
convene, as the Chair considers necessary, additional meetings of the 
Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending 
before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. 
The Committee shall meet for such purpose under that call of the Chair. 
[House Rule XI 2(c)(1)]

    (c) SPECIAL MEETINGS.--Rule XI 2(c) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is hereby incorporated by reference. [House Rule XI 
2(c)(2)]

Rule 3. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS GENERALLY

    (a) OPENING STATEMENTS.--Insofar as is practicable, the Chair, 
after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, shall limit the 
total time of opening statements by Members to no more than 10 minutes, 
the time to be divided equally between the Chair and Ranking Minority 
Member.

    (b) ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE.--The time any one (1) Member may 
address the Committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under 
consideration by the Committee or the time allowed for the questioning 
of a witness at hearings before the Committee will be limited to five 
(5) minutes, and then only when the Member has been recognized by the 
Chair, except that this time limit may be waived by the Chair. [House 
Rule XI 2(j)(2)]

    (c) REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN MOTIONS.--Any motion made at a meeting of 
the Committee and which is entertained by the Chair of the Committee or 
the Subcommittee shall be presented in writing upon the demand of any 
Member present and a copy made available to each Member present.

    (d) OPEN MEETINGS AND HEARINGS.--Each meeting for the transaction 
of business, including the markup of legislation, and each hearing of 
the Committee or a Subcommittee shall be open to the public, including 
to radio, television, and still photography, unless closed in 
accordance with clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. [House Rule XI 2(g)]

    (e) AUDIO AND VISUAL COVERAGE.

        (1) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is 
        open to the public, these proceedings shall be open to coverage 
        by audio and visual means, except as provided in Rule XI 
        4(f)(2) of the House of Representatives. The Chair of the 
        Committee or Subcommittee may not limit the number of 
        television, or still cameras to fewer than two (2) 
        representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space 
        or safety considerations, in which case pool coverage shall be 
        authorized).

        (2) Radio and television tapes, television films, and Internet 
        recordings of any Committee hearings or meetings that are open 
        to the public may not be used, or made available for use, as 
        partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the 
        candidacy of any person for elective public office.

        (3) It is, further, the intent of this rule that the general 
        conduct of each meeting or hearing covered under authority of 
        this rule by audio or visual means, and the personal behavior 
        of the Committee Members and staff, other government officials 
        and personnel, witnesses, television, radio, and press media 
        personnel, and the general public at the meeting or hearing, 
        shall be in strict conformity with and observance of the 
        acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and 
        decorum traditionally observed by the House in its operations, 
        and may not be such as to:

                (A) distort the objects and purposes of the meeting or 
                hearing or the activities of Committee Members in 
                connection with that meeting or hearing or in 
                connection with the general work of the Committee or of 
                the House; or

                (B) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the 
                Committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
                Commissioner or bring the House, the Committee, or a 
                Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into 
                disrepute.

        (4) The coverage of Committee meetings and hearings by audio 
        and visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in 
        strict conformity with the purposes, provisions, and 
        requirements of this rule.

        (5) The following shall apply to coverage of Committee meetings 
        or hearings by audio or visual means:

                (A) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or 
                meeting is to be presented to the public as live 
                coverage, that coverage shall be conducted and 
                presented without commercial sponsorship.

                (B) The allocation among the television media of the 
                positions or the number of television cameras permitted 
                by a Committee or Subcommittee Chair in a hearing or 
                meeting room shall be in accordance with fair and 
                equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee 
                of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.

                (C) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to 
                obstruct in any way the space between a witness giving 
                evidence or testimony and any Member of the Committee 
                or the visibility of that witness and that Member to 
                each other.

                (D) Television cameras shall operate from fixed 
                positions but may not be placed in positions that 
                obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing or 
                meeting by the other media.

                (E) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television 
                and radio media may not be installed in, or removed 
                from, the hearing or meeting room while the Committee 
                is in session.

                (F)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii), 
                floodlights, spotlights, strobe lights, and flashguns 
                may not be used in providing any method of coverage of 
                the hearing or meeting.

                (ii) The television media may install additional 
                lighting in a hearing or meeting room, without cost to 
                the Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting 
                level in a hearing or meeting room to the lowest level 
                necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a 
                hearing or meeting at the current state-of-the-art of 
                television coverage.

                (G) In the allocation of the number of still 
                photographers permitted by a Committee or Subcommittee 
                Chair in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall be 
                given to photographers from Associated Press Photos and 
                United Press International Newspictures. If requests 
                are made by more of the media than will be permitted by 
                a Committee or Subcommittee Chair for coverage of a 
                hearing or meeting by still photography, that coverage 
                shall be permitted on the basis of a fair and equitable 
                pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of 
                Press Photographers.

                (H) Photographers may not position themselves between 
                the witness table and the Members of the Committee at 
                any time during the course of a hearing or meeting.

                (I) Photographers may not place themselves in positions 
                that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing 
                by the other media.

                (J) Personnel providing coverage by the television and 
                radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio 
                and Television Correspondents' Galleries.

                (K) Personnel providing coverage by still photography 
                shall be currently accredited to the Press 
                Photographers' Gallery.

