Segment 2 Of 4 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN H. MARBURGER, III
John H. Marburger, III, Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, was born on Staten Island, N.Y., grew up in Maryland near Washington D.C. and attended Princeton University (BA, Physics 1962) and Stanford University (Ph.D., Applied Physics 1967). Before his appointment in the Executive Office of the President, he served as Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory from 1998, and as the third President of the State University of New York at Stony Brook (19801994). He came to Long Island in 1980 from the University of Southern California where he had been a Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, serving as Physics Department Chairman and Dean of the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences in the 1970's. In Fall 1994 he returned to the faculty at Stony Brook, teaching and doing research in optical science as a University Professor. Three years later he became President of Brookhaven Science Associates, a partnership between the university and Battelle Memorial Institute that competed for and won the contract to operate BNL.
While at USC, Marburger contributed to the rapidly growing field of nonlinear optics, a subject created by the invention of the laser in 1960. He developed theory for various laser phenomena and was a co-founder of USC's Center for Laser Studies. His teaching activities included ''Frontiers of Electronics,'' a series of educational programs on CBS television.
Marburger's presidency at Stony Brook coincided with the opening and growth of University Hospital and the development of the biological sciences as a major strength of the university. During the 1980's federally sponsored scientific research at Stony Brook grew to exceed that of any other public university in the northeastern United States.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
During his presidency, Marburger served on numerous boards and committees, including chairmanship of the governor's commission on the Shoreham Nuclear Power facility, and chairmanship of the 80 campus ''Universities Research Association'' which operates Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago. He served as a trustee of Princeton University and many other organizations. He also chaired the highly successful 1991/92 Long Island United Way campaign.
While on leave from Stony Brook, Marburger carried out the mandates of the Department of Energy to improve management practice at Brookhaven National Laboratory. His company, Brookhaven Science Associates, continued to produce excellent science at the Lab while achieving ISO14001 certification of the Lab's environmental management system, and winning back the confidence and support of the community.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Questions Submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
1. Balance of the Research Portfolio
In your testimony before the Committee you discussed the Administration's attempt to establish priorities within the Federal Science and Technology budget. You made the case, and I agree with you, that there has to be a better way to set priorities than simply setting formulaic goals like doubling or tripling a particular budget. You also pointed out that the $3.9 billion installment in the NIH budget represented the last year of the Administration's pledge to double the NIH budget over five years and that you hoped that this would ''remove some constraints'' on the ability to fund other research priorities when the FY04 budget is formulated. In your subsequent speech before the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, however, you suggested that the ''life sciences may still be underfunded relative to the physical sciences.''
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A. You suggested a number of additional criteria for establishing priorities and determining appropriate balance within the Federal research portfolio. These criteria included the complexity of the field of study, the investment by our international competitors, and the material benefit to society. How were these criteria applied to the question of balance and what other criteria, if any, were utilized? Please illustrate how these criteria were applied in the FY03 budget submission.
Answer: The Administration values discovery-oriented science, and aims to continue to support the grand quest for scientific knowledge. But it also understands that the same technology that makes this quest so exciting today has created unprecedented opportunities for nearly every other field of science. Advances in instrumentation and computing power have given us control of matter at the atomic level, which has staggering consequences for life science and materials science, and for their applications to medicine and nanotechnology. These advances have opened access to a new scientific territory, which is best described as the frontier of complexity. Our nation cannot fail to take advantage of the leadership at this frontier that previous investments in basic science have made possible.
Complexity, as I have used it in my presentations, is relatively straightforward, referring only to the diversity of interactions that must be explained before we have any hope of understanding how a system works. Many of these interactions are best described at the juncture of scientific disciplines. The complicated interactions among the physics, chemistry, and biology of a living cell, for example, are staggering. Some of the work at the Santa Fe Institute, and elsewhere, is attempting to model certain aspects of complexity. I cannot point to any one study that proclaims complexity as the ''future of science.'' However, several factors have led me to view the study of complexity as the next exciting scientific frontier. The increasing number of breakthroughs that are occurring as a result of interdisciplinary approaches (e.g., breakthroughs in nanoscience) and the availability of vast computational capability and powerful new instruments to analyze and manipulate experimental systems point to a future where previously intractable problems of complexity can be solved. While there will always be a compelling need to support basic disciplinary science, we should expect to see an increasing number of significant breakthroughs at the frontiers of complexity. Funding priorities should reflect where scientific opportunities and societal needs lie, as well as what is needed to support core disciplinary sciences.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
While my definition of complexity suggests investing in research where opportunities exist, benefits to society are also an important consideration in decisions to expend taxpayer money. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) are endeavoring to define criteria that will be applied to R&D programs to help guide federal funding and improve management in this area. The United States economy as a whole benefits from investment in research, so we as a government need to recognize how our investment decisions impact the U.S. economy and take that into consideration as we develop priorities.
The President's investment in research and development (R&D) of $112 billion is a tremendous amount of money, and we should not lose sight of this fact. However, the Administration believes the focus should not be on how much we are spendingespecially not on changes on the margin from year to yearbut rather on what we are getting for our investment and how well it is being managed.
I do not agree with the notion that research should be ''balanced'' by providing funding increases to all research agencies or fields akin to the increases for the National Institutes of Health. Logically, increases in our top priority research areas should be greater than increases for other areas. NIH is receiving an increase of $3.9 billion in FY 2003, and that money is a priority investment in the future health of our nation, completing the President's commitment to double NIH's funding by 2003.
The 2003 budget provides funding for top priority areas, while ensuring a good mix of basic and applied research (and development) in many fields across the federal agencies. This is a good budget for science, and I look forward to working with you to see it successfully enacted.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
B. Now that the doubling of NIH will be completed in FY03, what other research priorities do you think should receive more attention during the formulation of the next budget?
Answer: OSTP and OMB are in the process of developing the annual R&D guidance memorandum. This memorandum will emphasize the Administration's goal of good program management and investment in areas that are at the core of agency missions and in a limited set of areas that cut across multiple agencies. An overarching concern is the need to ensure adequate support for those disciplines and equipment needs that underpin today's great scientific opportunities. OSTP will provide the Committee on Science a copy of this memorandum when it is completed.
C. If, on the other hand, life sciences are being ''underfunded relative to the physical sciences,'' what criteria were used to make this assessment? Do you anticipate that life sciences, particularly medical sciences, will continue to be the Administration's highest priority in the coming years?
Answer: The way for determining funding priorities is by determining where the opportunities lie for significant scientific advances. We have to remember that, in part, the frontiers of discovery have been defined by the limits of technology. In the life sciences, we now have the computational power and the experimental systems to make major advances in our understanding of basic life processes. Undoubtedly, these will lead to advances in medicine, agriculture, and environmental management. With a fiscal year 2003 budget request of over $27 billion, the Administration continues to place a very high priority on health research. There are, of course, linkages between advances in the physical sciences and engineering and those in the life sciences. Significant advances can also be made in other areas of physical sciences independent of their benefits for the life sciences.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
D. You have stated that the frontiers of discovery have been defined by the limits of technology. What criteria are used to determine the appropriate balance between funding the life sciences and funding the basic mathematics and physical research programs that produce these technologies? Please provide specific examples of how these criteria were applied in the FY03 budget submission.
Answer: As you know, Mr. Chairman, agency budget proposals are submitted to OMB in mid-September for their review. The terrorist attacks on September 11 dramatically changed the context for this budget. The attacks laid bare vulnerabilities in our physical security and exacerbated weaknesses in our economy. The priorities of the Nation drastically changed in a matter of a few hours.
The President's budget reflects the change in priorities and encompasses three primary goals:
Winning the war on terrorism;
Protecting the homeland;
Reviving our economy.
The Administration has had to prioritize numerous initiatives in the wake of September 11th, but the President's commitment to NIH remains strong as is evidenced by funding of $27.3 billion in FY 2003. The NIH Budget has doubled and a portion of the funding in FY 2003 is dedicated to NIH's expanded mission of fighting the war on terrorism. What we learn from this research will help protect us in the event of future attacks and the research will contribute to the growing body of scientific knowledge that helps detect, diagnose, and treat diseases.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
I do not agree with the notion that S&T should be ''balanced'' by providing funding increases to all research agencies akin to the increases for the National Institutes of Health. Logically, increases in our top priority research areas should be greater than increases for other areas. The President's investment in R&D of $112 billion, and for S&T of $57 billion, is a tremendous amount of money. We should not lose sight of this fact. The Administration believes the focus should not be on how much we are spendingespecially not on changes on the margin from year to yearbut rather on what we are getting for our investment and how well it is being managed.
E. It is widely believed that relative increases in funding for medical research have been followed by shifts by undergraduate and graduate students away from the physical sciences and toward the life sciences. What importance is given to these long-term human resource effects during the research budget prioritization process?
Answer: Clearly the amount of R&D activity in the area of medical research has increased demand for trained academic and technical researchers in related fields. However, it is not clear that this increase has come at the expense of students entering careers in the physical sciences. The number of international students in physical sciences graduate, postdoctoral, and academic positions are testimony to the fact that factors other than availability of NIH funding are influencing long-term human resource trends. Working with the science agencies, I am committed to developing a better understanding of these issues, and I believe we will need to work with the entire pre-K through 16 education system to ensure we maintain the necessary talent to keep the U.S. at the leading edge of scientific discovery.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
2. Homeland Security
A. Shortly after the creation of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS), you were asked to ''fill the research and development component of OHS.'' What role are you playing within the OHS and will OSTP coordinate agency R&D efforts supporting OHS?
Answer: OSTP has taken on the responsibility for the Office of Homeland Security to coordinate the various research and development activities associated with the OHS mission. OSTP plays the lead role in helping the President ensure coordination among the agencies conducting research and development in the national security arena.
