Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
PETER FREEMAN, DEAN, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Hi, Frank. Good to see you.
Is there anybody from the American Federation of Government Employees present? I guess not.
Then, second on my list is the National Science Foundation, Peter Freeman. All right. From the Computing Research Association, right?
Mr. FREEMAN. That's correct.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Well, welcome.
Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you, sir. Pleased to be here.
Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record and if you'd like to summarize it for us, we'd appreciate it.
Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. You may have a seat. Thank you.
Mr. FREEMAN. I would like to do that.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be here this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to testify about NSF.
My name is Peter Freeman. I'm dean of the College of Computing at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. I also serve on the board of directors of the Computing Research Association and serve as the chair of its government affairs committee. And, I am testifying on behalf of the CRA, not Georgia Tech, this morning.
Mr. LEWIS. Okay.
Mr. FREEMAN. We have submitted, as you noted, our written testimony to the record and I'd like to just make some very brief oral comments.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I'd like to start by again indicating my pleasure at being here and thanking you, this subcommittee, for supporting through some fairly tough times over the last few years basic research as carried out by those of us that work with the National Science Foundation. We really appreciate that. It's been very important to our community.
Our testimony makes three points—and let me just summarize those—about computing research. First, as I think everyone understands, information technology is essential to the security, to the welfare, to the economic health of this country, and underlying this technology—which is approaching, perhaps, 10 percent of our national economy or even greater—lies many years of basic research.
Secondly, we make the point that, even though computing research has led to a number of developments, that that is going to expand by amounts that we cannot even really estimate in the coming years; we've only begun to see the information technology revolution.
Our third point, as I've already noted, is that NSF has already been essential to that revolution and all of us in the computing research field believe that it will continue to be a real leader in creating the security, the economic well-being, and the welfare for all of our citizens.
What I thought I would do in the few moments I have is to put a bit of a personal face on computing research and, although I'm testifying on behalf of the Computing Research Association, let me use a couple of examples of how NSF-funded research plays out in a unit such as my own.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I have approximately 45 tenure-track faculty that do a wide variety of computer science and computing-related research. One of those is a young woman by the name of Ann Chervanack. Like any young professor, she is encouraged—indeed, has been trained—in her graduate work at Berkeley to ask fundamental questions. When she arrived in Atlanta to join my faculty almost three years ago, like most young faculty it took her a little while to get her feet on the ground, figure out what she wanted to do. Very quickly, however, her graduate training—which had been funded by NSF, among others—led her to start asking some very basic questions.
What she has innovated is a project that she is calling the ''personal terrabyte'' project. A terrabyte is a measure of the amount of storage on a computer. Strictly speaking, it's a trillion bytes. To give you a sense of magnitude, all of the Library of Congress has maybe 10 terrabytes of information in it. So, her point is that the technology is——
Mr. LEWIS. A trillion bytes?
Mr. FREEMAN. A trillion bytes——
Mr. LEWIS. Terrabyte——
Mr. FREEMAN [continuing]. Is a terrabyte.
And, her point is that the technology is racing ahead so that within a very few years' four or five perhaps, you're going to have the ability to have a terrabyte sitting on your desktop for a few hundred dollars.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ten percent of the Library of Congress. Now, that leads to some rather interesting questions. What are you going to do with it? How are you going to organize it? How are you going to find anything in it? How are you going to back that information up?
Some of that seems like something that industry would be asking and, in some respects, they may be. But, what she and her students are trying to do is to look at those kinds of questions in a very basic sense. It's not product development and she isn't going to develop a new product. But, what she is developing are some undergraduates that are involved in her research, some graduate students that will go out and become professors or become advanced development people in industry, and, in general, is helping push forward that area of technology.
Our other case that I would share with you is a very interesting young man, also an assistant professor, but who's only been with us a bit longer, about five years. He's a young man that we see more and more of today in the computing research area. He's driven by dual interests. On the one hand, he's very interested in how do children learn, what's the cognition behind them. That led him to get a Ph.D. in Education at the University of Michigan, one of the top educational schools in the country. But, he also has a very strong interest in technology—computing technology in particular—so he also has a Ph.D. in Computer Science.
And, what he's now doing is bringing those two disciplines together in some very innovative and interesting research that very simply could be looked at, a Lotus Notes for students, but much, much beyond that, and asking some very basic questions—both in terms of how do children learn and how do they best learn, given a new technology, as well as pushing forward those technological foundations.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Both of these young people are supported at present by National Science Foundation career awards. Dr. Gusdow being a bit further along, is also a part of several other research projects, collaborating with people in other disciplines also supported by NSF.
So, I hope that these kinds of little vignettes give you, perhaps, a personal sense of the kinds of research that the National Science Foundation supports. I would be more than happy to answer any additional questions that you might have.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Freeman, I very much appreciate your testimony. Let me just say, for the audience in general, that while we haven't received our budget allocations yet, the Committee has been directed to, in no uncertain terms by way of the Speaker's office, that we should, as we go about reducing the rate of gross for the government, nonetheless, within these budgets do everything that we possibly can to find dollars for research purposes. And the Speaker—I very strongly applaud the Speaker's statement that he wants to double these budgets for research dollars in the short years ahead. We're going to do everything that we can on this subcommittee to try to accommodate. I won't repeat that line with every witness that we—[laughter]—have, but in the meantime——
Mr. FREEMAN. I will say thank you on behalf of all of them.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. I might mention to you that I'm sorry to be delayed this morning but there were four chancellors to the University of California in my office and it was hard to cut off the conversation because these same subjects were a part of that discussion, too.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. FREEMAN. I understand.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. MEEK. No, I have no questions.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.
Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for your answers.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
JAMES SIEDOW, PROFESSOR, DUKE UNIVERSITY AND COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. James Siedow? Is that right? The American Society of Plant Physiologists?
Mr. SIEDOW. Correct.
Mr. LEWIS. Welcome.
Mr. SIEDOW. Thank you; glad to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee and I'd like to also thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.
My name is Jim Siedow and I'm Dean of Faculty Development of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Botany at Duke University. My testimony is on behalf of the American Society of Plant Physiologists, which I have served as President and currently serve on their public affairs committee. This society is a professional science society of some 5,000 members. We recruit plant scientists from industry, university, and government laboratories.
Support by the National Science Foundation for plant research provides basic knowledge of the structure and function of plants. This basic knowledge can lead to important agricultural, pharmaceutical and environmental applications—as I hope to make clear by the end of this talk. As explained in the National Science Foundation Director Neil Lane's statement to the Subcommittee earlier this month, the $40 million requested by the NSF in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget for plant genome research will advance our understanding of the structure, organization, and function of plant genomes, with particular attention being paid to economically significant plants. This research will accelerate application of new biological knowledge and innovative technologies toward a more complete understanding of basic biological processes in plants.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In January of this year, the White House-appointed Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes completed its report at the request of Senator Bond. The report notes that major challenges facing mankind in the 21st century are: the need to increase fuel and fiber production; a cleaner environment; and renewable chemical and energy resources. And, the report points out that plant-based technologies can play a major role in meeting these challenges.
The IWG report recommended investment of an additional $320 million over five years to make significant progress on the scientific objectives it outlined for plant genome research. A copy of the cover page and executive summary of the IWG report is concluded with my testimony and I request to submit the final IWG report to the Committee.
Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. SIEDOW. On the recommendation on the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies and with the support of—with a supportive interim IWG report, Congress last year launched the plant genome initiative in Fiscal Year 1998 with an appropriation of $40 million.
Plant genome research supported by this subcommittee will help to open the world of functional genomics to plant research and will speed up the application of genomic information to develop improved plants and plant products. This was referred to recently in a Science editorial by Phil Abelson as part of a genomic revolution. This revolution will lead to the development of enhanced plants that will meet the food and nutritional needs of the Nation and our trading partners.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The simple fact of the matter is—and I dont have to tell someone from California—we don't have more land to grow crops on. In fact, we have less. We need to genetically engineer plants which will grow more efficiently, which will have greater resistant to pests and other diseases, and a better tolerance to adverse weather conditions, such as drought.
As we learn more about the structure and function of plant genomes, plant scientists will be able to better engineer superior varieties of plants, enhancing the nutritional quality of the food Americans eat, which, in turn, will promote the Nations health. Plants are already a major source of pharmaceutical products. Research that will lead to genetic engineering of plants to treat or prevent human diseases is already underway and this is an area with tremendous potential for reducing human suffering, both in this country and across the world—and, I might add, lowering health care costs in the long run.
The availability in the United States of plant-produced fuel with prices at near the cost of petroleum help keep the cost of imported oil down. Further knowledge of plant genomes and related plant research will help make domestically-produced biofuels directly competitive in price with petroleum, allowing them to meet a larger portion of U.S. energy needs in the future. This, in turn, I might add, will cut down on emission of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
In summary, the support of this subcommittee—the past support and, we hope, future support—for both genomic and non-genomic plant research supported by the National Science Foundation helps plant scientists make the basic research breakthroughs needed to address nutrition, health, and energy needs of this Nation and the world. We deeply appreciate the strong commitment of this subcommittee that enables the U.S. science community to lead the world in plant research in this new age of biology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I'd be very happy to address any questions.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much Dr. Siedow. I don't have any questions but I appreciate your testimony. It will be included in the record.