                (L) Personnel providing coverage by the television and 
                radio media and by still photography shall conduct 
                themselves and their coverage activities in an orderly 
                and unobtrusive manner. [House Rule XI (4)]

Rule 4. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURE OR MATTER

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Bills and other substantive matters may be taken 
up for consideration only when called by the Chair of the Committee or 
by a majority vote of a quorum of the Committee, except those matters 
which are the subject of special call meetings outlined in Rule 2(c).

    (b) NOTICE.--

        (1) It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any 
        new or original measure or matter unless written notice of the 
        date, place and subject matter of consideration and, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, a written copy of the measure or 
        matter to be considered and, to the maximum extent practicable, 
        the original text of the measure to be considered for purposes 
        of markup have been available to each Member of the Committee 
        for at least 48 hours in advance of consideration, excluding 
        Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

        (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), consideration of any 
        legislative measure or matter by the Committee shall be in 
        order by vote of two-thirds of the Members present, provided 
        that a majority of the Committee is present.

    (c) SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
amendments to a measure or matter shall be submitted in writing to the 
Clerk of the Committee at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of 
the measure or matter.

    (d) SUSPENDED PROCEEDINGS.--During the consideration of any measure 
or matter, the Chair of the Committee, or of any Subcommittee, may 
recess the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be, at any point. 
Additionally, during the consideration of any measure or matter, the 
Chair of the Committee, or of any Subcommittee, shall suspend further 
proceedings after a question has been put to the Committee or 
Subcommittee at anytime when there is a vote by electronic device 
occurring in the House of Representatives. Suspension of proceedings 
after a record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure 
or matter or on adopting an amendment shall be conducted in compliance 
with the provisions of Rule 6(d).

    (e) INVESTIGATIVE OR OVERSIGHT REPORTS.--A proposed investigative 
or oversight report shall be considered as read in Committee if it has 
been available to the Members for at least 24 hours (excluding 
Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in 
session on such a day). [House Rule XI 1(b)(2)]

    (f) GERMANENESS.--The rules of germaneness shall be enforced by the 
Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be.

Rule 5. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

    (a) IN GENERAL.--

        (1) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a subpoena may be authorized 
        and issued in the conduct of any investigation or series of 
        investigations or activities to require the attendance and 
        testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
        records, correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents as 
        deemed necessary, only when authorized by majority vote of the 
        Committee or Subcommittee (as the case may be), a majority of 
        the Committee or Subcommittee being present. Authorized 
        subpoenas shall be signed only by the Chair of the Committee, 
        or by any Member designated by the Chair. [House Rule XI 
        2(m)(3)(A)]

        (2) The Chair of the Committee, after consultation with the 
        Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, or, if the Ranking 
        Member cannot be reached, the Ranking Minority Member of the 
        relevant Subcommittee, may authorize and issue such subpoenas 
        as described in paragraph (1) during any period in which the 
        House has adjourned for a period longer than seven (7) days. 
        [House Rule XI 2(m)(3)(A)]

        (3) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other 
        than at a meeting or a hearing of the Committee. [House Rule XI 
        2(m)(3)(B)]

    (b) SENSITIVE OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.--Unless otherwise 
determined by the Committee or Subcommittee, certain information 
received by the Committee or Subcommittee pursuant to a subpoena not 
made part of the record at an open hearing shall be deemed to have been 
received in Executive Session when the Chair of the Committee, in the 
Chair's judgment and after consultation with the Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee, deems that in view of all of the 
circumstances, such as the sensitivity of the information or the 
confidential nature of the information, such action is appropriate.

Rule 6. QUORUMS AND VOTING

    (a) QUORUMS.--

        (1) One-third (1/3) of the Members of the Committee shall 
        constitute a quorum for all purposes except as provided in 
        paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Rule. [House Rule XI 2(h)(3)]

        (2) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall constitute 
        a quorum in order to: (A) report any legislation, measure, or 
        matter; (B) close Committee meetings or hearings pursuant to 
        Rule 3(d); and (C) authorize the issuance of subpoenas pursuant 
        to Rule 5(a). [House Rule XI 2(h)(1); House Rule XI 2(g); House 
        Rule XI 2(m)(3)(A)]

        (3) Two (2) Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum 
        for taking testimony and receiving evidence, which, unless 
        waived by the Chair of the Committee after consultation with 
        the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, shall include at 
        least one (1) Member from each of the majority and minority 
        parties. [House Rule XI 2(h)(2)]

    (b) VOTING BY PROXY.--No Member may authorize a vote by proxy with 
respect to any measure or matter before the Committee. [House Rule XI 
2(f)]

    (c) REQUESTS FOR RECORD VOTE AT COMMITTEE.--A record vote of the 
Members may be had at the request of three (3) or more Members or, in 
the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one (1) Member.