After September 11th, under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which is chaired by the President, I established an Antiterrorism Task Force, which I chair. Under that Task Force are four working groups:
The Biological and Chemical Preparedness Working Group coordinates federal antiterrorism research and development efforts and is responsible for setting a five year research agenda in that area by August 1 of this year;
The Radiological, Nuclear and Conventional Detection and Response Working Group performs the same function within its focus areas;
The Social, Behavioral and Educational Working Group does the same in those areas associated with understanding and influencing the behavior of terrorists; and
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The Protection of Vulnerable Systems Working Group is concerned with the Nation's physical infrastructure and is intimately connected with the coordination efforts of the Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security Richard Clarkein particular the Research and Development Working Group which I co-chair with him.
Also of note is a Rapid Response Team that I created under the Antiterrorism Task Force. Comprised of key science and technology decision-makers within each agency involved with research and development, the team is an efficient gateway to agency expertise when fast and flexible research, development, testing and deployment is needed in a crisis, such as the anthrax mailings last October.
The close association between OHS and OSTP in the area of R&D has recently been taken a step further: my Assistant Director for Homeland and National Security also fills the post of Senior Director for Research and Development within OHS. This provides OHS seamless reach back into the scientific talent resident in the OSTP staff, and provides OSTP visibility into the various issues OHS is confronting, thus bringing the resources of the science and technology community to bear on homeland security issues in an efficient and expedited manner.
OSTP and OHS have organized an interagency working group, called the counter-nuclear smuggling working group, that will result in a fully coordinated program for addressing the threat of nuclear smuggling across borders, both overseas and in the United States. This working group will develop a strategic plan with a unified set of program goals and priorities, including within its scope the programs that implement and deploy current capabilities, as well as programs that research and develop new capabilities. This group is co-chaired with the National Security Council and has been constituted under the Office of Homeland Security's Research and Development Policy Coordinating Committee.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
In addition, at my request, the RAND Corporation is conducting a survey of all agencies to determine their respective antiterrorism activities. This survey will provide a snapshot of efforts underway throughout the federal enterprise, yielding insight into program content and level of effort.
In addition, my office and I also are working closely with the Nation's science and technology community to bring its talents to bear on homeland security issues. One example of these efforts has been to initiate a study within the National Academy of Sciences focused on where science and technology can be applied in the fight against terrorism. This study involves several of the best and most experienced minds in the Nation, many of which had been thinking about terrorism prior to the September 11th attacks. I also have asked a subpanel of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which I co-chair, to study ways in which to better engage the Nation's commercial research and development sector in the fight against terrorism.
B. You have also been tasked to chair the R&D committee of the newly established Critical Infrastructure Protection Board chaired by Richard Clarke. How will these efforts be coordinated with the Office of Homeland Security?
Answer: The establishment of the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (PCIPB) in October 2001 under Executive Order 13231 created a focal point for addressing cyber-related vulnerabilities within the Federal Government and the private sector.
Executive Order 13212 established a Standing Committee for Research and Development, chaired by OSTP, to coordinate a program of Federal Government research and development for protection of information systems for critical infrastructure, including emergency preparedness communications, and the physical assets that support such systems, and to ensure coordination of government activities in this field with corporations, universities, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, and national laboratories.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The long-term objective of the newly formed interagency Standing Committee for Research and Development is to maintain and support a vigorous and effective program of federal research and development in Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) that rapidly identifies, develops, and facilitates the fielding of technologies and management tools that provide protection against existing and emerging infrastructure threats and vulnerabilities.
Under the CIP Standing Committee for Research, eight working groups were established including:
Information and Communication
Banking and Finance
Energy
Transportation
Interdependencies
Vital Human Services (including water, emergency services, government services/defense)
Physical Asset Protection
Inasmuch as the responsibility for R&D issues in the Office of Homeland Security and the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board both reside in OSTP, a high level of coordination will occur on such matters. Indeed, a joint working group on protection of physical infrastructures has been established to merge the efforts of the Physical Asset Protection Working Group under the CIP Committee for R&D, and the Protection of Vulnerable Systems Working Group under the NSTC Antiterrorism Task Force.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
C. OMB Director Mitch Daniels observed that every agency was attempting to justify funding for its programs in terms of importance to homeland security. What specific research and development programs are considered to be ''homeland security programs?'' What definitions were applied and who determined whether a program met these definitions? Were these definitions applied consistently across the agencies?
Answer: All R&D that is counted as combating terrorism is also considered homeland security. The budget data request that went out to agencies included the following definition: ''Definition: Homeland security activities are focused on combating and protecting against terrorism that occurs within the United States and its territories. Such activities include efforts to detect, deter, protect against, and if needed, respond to terrorist attacks. Items now included in the crosscut process that were not included previously are border security activities captured during the budget process.'' There was an effort to ensure that the definition was applied consistently throughout the federal agencies. The Office of Homeland Security made the final decision as to what programs were included.
3. Program Investment Criteria
DOE participated in an OMB pilot project to evaluate applied research programs. What criteria were developed, who participated in their development and who conducted the actual program reviews?
Answer: The criteria are:
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
1) Programs support an area identified by the President as a high priority;
2) Projects support research in which there is a clear public benefit and private sector investment is less than optimal due to market failure;
3) Investment in research presents the best means to support the Federal policy goals, compared to other policy alternatives;
4) Proposals are comprehensive, complete, and include performance indicators, ''off ramps,'' and clear termination points;
5) Projects are subject to a competitive merit-based process, with external review when practical;
6) Programs are making progress towards milestones and projects are producing benefits on-schedule and cost-effectively.
Development of the criteria involved broad participation of stakeholders and interested parties. In addition to the Department, OMB and OSTP also consulted Congressional Members and staff, the Council on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences, corporate R&D executives, and a number of environmental, academic, and industry associations. These conversations are ongoing and will continue as the effort shifts from criteria development to implementation.
The three programs involved (Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy) prepared and reviewed the material, which went to the Department and to OMB for further review.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A. If these are implemented across the government, who will conduct the program reviews in the future?
B. The budget indicates that similar criteria are being developed for basic research programs for use during the FY04/05 budget cycles. Who is participating in the development? What criteria are being developed, and who will conduct the actual evaluations? Which programs will be evaluated using the basic research criteria and which will be evaluated using the applied research criteria?
Answers (to A & B): The key to success for this effort is for R&D performers and managers to understand and internalize this guidance in their day-to-day activities and decisions. Therefore, agencies will be responsible for assessing their programs against the R&D criteria. As a result of these efforts, the agencies will have the opportunity to present a more transparent picture of their portfolios whether internally, to outside stakeholders or to oversight bodies such as OMB and the Congress.
OMB and OSTP are working together to develop investment criteria for all R&D, and to work with the R&D agencies to implement them in specific programs.
4. Space Station Research Capabilities
The President's budget states that NASA must demonstrate that it has made the necessary management reforms and changes to get the Space Station costs under control before it will consider any development beyond the U.S. ''Core Complete.'' What are the criteria that the Administration will use to judge NASA's performance in reforming the program? When will the criteria be publicly available? Who will judge whether NASA receives a passing grade?
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer: While the International Space Station (ISS) program has achieved remarkable technical successes, it has not been as successful in meeting financial milestones. Since the beginning of the Administration, it has been clear that improved fiscal management and program control are critical to the future of the program and to maximizing the science return from this incredible resource. The President's Budget Blueprint for FY 2002 laid the groundwork for attaining cost control and regaining credibility for the program to reach its full potential. Thanks to the efforts of the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force, led by Mr. Thomas Young, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is beginning to establish proper controls and taking steps to regaining cost credibility. The Administration is working with NASA to develop performance measures and a method by which they will be assessed. This plan and criteria should be completed and made available this summer.
5. Space Station Science Priorities
The Young Report on the Space Station found that NASA needed to develop a clear set of priorities for research on the Space Station. Furthermore, the budget states that future decisions on the configuration of the ISS will be based upon scientific needs.
A. What role will OSTP play in developing and vetting these research priorities?
B. When can we expect to see such a report on Space Station research priorities from the Administration?
Answers (to A and B): The International Space Station (ISS) Management and Cost Evaluation Task Force (ICME) (chaired by Thomas Young) recommended that major changes be made in how the ISS program is managed to ensure that Space Station cost growth is under control and, therefore, restore confidence in NASA's cost management. To maximize research within the President's 2002 Budget, the Task Force also stated that ''scientific research priorities must be established, and an executable program, consistent with those priorities, must be developed and implemented.''
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
NASA, together with OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget, is working to engage the scientific community and establish clear, high priority and affordable science objectives with near-term focus on improving scientific productivity. Toward this aim, NASA initiated an independent Research Maximization and Prioritization (REMAP) Task Force to recommend research priorities and direction for the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR), including the ISS. The Task Force, co-chaired by Dr. Rae Silver, Professor at Columbia University and member of the ICME Task Force, and Dr. David Sherry, Retired Director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, is composed of scientific leaders from academia and industry. An OSTP representative and NASA's Chief Scientist serve as ex-officio members of the Task Force. The results of the REMAP review will help set the science agenda for biological and physical research across the agency, and will examine how to maximize the scientific return from a number of platforms, of which the Space Station is the largest. One major outcome of this prioritization will be to increase the efficiency and research output on ISS, and realign NASA's research portfolio to reflect current priorities. A draft report will be presented to the NASA Advisory Council in June and the final report is expected this summer.
6. National Aerospace Strategy
Bob Walker, former Science Committee Chair and current head of the Aerospace Commission, wrote an open letter to the President and the House and Senate leadership arguing that current government aerospace spending and responsibilities are scattered across the U.S. government without a national strategy. How does the Administration plan to coordinate the aerospace spending and responsibilities of the various agencies and programs?