Mr. SIEDOW. Great.
Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. MEEK. No questions, thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you.
Mr. SIEDOW. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
ALAN KRAUT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Mr. LEWIS. Alan Kraut? Dr. Kraut with the American Psychological Society? It's good to see you again.
Mr. KRAUT. It's nice to be here again.
I want to thank you for allowing me again here to discuss National Science Foundation funding on behalf of the American Psychological Society. Our members are scientists and academics who conduct research on such basic behavioral processes as visual and auditory perception and attention, on memory, on cognitive science and information processing, decisionmaking, human development, emotions, and group behavior, just to name a few.
Attached to my written statement is a recent report, ''Basic Research in Psychological Science,'' which I hope will be of use to you as you consider NSF's mission and priorities.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.
Mr. KRAUT. As a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding, the American Psychological Society asks you to support the Coalition's recommendation of a 10 percent increase for NSF.
But, my remarks today are going to focus mainly on the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, known as SBE. This subcommittee has encouraged the establishment of SBE and has played a role in strengthening it over the last several years and we're very grateful for that support. SBE is scheduled for a 15 percent increase, which would bring us to about $150 million this year, and the research division within the Directorate is up for more than a 16 percent increase, which would bring the division to a total of nearly $114 million.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
These increases signal NSF's enthusiasm for behavioral and social science research. Why? Because of both the progress and the potential of basic research in these disciplines. For example, NSF is giving priority to research in the area known as Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, KDI. Behavioral science is a cornerstone of the KDI effort.
In my written testimony, I've described some of the specific research projects conducted under KDI. One is an automated, computerized tutor that combines user-friendly dialog with effective, educational practices. This project is drawing on basic research of psychologists in the area of communications and comprehension as well as work from computer scientists and educators. In another KDI project, researchers are increasing our understanding of how sound takes meaning, of how the brain takes in the audio signal of the spoken word and processes it. This projects uses concepts from psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, statistics, computer science, and electrical engineering and puts them all into a framework for understanding spoken language.
Today, I also want to touch briefly on something called the Human Capital Initiative, which is funded under SBE. This is a National Behavioral Science Research agenda that was first developed by scientists across the range of psychological science; from those studying the brain to those studying organizations. As the name applies, the unifying concept involves the development of human capital. Human capital research was embraced and expanded by NSF following several years of encouragement by this committee. In fact, the report I referred to earlier is one of its products.
Today, human capital research includes many disciplines and partnerships with many other NSF Directorates. It's reached about $16 million. With your support, that will increase in 1999 with most of the increase going to research on children and learning.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
This program, by the way, owes a particular debt to Mr. Stokes who worked to provide essential funding for the program in its early stages. Human capital research is just one of the legacies Mr. Stokes—I wish he were here because for this and for many others, I'd like to thank him and tell him that we would miss him greatly and that we wish him all the best in his retirement.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for that thought.
I'll make sure he knows.
Mr. KRAUT. So, you see, this subcommittee's support of behavioral science is being rewarded with unprecedented scientific productivity. Behavioral research represents some of the country's best science and has the potential to increase our understanding of some of the Nation's greatest concerns: literacy, productivity, international relations, technological achievement, cultural diversity, and the development of human capital, just to name a few. The critical role of this research and the fact that the field is poised for rapid expansion are reflected in the proposed NSF budget and we encourage your support of it. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Kraut. I appreciate your being with us. As I indicated, your entire statement will be included in the record——
Mr. KRAUT. Thank you.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. And this, as well.
Mr. KRAUT. Okay.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESSES
PAUL WALTER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
ANDREW SESSLER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
RALPH YOUNT, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Mr. LEWIS. Next on our list are Dr. Paul Walter, Dr. Andrew Sessler, Dr. Ralph Yount from the American Chemical Society.
I appreciate all three of you gentlemen coming with us and your patience with our schedule. [Laughter.]
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Please tell me how you want to proceed.
Mr. SESSLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing. I'm Andrew Sessler, President of the American Physical Society, which is the largest physics membership organization in the world.
I am here today with my colleagues, Dr. Paul Walter, President of the American Chemical Society, and Dr. Ralph Yount, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
This is truly a unique occasion. For the first time, leaders of organizations representing a quarter of a million scientists have joined to present common testimony before this subcommittee in support of the National Science Foundation. We have done so because we share a common belief that the future of our Nation depends critically upon our scientific excellence and because today the scientific disciplines have become thoroughly intertwined and totally interdependent.
I am pleased to yield to my colleague, Dr. Paul Walter who has agreed to speak on behalf of all three of us.
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Walter.
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Walter, President of the American Chemical Society, representing over 150,000 chemists and chemical engineers in academia, industry and government.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We commend you for taking the lead last year in recognizing the critical importance of the National Science Foundation and funding it accordingly. The substantial increase Congress provided for NSF for Fiscal Year 1998 resulted from the 6.6 percent increase initially provided by this subcommittee.
Last year, as you know, more than 100 leaders of science, engineering and mathematic organizations joined together in a call to double Federal investment in research within a decade. We continue to urge this course of action because we passionately believe that the economic well-being, health, quality of life, and security of our citizenry depend critically upon robust and sustained investments in research.
In keeping with those goals, we come before you today to ask that you continue to make investments in our Nation's future by supporting the 10 percent increase for the National Science Foundation proposed in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1999 and endorsed by the Coalition for National Science Funding.
The National Science Foundation is unique among Federal agencies. It has the responsibility for supporting long-term research in practically all scientific and engineering disciplines. In addition, as the only agency supporting research that is not mission-oriented, the NSF is the prime steward of the enabling sciences upon which virtually all Federal science and technology programs depend. Finally, it is the only Federal agency in which scientific research and education are fully integrated. Let me briefly address each of these unique features.
Today, as my colleague Andy Sessler has indicated, the sciences have become almost totally interdependent. For example, AIDS research dramatizes this point. Our progress in treating this terrible disease and our understanding of its pathology would never have occurred without critical advances in chemistry, biology, and physics and, yes, mathematics, engineering and computer science as well. The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency that has the program breadth needed to see that all the disciplines remain vibrant and healthy.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Last year, the Federal R&D budget amounted to a little more than $75 billion. Of that, more than 90 percent was devoted to mission-oriented or strategic work. Since scientific research always has the potential for revolutionary discovery, we believe that our Nation must sustain investments in non-mission-oriented science. The proposed increase for the National Science Foundation is consistent with that strategy.
In conclusion, let me underscore the key role that chemistry, physics and biology play in the American economy. Today, the chemical industry accounts for 1.9 percent of the Nation's GDP and is the number one contributor to U.S. exports. Physics, I am sure you all know, was the enabling science that resulted in the a $1-trillion-a-year computer industry. Recently, it gave us the World Wide Web that has revolutionized the way we communicate and conduct business. And biology, of course, is the underpinning of the entire biotechnology industry, one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy. These advances are attributable in large part to the Federal Government's investment in research through which scientists are trained and new fundamental discoveries are made.
I now yield to my colleague Dr. Ralph Yount for a closing remark.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Dr. Yount.
Mr. YOUNT. Mr. Chairman, I'm Ralph Yount, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, representing 14 scientific societies with approximately 52,000 members.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I'm a former president of the Biophysical Society and a long-time member of the American Chemical Society and I'm delighted to be a participant in this historic occasion which brings together three of the major scientific disciplines in support——
Mr. LEWIS. It's a very unusual occasion?
Mr. YOUNT [continuing]. Yes—in support of—it should have happened long ago.
These disciplines, as my colleagues have noted, are fundamentally intertwined and we must develop a comprehensive investment strategy to allow each of those to develop their full potential. Not only is this approach key to the future health and economic prosperity of our citizens, it's also essential for maintaining the excellence of our universities, which are really the envy of the world. And, I join Dr. Sessler, Dr. Walter in urging your committee to appropriate $3.8 billion for NSF, a 10 percent increase over last year's fiscal budget. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Well, we very much appreciate your all coming together. Mrs. Meek, do you have any questions of these gentlemen?
Mrs. MEEK. No, I do not.
Mr. LEWIS. I just might mention to you that it's been suggested that ''Jerry Lewis,'' which is an unusual name but I had the name first, has led for the development of a group known as ''Jerry's Kids'' and regardless of what he might have said, Clint Lewis—who's with you today—may or may not have played a role in some of that.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. YOUNT. Yes; yes, he did.
Mr. LEWIS. Good to be with you. Take care.
Mr. YOUNT. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Smart kid.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
JEAN FUTRELL, CHAIR-ELECT, COUNCIL FOR CHEMICAL RESEARCH, INC.