    (d) POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.--The Chair of the Committee, or of 
any Subcommittee, is authorized to postpone further proceedings when a 
record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter 
or on adopting an amendment, and to resume proceedings on a postponed 
question at any time after reasonable notice. Upon resuming proceedings 
on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the 
previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to 
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was 
postponed. [House Rule XI 2(h)(4)]

Rule 7. HEARING PROCEDURES

    (a) ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARING.--The Chair shall make a public 
announcement of the date, time, place, and subject matter of a hearing, 
and to the extent practicable, a list of witnesses at least one (1) 
week before the commencement of the hearing. If the Chair, with the 
concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good 
cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by 
majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, 
the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. 
Any announcement made under this Rule shall be promptly published in 
the Daily Digest, and promptly made available in electronic form, 
including on the Committee website. [House Rule XI 2(g)(3)]

    (b) WITNESS STATEMENT; TESTIMONY.--

        (1) Insofar as is practicable, no later than 48 hours in 
        advance of his or her appearance, each witness who is to appear 
        before the Committee shall file in printed copy and in 
        electronic form a written statement of his or her proposed 
        testimony and a curriculum vitae. [House Rule XI 2(g)(4)]

        (2) To the greatest extent practicable, each witness appearing 
        before the Committee shall include with the written statement 
        of proposed testimony a disclosure of any financial interests 
        which are relevant to the subject of his or her testimony. 
        These include, but are not limited to, public and private 
        research grants, stock or stock options held in publicly traded 
        and privately owned companies, government contracts with the 
        witness or the witness' employer, and any form of payment of 
        compensation from any relevant entity. The source and amount of 
        the financial interest should be included in this disclosure. 
        [House Rule XI 2(g)(4)]

        (3) Each witness shall limit his or her presentation to a five 
        (5) minute summary, provided that additional time may be 
        granted by the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee when 
        appropriate.

    (c) MINORITY WITNESSES.--Whenever any hearing is conducted by the 
Committee on any measure or matter, the minority Members of the 
Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chair by a majority of 
them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected 
by the minority to testify with respect to the measure or matter during 
at least one (1) day of hearing thereon. [House Rule XI 2(j)(1)]

    (d) EXTENDED QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS.--Notwithstanding 
Rule 3(b), upon a motion, the Chair, in consultation with the Ranking 
Minority Member, may designate an equal number of Members from each 
party to question a witness for a period of time equally divided 
between the majority party and the minority party, not to exceed one 
(1) hour in the aggregate or, upon a motion, may designate staff from 
each party to question a witness for equal specific periods that do not 
exceed one (1) hour in the aggregate. [House Rule XI 2(j)(2)]

    (e) ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD.--Members of the Committee 
have two (2) weeks from the date of a hearing to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by witnesses who have appeared 
in person. The letters of transmittal and any responses thereto shall 
be printed in the hearing record.

    (f) ADDITIONAL HEARING PROCEDURES.--Rule XI 2(k) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives is hereby incorporated by reference. 
[House Rule XI 2(k)]

Rule 8. PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING MEASURES OR MATTERS

    (a) FILING OF REPORTS.--

        (1) It shall be the duty of the Chair of the Committee to 
        report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any 
        measure approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be 
        taken the necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. To the 
        maximum extent practicable, the written report of the Committee 
        on such measures shall be made available to the Committee 
        membership for review at least 24 hours in advance of filing. 
        [House Rule XIII 2(b)(1)]

        (2) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been 
        approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven (7) 
        calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in 
        session) after the day on which there has been filed with the 
        Clerk of the Committee a written request, signed by the 
        majority of the Members of the Committee, for the reporting of 
        that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the Clerk of 
        the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chair of the 
        Committee notice of the filing of that request. [House Rule 
        XIII 2(b)(2)]

    (b) SUPPLEMENTAL, MINORITY, OR ADDITIONAL VIEWS.--If, at the time 
of approval of any measure or matter by the Committee, any Member of 
the Committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, 
or additional views, that Member shall have two (2) subsequent calendar 
days after the day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
legal holidays) in which to file such views, in writing and signed by 
that Member, with the Clerk of the Committee. No supplemental, 
minority, or additional views shall be accepted for inclusion in the 
report if submitted after two (2) subsequent calendar days have elapsed 
unless the Chair of the Committee or Subcommittee, as appropriate, 
decides to extend the time for submission of views, in which case the 
Chair shall communicate such fact, including the revised day and hour 
for submissions to be received, to the Members of the Committee without 
delay. All such views so filed by one (1) or more Members of the 
Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report 
filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. [House 
Rule XI 2(I)]

    (c) CONTENTS OF REPORT.--

        (1) The report of the Committee on a measure or matter shall be 
        printed in a single volume that shall--

                (A) include all supplemental, minority, or additional 
                views that have been submitted by the time of the 
                filing of the report on that measure or matter; and

                (B) bear on its cover a recital that any such 
                supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any 
                material submitted under Rule 8(c)(3)(A)) are included 
                as part of the report.