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer: This Administration views aerospace as an industry that is vital to America's national security and economic growth. The Congress and the Administration have formed the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. The purpose of the Commission is to provide recommendations to ensure that the U.S. continues to exercise global leadership in aerospace. In its Interim Report #2, the Commission recommended that the Administration ''immediately create a multi-agency taskforce with the leadership to develop and implement an integrated plan to transform our air transportation system.'' The Administration agrees that the key to coordinating investment and programs across agencies is having a mechanism for bringing the relevant agencies and other parties together to forge a fully coordinated, concrete plan. Based on discussions with the Department of Transportation (DOT), we anticipate that DOT will shortly respond affirmatively to the Commission's recommendation and that meaningful actioninvolving many other key playerswill follow shortly thereafter.
7. Climate Change
A. The USGCRP has prepared a 10-year science plan. When will this plan be made public?
Answer: The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) prepared a draft of a 10-year science plan in 2001. However, President Bush announced the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) on June 11, 2001, with the intent of revitalizing the Nation's investment in climate research. Many of the provisions of the President's CCRI program will have a significant relationship to the USGCRP. It was therefore thought to be prudent to hold the further development of the 10 year plan in order to ensure consistency with the CCRI rather than finalize and release the plan only to have to either correct or retract the document. The existing draft plan will, of course, be one of the inputs to the development of the CCRl. As we reach the later stages of development of the CCRI program, it will then be appropriate to assess the best way of integrating all aspects of the new climate change program into the strategic plan and release it to the public as was originally intended. This should take place in the coming months.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
B. The goals for CCRI are currently unclear. When will we receive more information? What is its relation to GCRP?
Answer: The overarching goals expressed by the President for CCRI are to make our climate change science more relevant for policy makers and to focus on products that will produce useful information in the 25 year timeframe. Meetings within the President's new management structure for climate change are now regularly taking place. These meetings of representatives from high levels of all of the relevant agencies are developing further clarity to address your questions in more detail. For example, the goals, priorities and actions that need to be taken under the CCRI are the focus of these meetings. In the coming weeks and months ahead, all involved are looking forward to sharing this information with Congress.
One of the important first steps of this CCRI process is developing an inventory of those activities that have been ongoing under USGCRP, along with other climate-related activities that may not have been included under USGCRP. Once this inventory is in hand and there is agreement on the criteria and priorities for the CCRI, we will develop an implementation plan for the CCRI.
Questions Submitted by Ranking Minority Member Ralph M. Hall
1. Complexity
You stated during the hearing that the complexity of living systems vastly exceeds the complexity of other systems studied in science. In a speech to AAAS on February 15, you stated that ''the opening of the frontier of complexity creates far more opportunities in the life sciences, and that given the new atomic-level capabilities the life sciences may still be underfunded relative to the physical sciences.''
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A. How do you define ''complexity''?
B. Does it differ with NSF's program in ''biocomplexity''? Be specific.
C. Does it differ from the work of the Sante Fe Institute? Be specific.
D. Are there studies, surveys, or other reviews which indicate that the future of science is ''complexity''? (In other words, where did your theory about the frontier of complexity originate?)
E. Are you saying that the fraction of federal funding for life sciences should increase?
F. If so, do you advocate doing this by cutting physical sciences R&D or by increasing life sciences R&D?
Answers (A through F): Complexity, as I have used it in my presentations, is relatively straightforward, referring only to the diversity of interactions that must be explained before we have any hope of understanding how a system works. Many of these interactions are best described at the juncture of scientific disciplines. The complicated interactions among the physics, chemistry, and biology of a living cell, for example, are staggering. To a certain degree, the Biocomplexity program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) reflects this view, but is more focused on interactions among the physical environment, individual organisms, and populations. Some of the work at the Santa Fe Institute, and elsewhere, is attempting to model certain aspects of complexity. I cannot point to any one study that proclaims complexity as the ''future of science.'' However, several factors have led me to view the study of complexity as the next exciting scientific frontier. The increasing number of breakthroughs that are occurring as a result of interdisciplinary approaches (e.g., breakthroughs in nanoscience) and the availability of vast computational capability and powerful new instruments to analyze and manipulate experimental systems point to a future where previously intractable problems of complexity can be solved. While there will always be a compelling need to support basic disciplinary science, we should expect to see an increasing number of significant breakthroughs at the frontiers of complexity. Funding priorities should reflect where scientific opportunities and societal needs lie, as well as what is needed to support core disciplinary sciences.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
2. Climate Change
The President's FY 2003 NASA budget request indicates that future Earth Science missions will remain in limbo until the Administration completes an interagency review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. I'd like to ask you a few simple questions so that we can have a basis for grading the Administration's intentions and performance to date on this task:
A. Has the interagency review been initiated? If so, when? If not, when will it begin?
Answer: Meetings of the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change Science and Technology have begun, and the process of conducting and inventory of existing programs and establishing criteria for prioritization has been initiated. While this is a difficult task, there is a desire to conduct this review in as timely a manner as possible.
B. When will the interagency review be completed?
Answer: Currently, the schedule is one of the items being discussed by the Interagency Working Group, so I would not want to provide an exact date until that discussion has been completed. With that said, I can say that there is recognition that this review must be accelerated in order to be relevant and feed into the FY 2004 budget process.
C. Have the Terms of Reference for the interagency review been completed? If not, when will they? If they have been completed, what are they? What are the specific goals of the review?
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer: The interagency review including the discussion of the terms of reference is moving ahead and meetings are occurring on a regular basis. We appreciate that rigorous identification and prioritization of programs relevant to climate change needs to take place. The overall goal, of course, is to move toward creating a cohesive climate change program that is producing the type of information that is relevant to policy and decision makers, in order to address the issue of climate change in the 25 year timeframe.
D. Who will chair the interagency review?
Answer: The President has given primary responsibility for the overall Climate Change Science and Technology Management Structure to Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans. The recent interagency committee meetings at the deputy-level have been chaired by Under Secretary of Energy, Bob Card. The committee will continue to develop the framework and terms of reference for the review process.
E. Have the participants in the interagency review been identified?
Answer: Each relevant agency is represented on each of the committees within the climate change science and technology management structure. The agencies have named individual representatives to the committees that are responsible for undertaking the review.
F. Out-year funding for NASA's Earth Science missions was cut by hundreds of millions of dollars in the Administration's FY 2002 NASA budget request. The FY 2003 budget request would further delay follow-on Earth Science missions with no assurance that those follow-on missions will be allowed to proceed in the FY 2004 budget year. A series of indefinite deferrals and reviews can be the same as cancellation. What is the Administration's commitment to NASA's follow-on Earth Observing System missions?
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer: NASA is committed to extending the key climate data records initiated by EOS through a series of follow-on missions, currently in formulation: NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LCDM), and Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM). Decisions on other future EOS follow-on missions will be made following the completion of the Administration's review of the climate program.
3. NASA Issues
The FY 2003 budget request contains funding for a space nuclear power and propulsion initiative. The stated goals seem laudable: reducing the trip times for solar system exploration missions and increasing the scientific return of future missions. However, there are three areas of potential concern with the proposed initiative: safety, implementation approach, and intentions.
A. Our launch vehicles sometimes fail. What assurances can you give this Committee and the Nation that any space nuclear device you want to launch into space will not pose an unacceptable risk to public health and safety in the event of an accident?
Answer: All Government spacecraft that use nuclear power sources are subject to the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP) process that has been used to approve previous nuclear powered spacecraft missions such as the Pioneer, Voyager, Viking, Galileo and Cassini spacecraft. Regardless of whether they use existing technology or systems developed under NASA's Nuclear Power and Nuclear Electric Propulsion initiatives, this review process will continue to apply to future spacecraft.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
NASA's Nuclear Power initiative is seeking more efficient power conversion systems for radioisotope thermal power generators. Per unit of power, this should decrease the amount of nuclear fuel needed for generators on future NASA spacecraft, which should have benefits over existing systems from a safety standpoint.
NASA's Nuclear Electric Propulsion initiative is seeking to use small nuclear reactors to power future electric propulsion systems. Unlike radioisotope thermal power generators, which are ''on'' all the time, nuclear reactors would not have to be activated and ''go hot'' until they are in space and on a trajectory away from Earth, which should also have benefits over existing systems from a safety standpoint.
B. We tried to develop a space nuclear power source in the 1980s and early 1990s on an interagency basis (NASA, DOE, and DOD). SP100 was a costly failure. What do you intend to do differently this time around to improve the odds of success?
Answer: SP100 was a technology demonstration project without a clear application. Today, NASA faces clear challenges in robotic planetary exploration, especially in the outer Solar System, that require new capabilities in power and propulsion. Without significant advances over existing capabilities, some research targets will remain expensive and hard to reach and some types of planetary missions will remain unaffordable or impossible to conduct. This tie between technology development and the science user is a major difference between SP100 and NASA's Nuclear Power and Nuclear Electric Propulsion initiatives. The same division within NASA, the Space. Science Enterprise, manages both NASA's planetary science programs and the Nuclear Power and Nuclear Electric Propulsion initiatives. Given the challenges future planetary science missions face, NASA's Space Science Enterprise has a vital interest in and will seek to ensure that these initiatives produce useful, affordable, and capable power and propulsion systems for future robotic planetary spacecraft.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
C. Parts of the Department of Defense have made no secret of their desire for nuclear reactors in Earth orbit to power space-based weapons. The new NASA Administrator has made no secret of his desire to work more closely with the DOD, and one part of NASA's proposed nuclear power and propulsion initiative is to work on space-qualified nuclear fission reactor designs. Some would say that NASA is being used by this Administration to establish the political precedent that it is okay to operate nuclear reactors in Earth orbit. How do you respond?