Mr. LEWIS. Let's see. Jean Futrell with the Council for Chemical Research, Incorporated? Mr. Futrell? Your statement will all be included in the record. If you'll summarize that for us, we'll move right along. Appreciate your being with us.
Mr. FUTRELL. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Meek, my name is Jean Futrell. I'm the Chair-elect of the Council for Chemical Research and the Willis F. Harrington Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Delaware. We join other professional societies who are testifying today, notably the American Chemical Society and the Coalition for National Science Funding, in strongly recommending Congress to fund the National Science Foundation at a level of no less than $3.77 billion, an increase of 10 percent over the current appropriation.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In meeting with you today, I am substituting for Dr. Gary McGraw who is Vice President for Technological Innovation at Eastman Chemical Corporation. Gary is the Chair this year of the Council for Chemical Research, the professional society whose members are the leaders of the Nation's chemical research enterprise.
We represent in CCR the major companies, universities and government laboratories which conduct research in the chemical sciences and engineering. The Council feels strongly that the erosion of funding of the NSF needs to be reversed. A 10 percent increase, although substantial, would restore the ground lost since Fiscal Year 1995 in purchasing power of the appropriated dollars and provides for modest growth of 2 percent. This increase would enable new discovery and educate some of the world's brightest scientists and engineers. It is clearly in the best interests of the Nation and crucial to our continued economic growth.
The NSF is the only agency, as you very well know, with overall responsibility for research and education in all scientific and engineering fields. Its role as a steward of the Nation's science enterprise faces new challenges, such as promoting new approaches to research, to education, to training the technological workforce that is required for our Nation as we enter the next century.
Despite these challenges, the purchasing power has been eroded by about 8 percent since 1995. This erosion—partly because of the very high efficiency, that the NSF administrative costs are only a small fraction of the appropriations—this cut is felt directly by those who conduct research and participate in education at our universities. Research and education are the keys to our Nation's future and the ultimate impact of the restricted growth or cuts is detrimental to all of us.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Council understands very well the importance of NSF funding for both scientific research and in education from Kindergarten through post-graduate studies. Increasingly, the chemical industry, for whom I'm a spokesperson today, relies upon universities for discovery research which is the basis for new products and processes.
For example, about half of the research cited and the patents applied for in the last decade cite as the basis of their discovery research that was supported by public sources, primarily the National Science Foundation. In chemistry alone, for example, this research contributes directly to necessities of modern life including plastics, synthetic fabrics, cleaner burning fuels, pharmaceuticals, advanced materials for electronics, and a cleaner environment.
The Council for Chemical Research appreciates that the budget decisions confronting this committee are not easy. The case for investing in the future by funding the NSF at the level requested stands on its own merits and has to be considered against concerns about spending for individual help and security. As you proceed with your deliberations, we ask you to consider that the NSF funding represents only 0.2 percent of the Federal budget but represents 25 percent of all Federal support for academic institutions to conduct basic research.
Although the Foundation is formally classified as part of the discretionary budget, it is our view that NSF funding is properly viewed as investment which yields very high returns to our society at large. We note the last 50 years, the technological innovation, the sciences supporting it was accounted for by about 50 percent of all economic growth.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Meek, the support of this subcommittee in this enterprise and we ask the Congress to take the long view in these difficult choices which affect the future capability of the Nation's innovation engine. I thank you for your attention and the opportunity to testify.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Futrell, thank you very much for being with us. I don't have any questions.
Mrs. Meek or Mr. Walsh.
Mrs. MEEK. No.
Mr. WALSH. No questions.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Thank you very much for being with us.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NATHAN ROBFOGEL, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NABIL NASR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER OF REMANUFACTURING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Slaughter, by chance are all your guests here?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. They are. We——
Mr. LEWIS. I'm going to——
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We're happy to wait our turn.
Mr. LEWIS. I'm going to exercise the discretion of the Chair and have you come up. I know your schedule is every bit as difficult as Ms. Meek's and mine, so, would you come up?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, then, you're very kind. I hope——
Mr. LEWIS. Sure. Please do.
Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. Other speakers won't object. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. LEWIS. Frankly, they'd be disappointed if I didn't allow them to hear you. [Laughter.]
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Oh, my goodness. That's probably the nicest anybody ever said to me. Isn't that wonderful?
Mr. WALSH. He's not always this charming. [Laughter.]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe he is. It's wonderful to see you this morning, Mr. Chairman, my neighbor here, Jim Walsh, and I'll be very brief and not try your patience since you've been so gracious to me——
Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. But I——
Mr. LEWIS. If you'd leave that tin on the way out, I'd appreciate that——
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Isn't that a wonderful one?
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, I like it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. It was given to me by some school kids——
Mr. LEWIS. It's great; it's wonderful.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm happy to be here today to introduce the Vice President of the University Relations for the Rochester Institute of Technology, Mr. Nathan Robfogel——
Mr. LEWIS. Rochester, is that in New York?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. It sure is. [Laughter.]
Actually, everything in New York sort of revolves out from Rochester. [Laughter.]
And Dr. Nabil Nasr——
Mr. WALSH. And what is at the center of——
[Laughter.]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If he picks it——
Mr. WALSH. Syracuse——
Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. Syracuse is, yes. [Laughter.]
And Dr. Nasr, who heads the RIT National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery. Mr. Robfogel will describe the commitment that the University is making to the emerging field of remanufacturing and the benefits that it will provide to EPA. Now, Dr. Nasr, who is the leading scientist in the field of remanufacturing in the Nation, will answer any technical questions that you may have.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The mission of EPA's Science and Technology Program is to promote long-term basic and short-term applied research on a wide range of environmental and health concerns and to provide the scientific knowledge and technologies to prevent pollution. As such, RIT's Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery will enhance the effectiveness of the EPA Science and Technology Program by allowing the EPA to work with United States manufacturers to design products in ways that dramatically reduce pollution, energy consumption, and waste.
To put it simply, the new product manufacturing creates 87 percent of the waste produced in the United States. But, with remanufactured products which consist of 80 to 90 percent used components, we can dramatically reduce that waste and the pollution that it creates.
RIT is requesting $2.2 million to work with the EPA to address the Agency's research mission and I am hopeful that you will look kindly upon this request and I thank you very much and I'd now like to introduce Mr. Robfogel.
Mr. ROBFOGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Your testimony as well will be included in the record in its entirety so if you would summarize it, we appreciate that.
Mr. ROBFOGEL. Yes, we clearly intend to do that by submitting our formal testimony. My thanks to you and your colleagues and my thanks also to Congresswoman Slaughter for introducing us.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
You have long been a great champion for what we do at RIT in manufacturing, research, imaging, microelectronics, and many other areas and we're very grateful for that.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Nick Robfogel and I'm Vice President for University Relations at RIT. Dr. Nasr is, as the Congresswoman has indicated, a leading scientist in the Nation in the emerging area of remanufacturing which can have a profound effect on our Nation's industrial sector.
Mr. Chairman, RIT is over 100 years old. It's a comprehensive technological university which has had a long and distinguished history of supporting the Nation's manufacturing sector through applied research, education and training. The University's most recent and notable effort is the establishment of the National Center of Excellence in Remanufacturing Research.
Just a few examples of remanufactured products are Kodak's single-use camera, Xerox and other photocopier cartridges, automobile carburetors, brakes and starters, military vehicle engines, the B-52 Bomber, and the Bradley fighting vehicle.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we want to bring to your attention and that of the Subcommittee the extremely positive environmental impact of remanufacturing which should be used on a more widespread basis. Remanufacturing is truly the ultimate form of recycling and the way that the United States' manufacturing sector can prevent further costly regulatory action against them by EPA and other regulators.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
While recycling reclaims the original materials used to create a product, remanufacturing also reclaims the body of the product itself and all of the design and engineering aspects of that product. Plus, the economic materials and environmental costs associated with making that product new are avoided. Just as importantly, the pollution caused by raw materials extraction and with manufacturing them into a final production are also avoided.
Mr. Chairman, remanufacturing is a powerful example of how the goals of environmental protection and economic growth can go hand-in-hand. As the Congresswoman has indicated, new product manufacturing creates 87 percent of all the waste produced in the United States. Our remanufactured product can consist of up to 80 to 90 percent of used parts. These parts would have resulted in more waste or pollution associated with making new ones.
What we offer the Subcommittee are a couple of very brief, specific examples. Remanufactured automobile starters annually save about 8 million gallons of crude oil, 52,000 tons of iron ore, and 6,000 tons of copper. Kodak's single-use camera remanufacturing initiative salvaged parts and materials from over 100 million single-use cameras resulting in the diversion of 14 million pounds of waste from the entry of the waste stream.