        (2) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been 
        approved by the Committee shall include the following, to be 
        provided by the Committee:

                (A) the oversight findings and recommendations required 
                pursuant to Rule X 2(b)(1) of the Rules of the House of 
                Representatives, separately set out and identified; 
                [House Rule XIII 3(c)(1)]

                (B) the statement required by section 308(a) of the 
                Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out 
                and identified, if the measure provides new budget 
                authority or new or increased tax expenditures as 
                specified in Rule XIII 3(c)(2); [House Rule XIII 
                3(c)(2)]

                (C) with respect to reports on a bill or joint 
                resolution of a public character, a ``Constitutional 
                Authority Statement'' citing the specific powers 
                granted to Congress by the Constitution pursuant to 
                which the bill or joint resolution is proposed to be 
                enacted; [House Rule XIII 3(d)(1)]

                (D) with respect to each recorded vote on a motion to 
                report any measure or matter of a public character, and 
                on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the 
                total number of votes cast for and against, and the 
                names of those Members voting for and against, shall be 
                included in the Committee report on the measure or 
                matter;

                (E) the estimate and comparison prepared by the 
                Committee under Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the Rules 
                of the House of Representatives, unless the estimate 
                and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
                Congressional Budget Office prepared under subparagraph 
                3 of this Rule has been timely submitted prior to the 
                filing of the report and included in the report; [House 
                Rule XIII 3(d)(2)]

                (F) in the case of a bill or joint resolution which 
                repeals or amends any statute or part thereof, the text 
                of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be 
                repealed, and a comparative print of that part of the 
                bill or joint resolution making the amendment and of 
                the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended; 
                [House Rule XIII 3(e)]

                (G) a transcript of the markup of the measure or matter 
                unless waived under Rule 12(a); and

                (H) a statement of general performance goals and 
                objectives, including outcome-related goals and 
                objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding. 
                [House Rule XIII 3(e)(4)]

        (3) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been 
        approved by the Committee shall further include the following, 
        to be provided by sources other than the Committee:

                (A) the estimate and comparison prepared by the 
                Director of the Congressional Budget Office required 
                under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
                1974, separately set out and identified, whenever the 
                Director (if timely, and submitted prior to the filing 
                of the report) has submitted such estimate and 
                comparison of the Committee; [House Rule XIII 3(c)(3)]

                (B) if the Committee has not received prior to the 
                filing of the report the material required under 
                subparagraph (A) of this Rule, then it shall include a 
                statement to that effect in the report on the measure.

    (d) IMMEDIATE PRINTING; SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS.--This Rule does not 
preclude--

        (1) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report 
        unless a timely request for the opportunity to file 
        supplemental, minority, or additional views has been made as 
        provided by this Rule; or

        (2) the filing by the Committee of any supplemental report upon 
        any measure or matter which may be required for the correction 
        of any technical error in a previous report made by that 
        Committee upon that measure or matter.

    (e) PRIVATE BILLS.--No private bill will be reported by the 
Committee if there are two (2) or more dissenting votes. Private bills 
so rejected by the Committee will not be reconsidered during the same 
Congress unless new evidence sufficient to justify a new hearing has 
been presented to the Committee.

    (f) REPORT LANGUAGE ON USE OF FEDERAL RESOURCES.--No legislative 
report filed by the Committee on any measure or matter reported by the 
Committee shall contain language which has the effect of specifying the 
use of federal resources more explicitly (inclusively or exclusively) 
than that specified in the measure or matter as ordered reported, 
unless such language has been approved by the Committee during a 
meeting or otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members.

Rule 9. OTHER COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS

    (a) HOUSE REPORTS.--Any document published by the Committee as a 
House Report, other than a report of the Committee on a measure which 
has been approved by the Committee, shall be approved by the Committee 
at a meeting, and Members shall have the same opportunity to submit 
views as provided for in Rule 8(b).

    (b) OTHER DOCUMENTS.--

        (1) Subject to paragraph (2) and (3), the Chair of the 
        Committee may approve the publication of any document as a 
        Committee print which in the Chair's discretion the Chair 
        determines to be useful for the information of the Committee.

        (2) Any document to be published as a Committee print which 
        purports to express the views, findings, conclusions, or 
        recommendations of the Committee or any of its Subcommittees, 
        other than a report of the Committee on a measure which has 
        been approved by the Committee, must be approved by the 
        Committee or its Subcommittees, as applicable, in a meeting or 
        otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members, and such 
        Members shall have the right to submit supplemental, minority, 
        or additional views for inclusion in the print within at least 
        48 hours after such approval.

        (3) Any document to be published as a Committee print, other 
        than a document described in subsection (2) of this Rule, 
        shall--

                (A) include on its cover the following statement: 
                ``This document has been printed for informational 
                purposes only and does not represent either findings or 
                recommendations adopted by this Committee''; and

                (B) not be published following the sine die adjournment 
                of a Congress, unless approved by the Chair of the 
                Committee after consultation with the Ranking Minority 
                Member of the Committee.