Answer: The President's FY 2003 Budget provides funding for NASA's Nuclear Power and Nuclear Electric Propulsion initiatives on the basis of their benefit to NASA's planetary science programs, not on the basis of other applications. The research targets (planets, moons and other solar system objects) for NASA's planetary science missions lie beyond Earth orbit. As with prior nuclear powered NASA planetary science spacecraft, NASA would not place future planetary science spacecraft using a reactor-based power or propulsion source in Earth orbit. Instead, these spacecraft would be sent on trajectories to escape Earth orbit.
4. Aviation R&D
The Administration's policy towards aviation R&D is very unclear.
A. NASA issues an ambitious ''blueprint for aeronautics'' days after we learn that NASA's aeronautics R&D funding is being cut again in the FY 2003 budget request;
B. OMB's ''scorecard'' indicates that NASA needs to improve the rate at which industry makes use of NASA's aviation technology developments, while others in the Administration argue that R&D to benefit the aviation industry is ''corporate welfare''; and,
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
C. The White House issues a Presidential directive early this year establishing an interagency working group to develop a ''comprehensive vision for air transportation''and then subsequently withdraws the directive without explanation.
Can you explain what is going on, and what role you think the government should be playing in aviation R&D?
Answers (A through C): NASA's FY 2003 budget request of $541 million for aeronautics and aviation R&D is a $14 million or three percent increase over NASA's FY 2002 budget request. NASA's Aeronautics Blueprint highlights several areas of aviation R&D investment with promise for improving the Nation's air system. NASA's FY 2003 budget request aligns with and supports NASA's Aeronautics Blueprint in the following areas:
Aviation Safety ($95 million)technologies that can reduce aircraft accidents
Airspace Systems ($125 million)technologies to improve capacity of the Nation's airports, reduce air traffic congestion, and make air travel more accessible
Ultra Efficient Engine and Quiet Aircraft Technology ($70 million)technologies to reduce aircraft noise and air pollution from jet engines.
In addition to these areas, NASA's FY 2003 Budget requests $251 million in other aeronautical research under the Vehicle Systems program. Over five years, NASA's aeronautics R&D investment will total $2.7 billion. This amount includes only program direct spending; it does not include NASA spending on civil servant salaries or fundamental technology investments that also support NASA aeronautics and aviation R&D.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Given the substantial size of this investment and the potential benefits of NASA aeronautics and aviation R&D to challenges in, for example, air system safety, airport congestion, and aircraft pollution, it is important that NASA activities be selected based on and linked to implementation in the Nation's air system. The President's FY 2003 Budget states that there currently no means of ensuring that NASA technology investments will ''actually be incorporated into the national air system.'' Thus, the President's FY 2003 Budget directs NASA to ''strengthen its ties with the FAA.'' In addition, OMB and OSTP are developing criteria for R&D programs, including NASA aeronautics research, that will be used to help ensure that aeronautics and aviation R&D decisions and investments link to implementation in the Nation's air system.
5. Science Budgets and Metrics
You were quoted Monday in New Technology Week as saying that you support and understand the performance metrics that the Administration has used on a limited basis for R&D programs and wants to expand in the 2004 budget process. In today's testimony you indicate that you participated in meetings at OMB on science budget issues. I would like to ask you some questions about the science performance metrics.
A. The budget cites a pilot project in DOE's fossil fuels programs as the proving ground for performance metrics. Can you comment specifically on how applicable the standards and lessons from that pilot are for use in basic research programs?
Answer: The R&D criteria effort is about more than defining performance metrics. From the start, OMB and OSTP have expressed that the expectations of basic research programs will be different from those for later stage applied research and development programs. OMB and OSTP are developing the larger framework for how the many different types of R&D programs maybe assessed. That said, the DOE process did demonstrate the value of getting started early in the budget process, as well as having agency ownership of the process for implementing the criteria and improving R&D management.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
B. NSF has been widely cited in the press for receiving a green light among its management scores (the green light, yellow light, red light system). While eight separate programs at HHS are reviewed, NIH is not one. What scores did NIH receive? Why was NIH left out of the budget reviewdoesn't it deserve special management attention since it has been receiving such large increases over the past five years?
Answer: The red-yellow-green scores are specific to the five government-wide initiatives of the President's Management Agenda. The program effectiveness ratings shown in the budget chapters area different type of assessment. OMB rated eight programs at the Department of Health and Human Services based on available information as the budget was being compiled. Program effectiveness rating for NIH will continue to be considered and will be shown in future budget documents.
C. The President's budget contains a chapter on Research and Development, which includes a list of seven ''fundamental principles'' that will underlie the performance metrics. The seventh principle is that ''resources for new R&D priorities will be increased by reducing or eliminating the funding for programs that have completed their mission or that are redundant or obsolete.'' It was 15 years between the 1972 Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer Nobel Physics Prize for Superconductivity and the 1987 Nobel Prize to Bednorz and Muller for Superconductivity in ceramic materials. Only now, another 14 years on, are we seeing the installation of super-conducting cables (in Detroit) to carry electricity. What would keep long-term research, with such long lags between breakthrough in the lab and pay-off in the market, being terminated as ''obsolete'' under these principles? Who at OMB, with their year-to-year prejudice, understands the difficulties of measuring outcomes that take thirty years and more to show up?
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer: OSTP and OMB both understand the nature of and value of long-term basic research. The basic research goal for improving knowledge or understanding makes it a challenge to estimate outcomes at the beginning of the process, or fully understand results during and even after the process, but OMB will continue to work with agencies to explore ways to set goals that account for the long-term nature of research. Neither OSTP nor OMB will expect fundamental basic research to demonstrate its value in terms of market pay-off over short timeframes.
D. Will Presidential priorities be subjected to the same scrutiny as other programs? Other than the commitment to double NIH and antiterrorism research, what are the current initiatives that are considered Presidential priorities? Would OSTP recommend any other issues that should receive this special designation?
Answer: Presidential priorities will be subjected to the same scrutiny as other programs. OSTP and OMB are currently developing a guidance memo for Agencies and Departments on our priorities for FY 2004, which we will be glad to share with the Committee upon its completion.
6. Homeland Security
What criteria were used to define programs that would be included in the homeland security budget? Are the criteria similar across all Departments and Agencies or did each Agency use its own definition?
Answer: All R&D that is counted as combating terrorism is also considered homeland security. The budget data request that went out to Agencies and Departments included the following definition: ''Definition: Homeland security activities are focused on combating and protecting against terrorism that occurs within the United States and its territories. Such activities include efforts to detect, deter, protect against, and if needed respond to terrorist attacks. Items now included in the crosscut process that were not included previously are border security activities captured during the budget process.''
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
There was an effort to ensure that the definition was applied consistently throughout the federal agencies. The Office of Homeland Security made the final decision as to what programs were included.
BIOGRAPHY FOR SAMUEL W. BODMAN
77746b6.eps
Samuel W. Bodman is the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce. A financier and executive by trade, he is well suited to his role of managing the day-to-day operations of the cabinet agency with 40,000 employees and a $5 billion budget. An engineer by training, he is well qualified for his specific oversight focus on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
With 31 years' experience in the private sector, Deputy Secretary Bodman is a firm believer in the American free enterprise system. His work in the finance industry began when he was professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) and started consulting with the venture capital sector. He and his partners and associates provided financial and managerial support to scores of new business enterprises located throughout the United States. Virtually all of these companies had strong dependence on technology and innovation. Many of these achieved great financial success and established public markets for their securities.
Born in 1938 in Chicago, he graduated in 1961 with a B.S. in chemical engineering from Cornell University. In 1965, he completed his ScD at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For the next six years he served as an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT and as Technical Director of the American Research and Development Corporation, a pioneer venture capital firm.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
From there, Deputy Secretary Bodman went to Fidelity Venture Associates, a division of the Fidelity Investments. In 1983 he was named President and Chief Operating Officer of Fidelity Investments and a Director of the Fidelity Group of Mutual Funds. In 1988, he joined Cabot Corporation, a Boston-based Fortune 300 company with global business activities in specialty chemicals and materials, where he served as Chairman, CEO, and a Director. Over the years, he has been a Director of many other publicly owned corporations.
Deputy Secretary Bodman has also been active in public service. He is a former Director of M.I.T.'s School of Engineering Practice and a former member of the M.I.T. Commission on Education. He also served as a member of the Executive and Investment Committees at M.I.T., a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and a Trustee of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and the New England Aquarium.
Deputy Secretary Bodman is married to M. Diane Bodman. He has three children, two stepchildren, and seven grandchildren. He and his wife reside in Washington, D.C.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce
Questions Submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
Question #1. In the last fiscal year, was National Technical Information Service (NTIS) profitable?
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer #1. Yes, NTIS reported net earnings from operations of $2.4 million in FY 2001. NTIS also reported net profits of $2.2 million in FY 2000 and $.6 million in FY 1999.
Question #2. How much did NTIS spend, and how much did the NTIS earn from sales?
Answer #2. In FY 2001, NTIS derived $34.3 million in revenue from operations and had expenses amounting to $31.9 million. All of these were derived from or related to the sale of Clearinghouse products or services, with a relatively modest amount ($.6 million in revenue and $.5 million in expenses) derived from web hosting services for other Federal agencies.
Question #3. The Clinton Administration proposed eliminating the NTIS. Has this plan been shelved, and if not, has the Administration made any proposals to reform the NTIS?
Answer #3. We consider NTIS to be a full-fledged member of the Commerce family, and we currently have no plans to eliminate it or otherwise change its status. One reform proposal is on the table. In brief, NTIS will be developing a new business model aimed at making greater use of the World Wide Web as a means of delivering its publications. A request for comment was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2001.