Mr. Chairman, while pollution prevention has become the guiding principle of EPA's efforts to protect the environment, Federal environmental policy still overemphasizes the treatment of waste products rather than improving the environmental friendliness of the manufacturing process which created them. Our National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery is seeking a partnership with EPA under which RIT remanufacturing engineers will work with the agency and the Nation's manufacturers to establish techniques and processes whereby industry will adopt manufacturing practices on a more widespread basis.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The focus of this program will be to conduct applied research in conjunction with manufacturers to address environmental pollution at the source; during the product design and manufacturing process. If we can get manufacturers to design their products at the outset with remanufacturing in mind, we can achieve significant savings in environmental costs in both the short-and long-terms.
The National Center is requesting $2.2 million in the Fiscal Year 1999 EPA budget to begin this applied research program which will focus on six specific areas which are outlined in our formal written testimony. The research program will be conducted at RIT's new 157,000 square foot manufacturing research laboratory, the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies. That is the only such facility of its kind in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify. We hope you will support this important initiative which we believe is an alternative to further costly environmental compliance action and new regulations. Dr. Nasr and I are available to answer any questions you might have and Dr. Nasr has a very up-to-the-minute item that we'd like to submit as a part of our testimony.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Robfogel. Dr. Nasr.
Mr. NASR. If I may, I would like to insert this document—the EPA document—that remanufacturers have referenced.
[The information follows:]
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you very much.
Ms. Slaughter, I don't have any questions but we certainly appreciate your guests being with us.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much, and we appreciate your kindness.
Mr. LEWIS. A pleasure.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We're pleased to be here.
Mr. LEWIS. Questions.
Mrs. MEEK. No.
Mr. WALSH. Just a comment. Certainly, I'd like to welcome my colleague to our subcommittee today and the officials and professors at RIT. It's a wonderful institution, it's a wonderful community, it certainly—if there was to be a focus on remanufacturing, it should come from a community that is worldwide renown for quality of manufacturing with home to Xerox, Kodak, Bausch & Lomb, to name a few.
I've always marvelled at the program that Kodak has about taking all those cameras back and recycling them.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
It's a marvelous program. I wonder, did RIT provide any consultancy on that or is that a Kodak-spawned idea of their own?
Mr. NASR. We trained a lot of their engineers, educated a lot of them.
Mr. WALSH. I see. [Laughter.]
So, the thought process—the critical thinking process came from RIT.
Mr. NASR. It actually came from——
Mr. WALSH. I'm going to make that assumption. [Laughter.]
Mr. NASR [continuing]. The engineers that we trained.
Mr. WALSH. Yes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Jim, the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies is really the bridge to the 21st Century and we would like to invite you to come over and all the rest of you, if you can——
Mr. LEWIS. Right.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. But we can sort of capture Jim from next door but we'd welcome having you come to see it.
Mr. WALSH. I'm not that far away——
Ms. SLAUGHTER. It is quite remarkable.
Mr. WALSH. RIT—I'd like to talk about our education component in New York State, at RIT, that is so critical to the future——
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes.
Mr. WALSH [continuing]. Of New York State and its technology. We have Cornell and RIT and the University of Rochester-Syracuse—and all within 80 to 90 miles of each other——
Ms. SLAUGHTER. All working together——
Mr. WALSH [continuing]. So, I will be very supportive——
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, we appreciate that very, very much——
Mr. WALSH. I'll do my best to get the chairman to do the same.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you all.
Mr. LEWIS. I want you to know that items like that which Dr. Nasr will provide will be included in the committee file to make sure that that information is available. If we have additional questions, we'll extend them.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We would love to hear from you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you again.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROBFOGEL. Thank you.
Mr. NASR. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
DAVID JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION OF BEHAVIORAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. David Johnson, who's the Executive Director of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences? Dr. Johnson, I appreciate your patience. Just a little interruption there in our schedule. Thank you. You've been with us before so just——
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, we find ourselves in the odd situation as we look at the upgrowing 1999 budget of sending that money everywhere but none to use. The tobacco settlement seems to be slipping away, the current sentiment seems——
Mr. LEWIS. Money everywhere but none to use.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well said.
The current sentiment seems to be set all of the budget surplus aside for some security and if the transportation authorization is reflected in appropriations without a change in spending caps, many programs may have to be cut to pay for the new transportation initiatives.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
It isn't quite what we thought the second year of the budget surplus would look like and we hope, in the end, that it won't look that way.
This subcommittee has long understood the importance of basic research supported by the National Science Foundation. In the leanest times, you kept the NSF budget stable and whenever there was an opportunity to do so, you'd see that the budget could grow a little faster than inflation.
The overall effect through the 1980's and 1990's has been a budget for NSF that has almost kept pace with inflation. Given the circumstances of those decades that isn't a bad record. But it has been demonstrated that economic growth has spurred a significant degree of research. In a time of prosperity it is clear that an extra effort should be made to do research simply because it is one of the best ways to ensure that prosperity will continue.
We join with all the other groups that have been parading before you and urging that in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget there be a 10 percent increase for NSF. The initiatives that NSF would undertake with its budget would show the substantial growth relative to the research needs of our time. We're living in the information age. Through its knowledge and distributed intelligence initiative, NSF proposes to help drive the information age to new heights. Many with the most powerful tools in the information age are not used to full capacity in the education of our children. Through NSF's proposed joint research program with the Department of Education, the gap would be narrowed between what is possible technically and what is used to advantage in the teaching of children.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
For the first time, NSF also proposes to launch a research program focused on children. The Federal government for all practical purposes is the ''funder'' of research on children. What we know scientifically about child development and about how to help children develop well is the direct result of Federal support. But the expenditure for research on their behalf amounts to about 2 percent of the Federal R&D budget. That isn't enough of an investment to ensure that we learn enough to help children have a future we want for them.
NSF's recognition of the need for focus on research for children is something that needs to have your strong support. The constraints that at the moment make it seem difficult to reach a 10 percent increase for NSF, or even to hold it at its fiscal year 1998 level, are not insurmountable. They were arrived at through the political process and can be modified by the same process. We appreciate that you have a difficult job in trying to find the right balance among many worthy undertakings that are, and could be, supported with Federal funds, but I think it's safe to say that scientists, educators, and parents are supportive of the direction in which NSF wants to move, and would be equally supportive of your efforts to help NSF succeed.
Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much Dr. Johnson. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. MEEK. No, sir.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. WALSH. No questions.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
BOB BOEDING, MEMBER, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. LEWIS. Bob Boeding, who is with the National Corn Growers' Association. Mr. Boeding?
Mr. BOEDING. Good day, sir.
Mr. LEWIS. You've heard about summarizing statements and otherwise?
Mr. BOEDING. I certainly have. Yes, sir.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate it.
Mr. BOEDING. I take that to heart and the full statement has gone on the record.
My name is Bob Boeding, corn farmer from the town of Lawler, Iowa, northeast Iowa. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the importance of this National Science Foundation's Plant Genome Initiative. I testify in behalf of the Nation's 30,000 corn growers, or 80 percent of the Nation's corn producers. The NCGA believes that the most important appropriations issue for fiscal year 1999 is funding for plant genomics research. We also concur with Philip Abelson's article in the Science Journal, I've forgotten the date that was quoted here, but his statement essentially says, ''the early phases of this third technological revolution, genomics revolution, will be the most important we've seen so far.''
With that, I'll diverge to a slightly personalization and expansion of the points that were made in this. The first item is the intellectual property rights we wish to protect for those genomic work that's done here in the United States. There is some concern that the Japanese have proceeded the pace with the rice genome and inasmuch as EST's are relatively congruent, it would seem that they could proceed very rapidly in this. So, the concern would be that an external body, such as this, could license this, and we would be faced with relatively high seed costs. Our able researchers within the States would be provided the intellectual property rights that are justly their's.
While shifting from our commodity bulk grain sales to a crop with a specific high intrinsic value will enable our consumers locally, domestically, nationally, and internationally to obtain a greater net value from what they are buying, and hopefully, I and my fellow farmers could realize a slightly higher price from the better quality higher intrinsic value corn.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The fourth item I've combined here have been mentioned earlier, the higher ethanol yield per pound or per bushel, or per pound biomass, more rapid timber growth, these all fit the higher holistic balance that's demanded for a population that is expected to double in my lifetime. I really, I look at that with this rapid rise and it staggers me.
I've blended six other points here. The need for plants that are capable of surviving in what I'll call a challenged environment, one that is faced with a little more air pollution, drought, pestilence, all the diseases that we currently face and new ones that maybe we haven't seen or realized before. Traditional breeding has helped dramatically in this area over my lifetime. The Plant Genome Initiative will be a key to giving me the yields necessary to support that population that I've referred to in the prior statement.
On to the environmental aspects of what you're going to do, or what your funding efforts may do for us. Brown water, contamination with phosphate fertilizers, with nitrogen fertilizers, and so on. On my farm, there are 4,600 large births, mammal births per year, of a pound or slightly over that. We have a high concern with high quality water here, roughly equivalent to what should be in a maternity ward in a large major city hospital. I cannot afford to have contaminated water, as could anyone else in this Nation, or the world. So this effort would also help in those areas.