    (c) JOINT INVESTIGATION OR STUDY.--A report of an investigation or 
study conducted jointly by the Committee and one (1) or more other 
Committee(s) may be filed jointly, provided that each of the Committees 
complies independently with all requirements for approval and filing of 
the report. [House Rule XI 1(b)(2)]

    (d) POST ADJOURNMENT FILING OF COMMITTEE REPORTS.--

        (1) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a 
        Congress sine die, an investigative or oversight report 
        approved by the Committee may be filed with the Clerk at any 
        time, provided that if a Member gives notice at the time of 
        approval of intention to file supplemental, minority, or 
        additional views, that Member shall be entitled to not less 
        than seven (7) calendar days in which to submit such views for 
        inclusion with the report. [House Rule XI 1(b)(4)]

        (2) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session 
        of a Congress, the Chair of the Committee may file the 
        Committee's Activity Report for that Congress under clause 
        1(d)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House with the Clerk of 
        the House at anytime and without the approval of the Committee, 
        provided that a copy of the report has been available to each 
        Member of the Committee for at least seven (7) calendar days 
        and that the report includes any supplemental, minority, or 
        additional views submitted by a Member of the Committee. [House 
        Rule XI 1(d)(1)]

Rule 10. GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

    (a) OVERSIGHT.--

        (1) IN GENERAL.--The Committee shall review and study on a 
        continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities 
        relating to nonmilitary research and development. [House Rule X 
        3(k)]

        (2) OVERSIGHT PLAN.--Not later than February 15 of the first 
        session of a Congress, the Committee shall meet in open 
        session, with a quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans 
        for that Congress for submission to the Committee on Oversight 
        and Government Reform and the Committee on House 
        Administration, in accordance with the provisions of clause 
        2(d) of Rule X of the House of Representatives. [House Rule X 
        2(d)].

    (b) INVESTIGATIONS.--

        (1) IN GENERAL.--The Chair of the Committee may undertake any 
        formal investigation in the name of the Committee after 
        consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.

        (2) SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS.--The Chair of any Subcommittee 
        shall not undertake any formal investigation in the name of the 
        Committee or Subcommittee without formal approval by the Chair 
        of the Committee, in consultation with other appropriate 
        Subcommittee Chairs, and after consultation with the Ranking 
        Minority Member of the Committee. The Chair of any Subcommittee 
        shall also consult with the Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Subcommittee before undertaking any investigation in the name 
        of the Committee.

Rule 11. SUBCOMMITTEES

    (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND JURISDICTION OF SUBCOMMITTEES.--The Committee 
shall have the following standing Subcommittees with the jurisdiction 
indicated.

        (1) SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT.--Legislative 
        jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority 
        on all matters relating to energy research, development, and 
        demonstration and projects therefor, commercial application of 
        energy technology, and environmental research, including:

                (A) Department of Energy research, development, and 
                demonstration programs;

                (B) Department of Energy laboratories;

                (C) Department of Energy science activities;

                (D) energy supply activities;

                (E) nuclear, solar and renewable energy, and other 
                advanced energy technologies;

                (F) uranium supply and enrichment, and Department of 
                Energy waste management and environment, safety, and 
                health activities, as appropriate;

                (G) fossil energy research and development;

                (H) clean coal technology;

                (I) energy conservation research and development;

                (J) energy aspects of climate change;

                (K) pipeline research, development, and demonstration 
                projects;

                (L) energy and environmental standards;

                (M) energy conservation, including building 
                performance, alternate fuels for and improved 
                efficiency of vehicles, distributed power systems, and 
                industrial process improvements;

                (N) Environmental Protection Agency research and 
                development programs;

                (O) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                Administration, including all activities related to 
                weather, weather services, climate, the atmosphere, 
                marine fisheries, and oceanic research;

                (P) risk assessment activities; and

                (Q) scientific issues related to environmental policy, 
                including climate change.

        (2) SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION.--Legislative 
        jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority 
        on all matters relating to competitiveness, technology, 
        standards, and innovation, including:

                (A) standardization of weights and measures, including 
                technical standards, standardization, and conformity 
                assessment;

                (B) measurement, including the metric system of 
                measurement;

                (C) the Technology Administration of the Department of 
                Commerce;

                (D) the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

                (E) the National Technical Information Service;

                (F) competitiveness, including small business 
                competitiveness;

                (G) tax; antitrust, regulatory and other legal and 
                governmental policies as they relate to technological 
                development and commercialization;

                (H) technology transfer, including civilian use of 
                defense technologies;

                (I) patent and intellectual property policy;

                (J) international technology trade;

                (K) research, development, and demonstration activities 
                of the Department of Transportation;

                (L) surface and water transportation research, 
                development, and demonstration programs;

                (M) earthquake programs (except for NSF) and fire 
                research programs, including those related to wildfire 
                proliferation research and prevention;

                (N) biotechnology policy;

                (O) research, development, demonstration, and 
                standards-related activities of the Department of 
                Homeland Security;

                (P) Small Business Innovation Research and Technology 
                Transfer; and

                (Q) voting technologies and standards.

        (3) SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION.--
        Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and 
        investigative authority on all matters relating to science 
        policy and science education, including:

                (A) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

                (B) all scientific research, and scientific and 
                engineering resources (including human resources), 
                math, science and engineering education;

                (C) intergovernmental mechanisms for research, 
                development, and demonstration and cross-cutting 
                programs;

                (D) international scientific cooperation;

                (E) National Science Foundation, including earthquake 
                programs;

                (F) university research policy, including 
                infrastructure and overhead;

                (G) university research partnerships, including those 
                with industry;

                (H) science scholarships;

                (I) computing, communications, and information 
                technology;

                (J) research and development relating to health, 
                biomedical, and nutritional programs;

                (K) to the extent appropriate, agricultural, 
                geological, biological and life sciences research; and

                (L) materials research, development, and demonstration 
                and policy.