Questions Submitted by the Honorable Felix J. Grucci, Jr.
Question #1. The National Sea Grant College Program is being moved out of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and into the National Science Foundation (NSF). Can you elaborate on why this move is necessary?
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer #1. The proposal is a result of a review of Federal science programs that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conducted and is consistent with the President's Management Agenda. Under the proposal, the Sea Grant program would be administered as an NSF/NOAA partnership. The transfer is part of a wider Administration effort to promote competitive funding of scientific research and to capitalize on the demonstrated excellence of the NSF and its program management.
Question #2. Previously, were the grants sought by the Sea Grant Program competitive through NOAA? Would moving the program into the NSF present Sea Grant with more competition for grants across a broader spectrum of science?
Answer #2. Since 1998, the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) in NOAA allocates Sea Grant funding based on a three-tiered system that includes Base Funding, Merit Funding, and National Strategic Investments (NSIs). Core funding is defined as Base Funding plus Merit Funding. Core funds are used by each state Sea Grant program to meet priorities in their state and region as determined by a strategic planning process involving constituents from a range of backgrounds, scientists, and representatives of industry, and government. The core funds support a small group of people dedicated to communicating with relevant constituents on issues related to the Sea Grant program, as well as scientific research related to the Sea Grant mission. The numbers below refer to Sea Grant funding in FY 2002.
Base Funding ($44 Million). The base funding is designed to provide a stable base for each Sea Grant program, as required by the 1998 Sea Grant Reauthorization Act. Approximately 50 percent of base funding is awarded based on an open peer-review competition.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Merit Funding ($3 Million). Merit funding is awarded to Sea Grant programs based upon the outcome of performance evaluations conducted by boards composed of outside experts and the NOAA/NSGO every four years.
National Strategic Investments ($11 Million). National Strategic Investments (NSIs) are national competitions conducted through RFP's issued by the NOAA/NSGO. Funding decisions are solely based on a peer-review, competitive process that is very similar to that used by the NSF. NSI topics are determined through Sea Grant's authorizing legislation or administratively by the NOAA/NSGO with advice from a national issues panel. Examples of NSIs include oyster disease and oyster-related human health risks, marine biotechnology, zebra mussel and other non-indigenous species, technology development and transfer, and fisheries habitat. If the transfer occurs, it would be NSF's decision as to how to allocate the $57 million proposed for Sea Grant in the President's NSF budget. NSF and NOAA will coordinate in identifying research priorities.
BIOGRAPHY FOR RITA R. COLWELL
77746c6.eps
Dr. Rita R. Colwell became the 11th Director of the National Science Foundation on August 4, 1998.
Since taking office, Dr. Colwell has spearheaded the agency's emphases in K12 science and mathematics education, graduate science and engineering education/training and the increased participation of women and minorities in science and engineering.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Her policy approach has enabled the agency to strengthen its core activities, as well as establish support for major initiatives, including Nanotechnology, Biocomplexity, Information Technology, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and the 21st Century Workforce. In her capacity as NSF Director, she serves as Co-chair of the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council.
Under her leadership, the Foundation has received significant budget increases, and its funding recently reached a level of more than $4.8 billion.
Before coming to NSF, Dr. Colwell was President of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, 19911998, and she remains Professor of Microbiology and Biotechnology (on leave) at the University Maryland. She was also a member of the National Science Board (NSF's governing body) from 1984 to 1990.
Dr. Colwell has held many advisory positions in the U.S. Government, nonprofit science policy organizations, and private foundations, as well as in the international scientific research community. She is a nationally respected scientist and educator, and has authored or co-authored 16 books and more than 600 scientific publications. She produced the award-winning film, Invisible Seas, and has served on editorial boards of numerous scientific journals.
She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Medal of Distinction from Columbia University, the Gold Medal of Charles University, Prague, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Alumna Summa Laude Dignata from the University of Washington, Seattle.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Dr. Colwell has also been awarded 26 honorary degrees from institutions of higher education, including her Alma Mater, Purdue University. Dr. Colwell is an honorary member of the microbiological societies of the UK, France, Israel, Bangladesh, and the U.S. and has held several honorary professorships, including the University of Queensland, Australia. A geological site in Antarctica, Colwell Massif, has been named in recognition of her work in the polar regions.
Dr. Colwell has previously served as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the American Academy of Microbiology and also as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Washington Academy of Sciences, the American Society for Microbiology, the Sigma Xi National Science Honorary Society, and the International Union of Microbiological Societies. Dr. Colwell is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Born in Beverly, Massachusetts, Dr. Colwell holds a B.S. in Bacteriology and an M.S. in Genetics, from Purdue University, and a Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of Washington.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Questions Submitted for the Record from Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
Grant Proposal Funding
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Question 1. Can you provide an estimate of the number of grant proposals NSF reviewed last year that were viewed as highly meritorious, but could not be funded because of fiscal limitations?
Answer 1. A total of 3,652 proposals received an average review score of Very Good or higher and were declined.
Question 1A. How much additional research funding would have been required to fund these proposals?
Answer 1A. The amount of funds requested on these proposals totaled $2.4 billion.
Question 1B. In what areas are we missing valuable research opportunities due to a lack of funding?
Answer 1B. All NSF programs receive meritorious proposals that are declined due to fiscal limitations. Every Directorate could fund well over $100 million in grant proposals that were viewed as highly meritorious.
Advanced Technology Education
Question 2. The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is the only NSF program that focuses on the unique needs of community colleges. What impact will the reduction in the ATE budget have on community colleges and the high tech workforce, and what other NSF programs will work to address those needs? In addition, given that over 40 percent of all elementary and secondary teachers complete some of their science and mathematics course work at two-year colleges, what programs at NSF enable community colleges to strengthen their core mathematics and science courses to better serve teachers in training?
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer 2.The President's FY 2003 request for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program is decreased by $950,000 to $38.16 million. ATE currently supports 20 Centers and 82 smaller-scale projects. This redirection of funds means four fewer smaller-scale projects will be awarded. These projects, over the average three year life of the typical ATE project, could have been expected to engage 100 to 200 faculty directly, impact another 150 to 200 faculty via professional development and training activities, provide enhanced math and science instruction to 10,000 students, and prepare 3,000 technicians to enter the workforce.
NSF has at least two other programs, which address the technician workforce that is the focus of the ATE program. The Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships program was initiated in response to the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (Public Law 105277). This program supports annual merit-based scholarships for low income students pursuing associates, baccalaureate or graduate degrees in the fields of computer science, computer technology, engineering, engineering technology, and mathematics. Thus far, 21 percent of the scholarships awarded have gone to students working toward associates degrees.
Consonant with the intent of the Technology Talent Act of 2001 (H.R. 3130 and S. 1549), the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Talent Expansion Program was initiated in FY 2002. This program supports initial planning and pilot efforts at colleges and universities to achieve an increase in the number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents pursuing and receiving associate or bachelor degrees in STEM fields. Letters of intent to submit full proposals have just been received. At least 20 percent of the 187 letters were received from community colleges.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
NSF catalyzed attention to the role of community colleges in providing the core math and science preparation needed by prospective teachers with the publication of its 1999 report Investing in Tomorrow's Teachers: The Integral Role of Two-Year Colleges in the Science and Mathematics Preparation of Future Teachers (NSF 9949). There are two programs, other than ATE, which directly address this need. The STEM Teacher Preparation program is the Foundation's principal effort to strengthen the STEM content knowledge and pedagogic skills of prospective K12 teachers. Emphasis is placed on partnerships between institutions of higher education and local school districts to meet defined local/regional needs for increased quantity and quality of teachers at various grade levels. Of the 99 proposals received for FY 2002 funding, eight were from community colleges.
The Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program strengthens NSF's efforts to assure a high quality STEM education for all students by focusing on the identification, development, adaptation and implementation of exemplary curricular and laboratory educational materials and instructional models. Of the approximately 171 awards made in FY 2001 in the Adaptation and Implementation component of the CCLI program, nine went to community colleges.
NSF is actively engaged in other efforts to strengthen community colleges. The Director of the NSF Division for Undergraduate Education is designated as ''NSF's Official Liaison to Two-Year Colleges'' as called for in the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862(a), Public Law 102476). In this role, the Division Director has frequent interactions with the leadership of community colleges to identify their concerns and to advance their participation in NSF programs. On April 29, Congressman Silvestre Reyes (DTX) will be speaking at Community College Day at NSF, an annual event in support of community colleges.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Graduate Research Assistants
Question 3. NSF proposes to increase the stipend for graduate fellowships. What plans does NSF have to increase the support of graduate students who are supported by research assistantships funded through their faculty's research grants?
Answer 3. Currently, submitting institutions propose the stipend levels of graduate student research assistants (RAs) funded through their faculty research grants. This approach provides grantee institutions with the flexibility to accommodate local conditions. Stipend levels vary significantly by institution and discipline. It is widely held that the average stipend of RAs in many fields is too low to attract domestic students who are highly qualified in science, mathematics, and engineering. NSF's efforts to increase award size and duration are designed, in part, to make it possible for institutions to increase stipends for students employed as graduate research assistants.
NSF supports an estimated 24,500 graduate students in FY 2002. Of these, approximately 20,800 are supported as RAs on research grants. We estimate that a budget increase of nearly $200 million would be required to raise stipends for these research assistants to $25,000, the stipend level requested in FY 2003 for NSF Graduate Research Fellows, Graduate Teaching Fellows in K12 Education, and Integrative Graduate Education and Research Trainees.
It should be noted that NSF is only one among the many research-supporting agencies that is affected by the issue of Federal support for graduate student RAs under research grants. Any change in current policy would need to be coordinated among all affected agencies.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
NSF is studying the broad issues associated with compensation for graduate students and post-docs and plans to initiate a discussion of postdoctoral research assistantships at the May long range planning meeting of the National Science Board.