The nutritional quality that I spoke of earlier, the protein, the intrinsic values, the starch qualities, we have funded—Dr. Jay Langene is characterizing starch for us at Iowa State University, specific genes blending, when the genome map is completed. So that as we complete the map, we'll have materials to insert.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I have seen the value of coming up with intrinsic values of corns firsthand. In Mexico, they are using protein supplementation, for pediatric corn moss to use in tortillas. This would be something that wouldn't decrease, excuse me, faced with doing, had we provided or been able to provide them with a higher quality protein corn.
With that, I say that I'll terminate here. This program is worthy of a Manhattan-style project. It requires the resources and the power of government to coordinate and to help fund those things that we individually have not been able to do in pass years. It's a huge program. I don't wish to bring in the old Manhattan project but Paul Ehrlich had the population bomb and this would be one of those things to help us diffuse that bomb. It's also a near cinch for success. The Plant Genome is one of those projects that, if it failed, I'd be shocked. I don't know. I can't conceive of how it could possibly fail. At the Iowa Corn Promotion Board we funded over 200 research projects and only had four of them that met any relative success. I don't know how to personally guarantee that this would be that successful, or 100 percent success, but it's as close to a success as I can see us getting.
In conclusion, I found a Henri Fabre's quote about in 1912, I believe, ''no man qualifies as a statesman who is ignorant of the problems of wheat.'' And I took the liberty of fiddling around with it a little bit and I said, ''No person is a States person who cannot see the potentials of the plant genome.''
And I, also, in wrapping a second or third time, recognize the potential you did in last year's funding programs recognize the potential of this Plant Genome and with that I applaud you and we encourage you to continue this program and expand it where possible. Thank you.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. All right, do you have a question Mrs. Meek?
Mrs. MEEK. No.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. WALSH. Just a comment, the business is of interest to me, coming from the Agriculture Subcommittee and yet looking at it from. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer I went out for U.S. AID and collected corn maze in the fall. Corn was provided to them and they then submitted it for collection. It was kind of fun. It was interesting. It is fascinating science and it's farmers like you that have made Elvis Huxley and Paul Erhlich and Thomas Malthus look a little silly over the years. I hope you keep it going.
Mr. BOEDING. We do too.
Mr. WALSH. We need you to do it.
Mr. BOEDING. We'll have to do it as a team this time because, as I said, the population explosion, or the population increases are very rapid every year, and 30 years is not that far off.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Boeding, I might mention, just so that it's a part of the record. Normally this funding, the Genome Project, and something like this would go through the Agriculture Subcommittee. It's fundamentally an agriculture research effort. It should be noted, if you haven't noted already, that beyond Mr. Walsh, Senator Bond has played a very, very significant role in all this. And, indeed, in our last go around this was his baby and certainly a lot of credit is deserved there.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. BOEDING. We do heartily thank them for that, and we do recognize that.
Mr. LEWIS. Thanks for being with us.
Mr. BOEDING. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
HOWARD J. SILVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Howard Silver, who is the Executive Director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations. Dr. Silver?
Mr. SILVER. Good to see you again.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. Nice to see you again.
Mr. SILVER. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I'm Howard Silver. I'm the executive director of COSSA, Consortium of Social Science Associations, which represents over 100 professional associations, scientific societies, universities, and research institutes concerned with the promotion of, and funding for, research and the social behavioral and economic sciences. I'm also proud to serve, Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Coalition for National Science, whose name has been invoked already this morning. CNSF is an ad hoc, umbrella organization of over 70 groups in the social, behavioral, physical and natural sciences, engineering, higher education, and the industrial world dedicated to ensuring enhanced support to maintain the National Science Foundation has a premier basic science agency in the world.
On May 20th, the NSF will sponsor an exhibition at which 30 scientific societies and universities will display the results of NSF supported research, to provide an opportunity to engage scientists, educators, and students in discussions of their important studies, and we hope you and your colleagues will be able to join us in the Rayburn basement from 4:30 to 7:30.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.
Mr. SILVER. I want to express COSSA and CNSF's appreciation for the Subcommittee's past strong support for NSF. As always, you face difficult choices among competing programs and interests in a constrained budget situation. Yet it appears the national consensus is formed on the critical need for enhanced Federal support for basic research. President Clinton has called for the largest increase ever for NSF. As you noted earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker has argued an investment in science should be a priority. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and 106 national organizations have called for doubling the national investment in science.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And thus COSSA believes, and CNSF, that investing in NSF research and education efforts will help shape this country's future economic well-being and national security, and strongly recommends the 10 percent increase for NSF's Fiscal 1999 appropriation requested by NSF and endorsed by CNSF. I have attached the CNSF budget document to my testimony, and I believe it provides the justifications for this increase.
Let me talk a little bit now about basic research in the SBE sciences. Dr. Kraut earlier mentioned the numbers in the proposed budget, and like him, we are excited about the proposed increases. The research in these sciences continues to examine the evermore complex and human dimensions of issues, and generates new knowledge and insight to help us understand human commonalities and human differences. The research portfolio is diverse and supports sciences of enormous intellectual excitement and substantial societal importance.
In many ways, the social sciences are becoming laboratory sciences. Experimental economists are studying the dynamic behavior of markets. In his laboratory at California Institute of Technology, Charles Plott has examined the behavior of individuals and markets and how they lead to speculative bubbles followed by crashes. In other laboratory settings, different economists are conducting experiments testing theories of inflation and international trade. Political scientists use laboratory settings to test theories of agenda setting and committee decision making, while sociologists study how status hierarchies emerge in newly formed groups. There have been direct societal benefits to these experiments. In Plott's lab, the Federal Communications Commission tested the highly lucrative broadband communication spectrum auction design. And from those experiments other applications include different methods of allocating space and time on the space shuttle, and allocating slots at airports.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We heard earlier about NSF's new thrust in knowledge of distributive intelligence. Let me point out one other area that we're happy they are including in the KDI initiative. In echoing NIH's efforts on the Human Genome Project, NSF has included a legal, ethical, and societal implications effort as part of KDI, such issues as intellectual property rights, scientific publications, data security and integrity, balancing the need for universal access against protection from disclosure of private information to unauthorized individuals are all part of the picture as we increase the capabilities to gather and access information.
I'd also like to say a word about the Education and Human Resources Director, COSSA asked the Subcommittee to support the proposed increase for research, evaluation and communication division as part of the overall increase. As we know from the Subcommittee, there's a strong need to find out why Americans students perform well at the fourth grade level and not so well as they move up to the eighth and twelfth grades.
In conclusion, we urge the Subcommittee to continue its support for a U.S. science policy that focuses on the physical and natural behavioral and social aspects of what it will mean to function in a technologically oriented society still dominated by interactions among human beings. In his new book, social biologist E.O. Wilson posits the notion of consilience, which he defines as ''the interlocking of causal explanations among disciplines.'' He suggests that we need ''an explanatory integration not just of the natural sciences but also of the social sciences and humanities.'' Many years ago at a COSSA Annual Meeting, Thomas F. Malone, now Distinguished University Scholar at North Carolina State University, and a meteorologist by training, talked about what he calls a ''grand convergence'' of the social and behavioral sciences and the natural and physical sciences. And you see that happening all over the place.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thus, any fundamental science policy must include significant investments to explain the behaviors of human beings as they interact with each other and with their social, political, economic, and technological environment. To maintain the United States as a world leader in science, economic prosperity, and as the beacon of democracy, enhanced resources devoted to gaining increased knowledge about humans and their communities must be a priority.
The NSF remains a central actor to support the conduct of this research and, therefore, must receive adequate funds to carry out these important activities for the Nation, and the proposed increase of 10 percent will satisfy that requirement, and we hope the Subcommittee will grant it.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Silver. Mrs. Meek, by chance, questions?
Mrs. MEEK. No.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. WALSH. No questions, thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir, we thank you for being with us.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
MARY MARGARET OVERBEY, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, let me go back to the top of the list and see if by chance if a representative is going to be present from the American Federation of Government Employees, is that person here? Okay, calling once, calling twice, we'll get to third here in a while. Let's see, Dr. Mary Margaret Overbey, the Director of Government Relations for the American Anthropological Association, who has been waiting patiently. Welcome back.
Ms. OVERBEY. Thank you. I'm presenting my testimony on behalf of the American Association of Physical Anthropological Association, the Society for American Archaeology, and American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Basically we're supporting a 10 percent increase for NSF with the $2.8 billion for research and $150 million allotted for social behavioral and economic sciences research.
I want to use my time basically to let the research speak for itself. I'd like to give you some examples of cultural anthropology research, biological and anthropology research, and archaeology research that have been funded by NSF and that are currently ongoing. And the point is that these, each of these studies that's advancing our knowledge that also have evoked a lot of interest among people, the American people. So there's been a lot of media attention to all of these projects.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The first one I'd like to talk about is a study of secondary students down in Miami, in Dade County, who are in poor disadvantaged neighborhoods looking at risk factors. What causes students in their situation to succeed at school? And how do they overcome at risk factors to succeed in life? And basically what they have found to date is that strong social relations in the family, and also among peers and in the churches, do have a strong effect, and a positive effect on the students so that students are able to overcome at risk factors. This is still an ongoing project. It's going to be long-term so he'll follow these students beyond school, jobs, and college. But it has already attracted private funding from Carnegie Corporation and Andrew Mellon Foundation.