        (4) SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS.--Legislative 
        jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority 
        on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical 
        research and development, including:

                (A) national space policy, including access to space;

                (B) sub-orbital access and applications;

                (C) National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
                its contractor and government-operated labs;

                (D) space commercialization, including commercial space 
                activities relating to the Department of Transportation 
                and the Department of Commerce;

                (E) exploration and use of outer space;

                (F) international space cooperation;

                (G) the National Space Council;

                (H) space applications, space communications and 
                related matters;

                (I) Earth remote sensing policy;

                (J) civil aviation research, development, and 
                demonstration;

                (K) research, development; and demonstration programs 
                of the Federal Aviation Administration; and

                (L) space law.

        (5) SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT.--General and 
        special investigative authority on all matters within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology.

    (b) RATIOS.--A majority of the Majority Members of the Committee 
shall determine an appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members of 
each Subcommittee and shall authorize the Chair of the Committee to 
negotiate that ratio with the minority party; Provided, however, that 
the ratio of majority Members to minority Members on each Subcommittee 
(including any ex-officio Members) shall be no less favorable to the 
majority party than the ratio for the Committee.

    (c) EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS.--The Chair of the Committee and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee shall serve as ex-officio Members of 
all Subcommittees and shall have the right to vote and be counted as 
part of the quorum and ratios on all matters before the Subcommittee.

    (d) REFERRAL OF LEGISLATION.--The Chair of the Committee shall 
refer all legislation and other matters referred to the Committee to 
the Subcommittee or Subcommittees of appropriate primary and secondary 
jurisdiction within two (2) weeks of the matters being referred to the 
Committee, unless the Chair of the Committee deems consideration is to 
be by the Committee. Subcommittee Chairs may make requests for referral 
of specific matters to their Subcommittee within the two (2) week 
period if they believe Subcommittee jurisdictions so warrant.

    (e) PROCEDURES.--

        (1) No Subcommittee shall meet to consider for markup or 
        approval any measure or matter when the Committee or any other 
        Subcommittee of the Committee is meeting to consider any 
        measure or matter for markup or approval.

        (2) Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, 
        receive testimony or evidence, mark up legislation, and report 
        to the Committee on all matters referred to it. For matters 
        within its jurisdiction, each Subcommittee is authorized to 
        conduct legislative, investigative, forecasting, and general 
        oversight hearings; to conduct inquiries into the future; and 
        to undertake budget impact studies.

        (3) Subcommittee Chairs shall set meeting dates after 
        consultation with the Chair of the Committee and other 
        Subcommittee Chairs with a view toward avoiding simultaneous 
        scheduling of Committee and Subcommittee meetings or hearings 
        wherever possible.

        (4) Any Member of the Committee may have the privilege of 
        sitting with any Subcommittee during its hearings or 
        deliberations and may participate in such hearings or 
        deliberations, but no Member who is not a Member of the 
        Subcommittee shall vote on any matter before such Subcommittee, 
        except as provided in subsection (c) of this Rule.

        (5) During consideration of any measure or matter for markup or 
        approval in a Subcommittee proceeding, a record vote may be had 
        at the request of one (1) or more Members of that Subcommittee.

    (f) CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS.--After ordering a 
measure or matter reported, a Subcommittee shall issue a Subcommittee 
report in such form as the Chair of the Committee shall specify. 
Reports and recommendations of a Subcommittee shall not be considered 
by the Committee until after the intervention of 48 hours, excluding 
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, from the time the report is 
submitted and made available to the Members of the Committee and 
printed hearings thereon shall be made available, if feasible, to the 
Members of the Committee, except that this Rule may be waived at the 
discretion of the Chair of the Committee after consultation with the 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.

Rule 12. COMMITTEE RECORDS

    (a) TRANSCRIPTS.--The transcripts of those hearings conducted by 
the Committee and Subcommittees shall be published as a substantially 
verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings, 
subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections 
authorized by the person making the remarks involved. Transcripts of 
markups shall be recorded and published in the same manner as hearings 
before the Committee and shall be included as part of the legislative 
report unless waived by the Chair of the Committee. [House Rule XI 
2(e)(1)(A)]

    (b) KEEPING OF RECORDS.--The Committee shall keep a complete record 
of all Committee action, which shall include a record of the votes on 
any question on which a record vote is demanded. The result of each 
record vote shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by 
the public at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. 
Information so available for public inspection shall include a 
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and 
the name of each Member voting for and each Member voting against such 
amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those 
Members present but not voting. [House Rule XI 2(e)(1)]

    (c) AVAILABILITY OF ARCHIVED RECORDS.--The records of the Committee 
at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made 
available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives. The Chair of the Committee shall notify 
the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee of any decision, pursuant 
to Rule VII 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the 
matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the 
written request of any Member of the Committee. [House Rule XI 2(e)(3)]

    (d) PROPERTY OF HOUSE.--

        (1) Except as provided for in paragraph (2), all Committee 
        hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept 
        separate and distinct from the congressional office records of 
        the Member serving as its Chair. Such records shall be the 
        property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the 
        Resident Commissioner, shall have access thereto.

        (2) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than 
        Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, may 
        not have access to the records of the Committee respecting the 
        conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
        or employee of the House without the specific prior permission 
        of the Committee. [House Rule XI 2(e)(2)]

LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 
                               TECHNOLOGY

    ``Rule X. Organization of Committees.
    ``Committees and their legislative jurisdictions.
    ``1. There shall be in the House the following standing Committees, 
each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related functions 
assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills, 
resolutions, and other matters relating to subjects within the 
jurisdiction of the standing Committees listed in this clause shall be 
referred to those Committees, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, 
as follows:

                    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    ``o) Committee on Science and Technology.
      ``(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration, and 
projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military 
energy laboratories.
      ``(2) Astronautical research and development, including 
resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
      ``(3) Civil aviation research and development.
      ``(4) Environmental research and development.
      ``(5) Marine research.
      ``(6) Commercial application of energy technology.
      ``(7) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
standardization of weights and measures and the metric system.
      ``(8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
      ``(9) National Space Council.
      ``(10) National Science Foundation.
      ``(11) National Weather Service.
      ``(12) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
      ``(13) Science Scholarships.
      ``(14) Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and 
projects therefor.

                    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

                     ``SPECIAL OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS
      ``3.(k) The Committee on Science and Technology shall review and 
study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities 
relating to non-military research and development.''


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 11, 2009                  Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and             111-1
                               Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 12, 2009                  An Overview of Transportation R&D: Priorities for       111-2
                                Reauthorization
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 24, 2009                  How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring,        111-3
                                Reporting, and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 25, 2009                  Impacts of U.S. Export Control Policies on Science and  111-4
                                Technology Activities and
                               Competitiveness
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 26, 2009                  Beyond the Classroom: Informal STEM Education           111-5
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 4, 2009                   21st Century Water Planning: The Importance of a        111-6
                                Coordinated Federal Approach
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 5, 2009                   Cost Management Issues in NASA's Acquisitions and       111-7
                                Programs
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 10, 2009                  Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:    111-8
                                The Role of the National Institute of Standards and
                                Technology
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 11, 2009                  FutureGen and the Department of Energy's Advanced Coal  111-9
                                Programs
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 12, 2009                  ATSDR: Problems in the Past, Potential for the Future?  111-10
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 17, 2009                  New Directions for Energy Research and Development at   111-11
                                the U.S. Department of Energy
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 19, 2009                  Follow the Money, Part I: Accountability and            111-12
                                Transparency in Recovery Act Science Funding
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2009                  Examining Federal Vehicle Technology Research and       111-13
                                Development Programs
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 24, 2009                  Coordination of International Science Partnerships      111-14
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 25, 2009                  H.R. 1580, Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and  H. Rept. 111-75
                                Innovation to Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 26, 2009                  Aviation and the Emerging Use of Biofuels               111-15
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 31, 2009                  The Role of Research in Addressing Climate in           111-16
                                Transportation Infrastructure
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 1, 2009                   Networking and Information Technology Research and      111-17
                                Development Act of 2009
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 22, 2009                  Monitoring, Measurement, and Verification of            111-18
                                Greenhouse Gas Emissions II: The Role of Federal and
                                Academic Research and Monitoring Programs
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 23, 2009                  Continued Oversight of NOAA's Geostationary Weather     111-19
                                Satellite System
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 23, 2009                  The Role of the SBIR and STTR Programs in Stimulating   111-20
                                Innovation at Small High-Tech Businesses
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2009                  Pushing the Efficiency Envelope: R&D for High-          111-21
                                Performance Buildings, Industries, and Consumers
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 28, 2009                  Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and        111-22
                                Commercial Users
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 29, 2009                  H.R. 2020, the Networking and Information Technology    H. Rept. 111-102
                                Research and Development Act of 2009
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 110th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 29, 2009                  H.R. 1736, the International Science and Technology     H. Rept. 111-128
                                Cooperation Act of 2009
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 29, 2009                  H.R. 1709, the STEM Education Cooperation Act of 2009   H. Rept. 111-130
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr. 30, 2009                  The Role of Science in Regulatory Reform                111-23
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2009                    Expanding Climate Services at the National Oceanic and  111-24
                                Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Developing the
                                National Climate Service
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Energy and             .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2009                    Follow the Money, Part II: Government and Public        111-25
                                Resources for Recovery Act Oversight
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 2009                   An Overview of the Federal R&D Budget for FY 2010       111-26
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2009                   The Science of Insolvency                               111-27
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 19, 2009                   NASA's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request                  111-28
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 4, 2009                   A New Direction for Federal Oil Spill Research and      111-29
                                Development
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 9, 2009                   Environmental Research at the Department of Energy      111-30
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 10, 2009                  Cyber Security R&D                                      111-31
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 11, 2009                  Reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards      111-32
                                Reduction Program: R&D for Disaster Resilient
                                Communities
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 11, 2009                  Fixing EPA's Broken Integrated Risk Information System  111-33
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigation and  .........................
                                Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 16, 2009                  Agency Response to Cyberspace Policy Review             111-34
                               (Joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology   .........................
                                and Innovation with the Subcommittee on Research and
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 17, 2009                  Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What   111-35
                                Should Our Research, Development, and Demonstration
                                Strategy Be?
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 17, 2009                  Continuing Independent Assessment of the National       111-36
                                Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
                                System
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 18, 2009                  External Perspectives on the FY 2010 NASA Budget        111-37
                                Request and Related Issues
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2009                  H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business                 H. Rept. 111-190,
                               Research and Innovation Act of 2009                     Part II
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2009                  H.R. 1622, To Provide for a Program of Research,        H. Rept. 111-206
                                Development and Demonstration on Natural Gas Vehicles
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 24, 2009                  H.R. 2729, To Authorize the Designation of National     H. Rept. 111-207
                                Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of
                                Energy and for Other Purposes
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 25, 2009                  The Science of Security: Lessons Learned in             111-38
                                Developing, Testing and Operating Advanced Radiation
                                Monitors
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun. 25, 2009                  Assessing Cybersecurity Activities at NIST and DHS      111-39
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 8, 2009                   Reauthorization of the FIRE Grant Programs              111-40
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 9, 2009                   Technology Research and Development Efforts Related to  111-41
                                the Energy and Water Linkage
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 14, 2009                  New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar Research and            111-42
                                Development
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 16, 2009                  Providing Aviation Weather Services to the Federal      111-43
                                Aviation Administration
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 16, 2009                  Enhancing the Relevance of Space to Address National    111-44
                                Needs
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Space and              .........................
                                Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 21, 2009                  Encouraging the Participation of Female Students in     110-45
                                STEM Fields
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Research and Science   .........................
                                Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 23, 2009                  Effectively Transforming Our Electric Delivery System   111-46
                                to a Smart Grid
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 29, 2009                  H.R. 3165, the Wind Energy Research and Development     H. Rept. 111-248
                                Act of 2009
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 29, 2009                  H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009  H. Rept. 111-254
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 29, 2009                  H.R. 3029, To Establish a Research, Development and     H. Rept. 111-343
                                Technology Demonstration Program To Improve the
                                Efficiency of Gas Turbines Used in Combined Cycle
                                Power Generation Systems
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 30, 2009                  A Systems Approach to Improving K-12 STEM Education     111-47
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 10, 2009                 The Risks of Financial Modeling: VaR and the Economic   111-48
                                Meltdown
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 10, 2009                 Biological Research for Energy and Medical              111-49
                                Applications at the Department of Energy Office of
                                Science
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 14, 2009                 Strengthening Regional Innovation: A Perspective From   111-50
                                Northeast Texas
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 15, 2009                 Options and Issues for NASA's Human Space Flight        111-51
                                Program: Report of the ``Review of U.S. Human Space
                                Flight Plans'' Committee
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 17, 2009                 Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia: Formulating an        111-52
                                Action Plan
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 24, 2009                 The Potential Need for Measurement Standards to         111-53
                                Facilitate Research and Development of Biologic Drugs
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 1, 2009                   Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and  111-54
                                Time
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2009                   H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act                 H. Rept. 111-302
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2009                   H.R. 3598, Energy and Water Research Integration Act    H. Rept. 111-344
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and            .........................
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2009                   H.R. 3650, Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia             H. Rept. 111-396,
                               Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009             Part I
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 8, 2009                   Investing in High-Risk, High-Reward Research            111-55
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 21, 2009                  Biomass for Thermal Energy and Electricity: A Research  111-56
                                and Development Portfolio for the
                               Future
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 21, 2009                  H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization              H. Rept. 111-333,
                               Act of 2009                                             Part I
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 21, 2009                  H.R. 3820, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction           H. Rept. 111-424,
                               Act of 2009                                             Part I
                               (Markup held by the Committee on Science and
                                Technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 22, 2009                  Engineering in K-12 Education                           111-57
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Research and       .........................
                                Science Education).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 22, 2009                  Strengthening NASA's Technology Development Programs    111-58
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and          .........................
                                Aeronautics).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Committee on Science and Technology List of Hearings
               Date               with Publication Numbers plus List of Legislative          Publication Number
                                         Reports filed in the 111th Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 22, 2009                  Cybersecurity Activities at NIST's Information          111-59
                                Technology Laboratory
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Technology and     .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 27, 2009                  Developing Research Priorities at DHS's Science and     111-60
                                Technology Directorate
                               (Hearing held by Subcommittee on Technology and         .........................
                                Innovation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 29, 2009                  The Next Generation of Fusion Energy Research           111-61
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Energy and         .........................
                                Environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 5, 2009                   Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-    111-62
                                Scale Climate Intervention
                               (Hearing held by the Committee on Science and           .........................
                                Technology)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 17, 2009                  The Science of Security, Part II: Technical             111-63
                               Problems Continue to Hinder Advanced Radiation
                               Monitors
                               (Hearing held by the Subcommittee on Investigations     .........................
                                and Oversight).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 18, 2009                  H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009    H. Rept. 111-405