Questions for the Record from Honorable Felix J. Grucci, Jr.
Alternating Gradient Synchrotron
Question 1. The RSVP (Rare Symmetry Violating Processes) is a Major Research Equipment project awaiting funding by the National Science Foundation. It has been peer-reviewed and is looking for a new project start. This innovative project in the area of particle physics would take place at the Brookhaven National Lab and make use of the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron. With the AGS facing a serious funding threat, the RSVP would be a good way to make use of the AGS while promoting a fine research project. Do you have any comments on this?
Answer 1. In May 2000, the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Panel forwarded RSVP to the NSF Director as ''highly recommended'' for funding in FY 2002 or subsequent year.
The National Science Board unanimously passed a resolution in October 2000 authorizing inclusion of RSVP in the President's FY 2002 Budget Request or a subsequent year. To date, approximately $2.80 million has been provided for R&D studies through the Research and Related Activities Account (R&RA).
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
As part of the role of project oversight, NSF reviews and approves RSVP project management plans and the appointment of project managers. In addition, NSF conducts periodic reviews of technical developments and R&D activities in an effort to ensure readiness for MREFC if funding becomes available.
Questions for the Record from Ranking Minority Member Ralph M. Hall
Success Rates for New Proposal
Question 1. Subtracting the transferred funds leaves an actual increase for NSF R&D programs of $59 million, or 1.7 percent.
What do you expect the impact of the proposed budget will be on the funding success rate for new proposals for FY 2003, and particularly on the success rate for first-time proposals from new investigators?
Answer 1. The success rate is dependent upon the number of proposal submissions in addition to the size and duration of the awards. If proposal submissions remain steady, the success rate on new proposals would remain at roughly one award for every three proposal submissions.
Award Size and Duration
Question 2. NSF has had a goal of increasing the size and duration of grant awards. Does this continue to be an agency goal, and if so, how does this budget proposal affect that goal?
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer 2. Increasing award size and duration remain agency goals for NSF. For research grants in FY 2003, our goals are to reach average award duration at 3.0 years, and to increase average annualized award size to $125,000, from our FY 2002 goal of $113,000.
Resource limitations have affected NSF's ability to achieve both goals simultaneously, and are expected to continue to do so. NSF is obtaining the views of the research community on award size and duration issues and expects to incorporate the results of the surveys into the agency's FY 2004 budget request to OMB.
Major Research Instrumentation
Question 3. The major research instrumentation program, which provides support for large scientific instruments that are too expensive to be funded under normal research grants, is cut by 29 percent in the FY 2003 budget request. Since up-to-date instrumentation is a basic infrastructure requirement for carrying out leading edge research, what is the rationale for this cut? Has NSF carried out a study that shows instrumentation needs at universities are declining?
Answer 3. NSF has not conducted a formal study of instrumentation needs at research institutions and has no evidence that these needs are declining. The $54 million requested by NSF for Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) in FY 2003 is 8 percent above the $50 million proposed for the program in FY 2002. The $54 million included in NSF's FY 2003 budget reflects the need within the Foundation to balance competing priorities for research, education, and infrastructure support.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
In addition, guidance received from the Administration advised that the President's FY 2003 budget would focus primarily on combating terrorism, homeland security, and economic recovery while moderating growth in overall spending. We believe that the funding level requested for NSF and for the MRI program achieves this balance and allows NSF to focus resources on other higher priority programs identified by the Administration.
In FY 2001, NSF received additional funding of $25 million for the MRI program to support instrumentation needs at smaller research institutions. That year, the program received a total of 741 proposals requesting $304.3 million. Non-Ph.D. granting institutions submitted 302 proposals (40.7 percent of the total) requesting $54.8 million and received 170 awards totaling $25.3 million. These awards were distributed among 228 non-Ph.D. granting institutions in 44 states.
Increased funding provided by the Congress in FY 2002 will enable NSF to support instrument development and acquisition at non-Ph.D. granting institutions and minority institutions. In FY 2002, NSF received 689 proposals for major research instrumentation that totaled $297.3 million. Of the total, 266 or 38.6 percent were submitted by non-Ph.D. granting institutions and minority institutions; these proposals requested a total of $55.8 million from NSF.
Hiaper
Question 4. The request fails to request the next funding increment for the environmental research aircraft for the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $81.5 million, of which $56 million, or 68 percent, has already been appropriated. What is the rationale for not requesting funding for FY 2003? Are you proposing to terminate the project, and if not, what will be the effect on the overall cost of the project due to this funding delay?
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer 4. To date, $55.97 million has been appropriated for acquisition of a High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER). There is no plan to cancel the aircraft procurementacquisition of a new atmospheric research aircraft remains among NSF's highest priority infrastructure investments. Tremendous progress has been made on acquiring the aircraft over the last year. The University Consortium for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), the organization that manages NCAR, entered into a contract for acquisition and post-construction modification of a Gulfstream GV aircraft with Gulfstream Aerospace. The modification of the aircraft to make it research ready will be done by Lockheed Martin. Delivery of the unmodified aircraft by Gulfstream is expected in late June of 2002.
The current estimated cost of acquisition, modification, and outfitting of HIAPER is $81.50 million. An additional $25.53 million is necessary to complete the acquisition and make HIAPER available to the research community based on this current estimate. The delay will result in a cost increase to the project. We are currently estimating what the additional cost will be.
Prioritizing Facility Construction Projects
Question 5. There has been confusion about the process for prioritizing facilities construction projects that appear in the NSF budget request. The projects for which funding is requested in the FY 2003 budget, and the two projects funded last year but not included in this request, have all been approved by the National Science Board to go forward to construction. Does it matter if the projects that receive appropriations are not the ones included in a particular budget request, provided that they are projects that the National Science Board has approved for construction? Should we expect to see a rank-ordered list of approved projects in the future?
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Answer 5. Yes it matters if projects that are not requested in the budget receive appropriations while those included in the budget do not. NSF, working with OMB guidance, selects those MREFC projects that are most ready, timely and appropriate for funding in each fiscal year. There are many factors to consider when making this selection, including the overall funding balance among NSF's strategic goals of People, Ideas and Tools. Moreover, each year brings new scientific opportunities and challenges.
NSF prefers not to include a rank-ordered priority list of projects in its budget request. While establishing a rank-ordered priority list may appear to provide the community with an understanding of which project is next in line, such a list is likely to become outdated after even a single year due to such exigencies as budgeting constraints that delay funding or changes brought about by new opportunities that require immediate attention. A rank ordered list tends to be viewed as invariant, but the actual process is dynamic. We will continue to discuss this issue with the Administration and Congress in the coming months.
Complex Interactions Between Society and Technology
Question 6. Your testimony mentions a new request for $10 million to ''explore the complex interactions between new technology and society.'' This was essentially the goal of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, which was abolished by the Congress in 1995. How would you compare your new initiative with the work of the OTA?
Answer 6. The OTA provided short-term assessment of technologies and their implications for society based on current knowledge. The NSF priority area will support longer-term, more comprehensive basic research to increase our knowledge of the complex interactions between society and technology.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Advances in technology have changed almost every aspect of our lives. They have changed the character of investigations into social systems, economic structures, human cognition and behavior. They have also changed the character of the tools available for exploring these systems. At the same time these social and economic systems impact the speed of technological innovation.
NSF's new priority area focuses on: (1) Developing research methods that take full advantage of new science and technologies and infusing them within the social, behavioral and economic sciences, changing the substance and character of future investigations; (2) Expanding knowledge of fundamental human capabilities with an eye to development of technologies to enhance them; (3) Understanding the social frameworks for science and technology innovation and potential paths to accelerate processes for responsible development and innovation; (4) Understanding factors involved in acceptance/adaptation to technological change enabling our society to take greater advantage of technology and to anticipate and prepare for its consequences; and (5) Understanding factors involved in sustaining democracy and social order at home and in rapidly changing societies throughout the world. In the first year, focus will be on decision-making and risk analysis related to climate change, as part of the Administration's Climate Change Research Initiative, and on bringing new tools to the social, behavioral and economic sciences.
BIOGRAPHY FOR BRUCE M. CARNES
Mr. Carnes entered federal service in 1976. Initially, he served as a program analyst for the Office of Post-secondary Education in the U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., but was soon appointed a program specialist for graduate training, responsible for administration of graduate fellowship and legal training programs.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
In 1979, he joined the National Endowment for the Humanities as Assistant Director, Office of Planning and Policy Analysis. He later assumed the post of Director, Office of Planning and Budget, managing the development of overall agency program policy, budget, legislative proposals, congressional testimony and agency management issues.
In 1985, Mr. Carnes was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate to Deputy Under Secretary of Education for Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, in charge of developing policy proposals in education, departmental program budget and legislative proposals, oversight of program operations and manpower resources, and congressional testimony as principal and supporting witness. During his tenure in that position, he also served as the Education Department's Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Management, responsible for overall department policy and operations in personnel, contracts and grants, finance and accounting, ADP, and administrative resources.
Mr. Carnes became Director for the Office of Planning, Budget and Administration, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, in 1989. In this capacity, he developed program budget processes and the government-wide national drug control budget; coordinated the development of the national drug control strategy; conducted research and analyses on drug control issues; and represented the office before other federal agencies, Congress and the public. From February to June 1993, he also served as the Office of Drug Control Policy's Acting Director.
In 1993, Mr. Carnes became Assistant Deputy Director for Plans and Management for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, a nearly 20,000-employee Defense Agency responsible for the Defense Department's worldwide financial operations. He served briefly as Acting Principal Deputy Director of the DFAS Columbus Center, and in 1996 became the agency's Deputy Director for Resource Management.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
As Director of Resource Management, Mr. Carnes served as the agency's Chief Financial Officer, advising the Director and staff on all matters pertaining to resource management, including programming, budget formulation, presentation and execution, and work force management. In addition to managing all funds provided to DFAS, Mr. Carnes conducted economic and cost-benefit studies and analyses on proposals and initiatives involving accounting and finance activities, and oversaw the agency's plans, congressional liaison, public affairs, customer service, internal audit and administrative functions as well as Operations Mongoose program and the Acquisition Support Organization. He was also responsible for measuring the cost savings associated with the standardization and consolidation of accounting and finance policies, procedures and operationsthe primary goal of DFAS.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Bruce Carnes, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy
Questions Submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
Role of the National Laboratories in Homeland Security R&D
Q1a. The Committee understands that DOE's share of the Homeland Security budget is roughly 3 percent, or $1.1 billion. What portion of this amount is for R&D? What portion is ''new money'' requested for FY 2003?
A1a. Of the $1.2 billion requested in the Department of Energy budget for Homeland Security-related activities in FY 2003, about 6 percent is for research and development. The $79 million requested and characterized as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Sensor R&D in the table below is 'new money' for Program activities conducted in the National Nuclear Security Administration, in Particular Nonproliferation and Verification R&D.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q2a. How is the $1.1 billion distributed among the national laboratories?
A2a. Most of the Department's $1.2 billion request for Homeland Security is related to securing the nuclear weapons complex and other DOE sites containing radioactive materials, protecting stockpile materials, securing nuclear weapon assets while in transit, providing for nuclear emergency response, and providing for increased protective forces at all sites. As such, this funding is allocated to the laboratories, plants and other facilities based on risk and vulnerability assessments. The allocation of the WMD Sensor R&D funding will be decided on the basis of proposals received. Estimates for the laboratories are contained in the table below:
77746i.eps
Q1b. The budget does not appear to delineate between civilian and defense responsibility for these types of activities or indicate the role of the national laboratories. What portion of DOE's Homeland Security funding for laboratories is for civilian activities, such as protection of agricultural production and distribution, infrastructure security, and civilian cyber security needs?
A1b. The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, which is a collaborative effort between the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories to provide technical support to assess infrastructure interdependencies, is requested at $20 million within the Security and Emergency Operations account. The WMD Sensor R&D tasks in chemical and biological national security and nuclear materials detection are focused primarily in methods of protecting domestic civilian populations. Activities in this area include deployment of the Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information System (BASIS). The Power Marketing Administrations' expenditure of $5.0 million is explicitly infrastructure security.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q1c. How does the Homeland Security Office plan to use the R&D capability of the national labs in sensor design and development, threat and risk assessment, and epidemiological modeling as they apply to agro-security and bioterrorism threats?
A1c. The Homeland Security Office has created several Interagency Working Groups to coordinate agency programs for countering terrorism and has incorporated several existing Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Interagency Working Groups to coordinate research and development programs. The working groups are coordinating programs and leveraging their individual investments across the Nation's science and technology community to assure that the best of our capability is employed in protecting our homeland.
A specific example of this coordination applied to the agro-security and bioterrorism threats is in genetic sequencing of microbes with possible terrorist implications. The effort is being coordinated through OSTP's Interagency Microbe Project Working Group. All agencies (National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Energy, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease, Department of Agriculture, and the Central Intelligence Agency) doing genetic sequencing are participating and agreeing on what should be sequenced, to what level and quality, and who will do the sequencing. This is a real success story as multiple agencies are pooling their resources to attack a part of the bioterrorism threat.
Clean Coal Plan
Q2. Last year, the President proposed a new $2 billion clean coal program. What are the goals of that plan, how will money be allocated, and what is the scope of research that will be conducted pursuant to the program?
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A2. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a cooperative, cost-shared, $2 billion, ten year program between government and industry to research, develop, and demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power generation and accelerate deployment to commercial use. The goal is to use our nation's abundant and secure domestic coal supply to meet increasing energy demands while protecting our environment. Operational feasibility must be demonstrated before the electric power industry will invest in new technologies whose broad deployment in the market will enable us to meet this goal. The Clean Coal Power Initiative is a key component of the National Energy Policy and the cornerstone of the President's commitment to clean coal technology.
The Clean Coal Power Initiative will create partnerships with the private sector to research, develop, and demonstrate innovations that will allow coal-fueled power plants to meet environmental regulations, while potentially increasing their power output, without imposing large new financial burdens on ratepayers. New clean coal technology is required to meet our increasing energy demands by ensuring coal's competitiveness or ensuring coal is competitive in the energy mix. One of the important program goals is to demonstrate low cost, effective technologies that can meet existing and emerging environmental regulations, and dramatically reduce compliance costs for controlled mercury, NOX, SO, and fine particulate at new and existing coal power plants. Another program goal is to develop low-cost, super-clean coal power plants, with efficiencies 50 percent higher than today's average. The higher efficiency will reduce emissions at minimal costs, since less fuel is consumed to produce the same output. In the longer-term the goal is to develop low-cost, zero-emission power plants with efficiencies close to double that of today's fleet and the potential for capturing carbon dioxide. These goals are strongly supportive of the Clear Skies Initiative and Climate Change Policy announced by the President on February 14, 2002.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The solicitation for Round I funding under the CCPI was issued on March 4, 2002. The solicitation will be open for application submission for a period of 150 days. (Until August 1, 2002). Project selections will be made by early January 2003. The CCPI Round I solicitation is seeking projects that: (1) demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies; and (2) accelerate their deployment for commercial use. The CCPI is open to any technology advancement related to coal-based power generation that results in efficiency, environmental, and economic improvement compared to currently available state-of-the-art alternatives. The solicitation is also open to technologies capable of producing any combination of heat, fuels, chemicals or other useful byproducts in conjunction with power generation. Coal must be used for at least 75 percent of the fuel energy input to the process. Additionally, projects must show the potential for rapid market penetration upon successful demonstration of the technology or concept.
Information on the Clean Coal Power Initiative can be found on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's website at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html
Q3. What is the status of DOE's review of whether the U.S. should participate in the international effort to build ITER, the experimental nuclear fusion reactor? When does DOE expect to complete the review?
A3. The Department and the Administration are reviewing the possibility of the United States joining the ITER. We expect the Administration will complete its review in the near future.
Questions Submitted by Representative Felix J. Grucci, Jr.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Alternating Gradient Synchrotron
Q1. The Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS), located at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in my Congressional district, is considered one of the world's premier scientific user facilities. In fact, three Nobel Prizes were achieved based on research done at the AGS. In this year's budget for the Department of Energy, use of the AGS has been zeroed out, ending many ground-breaking projects. Can you explain why this facility's funding is being removed from the FY 2003 budget?
A1. It is important to distinguish between the AGS as a research tool and its use as an injector for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Currently, the AGS operates primarily as an injector for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), supported by DOE's Nuclear Physics program. This activity will continue. However, because of the AGS' unique capabilities, it has operated a fixed target program on an incremental and non-interfering basis for select high energy and nuclear physics experiments. There is one approved experiment currently running at the AGS for High Energy Physics. This experiment began in FY 2002 and was scheduled to run through FY 2003. While High Energy Physics is running the AGS for research, Nuclear Physics can simultaneously use secondary beams for Medium Energy experiments. However, competition with higher priority program needs and other scientific opportunities resulted in the decision to terminate AGS operations for research in FY 2003.
Rare Symmetry Violating Processes
Q2. The RSVP (Rare Symmetry Violating Processes) is a Major Research Equipment project awaiting funding by the National Science Foundation. It has been peer-reviewed and is looking for a new project start. This innovative project in the area of particle physics would take place at the Brookhaven National Lab and make use of the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron. With the AGS facing a serious funding threat, the RSVP would be a good way to make use of the AGS while promoting a fine research project. Do you have any comments on this?
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A2. As you note, RSVP is a proposal to the NSF for a research project that would be carried out at the AGS at BNL. As you also note, RSVP has undergone peer review by the NSF. We are not privy to the detailed results of that review. We are not fully cognizant of the status of the internal decision process at the NSF for this proposal. In any case, the proposal to the NSF, as we understand it, includes funding to operate the AGS for this project. Thus termination of DOE funding for operation of the AGS for research would not significantly interfere with RSVP.
Questions Submitted by Congressman Ralph M. Hall
Evaluation of DOE Programs against Empirical Objective Data
Q1. We are getting reports of grossly inconsistent results from the application of OMB's new budget evaluation process on a trial basis this year. For example, NASA got a good grade for financial management when the Space Program is in dire straits precisely because of its financial management. In your testimony you talk about DOE programs being evaluated against ''empirical, objective data,'' among other things, to ensure that the programs deliver benefits to the American people.
Q1a. Who sets these empirical objective criteria?
A1a. DOE evaluates its research and development (R&D) programs by collaborating with external independent peer review experts, standing advisory committees (like the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee), and potential producers and users of the technology. In the last six months, DOE has been the pilot agency, in accordance with the President's Management Agenda item on R&D, to develop criteria for evaluating and scoring applied R&D investments. The Department has been working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has been collaborating with other Federal agencies to develop appropriate scoring criteria for R&D investments. DOE presented the completed DOE R&D investment criteria to OMB on April 16, 2002.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The scores that follow from evaluating R&D investment activities using the Department's new R&D criteria are based on expected R&D activity performance, benefits, and societal needs. The R&D criteria scores will give Department Managers the ability to prioritize R&D activities and select a balanced R&D portfolio that is comprised of those R&D activities (short- and long-term) that balance risk, the greatest public benefit, the highest administration priorities, and return on investment.
Q1b. How are they weighted?
A1b. In the past, these criteria have been weighted by a myriad of different complex methodologies. The new Applied R&D scoring criteria is a first attempt to provide a standardized scoring rubric throughout-the Department for evaluating R&D investments. The different questions in the rubric are not formally weighted, but have different relative degrees of importance. Thus, a project that is a Presidential priority such as Fossil Energy's Clean Coal Initiative will score well overall in spite of lower scores on some questions. Conversely, even though a project is technically feasible and provides a high return on investment may score poorly overall, because the private sector is willing and able to invest in the technology.
Q1c. How are these criteria set?
A1c. The applied R&D investment activity criteria have been developed though an extensive collaboration process involving OMB, other Federal agencies, and a wide variety of Departmental stakeholders. Each question in the Criteria carries a possible score of one to five, with five being best. The criteria are designed such that it will very difficult for any one R&D activity to achieve top scores on all criteria.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q2. What is the Department's plan for dealing with the fact that it is facing a personnel crisis? Like NASA, most of your technical talent is over 50 years of age and very few of your scientists and engineers are under 35. NASA has proposed legislation to deal with this growing demographic problem. What does DOE propose?
A2. The Department of Energy is committed to addressing the challenges of Human Capital Management currently being experienced within DOE and throughout government and has undertaken many specific initiatives.
Beginning in early 2001, the Department recognized the need to confront these challenges and in July 2001, a Human Capital Summit was convened with approximately 50 senior managers from across DOE to identify critical workforce management challenges facing the Department and to generate concrete ideas for addressing them. Five key focus areas were identified for major initiatives as follows:
Recruitment and Retention
Leadership Development and Succession Planning
Performance Management
Management Efficiency
Diversity
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Since that time, many specific short-term Human Capital Management projects have been initiated to meet the goals outlined at the Summit. These initiatives include:
Launching a new DOE-wide Career Intern Program geared at hiring entry-level employees in the key scientific, technical and business occupations;
Expanding use of automated human resources systems to streamline and speed hiring processes;
Initiating a new Executive Leadership Development Program and a DOE-wide Mentoring Program aimed at addressing succession planning needs in key technical and non-technical areas;
Developing a new SES Performance Management System that places greater emphasis on management accountability to achieve results, including addressing workforce needs in key occupational areas;
Publishing a Human Capital Flexibilities Guide that provides managers detailed guidance on the tools available to recruit and retain a talented workforce.
Many of these short-term initiatives have already been implemented and are aimed at not only recruiting and retaining a highly skilled workforce but address the entire realm of Human Capital Management challenges.
The Department developed a five-year Workforce Restructuring Plan which was initially submitted to OMB last September with an update that followed in January 2002. Substantial efforts by several major programs (Science, Environmental Management, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) to delayer management, streamline operations and address the issues of an aging technical and scientific workforce are resulting from these plans.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
In December 2001, the DOE Management Council was established and meets monthly with the primary purpose of driving implementation of the President's Management Agenda Initiatives, including Human Capital. The Council draws its membership from the leadership of DOE's major programs and activities. In January 2002, the Council organizations began focused efforts to address skills mix challenges in their workforces. In that regard, each organization on the Council undertook the following:
Identification of its current or projected skills mix problems (shortages, gaps, imbalances, demographics issues, etc.) in mission-critical occupational areas and/or positions;
The organization's plans to address these problemswhat has been done or planned, including time frames and next steps; and
What barriers exist to addressing critical skills mix problemsand what can or needs to be done to help remove or minimize such barriers.
In addition to addressing workforce skills mix issues, several weeks ago the acting chair of the Management Council requested that each organization develop business visions regarding where they want their workforce capabilities to be in three years. These statements will, of course, evolve over time but will include identification of skills gaps between the current and future states, and development of specific plans to reach these goals.
DOE has also submitted proposed legislation, with OMB's support, for continued buy-out authority through the end of 2004. This flexibility, along with other existing authorities, such as voluntary early retirement authority, use of recruitment and retention bonuses, relocation allowances, etc., will be utilized to the fullest extent possible to enhance the skills of DOE's technical and scientific workforce and accomplish Departmental goals. In addition, the Department has received through legislation special excepted service personnel authorities to do targeted hiring in key scientific, technical and professional occupations where DOE needs to be more competitive with regard to pay and retention. These authorities are being utilized on an increasing basis.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
DOE R&D Programs
Q3. You talk at length about how you've prioritized your R&D programs according to 7 or 8 ''objective'' criteria. The ''President's Management Agenda,'' published by OMB last July, made the following statements about two DOE R&D programs:
''Last year, DOE funded a mid-size turbine development project at a rate of more than $30 million a yeareven though the market had advanced to the point where all manufacturers had backlogs of orders.''
''DOE continues to fund gas-to-liquid conversion research even though the process has been commercialized. . ..'' OMB essentially made these two programs poster-children for bad management.
How were these projects selected? Who made the call? Were you involved?
Have you cancelled these two programs?
Regarding mid-size turbines, isn't it true that these turbines have great applicability to small, distributed energy generation and that in fact there is a considerable amount of research that needs to be done before they may be commercialized for many applications?
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Regarding Gas-to-Liquid Conversion, isn't it true that the costs of oxygen conversion are currently prohibitive and that in fact no commercialization of this technology has yet taken place?
A3. With regard to the turbine program, in FY 2001 DOE completed its funding for the industry cost-shared, large-scale (400 MW) Advanced Turbine Systems (ATS) program for natural gas base load power, with efficiencies of over 60 percent and very low (<10 ppm) NOX emissions. Also in 2001, DOE initiated a flexible next generation turbine technology effort to address development needs and technical issues in order to meet the goals of our Coal and Power program (i.e., fuel flexible turbines capable of running on coal gas and other fuels; combustion stability under ultra-low NOX [<3 ppm] conditions that the EPA is currently contemplating; smaller scale turbines [50150 MW] that can operate cyclically on these fuels under variable loads; and, integration with fuel cell hybrid systems to meet the ultimate goals of high efficiency, near-zero emission plants [Vision 21]). The projects (contracts) under this program were competitively selected under a solicitation issued by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer was not involved in the selection process. While there may be research needs for mid-size turbine development, it is not automatically the case that those research needs are the responsibility of the Federal Government to undertake. The research and development investment criteria are designed to help find projects best suited for Federal funds. The criteria are:
1. Programs support an area identified by the President as a high priority.
2. Projects support research in which there is a clear public benefit and private sector investment is less than optimal due to market failure.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
3. Investment in research presents the best means to support the Federal policy goals compared to other policy alternatives.
4. Proposals are comprehensive, are complete, and include performance indicators, ''off ramps,'' and clear termination points.
5. Projects are subject to a competitive merit-based process, with external review when practical.
6. Programs are making progress towards milestones and projects are producing benefits on-schedule and cost-effectively.
Even within the selection boundaries of these criteria, there are often more efforts than can be funded, which means that size of public benefits or a higher likelihood of the private sector producing the benefit without government help can influence project selection processes. Notwithstanding, we have not totally withdrawn from turbine-related research. Instead, we have moved our focus to pre-competitive efforts that can be used throughout the industry.
This year, FY 2002, the next generation turbine program is continuing its technology research to address these critical technical issues associated with fuel flexible turbine systems under a program titled High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET).
Continuation of the next generation turbine effort, under the HEET program, is also proposed in the budget request in FY 2003. A report on the Comprehensive Program Plan for HEFT was provided to Congress on April 8, 2002. Technology for the next generation turbines (which includes mid-size turbines) does have applicability to smaller scale turbines and distributed energy generation, especially in terms of cost reductions and integration with small scale fuel cell turbine hybrid power systems. Considerable amounts of research must be done to address the above technical issues, as well as cost issues, before these technologies could be deployed in various applications.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
In the past the Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) program has been a research, development, and demonstration program on all aspects of the technology. However, a recent comprehensive review of the program indicated that the Department's effort should focus on the long term research objective of economically producing synthesis gas by separating oxygen from air, and partially oxidizing methane in one step by using innovative membrane technology. GTL technologies do exist and several private companies have announced future construction plans. However, current cost factors only allow GTL technologies' market penetration in certain niches in the U.S. state-of-the-art GTL facilities would require near-zero cost natural gas as the feedstock input. The major cost factor is related to the production of synthesis gas. This one step in the process now consumes 30%40% of the capital cost needed for the construction of a complete GTL plant. The Department's program is conducting research on a potential break through in the use of membrane technology to effect this step. This has the promise of making the production of transportation fuels and hydrogen from domestic supplies of stranded natural gas competitive. The net result is that natural gas resources will be able to make a significant contribution toward meeting our national environmental and transportation goals. The projects comprising the synthesis gas program were selected through the use of established procurement processes which include competitive solicitations.
Genomes to Life
Q4. The DOE Genomes-to-Life program has been more than doubled from $15 million in last year's budget to $37 million in this request. However the Advisory Board overseeing the program has recommended increasing program funding up to $200 million per year. Does the Department agree with the recommendation, and, if so, what are DOE's plans to ramp up the funding of this program?
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A4. The Department appreciates the Advisory Committee recommendation that the program should grow to a level of $200 million per year. As part of its out-year planning, the Department will consider Genomes to Life program needs, and will develop strategies to address the development and application of the high throughput technology needs required by Genomes to Life science.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
77746j.eps
77746k.eps
77746l.eps
77746m.eps
77746n.eps
77746o.eps
77746p.eps
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
77746q.eps
77746r.eps
77746s.eps
77746t.eps
77746u.eps
77746v.eps
77746w.eps
77746x.eps
77746y.eps
77746z.eps
77746aa.eps
Next Hearing Segment(3)