There's an archeological project that is taking place down, 150 miles southwest of El Paso, Texas, by Robert Hard and his colleagues at the University of Texas, San Antonio. And in this site, what they have found is really the first existence of settled agricultural village 3,000 years ago. Previous scientists have felt that the only time we could find this level of agriculture and settled villages was 1,500 years ago. He has pushed this back several. This is during the Archaic period that most people in the northeastern United States were hunting, gathering bands just roving about, but he affirmed a settled village that supported between 100 and 1,000 people, cultivating maize and squash.
Mark Stoneking at Pennsylvania State University has extracted the first authentic DNA from fossil hominid, and also obtained the first sequence of mitochondrial DNA from this fossil. And this is the first Neanderthal fossil that was found in Germany in 1856. What Mark Stoneking's work is looking at is the ancestral relations, are there ancestral relations with modern humans. Scientists had guessed that the Neanderthal was related and so he tested that by looking at the number of mutations in the mitochondrial sequence. And in humans there are only 7 to 8 mutations, or differences in that sequence. What he found in comparing the Neanderthal DNA sequence with the humans was that there were 27 to 28 differences so he concluded that the Neanderthal are not ancestral to modern humans.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
NSF funding also enabled Kristin Hawkes and her colleagues at the University of Utah to look at the role of post-menopausal women in society and in the development of culture. Hawkes has been working among the Hadza in Tanzania, they're a modern hunting gathering group that, you know, roam in Africa. And what she found is that the older women were producing the most food. They were forging for the vegetables that produced the most food in the village. And what the older woman would do would be distribute this food strategically to their daughters and their grandchildren. And if they didn't have a direct relation, to their nieces and their children. So, in essence, Hawkes is concluding that these women are perpetuating the band and their families along the line. And she thinks, in evolutionary terms, that if these older women really contributed to the development of culture. And one thing I did want to mention is that menopause itself is unique to humans, and they're trying to look at the ''why'' of menopause, why do they have menopause? So here, it's more of an explanation that menopause actually serves a purpose to release these women to take the time to forage and distribute.
The final project I'd like to mention is one by Patrick Gannon, Arthur Fishberg and Ralph Holloway, looking at the areas of the brain associated with human language. This is the planum temporale, here's a picture. It's located in the left hemisphere of the brain. It's where language is located, and also musical ability. And neuroscientists have recently found, it's the planum temporale where the perfect pitch is located. So the ability, which is a rare ability, to be able to discern notes separate from any context of music is located in the planum temporale. Scientists always had also felt that this area was unique to humans. And what Gannon and his associates found is that it's found in chimps. So Chimpanzees actually do have this left hemisphere, planum temporale developed, which leads us to believe that language ability in chimps is greater than scientists have previously thought.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And one thing I did want to mention is Gannon's research itself, this is extensive, these are citations of the media coverage that he received on this. There are three pages of citations, everything from The New York Times and The Post, to Jay Leno, and just a lot of radio and TV. BBC has done something on this too. So there's been a lot of attention to this.
So my purpose in letting the research speak for itself is that to let you know that NSF is funding good research, that it is advancing our knowledge, and that it really does intrigue the American people and does advance their understanding of how we got to where we are today, and their understanding of how we could improve the world in which we live.
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Overbey, thank you very much for being with us. I got your pitch. [Laughter.]
Ms. OVERBEY. Okay, thank you.
Mrs. MEEK. I'm pleased to see that Mr. Neanderthal is not ancestral to humans because I thought just the opposite.
Ms. OVERBEY. Well, that's right. And I think there's been a history of saying there is, but there's been questions as to what the relationship is. So this is really furthering that knowledge that yes, probably it is not——
Mrs. MEEK. Pleased to see your proud of your research.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Ms. OVERBEY. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
ARTHUR JAFFE, JOINT POLICY BOARD FOR MATHEMATICS
Mr. LEWIS. Arthur Jaffe with the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics. Mr. Jaffe, it's good to see you again.
Mr. JAFFE. Thank you. I'm pleased to be here again after two years.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Arthur Jaffe, I'm President of the American Mathematical Society, the Landon T. Clay Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, and Chair of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics. That Board is a collaboration of three societies with combined membership of over 57,000 mathematicians, and I welcome the opportunity to be here.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Let me start by thanking the Committee for your support for the NSF over the years. I hope for your continued support this year. JPBM wholeheartedly endorses full funding for the 1999 budget request for NSF which will provide a significant 10 percent increase. We believe mathematics science and engineering represents a top priority, along with our children, for the future of our country. The NSF has seen no real budget increase since 1995, and was part of the overall one-third decline in the percent of R&D funding is the percent of GDP over 30 years. We feel this short changes our most promising investment in the future.
Given the extraordinary importance of the NSF's mission, the need for full appropriation transcends any particular budget mechanisms. The importance has been expressed by a bipartisan group of members in the House and the Senate. The request is consistent with authorizations in the House, with the authorization moving through the Senate, and with the Senate's budget resolution which assumes full funding for 1999. The CNSF concurred, endorses the proposed budget. Furthermore, a coalition of over 100 presidents of scientific societies, including the three JPBM presidents, issued a unified statement calling for a renewal of science funding over the next decade. These societies have over 3 million members signed it, and you probably have seen the unified statement which was issued last October.
I believe it's widely understood that today's prosperity is a consequence of our past 30 year investment in science. Our economy relies, and our economic security relies on tomorrow's technology. These technologies will evolve from today's research. Our strength as a world power relies on our ability to educate our population in mathematics and in science. In the NSF there is a prominent share of the responsibility to fund it.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We're especially supportive of the NSF's proposed budget of $114 million in the division of mathematical sciences. The Foundation has identified and documented a special need for growth in mathematics. A panel appointed by the NSF presents this material in a March 1998 study illustrating the inadequate support of mathematics, along with the increasing role of mathematics as the enabling discipline for all fields of science.
I'd like to give some specific examples. In my written testimony, I talked about a number of examples. They range from the basic research leading to 1997 Nobel Prize in Economics, that was research in probability theory, and it's had a profound impact on today's financial markets and on risk analysis to new mathematics behind modern medical imaging. New mathematical methods of semi-conductor designs that have the potential to impact that business while computer simulations changed aircraft designs. New symmetries in the laws of physics, the discovery of these led to dependent numerical calculations in specialized field of mathematics. But there are new ways to break and make codes.
As explained in a recent congressional briefing, mathematicians devised new encryption schemes, and they also devised new tools to break them. The symmetries in physics are not unrelated to the tools that I'm talking about here. This past week, we learned that digital cellular phone encryption, which was believed to be secure, has been broken.
The NSF also provides the Federal funding that enables professional mathematicians to improve education. One successful program, the research experiences for undergraduates, links students in summer programs to mathematicians doing frontier research. In a complementary fashion, the graduate fellowships provide incentives and recognition for young scientists to continue to do research in their field. The postdoctoral fellowship programs extends the training at a crucial time when the recipients make the delicate transition from initial discovery to world leadership. It's through this package of support from undergraduate to leading researcher that we shepherd our country's next generation of Fields medal winners and Nobel prize laureates.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
But while U.S. graduate education shines, our schools do not. You've heard the results of the TIMSS, or the Third International Mathematics and Science Study which show U.S. students from approximately average in the fourth grade to the very bottom in 12th grade. This is not only a case in averages but even when measuring the top 10 percent of student performance, this is totally unacceptable.
We urge the Subcommittee to support the request for the Joint Mathematic initiatives proposed in cooperation with the Department of Education. With less than 5 percent of the total R&D budget, the NSF assumes major responsibility for many critical components of science. I urge you again to provide the 10 percent requested in 1999 to the NSF.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to second the invitation to you and members of the Subcommittee to attend the Fourth Annual CNSF Exhibition and reception on May 20th. There you can see first-hand the sample of research and you can talk with some of the researchers whose ideas produce these advances.
Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Jaffe.
Questions, questions?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Jaffe, it doesn't relate to appropriations but you raised the issue of the fall-off in math scores and abilities of our kids from fourth grade through twelfth. What do you surmise? We have the best post-secondary educational system on earth, but secondary education is not on par with the rest of the world. What's going on, do you think?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. JAFFE. I understand it's a very complicated problem.
Mr. WALSH. Well, you're a mathematician it should be easy for you. [Laughter.]
Mr. JAFFE. First, we have a problem with the social status, a social problem, social status of teachers, their pay. We don't necessarily attract, of course there are exceptions, the best people by and large into the profession and therefore it's perhaps not a surprise that they are not fully acquainted with the content materials that they keep. I think there are a number of programs to work with teachers to train them more in the content, and I feel that content in mathematics and the sciences is very important to give to the students. Those programs have been a very great success.
Mr. WALSH. Can the NSF support that activity?
Mr. JAFFE. The NSF does partially support that activity. They have training programs, they're joint programs with the Department of Education as well.
Mr. WALSH. When NSF was in I suggested an idea that, similar to the Peace Corps approach to things where the AmeriCorp, you take some of your best graduate students and you send them into school districts to teach, not only the kids, but to teach the teachers, and to try to develop a level of expertise at the high schools that wasn't previously there.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. JAFFE. Right. We have programs, there's a program at Harvard to bring in teachers from neighboring area schools to help them with the material. There are summer programs at major university sites, other places, that especially train teachers in mathematics. This is extremely important, we'd like to send students, some of our students go out to the area schools but it just can't be a volunteer process, we have to have a program in place. And it's not a problem that's going to be solved overnight.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Jaffe, a very complex subject but nonetheless, lest we mislead anybody who might be listening, the Subcommittee has in the past expressed very strong support for the work of NSF, and I anticipate that we will be doing the same as you go forward. But nonetheless we should all make note of the fact that never but never has more than 10 cents on the dollar for educational purposes come from the Federal Government. It is produced by way of local resources, State resources, the private sector, tuitions, et cetera. We do love to give 10 cents and tell you everything you got to be doing through NSF—[laughter]—hopefully, we're not going to do that.
Mr. JAFFE. I totally agree. [Laughter]
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us. Please wander by the Kennedy School and say, ''hello,'' to our colleague, Mickey Edwards, one of these days, would you?
Mr. JAFFE. Surely will, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
JOHN NEYLAN, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRANSPLANT PHYSICIANS
Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, is John Neylan here? John? The American Society of Transplant Physicians. Really much of that work is carried on by way of the VA, but, welcome.
Mr. NEYLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee.
Mr. LEWIS. Your testimony will be included in the record and we appreciate your being with us.
Mr. NEYLAN. I am John Neylan, medical director of Kidney Transplant Patients at Emery University, and I'm president-elect of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. The ASTP, which has no Government support, is comprised of over 1,100 physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are actively engaged in research and the practice of transplantation medicine and immunobiology. The ASTP represents the majority of professionals involved in the field of transplantation in the United States.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Today, my testimony will focus on Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Administration and its transplant program. Since 1961, this program has provided more than 7,000 solid organ transplants (over 100 a year) to U.S. veterans in need. In addition, VA funded research has made important contributions, both to our understanding of diseases which may lead to organ failure, as well as to those basic mechanisms regulating the immune system which may be critical to the success of organ transplantation. Although VA initiatives and transplantation have provided many U.S. veterans with the critical gift of life, the program could be broadened in the area of research to more effectively serve our veterans and the overall health of the Nation.
Over the last 30 years, transplantation of solid organs has moved from experimental to accepted therapy, with over 20,000 performed in 1997 alone. The success of this procedure has improved greatly and now almost all solid organ recipients enjoy anywhere from 83 to 97 percent survivals in one year. Much of the success can be attributed to basic research initiatives in immunobiology funded by previous Federal appropriations. Our better understanding of the body's response to foreign proteins has led to countless other breakthroughs in all areas in medical science. However, this success has brought with it new challenges.
Mr. Chairman, during the next hour four new names will join those over 56,000 individuals in this country waiting for a solid organ transplant. And by the time I get to Atlanta this evening, 10 individuals will have died because the wait for the transplant was too long. It's unfortunate and absolutely unnecessary, but the sad fact is that we as a Nation are not living up to our potential. Too many families are turning down the option of organ donation.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
In December 1997, the Administration launched a national organ and tissue donation initiative to encourage more families to discuss and understand their loved ones wishes in regard to donation. This may help in reducing family refusal which is the number one cause of the loss of potential donors today. Therefore, the ASTP urges this subcommittee to provide additional resources from Fiscal Year 1999 to ensure the success of the administration's initiative and other federally-initiated programs that enhance donor awareness and improve the public trust in the process.
Research is also critical to all that occurs in the transplantation process. The ASTP believes that we are on the threshold of many important scientific breakthroughs in areas of transplantation research, including the better understanding of the mechanisms of organ rejection, improvements in immunosuppression, the achievement of a drug-free immunologic tolerance, and the potential use of animal organs and tissues, xenotransplantation. Because of this, the ASTP agrees with the Friends of the VA that the Subcommittee should provide a Fiscal Year 1999 VA research appropriation of at least $325 million, the amount necessary to sustain new initiatives VA is implementing in Fiscal Year 1998 and to fully implement new initiatives in Fiscal Year 1999, such as research in the area of solid organ transplantation.
The VA currently supports research centers in a variety of areas, such as HIV, alcohol and kidney disease. These centers have successfully allowed for the advancement of knowledge in targeted areas as a result of the talented investigators that are assembled under one roof. By providing funds to operate additional research centers, focusing on areas such as solid organ transplantation, the VA could contribute even more effectively to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and disability. By increasing Fiscal Year 1999 VA research appropriations to at least $325 million, the Department would also have the resources necessary to address a backlog of medical research, career development applications and increase awards to first time principal investigator applicants. Such an effort would work to ensure that the VA will be able to meet its need for highly trained investigators in all research disciplines and in all fields important to our U.S. veterans.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
For more than six decades, the VA system has made unique contributions to the health of the Nation's veterans, and to the entire country's medical, scientific, and health care efforts. The scientific community is on the verge of many new breakthroughs in the area of solid organ transplantation, and the ASTP believes that increased funding for VA research will greatly improve the lives of U.S. veterans while increasing the capacity for critical transplantation research for the entire Nation. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. We very much appreciate your making the effort to come here. It's very, very important that we recognize the value of the veterans' hospital locations associated with major research universities, the potential is endless in terms of improving the human condition, and we appreciate your work. Thank you.
Mr. NEYLAN. Thank you, Chairman Lewis.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
PAUL GROGAN, PRESIDENT, LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Paul Grogan, President of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. Mr. Grogan, welcome one more time.
Mr. GROGAN. Mr. Chairman, one more time.
Mr. LEWIS. Hi, there.
Mr. GROGAN. Well, I'm going to offer you an interruption in the steady stream of scientists and physicians and mathematicians.
Mr. LEWIS. Always happy to hear from HUD. [Laughter.]
Mr. GROGAN. Talk about houses. I have to say I'm not sure following the Society of Transplant Physicians is a message about HUD or not, but thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman.
I want to preface my brief remarks by bringing you what I think is very good news from the innercities of the country. As you know, Local Initiatives Support Corporation is a private organization supported by more than 2,000 corporations, foundations, and private individuals providing capital and expertise to innercity and rural development efforts nationwide. And we are seeing unmistakable signs of more and more turn around, particularly in innercity communities that have been depressed for a very, very long time. And I think that's significant because I think for the last 30 years or so, we've thought this cause was pretty hopeless. We've been very pessimistic about conditions in these communities which have bred an enormous amount of poverty and social pathology, and we really think things are starting to turn around very much as a consequences of the grassroots revitalization movement, not of actions of the Federal government but of the ordinary citizens taking matters into their own hands, organizing out of churches and block clubs, to take on problems and issues in their own communities. And there are now more than 2,000 of these groups renovating and building housing, bringing jobs back into the communities, working on health clinics, day care centers, anti-crime efforts.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
It's really a spreading phenomenon that is based on the bedrock American attributes of self-help and partnership and tangible results. And private capital is fueling much of this. The Federal government has done a couple of important things. It's a short list of things but that magnifies their importance. One of them is not under the jurisdiction of this committee but I very much appreciate your decision, Mr. Chairman, to join as a sponsor of the two bills in the House that proposes to expand the low-income housing tax credit, which is, as you know, steers a lot of private capital to affordable housing.
Two programs at HUD though have been very, very helpful: the HOME Program and the Community Development Block Grant. And I particularly want to focus on HOME, which has been of particularly utility to grassroots groups. Unlike a lot of programs that are so rule bound and prescriptive that they don't take account of this type of local initiative or the need to leverage private capital, home has really done a great job in being the kind of flexible, locally-driven resource that can be combined with private capital and can be molded to do a wide variety of housing programs that local communities want to do. The program is very well utilized. As you know, it is leveraging, for every dollar, $1.08 in private and other financing. We are just seeing this as really being part of the fuel that's driving this movement.
Community Development Block Grant is also very, very important. In general, we would like to see HUD evolve into a flexible investor in local partnerships as opposed to the kind of institution that it has been. I applaud Secretary Cuomo's efforts to do that, but right now the programs that really make the strongest statement, and are of the most impact in this realm, are those two.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We very much appreciate your support last year in increasing somewhat the administration's proposal, and we would certainly urge you to do the same this year. I don't think we can underestimate what it might mean to our country if we came to believe that the innercities could really be revived. The tremendous burden that they have been on us, the source of really national embarrassment, and I think there is a tremendous opportunity where you see housing, where you see markets following housing, and the kind of citizen engagement that's rebuilding institutions—everything from PTAs to little leagues.
We had the great pleasure of hosting a visit of the President to the South Bronx late last year. South Bronx has perhaps been emblematic in a very powerful way of the devastation of the innercities, and I think he was stunned, as was the media, to see the acres and acres of revitalization—really all wrought by the initiative of community organizations to provide the capital, but very much helped and catalyzed by this short list of Federal programs.
So we've got something going here that's working. The HOME and CDBG are relatively small programs. Everyone says we appreciate the tough choices you have to make. I don't think we really do. We want you to do what we're proposing, but I think we can show that the leverage on these Federal efforts is fantastic, and we've really drawn private capital in, which is what's finally led to restoring these markets.
Thank you very much for having me here this morning.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Grogan, very much.
I must say that programs like the House that Congress Built—and half the House now is going to be involved in that symbolic effort; lots of private capital flowing, volunteer efforts—very, very important, working together in this urban centers. And I, frankly, think the goal is to revitalize those urban centers, and we appreciate not only your testimony, but your help.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. GROGAN. Thank you. We're working very closely with Habitat across the country. It's one of the great stories that's part of this.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, it is.
Thank you very much for being with us.
Mrs. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to Mr. Grogan, I've been working with this many, many years. It worked in its revival. There has been some change to these communities. We just need more of that.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
WADI SUKI, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, back to the National Science Foundation, Dr. Wadi Suki, president of the American Society for Nephrology.
Dr. SUKI. In addition, our Nation has renewed commitment to allocating increased resources for medical research, and the VA should not be forgotten, and at the minimum the research program that serves our Nation's veterans deserves a level of increase similar to that of other federally-funded medical research programs. Therefore, our Society supports the appropriation of at least $325 million for VA medical research.
When you think in terms of how much this represents, if you would consider how much the VA has spent for health care services, $272 million spent last year on research in the VA comes out to only 1.5 percent of total expenditures on health care, which is really a very small amount. It is my view and the view of members of our Society that investment in research is the only real opportunity we have to reduce enormous costs to the VA, not to mention human suffering composed by chronic health conditions.
The VA R&D is poised to realize its vision of the future with additional funding for medical research to be well-positioned to help the VA system meet the challenge of a changing health care environment while contributing to advances in the Nation's knowledge of disease.
The recruitment and retention of the best and the brightest to pursue careers in academic investigative methodology has been and will continue to be our Society's foremost goal. The VA Research Realignment Advisory Committee found that the VA is not satisfactorily recruiting and sustaining the next generation of outstanding clinical investigators. Our Society believes that the major obstacle to achieving the goals of the cure for and the prevention of kidney disease is the difficulty in the current environment of attracting the most talented young individuals to pursue careers in research.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
By your subcommittee appropriating $325 million for VA medical research in Fiscal Year 1999, implementation of new research training and career development programs can occur in the VA, and the VA will be able to address the backlog of medical research career development complications, and increase awards to first time physician investigator applications.
Increasing career development awards enhances the VA's ability to attract and retain high quality physician investigators for a career in the VA. Considering that 75 percent of VA researchers are the physicians who provide medical care for our veterans, the quality of the health care received by our veterans is directly correlated to the VA's ability to provide funds for a career in biomedical research.
The Veterans' Administration has made profound contributions in areas related to nephrology, research on diabetes, which is the foremost cause of kidney failure in this country. Research in this area conducted in the VA has advanced our knowledge in how to retard the progression of kidney disease in diabetics and how to prevent it. Research in the area of hypertension, which is the second commonest cause of kidney failure, has also advanced knowledge and this research has been carried out in the VA.
Most research breakthroughs in this country come from investigator initiated projects. If the VA research budget is funded at $325 million for Fiscal Year 1999, investigator initiated projects could increase by at least 10 percent. In addition, years of funding shortfalls have prevented the VA from conducting much needed renovation of VA research facilities. Many VA research facilities are housed in buildings erected in the post-World War II era. Renovations need to occur to accommodate the equipment and electrical venting safety and plumbing systems required for today's cutting edge research.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
While our Society recognizes the difficult task that Congress has in choosing between Federal programs, these choices should not come at the expense of those who have fought for our freedoms and for the freedom of peoples around the world. Therefore, to ensure that research opportunities are not lost and that veterans continue to receive high quality medical care, the American Society of Nephrology again urges this subcommittee to support a Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation of $325 million for VA medical research.
This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Suki.
Mrs. MEEK. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, and to Dr. Suki, I've been a strong proponent of medical research at the VA since I've been on this subcommittee and I do hope that we can improve this as I've perceived it, the medical research part of the VA's budget, and I do hope that we can substantially improve it.
Dr. SUKI. We thank you for your support.
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Suki, we all, especially on a day like today where you have a variety of mix of witnesses coming forward, find, probably conclude that the term ''lobbyist,'' is not necessarily a bad term. They come in many shape and forms. I was struck when I was home over these last couple of weeks that there's a fellow whose building a new home down the street from me, and I haven't had a chance to meet him but I've noted that when going by a relatively new Jeep, it's a young family. And I've learned that this fellow is a nephrologist and I have no idea whether he's a part of your Society or not but one of these days I'll probably find out. [Laughter.]
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I urge you to find out who he is. [Laughter.]
Dr. SUKI. He probably works at the Research Institute, something like that; he looked like it. Thank you.
Dr. SUKI. Thank you.
Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate your being here.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
SVEN-ERIK BURSELL, JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER
Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, we're going to stay on that same track for just a moment. Is Dr. Bursell with Joslin Diabetes Center present?
Dr. BURSELL. Yes.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. LEWIS. The seat next to you.
Dr. BURSELL. It's great to be here again at the Committee. I'm going to talk to you about a diabetes project. It's a collaborative project that we had proposed last Spring with the Veterans' Administration. The demonstration project will be the Institute's pilot programs for detection, prevention, and care in two regions: Hawaii, through the Tripler Army Medical Center, in collaboration with both the DOD and the VA out there; and in New England, through the VA's VISN–1 region. The objectives involve training and technology transfer of Joslin's expertise using telemedicine infrastructures, personnel, and employment patient bases of the Department of Defense and Veterans' Affairs.
The idea is to basically facilitate patient's access to a program of diabetes care and prevention and education, hopefully to reduce some of the complications from diabetes, such as blindness or kidney disease.
We'd like to thank you, the members of the Committee here, and especially Congressman Nethercutt for the support we received in Fiscal Year 1998 through the VA/HUD appropriations. But I'm going to focus on today is two aspects of the project, primarily the status report and a request for our second year funding.
The two objectives of the project are screening for diabetes among DOD and VA patient populations in New England and Hawaii using innovative technology which requires nothing more than shining a light into the eye and determine whether or not you have diabetes, and implementing a program of improved diabetes management and education using the telemedicine platform for the DOD and VA patient populations in New England and Hawaii.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We have reached an understanding, with the support of the DOD and VA policy program personnel on implementation on the work plan to report to the Committee last year. And by September 30th of 1998, we will have accomplished the following: one, a completion of phase one studies and implementation of phase two studies in the New England region, and implementation of phase one studies at the Tripler Medical Center in Hawaii. And basically this is an evaluation to determine how cost effective, both for the patient, and cost effective in terms of getting care to the patients the telemedicine intervention is and how it impacts on the standard practice of diabetes. And again deployment of three remote examination sites in the New England area.
In year 2002, we will have accomplished the following objectives: providing DOD and VA diabetes patients cost effective access to the benefits of annual eye exams, diagnosis, treatments that are necessary to reduce risk to vision, and other significant complications of diabetes, such as nephrology and heart disease; to develop the utilization of a quick, efficient and easily acceptable method of screening for diabetes in remote sites; to demonstrate efficient and effective methods to improve the metabolic control of patients with diabetes.
Today Joslin has expended approximately $2 million, without any reimbursement from Federal funds. This has been a particular challenge for us as a nonprofit institution and the reason was we weren't aware that at each stage of Department of Defense review, and decision-making, that essentially the funds would be allocated for administrative purposes. So the total DOD and VA assessment over the two year project period has exceeded $2 million. And the bare bones budget we submitted last year did not include resource allocations for partners in DOD/VA so that in this stage of the project we have very little money. [Laughter.]
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There's a fair amount of angst associated with it. The DOD officials have recognized Joslin's plight and have indicated they will support a second year budget of $6.4 million to assure that we can proceed efficiently.
Mr. Chairman, in order to implement this project properly, and conduct the project in the manner and under the terms established by the DOD and VA, we will require an appropriation of $6.4 million in Fiscal Year 1999 for the diabetes research project, the National Security Subcommittee initially funded in Fiscal Year 1998.
And this concludes my statement and if you have any questions.
Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Bursell, if you would, as we go forward through the conference process try and help us focus on this to make sure that we do get the interaction that we want from the Department.
Mr. BURSELL. That would be my pleasure.
Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.
Dr. BURSELL. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION<