Segment 1 Of 4 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
77–746PS
2002
THE R&D BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003: AN EVALUATION
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 13, 2002
Serial No. 107–57
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
C O N T E N T S
February 13, 2002
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Prepared Statement by Representative Constance Morella, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement by Representative Felix J. Grucci, Jr., Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Prepared Statement by Representative J. Randy Forbes, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel
Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Dr. Bruce M. Carnes, Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Discussion
Climate Change Research
Balance and Funding
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Oil and Gas R&D Programs
Information Technology Research
High Risk Research Proposals
Basic Research Funding
Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service
Importance of Research
MEP and ATP
Aviation R&D
Global Climate Change Research
Advanced Technology Program
Basic Research
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
Basic Research
R&D Tax Credits
Interagency Cooperation
NSF Large Facilities Personnel
Global Warming Research
Math and Science Education
Appendix 1: Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Biography
Response to Post-Hearing Questions
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce
Biography
Response to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation
Biography
Response to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Bruce M. Carnes, Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Energy
Biography
Response to Post-Hearing Questions
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
National Science Foundation—Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request
National Science Foundation—Research and Development
National Science Foundation—Summary of FY 2003 Budget Request to Congress
THE R&D BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003: AN EVALUATION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002
House of Representatives,
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
77746a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The R&D Budget for
Fiscal Year 2003
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I. Purpose
On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, the House Science Committee will hold a hearing to consider President Bush's budget request for research and development. Four witnesses will review their agencies' budget requests in the context of the Administration's overall priorities in science and technology. In addition, the witnesses have been asked to describe the mechanisms that the agencies use to determine priorities across scientific disciplines and the mechanisms that are used to coordinate scientific research and technical development activities with other Federal agencies.
The Committee will hear testimony from:
Dr. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology. As Director of the Office of Science and Technology he also co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and oversees the National Science and Technology Council. Prior to joining OSTP, Dr. Marburger served as President of the State University of New York-Stony Brook and as Director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce. Prior to joining the Department of Commerce, Dr. Bodman (an engineer by training) served as Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation, President and CEO of Fidelity Investments, and as an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation. As Director of NSF she also serves as co-chair of the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council. Before coming to NSF, Dr. Colwell served as President of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and Professor of Microbiology at the University Maryland. She was also a member of the National Science Board from 1984 to 1990.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. Bruce Carnes, Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Energy. Dr. Carnes prior experience includes service as Deputy Under Secretary of Education for Planning, Management and Evaluation; Director of the Office of Planning, Budget and Administration; Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Deputy Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service where he functioned as the agency's Chief Operating Officer.
II. Background
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY03 Federal Budget proposal. This budget provides $2,128 billion in outlays and $2,048 billion in receipts. The projected deficit declines to $80 billion. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, the budget declines from 19.8 percent to 19.5 percent.
Total discretionary budget authority(see footnote 1) is proposed to grow by 6.8 percent ($49.1 billion) from $717.8 billion to $766.9 billion. Discretionary outlays(see footnote 2) for this same period are proposed to grow by 6.5 percent ($48.5 billion) from $740.5 billion to $789 billion. The Department of Defense (DOD) budget authority is increased by $46.1 billion and budget authority for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increased by $3.7 billion. The budget assumes that the rate of inflation will be approximately 2 percent.
Issues
This budget raises a number of important issues under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. As elucidated in greater detail in the next section, while the total budget for research and development increases by 9.10 percent, the budget for research and development activities excluding DOD and HHS, rises by 0.6 percent. A look at the Science and Technology budget (subset of the R&D budget that emphasizes basic and applied research) is slightly more encouraging. The Non-Defense and Non-HHS science and technology budget grows by 3 percent. In addition, the budget raises the following issues:
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Balance of the Research Portfolio: The budget increases funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research by $3.9 billion and fulfills the Administration's pledge to double the National Institutes of Health by FY03. The $27.3 billion request for NIH is larger than the entire request for non-DOD, non-HHS, science and technology research;
Transfer of Programs: The Administration proposes to transfer three programs from various agencies to the National Science Foundation—The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Education Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Sea Grant Program and the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Hydrology of Toxic Substances Program;
President's Management Agenda: The budget outlines five government-wide management challenges that were used to assess the performance of each agency. In addition, performance criteria were used to evaluate the effectiveness of selected research programs. It is not clear how these criteria were developed and what role they played in establishing research priorities. NSF, which received high marks, received a 2.9 percent increase in its research budget. NASA, whose financial management system has received consistent criticism from GAO, Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), received a better evaluation than most other agencies;
DOD Basic Research: The budget proposes to increase the development component of the defense research budget while level funding basic and applied research;
NSF Research and Related Activities: The NSF budget shows a 5.1 percent increase in the research accounts. After backing out the three programs transferred to NSF, the research accounts rise by 2.9 percent;
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
International Space Station: The budget for the International Space Station is reduced by $229 million (13.3 percent) to $1.49 billion. OMB is developing performance criteria to judge NASA's progress in implementing management reforms and a credible cost estimating capability;
Space Shuttle: The budget reduces the shuttle budget by 2 percent and reduce the number of shuttle flights from 6 to 4–5;
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP): The President's budget reduces funding for ATP by 42 percent;
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP): The request reduces the MEP budget by 89 percent and ends support for all MEP state centers with the exception of two centers that are less than six years old;
NOAA Climate Change Research Initiative: The request includes $18 million for the President's new Climate Change Research Initiative;
Department of Education (DOE) Science Programs: Funding for the Office of Science remains is increased by $4.4 million to $3.285 billion;
DOE Fossil Energy Research and Development: Funding is reduced by $45 million (–.25 percent); and
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Clean Coal Power Initiative/Clean Coal Demonstration Program: Funding for these programs is consolidated within the FY03 request and reduced by $30.2 million.
A. Research
The FY 2003 Research and Development Program is proposed to increase by $9.3 billion (9 percent) to a total of $111.6 billion. After accounting for increases in DOD R&D ($5.4 billion) and Health and Human Services R&D ($3.75 billion), the remaining Federal R&D programs increase by $174 million (.6 percent). These numbers and the following tables reflect corrections made in consultation with OMB to the budget tables contained within the President's budget documents.
77746b.eps
In a 1995 report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the President present to Congress the R&D budget as a unified whole. It also recommended that the R&D request be reconfigured as a science and technology (S&T) budget, excluding defense development, testing and evaluation activities, to more clearly illustrate the budget for ''creating new knowledge.'' The FY03 budget uses the format proposed by the Academy in a Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget table, ''which includes about half of total federal R&D spending and nearly all of Federal basic research, over 80 percent of Federal applied research, and about half of Federal non-defense development.''
Total funding for S&T is proposed to increase by 9 percent from $52.34 billion to $56.99 billion. After accounting for a 17 percent increase for the National Institutes of Health, the remaining non-DOD S&T programs grow by $754 million or 3 percent.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
77746c.eps
B. Government with Accountability
The FY 2003 Budget introduces five government-wide management reform areas representing the Administration's view of the ''government's most glaring problems.'' Each Agency was evaluated in terms of their compliance with these programs and provided with a green, yellow, or red score. An agency was provided a green score if it met all of the standards for success, yellow if it achieved some but not all of the standards, and red if it had any serious flaws.(see footnote 3)
The five management reform areas include:
Human Capital—attracting talented people to the Federal Government;
Competitive Sourcing—increasing the number of programs subject to market competition;
Financial Management—increasing the timeliness, quality, and usefulness of financial data;
E–Gov—increasing the number of Federal transactions that can be conducted online; and
Budget/Performance Integration—set performance targets and shift resources to effective programs.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
NSF was the only agency in the Federal Government that received a ''green light'' for any of the initiatives. DOD, Energy, HHS and OMB each received five ''red'' lights while EPA and NASA received one or more yellow lights.
It is not clear from the budget how these management ratings were applied and what role they played in the budget process. NSF, which received a green light for financial management, a yellow light for e-commerce, and outperforms the remainder of the government in competitive sourcing, received a 3.4 percent increase (excluding transfers). DOD and HHS, which received five red lights, both received double-digit increases in R&D funding. NASA's financial management system, which has been the topic of intense criticism by the General Accounting Office, Congress and the Administration, received a yellow light.
In addition, the Administration developed performance criteria for applied R&D designed to ensure that research programs fulfill an essential Federal role, have well-developed plans to achieve objectives, and achieve results that benefit the Nation. The performance criteria were developed as part of an OMB pilot project conducted with DOE. Next year the Administration plans to develop investment criteria for basic research and will expand the application of the applied R&D criteria throughout the government as part of the FY04 budget process. The budget documents do not provide a description of these criteria and how they will be derived.
C. Interagency Research Activities
The FY03 budget continues the practice of describing research areas that are the subject of special coordination efforts required by law. Four interagency research initiatives are described: Networking and Information Technology R&D; Nanotechnology R&D; Climate Change R&D; and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The Networking and Information Technology R&D initiative is increased by $46 million (3 percent) to $1.9 billion. This program, which would be reauthorized by H.R. 3400 (a committee bill now pending House action), coordinates the information technology research and development efforts of seven agencies. The President's budget reduces the contributions of DOD and the Commerce Department by a combined total of $15 million. The budget increases the contributions of HHS and NASA by a combined total of $58 million.
The FY03 budget for nanotechnology research and development, led by NSF, is increased to $679 million, 17 percent over FY02 levels. Priority will be given to research that will enable efficient nanoscale manufacturing, innovative nanotechnology solutions for detection of biological, chemical, radiological, and explosive agents, and workforce development. NSF ($221 million), DOD ($201 million), DOE ($139 million), Commerce ($44 million), NIH ($43 million), NASA ($22 million), EPA ($5 million), Transportation ($2 million), and Justice ($1 million) participate in this program.
The FY03 budget for the U.S. Global Change Research Program is $1.714 billion, $44 million (3 percent) over the FY02 levels. NASA ($1.1 billion), NSF ($188 million), DOE ($126 million), Commerce ($100 million), NIH ($68 million), USDA ($66 million), Interior ($28 million), EPA ($22 million), and the Smithsonian ($7 million) participate in this program. The President is also funding two new initiatives at $40 million each: the National Climate Change Technology Initiative at DOE and the multi-agency Climate Change Research Initiative.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program is a multi-agency program funded by FEMA, NSF, USGS, and NIST. The President's FY03 budget request for NEHRP is $117.9 million, which is $10.6 million (–8.2 percent) below the FY02 appropriations level. The main component of this decrease is a $10.8 million reduction in funds for construction of the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation as it nears completion.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
D. National Science Foundation (NSF)
NSF's FY03 budget request is $5.04 billion, $239.91 million—or 5 percent over FY 2002. The request will allow the agency to support more than 2,000 researchers at 2,000 colleges and universities. However, $76 million of this increase reflects programs transferred from other agencies to NSF, leaving a 'real' increase in NSF's budget request of $163.91 million, or 3.4 percent. The following programs are proposed to be transferred to NSF:
The EPA Environmental Education program ($9 million);
The NOAA National Sea Grant program ($57 million);
The USGS Hydrology of Toxic Substances program ($10 million).
In addition, the budget request leaves open the possibility of a transfer in FY04 of the Astrophysical Observatory funding from the Smithsonian to NSF following a program review by an independent panel that is to be completed this fall.
Most of the NSF directorates within the Research and Related Activities account received only modest increases, between 2.3 and 3.4 percent. The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) received an $81.6 million or 13.4 percent increase. However, when the three transferred programs are subtracted out, GEO is level funded.
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate received a significant increase ($26.82 million, or 15.9 percent). $10 million of the increase is for a new priority area that will explore interactions between society and technology. Five million dollars from this priority area would go towards climate change research on decision-making under uncertainty as part of the President's new interagency Climate Change Research Initiative. This initiative is the only new cross-directorate funding initiative contained within the NSF budget.
Education and Human Resources
The Education and Human Resources Directorate received a 3.8 percent increase. Funding was included for several programs authorized under H.R. 1858, the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act, a Committee bill which the House passed last year and is now awaiting Senate action. These programs include: the Mathematics and Science Partnerships ($200 million), the Noyce Scholarship Program ($4 million), and the National STEM Education Digital Library Program ($23.6 million). In addition, the budget contains funding for the Tech Talent Program (referred to as the Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion (STEP) Program) and an increase in graduate fellowship stipends from $21,500 to $25,000.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
The recently renamed Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) budget request is 9 percent lower than the FY02 operating plan, reflecting the following priorities:
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
$12 million for two ''new MRE starts'' (NEON and Earthscope);
Continuation of equipment and construction funding for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, Large Hadron Collider, Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, South Pole Station, and Terascale Computing Systems;
Elimination of HIAPER and IceCube, (both Congressional add-ons); and
A National Academy of Sciences review of the scientific merit of IceCube and other proposed U.S. neutrino detectors. In addition, $2 million is contained within the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate for research on neutrino collectors.
Salaries and Expenses
The Salaries and Expense Account is provided a 19.1 percent increase. This represents the first increase in the number of full time personnel (FTEs) in over a decade despite significant growth in NSF's research portfolio. This increase responds to concerns raised by the Inspector General about NSF's ability to effectively conduct oversight without growth in the number of personnel. The request includes 67 new FTE's (50 new positions for current NSF programs and 17 for the transferred programs). The total S&E request remains within 5 percent of the overall NSF budget request.
Homeland Defense
NSF does not fund research directly related to the immediate mitigation of terrorist threats but supports the fundamental research that provides the foundation direct applications. The FY03 budget request includes $17 million for genetic sequencing research on microbes (such as anthrax), and $10 million for studies on the ecology of infectious diseases. Both programs represent existing inter-agency collaborations and are focused on answering fundamental scientific questions. The budget request also includes $1 million for rapid-response research mobilization efforts. These funds would allow NSF to respond rapidly to requests for funding from researchers studying disasters such as the recent World Trade Center attack.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
77746d.eps
EHR amounts $90 million in FY02 and $92 million in FY03 in H1B Petitioner Fees.
=The S&E account provides 67 new FTEs. 17 of the FTEs are provided as part of proposed program transfers.
E. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA's FY03 budget request is $15 billion, $98 million—or 0.7 percent over FY02. The Human Space Flight Account budget is reduced by $699.2 million (10.2 percent). The Science, Aeronautics and Technology Budget is increased by $796.7 million (9.9 percent). Drawing upon the Administration's performance rating criteria, three programs were rated ineffective—the Outer Planets Program, Space Shuttle Safety Upgrades, and Space Station.
Space Shuttle
The President proposes to reduce the Space Shuttle budget by 2 percent from the FY02 operating plan. As part of this reduction, the number of shuttle flights is reduced from six to four or five. NASA intends to release a plan this year on how to turn the shuttle over to the private sector. Shuttle competitive sourcing criteria are outlined in the President's Budget Request to address safety, business plans, and other criteria. Space shuttle upgrades are planned on only those improvements that can be implemented by 2007 within reasonable cost estimates (Cockpit Avionics Upgrade Phase I, Space Shuttle Main Engine Health Monitoring System Phase I, and External Tank). The budget request also increases funds to repair the aging Shuttle infrastructure.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
International Space Station
The budget for the International Space Station (ISS) is reduced by $229 million (13.3 percent) to $1.49 billion. The reduction is primarily a reflection of the fact that 98 percent of the hardware development for the U.S. Core has been completed. Based on substantial completion of the U.S. Core, the Space Station budget is within the $25 billion cost cap. Consistent with the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation (Young) Task Force, NASA plans to implement management reforms over the next two years and develop a credible cost estimate within the next six months. OMB is currently developing management criteria to judge NASA's progress toward implementing management reforms and establishing a credible cost estimating capability. If these criteria are successfully met over the next two years, the Administration will address expanding ISS capability beyond core complete. Expanded ISS capability, if any, will be based on research priorities that OSTP and NASA develop in consultation with the scientific community over the coming year. If the reforms are not implemented, U.S. assembly of ISS will end in 2004 at ISS core complete. NASA may also propose the establishment a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) to manage research aboard the Space Station, similar to the NGO created to manage Hubble Space Telescope research.
Science and Technology
The Space Science program will increase by $547.3 million (19.1 percent) over the FY02 operating plan. The proposal eliminates the Outer Planets Program, canceling Pluto-Kuiper Express and deferring the Europa mission. New initiatives in the Space Science budget include the ''Nuclear Systems Initiative,'' designed in cooperation with the Department of Energy, to develop power systems for mobile laboratories on Mars and for exploration of the outer solar system. The ''New Frontiers Program'' is a new planetary exploration program under which mid-size planetary missions (each under $650 million in cost) will be selected through open peer-reviewed competition. The missions will build on the power system developments of the Nuclear Systems Initiative.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The Earth Science program will increase by $2.7 million (.02 percent) to $1.63 billion. Included in the Earth Science budget are funds for the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project and funds for an ocean topography mission to follow the Jason mission launched in 2001. This mission will be a partnership between NASA, NOAA, and their European counterparts.
The Aerospace Technology program will increase by $308.1 million (12 percent) to $2.82 billion. The budget establishes a separate budget line for aeronautics. The budget also proposes a more aggressive collaboration with Federal Aviation Administration, although recent efforts in this area have produced mixed results. The Quiet Airplane Technology and Ultra Efficient Engine Technology programs are continued at FY02 levels and funding for the Small Air Transport System and Aviation Safety is increased. The budget eliminates the Rotorcraft R&D program.
Climate Change
NASA is part of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is currently under review by the Administration to determine the best government-wide approach for global climate change studies. NASA will not pursue any new Earth Science missions until the Administration has completed this review. Development will continue on previously initiated projects such as the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, designed to ensure the continued availability to the research community of Landsat data.
77746e.eps
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
F. Technology Administration (TA) and the National Institute of Science and Technology Standards (NIST)
The budget request decreases funding for the Technology Administration by $352,000 (4 percent), largely by terminating the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT), which provides funds to build the R&D capacity of states which have traditionally not succeeded in securing grants through competitive programs. TA is working with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to have this program's goals incorporated EDA's programs. The budget increases funding for NIST's labs by $65 million (21 percent). It funds the Manufacturing Extension (MEP) and Advanced Technology (ATP) programs at $12 million and $107 million respectively. Combined, these two programs are reduced $171 million (59 percent) from FY02 levels. The construction account was decreased by 13 percent by eliminating Congressional earmarks that were unrelated to NIST.
The Scientific and Technical Research Services budget increased 21 percent to $389.3 million. Most of the NIST labs received healthy increases. $35 million of the increase is to fund equipment purchases for the newly constructed Advanced Measurement Laboratory. The Building and Fire Research Laboratory was the only laboratory that received a reduction ($600,000).
The request ends support for all MEP state centers with the exception of two centers that are less than six years old (the Indiana Business Modernization and Technology Corporation and TECHSolve, in Southwest Ohio). The $12 million request will maintain staff in Gaithersburg to serve in a ''consulting'' role for the state centers. The Administration's justification for this reduction is that when Congress created the MEP program it originally intended that the centers would be self-supporting. In 1994, however, Congress amended the original MEP statute to allow for on-going support of state centers, not to exceed one-third of a center's total funding.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The total request for ATP is $107 million. $30 million of these funds are provided for new proposals. The Administration's budget assumes that ATP will only obligate $30 million in new grant proposals in FY02. However, the FY02 Appropriations bill set-aside $60 million for new grant proposals. If the FY02 funding remains unobligated, the total FY03 funds available for obligation would increase to $146 million.
Last year, Congress earmarked $41.5 million of NIST's construction budget for non-NIST facilities, leaving $21 million for baseline maintenance of NIST facilities. The request does not fund the FY02 earmarks, but provides a $33.6 million increase to fun construction of new NIST facilities. The request specifically includes $17 million for the improvement and construction of facilities at NIST's laboratories in Boulder, Colorado.
77746f.eps
G. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's FY03 budget request is $3.1 billion, $117 million—or 4 percent less than FY02. The majority of this reduction is the result of the elimination of Congressional earmarks and the proposed transfer of the Sea Grant program to NSF.
Climate Change
NOAA's FY03 budget request includes $18 million in new money as part of the President's Climate Change Research Initiative. This request provides $5 million a new climate modeling center, $4 million the global ocean observing system, and $4 million for a multi-national climate atmospheric observing system. Overall, NOAA's budget for climate research is $117 million, an increase of $21 million over FY02.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Extreme Weather Forecast:
NOAA requests $23 million in new money for improving extreme weather warnings and forecasts. These funds include $6.2 million to make operational the next generation weather and climate supercomputing system, and $5 million to implement the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service in coastal watershed areas of North and South Carolina.
Satellite Data Management
NOAA cannot currently implement 65 percent of new satellite products requested by the National Weather Service and the Department of Defense in a timely manner. These are products, such as precipitation estimates, that weather forecasters can use to improve forecasting. This deficiency occurs because the present volume of data from NOAA satellites cannot currently be processed and distributed. NOAA's new satellite program NPOESS is estimated to cost a total of $6.5 billion (jointly funded by the Air Force). This cost does not include a plan to ensure that all the data can be processed, assimilated, and distributed. The Committee has tasked GAO with following the project, and providing a report about the current and future satellite data management needs.
Homeland Defense
NOAA's budget request includes $10 million for Homeland Defense projects including funds for the improvement of the Nation's ocean-charting capabilities to ensure the safe movement of material through the Nation's seaports. In addition, $13 million is provided to ensure backup systems for weather/climate supercomputers, satellites and all critical National Weather Service communications.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Sea Grant
The President's budget proposes to transfer the Sea Grant Program to the National Science Foundation. The program was funded at $62.4 million in FY02.
77746g.eps
H. Department of Energy
The FY03 DOE budget totals $21.9 billion dollars, up $582,166 million or 2.7 percent over FY02 enacted levels. Funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs increases by $10 million (0.78 percent) to $1.312 billion. Within this amount, the FreedomCar initiative replaces the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. The $150 million for FreedomCar provided in DOE's FY03 budget represents an increase of around $23 million over last year's PNGV levels. It is not yet clear, however, whether the PNGV elements at other Departments and Agencies will also be continued. Hydrogen research funding increases by $10.5 million (to almost $40 million) under the Administration's request. $27 million of the hydrogen research request will be used to support the FreedomCar program.
Funding for the Office of Science increases by $4.4 million (0.13 percent) to $3.285 billion. All programs except Program Direction (–9 percent) and biological and environmental research (–12 percent) are increased from between 1 to 15 percent. The Department notes that emphasis has been given to infrastructure improvements at laboratory facilities, not only because of the need for increased security but also because many of the facilities are aging and in poor condition. Other increases are provided to allow for additional operating hours at fusion and nuclear physics facilities. From within these amounts funding for the Large Hadron Collider increases from $49 million in FY02 to $60 million and funding for the Spallation Neutron Source decreases from $276.3 million to $210.6 million. The Genomes to Life program is increased by $15.2 million while the Human Genome Project and Climate Change Research programs increase slightly.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The Department of Energy participated in an OMB led demonstration project to develop investment criteria for evaluating applied research and development programs. The first application of these criteria to specific programs was intended to ensure that they served ''an essential Federal role,'' had ''well-developed plans to achieve objectives, and achieve results that benefit the Nation.'' As a result of this review, the Fossil Energy Research and Development budget was determined by the Administration to be ''ineffective'' and was reduced by $45 million (–5.25 percent) to $816 million. The Clean Coal Power Initiative and the Clean Coal Demonstration Program were consolidated under the FY03 budget request. Consolidated clean coal program funding was reduced by $30.2 million (7.4 percent) to $375.1 million.
77746h.eps
III. Witnesses Questions
Witnesses have been asked to:
1. Review their Agency's overall science budget request in the context of the Administration's overall priorities in science and technology.
2. Describe the mechanisms that the Administration uses to determine priorities across scientific disciplines.
3. Describe the mechanisms the Administration uses to coordinate its scientific research and technical development activities with other Federal agencies.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Chairman BOEHLERT. The hearing will come to order. It is a pleasure to welcome everyone here today for our overview of the President's proposed research and development budget for fiscal year 2003. We began our look at the budget last week with a review of the proposed FreedomCAR program, and we will continue after the President's Day recess with a hearing on the NASA budget, at which we will hear from Administrator O'Keefe.
But today, our focus is on the R&D budget as a whole—what it says about the Nation's research priorities and how our leading research agencies are expected to work together to carry it out. Even a casual glance at the budget make clear what the R&D priorities are—biomedical research and the fight against terrorism at home and abroad. These are reasonable, even self-evident, priorities, and they deserve to be funded more generously than any other programs. That is what it means to be a budget priority.
But I am concerned that the budget—proposed budget treats these items not just as priorities, but as panaceas. And that, I fear, is a mistake. I have long supported, and continue to support, the doubling of the budget of the National Institutes of Health. But the NIH alone cannot undergird our economic health or even improve our human health.
Yet, the NIH budget is now larger than the rest of the civilian agencies' put together, and just the increase in the NIH budget is larger than the research budget of the National Science Foundation.
Similarly, I have long been a supporter of Defense Department development programs, but those programs alone cannot create a stable and secure American society or even ensure our protection from enemy attacks over the long term. Yet, while the Pentagon is slated to receive a 12 percent increase, basic and applied research in the Defense Department are flat, and numerous programs in other agencies that unarguably contribute to homeland security receive tepid increases.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
For years some have raised the difficult question of whether the R&D budget is out of balance. This year we have finally found out the answer, and I fear that it will be yes.
The focusing of the proposed R&D budget on two narrowly defined priority areas has left the spending for other agencies anemic, as I have said elsewhere. The Congress, led by this Committee, will have to show its mettle and provide an infusion of cash for the rest of the research budget, even in these straitened times.
A case in point is the National Science Foundation. The way the budget showers NSF with lavish praise, but limited resources, reminds me of an old joke about a will. The will says, ''To Joe, who I said I would mention in my will. Hello, Joe.'' Sometimes peoples and agencies expect more than just recognition.
Some have argued that NSF's budget should be doubled, the proposal that has always struck me as arbitrary. But we need to engage in a serious debate about the future of NSF, and this Committee will do that over the next few months as we write an NSF reauthorization bill.
And in discussing the future of NSF, I hope we won't be distracted by the well-meaning, but largely wrongheaded, proposals to transfer new programs to the agency. Our Environment Subcommittee will have a hearing on February 28 to review concerns that have been raised about the Sea Grant Program. But however legitimate those concerns, moving the program to NSF, I think, is a cure worse than the disease. I think the same can be said for moving the U.S. Geological Survey's Hydrology Program. The transfer of an environmental education program is a closer question and we continue to review it.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I also want to continue to keep a close eye on the way the budget is handling the Homestake Mine Project, which threatens to take advantage of taxpayers and seriously distort NSF's priorities.
I don't want to take time in this statement to discuss every agency before us this morning. But let me just say I have concerns about the funding levels at the Departments of Commerce and Energy, as well.
The budget before us also finds several well-chosen interagency initiatives, which I hope we will be able to discuss this morning, especially since we have Dr. Marburger with us, who has played a critical role in preparing the R&D budget.
I am especially interested in the Climate Change Initiatives, which seem to be moving in the right direction, but fall short on detail. One concern I have is that the Department of Energy seems wholly uninterested in and unprepared to carry out the National Climate Change Technology Initiative. Indeed, DOE has repeatedly failed to draw attention to this supposed Presidential priority in its budget, and today's testimony is no exception.
Overall, the Climate Change Initiative, at this stage, seems to be asking the right questions without coming up with any clear answers. In this regard, I fear it has a lot in common with many Congressional hearings. We will be holding a Full Committee hearing next month on the Climate Change Program, but I hope we can begin examining it today.
So there is plenty to discuss this morning. I expect that a lot of the time we will basically be debating whether the R&D budget, outside of DoD and NIH, is a glass half full or half empty. I am willing to see it half full, but I don't think anyone will be able to argue that it is any fuller than that. I don't want to pour cold water over this budget, but I do want to fill up the glass a little bit more. I look forward to working with today's witnesses to do just that.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Now, it is my pleasure to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Hall of Texas.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehlert follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT
It's a pleasure to welcome everyone here today for our overview of the President's proposed research and development (R&D) budget for fiscal year 2003. We began our look at the budget last week with a review of the proposed FreedomCAR program and we'll continue after the President's Day recess with a hearing on the NASA budget at which we'll hear from Administrator O'Keefe.
But today our focus is on the R&D budget as a whole—what it says about the nation's research priorities, and how our leading research agencies are expected to work together to carry it out.
Even a casual glance at the budget makes clear what the R&D priorities are—biomedical research and the fight against terrorism at home and abroad. These are reasonable—even self-evident—priorities and they deserve to be funded more generously than are other programs. That's what it means to be a budget priority.
But I'm concerned that the proposed budget treats these items not just as priorities, but as panaceas. And that, I fear, is a mistake. I have long supported, and continue to support the doubling of the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). But the NIH alone cannot undergird our economic health or even improve human health. Yet the NIH budget is now larger than that of the rest of the civilian science agencies put together, and just the increase in the NIH budget is larger than the research budget of NSF.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Similarly, I have long been a supporter of Defense Department development programs, but those programs alone cannot create a stable and secure American society or even ensure our protection from enemy attacks over the long-term. Yet while the Pentagon is slated to receive a 12 percent increase, basic and applied research in the Defense Department are flat, and numerous programs in other agencies that unarguably contribute to Homeland Security receive tepid increases.
For years, some have raised the difficult question of whether the R&D budget is out of balance. This year, we may finally find out the answer, and I fear it will be ''yes.''
The focusing of the proposed R&D budget on two narrowly defined priority areas has left the spending for other agencies anemic, as I've said elsewhere. The Congress, led by this Committee, will have to show its mettle and provide an infusion of cash for the rest of the research budget, even in these straitened times.
A case in point is the National Science Foundation (NSF). The way the budget showers NSF with lavish praise but limited resources reminds me of an old joke about a will. The will says, ''To Joe, who I said I would mention in my will, hello Joe.'' Sometimes, people—and agencies—expect more than just recognition.
Some have argued that NSF's budget should be doubled—a proposal that has always struck me as arbitrary. But we need to engage in a serious debate about the future of NSF, and this Committee will do that over the next few months as we write an NSF reauthorization bill.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And in discussing the future of NSF, I hope we won't be distracted by the well meaning, but largely wrongheaded proposals to transfer new programs to the agency. Our Environment Subcommittee will have a hearing on February 28 to review concerns that have been raised about the Sea Grant program, but however legitimate those concerns, moving the program to NSF is a cure worse than the disease. I think the same can be said for moving the U.S. Geological Survey's hydrology program. The transfer of the environmental education program is a closer question and we continue to review it.
I also want to continue to keep a close eye on the way the budget is handling the Homestake Mine Project, which threatens to take advantage of taxpayers and distort NSF's priorities.
I don't want to take time in this statement to discuss every agency before us this morning, but let me just say I have concerns about funding levels at the Departments of Commerce and Energy as well.
The budget before us also funds several well chosen interagency initiatives, which I hope we will be able to discuss this morning, especially since we have Dr. Marburger with us, who has played a critical role in preparing the R&D budget.
I'm especially interested in the Climate Change initiatives, which seem to be moving in the right direction but are short on detail. One concern I have is that the Department of Energy seems wholly uninterested in, and unprepared to carry out the National Climate Change Technology Initiative. Indeed, DOE has repeatedly failed to draw attention to this supposed Presidential priority in its budget and today's testimony is no exception.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Overall, the Climate Change initiative, at this stage, seems to be asking the right questions without coming up with any clear answers. (In that regard, I guess it has a lot in common with many Congressional hearings.) We'll be holding a full Committee hearing next month on the Climate Change program, but I hope we can begin examining it today.
So, there's plenty to discuss this morning. I expect that a lot of the time, we will basically be debating whether the R&D budget outside of DOD and NIH is a glass half-full or half-empty. I'm willing to see it half-full, but I don't think anyone will be able to argue that it's any fuller than that. I don't want to pour ''cold water'' over this budget, but I do want to fill up the glass a little more. I look forward to working with today's witnesses to do that.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, as usual, you have covered the waterfront pretty well. I can improve on your joke a little. I heard the same thing, only they said to John, my least-favored son, ''I leave the right to work. Up to now, he thought the pleasure was all mine.''
I will be brief because you have done a good job of covering it and pretty well spoken the sentiments of most of us. And I am happy to see the witnesses we have here today to talk about the Administration's budget for science and technology programs.
And there is a lot of good news in this budget for certain initiatives and certain fields. Health research gets a large increase, and that is as it should. I like that. Defense research and work related to bioterrorism gets a substantial increase, and that is something that we have to have. Certain priorities, which largely track initiatives, started by the last Administration, get some respectable bumps.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
However, many, many programs don't fare so well. I am concerned about particular programs as NASA and DOE, but let us take NSF as an example, which the Chairman did, and covered it very well. And I surely agree with him that it is right to highlight that and to take a second look and a realistic look at it.
The headlines have all been about the big increase in research and related activities at NSF. But when you back out the educational and support money, back out the money for programs simply being transferred from other agencies, and back out the handful of targeted Presidential priorities, you have only a small increase and one that is less than 1 percent of their current research budget.
Physics and chemistry, aside from the targeted initiatives, actually see a reduction in their funding from the 2002 enacted level. I just really have to wonder whether that makes any sense at all. And I think we have a good Panel and I thank you for your time of coming over here and giving us your time, waiting for us to go vote, preparing for your testimony, and answering questions that I am sure the Chairman is going to allow us to write to you after you are gone—things we think of and don't ask you while we are here. But I thank you for your time, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I will be brief. I am glad to see the witnesses here today to talk about the Administration's budget request for science and technology programs.
There is a lot of good news in this budget for certain initiatives and certain fields: health research gets a large increase, as it should; defense research and work related to bioterrorism gets a substantial increase and that's a good thing; certain priorities, which largely track initiatives begun by the last administration, also get respectable bumps.
However, many, many programs don't fare so well. I am concerned about particular programs as NASA and DOE, but let's take NSF as an example.
The headlines have all been about the big increase in Research and related activities at NSF. But when you back out the educational and support money, back out the money for programs simply being transferred from other agencies and back out the handful of targeted presidential priorities, you have only a small increase that is less than 1 percent of their current research budget. Physics and chemistry, aside from the targeted initiatives, actually see a reduction in their funding from the 2002 enacted level. I just have to wonder whether that makes any sense at all.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. And other members will have an opportunity to insert opening statements in the record, and at this juncture.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morella follows:]
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CONSTANCE MORELLA
Mr. Chairman, along with you and other Members of this Committee, I have been a staunch supporter of investing in our nation's scientific research. One year ago, I stood with you in your effort to improve the outlook for science funding in FY02 and convince the Administration that its fiscal tightening in basic research was shortsighted. Last year, you indicated that the lackluster budget wasn't due to a lack of interest in science, but rather a lack of knowledge about its needs. You promised to spend the year educating the Administration. I have applauded your efforts, joined in your campaign, and, with your leadership, believe a great deal of progress has been made. Unfortunately, our work is not done and there are still lessons to be learned.
While recession and the War on Terrorism have taken hefty chunks out of the budget, the Administration has clearly recognized the need for scientific research and development. I applaud the President's commitment to completing the promise to double the funding at the National Institutes of Health by providing NIH with the necessary increase in funds. The President has also provided a funding increase of over 5 percent to the National Science Foundation, with significant plus ups for the vitally important areas of information, nano, and biotechnology. With all of the changes going on in our world, it is clear that the President has not lost track of the importance of science.
However, there is still room for improvement. Funding for the DOE Office of Science is essentially flat in nominal terms, which is actually a decrease in real dollars. DOE is the primary funder for many investigators in the physical sciences as well as the administrator for most of our national facilities. We cannot neglect these areas of research. Science has become increasingly interconnected; discoveries in basic sciences like physics and chemistry drive the technological innovations in advanced areas such as computers and medicine. Without adequate research in these fields; our advancements in others will stall. We need a more balanced portfolio and we must champion the traditional areas of research as well as the exciting, new projects that have generated so many headlines of late.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
We must also facilitate the transfer of this knowledge to the industrial community. While I was extremely pleased to see the significant increase to the science and technology division of the National Institute of Science and Technology for advanced research, the budget has significantly reduced efforts to bring these technologies to the market. The Advanced Technology Program has been cut nearly in half and the Manufacturers Extension Program has been wiped out. As we struggle to come out of this economic recession, I question the wisdom of these reductions.
Nevertheless, overall I am pleased with this initial proposal. I think the new budget represents a great deal of growth in the Administration's thinking towards the importance of science and I believe no small credit goes to the Chairman of this committee. I thank him for his leadership, and I look forward to working with him again this year in an effort to correct the shortfalls I believe still exist.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH
I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall for holding this hearing today to review the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request with regard to Research and Development. Obviously, the war on terror and the recession have made the fiscal picture far different than it was a year ago. The shift in governmental priorities from last year is quite clear, and I think President Bush should be commended for developing a budget that makes some hard choices. The proposed increases in defense spending and homeland security are not only reasonable, but required, as the primary responsibility of the government is to provide for the common defense.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Given all that has happened, science programs have fared well in this budget, which calls for civilian science and technology spending of $57 billion in fiscal year 2003, a 9 percent increase. The bulk of this increased spending goes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is requesting over 16 percent to complete a five-year doubling strategy.
The National Science Foundation, which is overseen by the Research Subcommittee that I chair, is receiving a 5 percent increase. This Committee, myself included, has been very supportive of NSF and it's strong record of funding competitive, peer-reviewed research. NSF's unique focus on fundamental scientific research that is too risky for the private sector to undertake is a very important aspect of federal R&D funding.
While the NSF funding increase is not unreasonable given the overall budget circumstances, I do have concerns with the continued funding disparities between the biological and physical sciences. For instance, just a slightly smaller increase for NIH—14.7 percent instead of 16.6 percent ($460 million)—if added to NSF, would result in an equal 14.7 percent increase for NSF.
Beyond the numbers, there are some things in the budget that I think are long overdue. The first thing I would like to point out is the Administration's clear statement that it supports awarding research funds through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The Science Committee, too, has endorsed this approach to science funding, but all too often research earmarks find their way into spending bills.
Research earmarks totaled nearly $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2001. This practice contributes to budget deficits and cuts into funding for other science priorities. I agree wholeheartedly with the President that this practice should stop.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
This is also the first budget that I can remember that links performance with funding. Ever since its enactment, agencies have paid lip service to the Government Performance and Results Act. But when it came time to set budgets, strategic plans and performance goals had little or no effect on funding levels.
The emphasis the Bush Administration has placed on performance is important for a number of reasons and, if carried through, will bode well for science programs. I am convinced that, when measured against a performance standard, the value of R&D—especially basic research—will separate science programs from the pack. Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, for example, has praised NSF as one of the best-run agencies in the Federal Government, and it was rewarded with a solid increase compared to other non-defense agencies. I believe that when the Administration prepares future budgets, well-run science programs will have nothing to fear.
I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today to discuss this issue, and I am looking forward to a productive discussion as we begin to move ahead in the budget process.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grucci follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding such an important hearing, examining the science budget for the Fiscal Year 2003.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Science and technology are the window to the fiiture. America is the home of amazing discoveries and exciting research. My Congressional district is home to the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), as well as State University of New York at Stony Brook and many scientific firms. These bright minds are responsible for hundreds of discoveries and innovations.
In looking over the President's budget, I am concerned by some of the reductions in funding to basic science research, specifically regarding user facilities such as the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at BNL. I am also interested in the Major Research Projects, such as the RSVP project, awaiting funding by the National Science Foundation. I am also interested in learning about the proposed transfer of the National Sea Grant College Program from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the National Science Foundation. I am concerned that this move may be at the detriment to the Sea Grant Program. I look forward to working with the Administration, as well as the Science Committee, to see a balanced funding portfolio for federal research and development. I hope to have these issues discussed this morning. I look forward to a lively and informative hearing.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE J. RANDY FORBES
Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall, for holding this hearing today. I am also grateful to our witnesses for joining us today to discuss the research and development budget for fiscal year 2003. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
We have all heard the expression that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In essence, that's why the government spends money on R&D. Every dollar we spend today on curing diseases or protecting our homeland is money saved down the road in health care costs and more importantly—saved lives.
President Bush recently submitted his budget proposal to Congress for FY 2003, and while much of the government's resources are devoted to fighting the war on terrorism, defending our homeland security, and improving our economy, President Bush still maintains a strong commitment to medical research and other R&D programs. In particular, the President's budget contains a $2.8 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. Further, the President will also request a $4.1 billion increase next year to complete the task of doubling NIH's budget over five years. It is also important to remember that non-defense research spending is projected to grow at a faster rate than overall discretionary spending.
I fully respect and understand the opinions of those who believe the President's budget does not go far enough in addressing our long-term basic scientific research needs, but rather places too strong of an emphasis on defending our homeland. I am optimistic that the Administration will continue to work with Congress, and the Science Committee, to strike an appropriate balance between addressing America's immediate R&D needs while also planning for our nations long-term challenges.
Again, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Let us go right to the Panel. Our witnesses consist of a very distinguished Panel. Dr. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Dr. Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce; Dr. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation; and Dr. Bruce Carnes, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Panelists, your statement will appear in the record in its entirety. We would ask that you try to summarize it, but we are not going to be arbitrary because we have a very distinguished Panel and we have a very important subject matter. But we would try to summarize it to allow the maximum opportunity for a dialogue between the Panel and the members. Dr. Marburger, you are up first.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MARBURGER, III, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. MARBURGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss this research and development budget for fiscal year 2003 that the President has put forward. Shortly after I was confirmed as the Director of OSTP last fall, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget invited me to attend and participate in the internal OMB decision-making sessions involving science programs. I was very grateful for that invitation and I sat in on all the budget reviews. They gave me a greater appreciation for the issues, as OMB was considering them, and an opportunity to represent the science perspective on important aspects of this budget, such as increased accountability and performance measures for basic science agencies.
It has been a very busy, active and long five months. 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.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
This budget reflects the change in priorities and three primary goals: first, winning the war against terrorism; second, protecting the homeland; and, third, reviving our economy and recognizing that science must play a role in these priorities, the President provides for an unprecedented level of investment in Federal R&D, marking the first time in history that a President has requested an R&D budget greater than $100 billion. The precise figure is $111.8 billion, up 8 percent overall from the previous fiscal year. This is the largest requested increase for R&D in over a decade.
Now, the R&D category, as tracked by OMB, does not adequately reflect the—what is traditionally regarded as science and technology. So the National Academy of Sciences several years ago developed a new category for tracking called Federal Science and Technology. Requested funding in this category is up 9 percent. It accounts for nearly all of the Federal basic research, about 80 percent of Federal applied research, and about half of the civilian development in this S&T category. Mr. Chairman, I do believe this is a good budget for science, and I look forward to working with Congress to see that it is successfully enacted.
These science and technology investments will enable the Administration to enhance homeland defense, national security, and global stability, to promote long-term economic growth that creates high-wage jobs, to sustain a healthy, educated citizenry, harness information technology, improve environmental quality, and maintain world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics.
So I would like now to direct your attention to some specifics within this budget. Because many agencies contribute to the overall science missions, the most important cross-cutting themes have been identified and their budgets compiled across all agencies. My written testimony provides snapshots of R&D budgets of the agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction, but I would like to describe the cross-cutting efforts in R&D.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Information technology, nanotechnology, and health research continue to be high priorities for our nation. The past year has also seen an increase in priority for climate change R&D. But at the top of the list, as I indicated earlier, is antiterrorism.
Our success in preventing, detecting, and responding to terrorist activities over the long-term will depend on technology. The President's fiscal year '03 budget continues the Administration's strong support of research and development to counter emerging terrorist threats by increasing R&D funding for homeland security and combating terrorism, including protecting critical infrastructure. The increase is from nearly $1 billion in the previous fiscal year to an estimated $3 billion in fiscal year '03.
In the other areas selected for tracking across categories, nanotechnology R&D will increase by 17 percent over the previous year. This is a $679 million multi-agency initiative that focuses on long-term research and on the manipulation of matter down to atomic and molecular levels, giving us unprecedented opportunities for new classes of devices as small as molecules and machines as small as human cells.
Networking and information technology R&D, another extremely important basis for our technological leadership, will increase by three percent, which brings the overall investment to $1.9 billion. This is a mature area in which there is already a large invested base. It is still critically important. It provides the base technologies to ensure that the United States maintains its dominant position in the application of information technology to critical national defense and national security needs, as well as to scientific research, education, and economic innovation.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Improving human health is an important cross-cutting category. Although it is not aggregated as a cross-cutting budget category, health research does draw on capabilities of many agencies. During the Presidential campaign, the President promised to double the NIH budget by 2003 from its 1998 levels. That commitment is met in this budget, which includes the final installment of $3.9 billion, paving the way toward better diagnostics, treatment, and cures that affect the lives of all Americans.
Climate change research has become an important driver for the Nation's research agenda. Two new initiatives—the Climate Change Research Initiative will receive $40 million to be shared among five agencies, and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative will receive $40 million within the Department of Energy budget. The ongoing U.S. Global Change Research Program will receive $1.7 billion. This is quite a large program, with a $44 million, or three percent, increase.
In addition to funding these priority areas, the budget does also emphasize the effectiveness of the dollars spent. The agency scorecard approach is still at the experimental stage this year, at least for science budgets, although I was pleased to see that the only agency to achieve a green light in any category is the National Science Foundation. Science is doing well there.
But the President's Management Agenda is as relevant to science missions as to other agency operations. And I and my office are looking forward to continuing to work with OMB to make its provisions a useful tool for the agencies.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, and, Members of the Committee, I hope that this brief overview, combined with my written statement, convey to you the extent of this Administration's commitment to advancing science and technology in the national interest. I personally appreciate very much the long-standing bipartisan support of this Committee for my office, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and for the Science and Technology research enterprise in general. I would be pleased to respond to questions about this budget.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN H. MARBURGER, III
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request for research and development.
When I testified prior to my confirmation by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation last October, I expressed my desire to ''form a close and productive relationship with Congress, which has long provided bipartisan and enduring support of our world-leading science and engineering enterprise. The counsel and support of Members of Congress is an essential element of continued U.S. leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.'' I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee, to demonstrate this commitment to science and engineering excellence once again this year. President Bush has set forth an agenda for science funding in the forthcoming fiscal year that takes advantage of important opportunities for discovery and development, and also sustains the basic machinery of research and development that will be necessary for continued national leadership in science and technology.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Last October I also referred to the fact that we must make important choices together because we have neither unlimited resources, nor a monopoly of the world's scientific talent. I continue to believe that wise choices among the multitudes of possible research programs are necessary, and that we must decide which programs to launch, encourage, and enhance and which ones to modify, reevaluate, or redirect in keeping with our national needs and capabilities. The President's FY03 budget includes principles intended to improve the management of the Nation's science and technology enterprise, taking advantage of best practices, and emphasizing the importance of good planning, execution, reinforcement of good performance, and changing poor performance. I look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the significant investment, now over $100 billion, provided by the Federal Government to the support of science is deployed to optimal effect.
President Bush's FY 2003 R&D Budget
Shortly after I officially became the Director of OSTP at the end of October, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget invited me to attend and participate in the internal OMB decision-making sessions involving science programs. This series of meetings gave me a greater appreciation for the issues, and an opportunity to represent the science perspective on important aspects of the forthcoming budget, such as increased accountability and performance measures for basic science agencies. Following these meetings, my office has continued to work closely with OMB to share information and develop mutual understanding of the complex issues involved in establishing the Nation's science and technology budgets.
It has been a long five months. As you well know, 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.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The budget reflects the change in priorities and three primary goals:
Winning the war on terrorism;
Protecting the homeland;
Reviving our economy.
Recognizing that science must play a role in these priorities, the President provides for an unprecedented level of investment in federal R&D, marking the first time in history that a President has requested an R&D budget greater than $100 billion. The precise figure is $111.8 billion, up 8 percent overall from last year—the largest requested increase for R&D in over a decade.
The R&D budget is an imperfect measure of support for traditional science and technology activities. Another compilation, proposed originally by the National Academy of Sciences to assess the federal investment in research programs central to the creation of new knowledge, is called the Federal Science and Technology Budget. In this category, the President's budget is up 9 percent. The FS&T activities account for nearly all of federal basic research, over 80 percent of federal applied research, and about half of civilian development. Mr. Chairman, this is a good budget for science, and I look forward to working with Congress to see it successfully enacted.
These science and technology investments will enable the Administration to: enhance homeland defense, national security and global stability; promote long-term economic growth that creates high-wage jobs; sustain a healthy, educated citizenry; harness information technology; improve environmental quality; and maintain world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics. Let me now direct your attention to some specifics within this budget.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Interagency Initiatives
The budget increases funding for a number of priority research areas that require multi-agency efforts. Information technology, nanotechnology, and health research continue to be high priorities for our nation. The past year has also seen an increase in priority for climate change R&D. After the events of September 11th, Antiterrorism efforts naturally lead the list.
Antiterrorism: Our success in preventing, detecting, and responding to terrorist activities, over the long-term, will depend on technology. The President's FY 2003 budget continues the Administration's strong support of research and development to counter emerging terrorist threats by increasing R&D funding for homeland security and combating terrorism (including protecting critical infrastructure) from nearly $1 billion in 2002 to an estimated $3 billion in 2003.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative will increase by 17 percent over last year. This $679 million multi-agency initiative focuses on long-term research on the manipulation of matter down to the atomic and molecular levels, giving us unprecedented opportunities for new classes of devices as small as molecules, and machines as small as human cells.
Networking and Information Technology R&D will increase by 3 percent. This brings the overall investment to $1.9 billion in this mature but still critically important area. It provides the base technologies to ensure that the U.S. maintains its dominant position in the application of IT to critical national defense and national security needs, as well as to scientific research, education, and economic innovation.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Improving human health. Health research draws on capabilities of many agencies. During the Presidential campaign, the President promised to double the budget of NIH by 2003 from its 1998 levels. That commitment is met in this budget, which includes the final installment of a $3.9 billion increase, paving the way toward better diagnostics, treatments, and cures that affect the lives of all Americans.
Climate Change research has become an important driver for the Nation's research agenda. The President created two new initiatives in this budget, the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) will receive $40 million to be shared among five agencies, and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) will receive $40 million within the DOE budget. The ongoing U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) will receive $1.7 billion, a $44 million (3 percent) increase.
Highlights of the R&D Budget
The following examples within the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee will provide a brief snapshot of the Administration's R&D request in these agencies:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The budget provides $8.7 billion (an 8 percent increase) for NASA's programs in the FS&T budget, including $3.4 billion for Space Science (a 13 percent increase), and $2.9 billion for Aero-space Technology, including planned increases in funding for NASA's Space Launch Initiative ($759 million), that will lead to safer and lower cost, commercial launch vehicles to replace the Space Shuttle.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
National Science Foundation (NSF). The budget provides a $241 million increase (5 percent) in the National Science Foundation. This increase will provide $678 million for NSF's lead role in the National Information Technology R&D program, and $221 million for NSF's lead role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The President's Math and Science Partnerships Initiative, aimed at increasing the quality of math and science education in Grades K–12, will increase by $40 million to $200 million. The budget also raises graduate level stipends from $21,500 to $25,000 annually, in order to further attract and retain the most promising U.S. students into graduate level science and engineering. NSF is very effective at managing competitive research programs, and the budget proposes transferring to NSF programs that will benefit from their superior management. These programs are: Sea Grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Water Quality Research from the U.S. Geological Survey, and Environmental Education from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of Energy (DOE). The budget provides $5 billion for DOE's programs in the FS&T budget. The budget includes a 1.5 percent increase for DOE's Science programs as well as continued support for construction and operation of large scientific user facilities, including the Spallation Neutron Source. The budget also includes a $22 million increase (6 percent) to DOE's Renewable Energy programs.
Department of Commerce (DOC). The budget includes $861 million for DOC programs in the FS&T budget. It provides $402 million (an increase of over 20 percent) for research and physical improvements at NIST's Measurement and Standards Laboratories, and $107 million for NIST's Advanced Technology Program to promote competitive, cost-shared R&D partnerships. The FS&T budget also provides $297 million for NOAA to improve understanding of climate change, weather and air quality, and ocean processes.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Department of Transportation (DOT). The budget provides $548 million for DOT's programs in the FS&T budget, including $421 million to support research to improve the quality and safety of the Nation's highway transportation infrastructure, and $95 million for aviation security technology research.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The budget provides $797 million (a 6 percent increase) for EPA's programs in the FS&T budget. The EPA budget funds research that provides a sound scientific and technical foundation for environmental policy and regulatory decision-making. The budget includes $75 million for research into technologies and procedures to cope with future biological or chemical incidents.
In addition to the agencies that fall within your Committee's jurisdiction Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense R&D efforts increase $5.4 billion (an 11 percent increase) to $54.5 billion, and the entire National Institutes of Health budget increases by $3.9 billion (a 17 percent increase) to $27.3 billion, fulfilling the President's campaign commitment to double funding for NIH.
President's Management Agenda:
In addition to funding these priority areas, the budget also emphasizes the effectiveness of the dollars spent. An ''agency scorecard'' is still at the experimental stage this year, at least for science budgets. I am pleased to point out that the only agency to achieve a green light in any category is the National Science Foundation. The President's Management Agenda is as relevant to science missions as to other agency operations, and I look forward to working with OMB to make its provisions a more useful tool for all the agencies.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In particular, among the provisions of the President's Management Agenda are investment criteria for research programs, pilot-tested at DOE this past year. In consultation with agencies, industry, and academia, OMB and OSTP will broaden the use of the criteria for applied research and to develop and apply separate investment criteria for basic research programs in 2004.
* * *
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this brief overview has conveyed to you the extent of this Administration's commitment to advancing science and technology in the national interest. I look forward to achieving bipartisan support for a national S&T strategy that will combine the resources of industry, academia, non-profit organizations, and all levels of government to protect our citizens, advance knowledge, promote education, strengthen institutions, and develop human potential.
I appreciate very much the long-standing bipartisan support of this Committee for the Office of Science and Technology Policy and for the Science and Technology research enterprise. I would be pleased to respond to questions about this budget.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Marburger. Dr. Bodman. Microphone.
STATEMENT OF DR. SAMUEL W. BODMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. BODMAN. Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I personally work with the science agencies, science-dense agencies of this department, as a number of you know, and it is my privilege to be here to represent them in the conversation about our budget.
The President's budget recognizes science and technology as being critical to winning the war on terrorism, defending our homeland, and helping with getting our economy moving again. American economic growth and competitiveness depend on our sustained, innovative capability throughout this country. Our innovative capacity depends on investment and research. Technology is a real competitive weapon that we have in competing with other countries in the commercial area.
The science programs that our department oversees not only involve carrying out science and research ourselves, which is an important part of what I am here to talk about, but we also collaborate with our Nation's universities, private research facilities, and other government labs, including a number of the agencies represented here at this table.
The '03 Department of Commerce budget supports the President's homeland defense and economic priorities, and continues our commitment to fund the important work that has always been carried out by the Department's scientific elements.
Due to the limitation of time, I am going to be very brief and just highlight a few of these initiatives. First, the Department's Technology Administration is the only Federal agency with the explicit mission to represent the high-tech industry in dealing with their problems as they relate to the government. It is the leading portal to the Federal Government for the technology industry. The Undersecretary, along with the Office of Technology Policy, coordinates national technology policy and works in cooperation and partnership with government and industry. The Department is requesting $8 million to continue that work, a figure which is flat compared to last year, and we think that is appropriate.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Within the Technology Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, provides the Nation with a world-class set of laboratories for measurement and the basic scientific research attended thereto. In 2001, for the second time in five years, a NIST scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. Dr. Eric Cornell won the prize for creating a Bose-Einstein condensate, a new form of matter. In this laboratory, set of laboratories, we have big-league science and extraordinarily capable people. And, as I said before, I am very proud to be here representing them.
We request, for NIST as a whole, $577 million, which is a decrease of $116 million from last year, and I will touch on that in a minute. For the benefit of the staff, I would note the difficulty of comparing fiscal year '02 with fiscal year '03. In prior years, including '02, a portion of employee retirement benefits actually showed up in the OPM budget and not in the budget of the Department. OMB, I think, made a good decision to start including those within the departmental budgets so that we get a true sense of what the costs are. But in the process we have a problem with comparing '02 with '03. So I have tried to sort that out and give you an apples-to-apples comparison, and that will apply as we move through this discussion.
For the NIST laboratories themselves, the Administration proposes $396 million, an increase of more than $60 million over last year's appropriation. Fifty million dollars of that will be used to complete the construction and equip the Advanced Measurement Laboratory, or the AML. Many industries throughout our country increasingly the require measurements and standards right at the atomic scale. Now, this growing demand for accurate and precise measurement can only be met in the kind of unique environment provided in the AML. We are requesting, in addition to that, $54 million for construction and renovation projects. Approximately $25 million will fund improvements at our Boulder, Colorado facility, where most of the buildings are nearly 50 years old. There are major safety and maintenance problems at Boulder, and we are going to try to address those.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I would tell you all that this is a general problem that pervades this department. The quality of our physical facilities and the safety of our employees who are doing the work there is something that I lose sleep over, and we are going to try to work hard to see if we can improve it.
NIST will expand its program in nanotechnology with a $4 million increase for a total of $40 million. Many industries will benefit from this emerging technology and will require special measurement techniques and standards.
NIST's laboratory budget supports homeland security. NIST conducts more than 75 projects that support law enforcement, military operations, emergency services, airport and building security, and cybersecurity. For example, NIST experts have recently initiated an informal, public-private partnership that will determine the immediate cause of the building collapses at the World Trade Center. We hope that this can be expanded in the future because there is a great deal that we do not know about how and why those buildings collapsed.
There are two programs, the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, that have been very challenging for us in the Department. Secretary Evans and I have spent considerable time on the ATP. It has been a controversial program, as a number of you know. After studying the ATP, we have made a number of recommendations, which we believe will improve it, and with those recommendations, we can enthusiastically support this program.
When I visited Chairman Boehlert in his office some time back, he looked me in the eye and said, ''Are you guys serious about ATP?'' And I have returned, sir, to tell you that we are serious. We have done our work and we believe that this program, as we have suggested the modifications, can be very successful.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
From anecdotal evidence, the MEP has also had some measurable success. However, in examining the Nation's priorities, the Administration has concluded that Federal funding should be phased out for those centers that are 6 years old and older as was intended in the original legislation. Our proposed funding reflects this idea with a substantial reduction in proposed funding from over $100 million to $13 million.
The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Program, for the first time, awarded three of the seven awards to academic institutions. And we would like to believe that with the improvements that we see and hopefully can stimulate in the country's educational institutions, that we will see continued improvement, something coupled with the educational initiative recently passed by Congress and signed by the President.
With respect to NOAA, our request for the NOAA budget is $3.3 billion, which is a decrease of $136 million on an apples-to-apples basis.
We are proposing increased spending in the following critical areas. Homeland security, a $23 million increase, to a total of $26.4 million; improving extreme weather forecasting and forecasts, an $84 million increase, for a total of $766 million; climate services, a $36 million increase, for a total of $137 million.
First, with respect to homeland security and NOAA. Our recent experiences stemming from 9/11 underscore the importance of guarding our infrastructure. We have determined that there are a number of instances where our facilities would fail from having just a single system in place, and we need multiple backup protections in order to make sure that our vital systems are maintained and that this country can respond to a crisis. This budget, therefore, proposes an improvement in the NESDIS single point of failure of $2.8 million, a backup to the National Weather Service gateway operation and maintenance at Mount Weather for $3 million, and a National Weather Service supercomputer backup for $7 million. All of these things, we think, will protect us in the event of a crisis.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
With regard to improving extreme weather warnings and forecasts. We will improve our ability to predict extreme weather events that impact every American. For the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite, or NPOESS, we propose an increase of $80 million, for a total of $237 million. A transition to the next generation of weather and climate supercomputers we propose an increase of $13 million. For tornado and extreme weather research, an increase of $6 million. For the Advanced Hydrologic and—Hydrologic Prediction System, to improve flood forecasting.(see footnote 4) That is something that we think will become potentially increasingly important with this announcement of a potential El Niño event that we are starting to see in the Pacific, which we think may contribute to an increased risk of flooding.
For climate services—we are requesting an increase of $36 million, for a total of $137 million. That will include a Climate Modeling Center, $5 million in new spending; a Global Climate Atmospheric Observing System—initial funding of that, $4 million; Global Ocean Observing System, $4 million; Aerosols-Climate Interactions and Carbon Monitoring capabilities, each $2 million. That adds up to a total of $17 million. That is our portion of the $40 million that Dr. Marburger referred to before.
Chairman Boehlert, that concludes my statement. I realize I ran a little over, but I appreciate the time to talk to you, and I am extremely enthused about the chance to come here and represent our people to this Committee. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bodman follows:]
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. BODMAN
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the President's FY 2003 Budget request for the science and technology programs within the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Technology Administration, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I am eager to share with you the Department of Commerce's role in implementing the Administration's science and technology budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.
September 11th not only forever changed our nation, it immediately posed great challenges for this Administration and the Congress. The President is committed to fighting and winning the war on terrorism and harnessing the resources of the Federal Government to protect the lives and safety of all Americans. At the same time, the Administration is committed to revitalizing our economy and returning our nation to economic growth and prosperity.
Secretary Evans and I will make full use of the assets of the Department of Commerce to help provide for the security of our citizens. We also plan to work with other Federal agencies within the Government and the private sector to spur the innovation and entrepreneurship that lead to more high-quality, high-paying jobs, which in turn foster our country's economic security.
Economic growth and global competitiveness depend upon sustained innovation, and innovative capacity, in turn, depends on sustained investment in research and development (R&D). As an engineer by training, I know that the Federal Government plays an important role in supporting the fulfillment of our nation's R&D needs—a role that is reflected in our FY 2003 budget request. As a former CEO, however, I know that R&D under the American system is fundamentally the job of the private sector. Last month, I hosted the first in a series of roundtables sponsored by our Department to bring together Federal officials and corporate R&D leaders to examine how the Federal Government can best help the private sector while deploying our own resources most strategically.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Outreach to the scientific community, through initiatives such as our R&D roundtable series, is essential in formulating the Department's science and technology agenda. Secretary Evans and I intend both to listen to the science and technology leaders that drive American innovation and to work with them to ensure that our nation's R&D goals are met.
The Department also maintains an open dialogue with both the White House and our fellow science and technology agencies within the Federal Government to make certain U.S. taxpayer dollars are fully optimized and redundant or uncoordinated research efforts can be reduced. For example, at the request of the President, Secretary Evans and Energy Secretary Abraham have been leading a government-wide review of climate change science and technology. They have been conducting a series of interagency meetings, and we are hopeful that a proposal will be forthcoming soon.
The FY 2003 Department of Commerce budget submitted to the Congress not only supports the Administration's homeland defense and economic revitalization priorities, it also continues our commitment to fund the important work that has always been carried out by the Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Technology Administration (TA) and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Now I would like to describe some of the specific program activities carried out by TA, NIST and NOAA, as well as the President's FY 2003 Budget request and initiatives for these programs.
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
Technology is reshaping our world in once-unimaginable ways, and the pace of change is accelerating. The prosperity of nations and companies will depend, in large measure, on their ability to harness the power of technology and deliver on its promise.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The Federal Government has an important role to play in ensuring that the United States and American companies lead the world. This role includes:
Promoting innovation through leadership and advocating policies that encourage research, development, and commercialization of new technologies (such as nanotechnology and biotechnology), and promoting the adoption of enabling technologies, such as broadband.
Supporting entrepreneurship by representing the interests of U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs in multinational forums and international partnerships, and through working with states, localities, and federal labs to institute policies that promote technology-led economic development.
Improving the innovation infrastructure by contributing to the development of national workforce policies that improve the education and training of future scientists and engineers, and by recognizing excellence through the National Medal of Technology program.
Empowering citizens by working with industry to increase consumer confidence and employ technologies in new ways for greater productivity and higher standards of living, such as in telemedicine and e-government applications.
The Technology Administration is the only Federal agency with the explicit mission to work full-time to maximize technology's contribution to the national economy and—in so doing—raise the standard of living for all Americans. This job is tremendously important and it has become even more so since the horrendous events of September 11.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, we must place an even higher premium on invention and innovation. Technology in the pipeline or still on the laboratory bench can help the United States and its allies prevail in the fight against terrorism. It can help to bolster homeland protections and to correct vulnerabilities in critically important infrastructures—communication, transportation, water supplies, and power plants, to name just a few. As I have already suggested, progress in the development and application of technology is fundamental to economic prosperity. This is why last month I hosted the first in a series of roundtables to bring together Federal officials and corporate R&D leaders to examine how the Federal Government can best help the private sector while deploying our own resources most strategically. And, building on a tradition of collaboration with the private sector, TA and its National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are contributing in all these areas.
THE PROGRAMS OF TA'S NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)
NIST is a world-class organization that performs world-class research driven by its mission—developing and promoting measurements, standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life. NIST has just begun its second century of service to the Nation. It concluded its first one with achievements that bode well for the Nation and, in particular, for the Nation's technology infrastructure.
In 2001, for the second time in five years, a NIST scientist won the Nobel Prize in Physics, the ultimate recognition in science. This time NIST's Eric Cornell, along with University of Colorado colleague Carl Wieman and MIT colleague, Wolfgang Ketterle, shared the honor for creating an entirely new state of matter, called the Bose-Einstein condensate. This super-cold creation, first accomplished in 1995, launched a new branch of atomic physics and has unlocked a treasure trove of discoveries and emerging technologies.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Importantly, the work of Cornell, Wieman and Ketterle builds on the contributions of NIST's other Nobel Prize winner, Bill Phillips. Phillips perfected methods for trapping and cooling atoms with lasers. This capability is now exploited in NIST's newest atomic clock, which neither gains nor loses more than a fraction of a nanosecond—that's less than one-billionth of a second—in 20 years.
This clock, in turn, is central to NIST's time services, which customers use hundreds of millions of times a day. The number of time requests is increasing at a compounded growth rate of nearly nine percent per month.
Time-keeping, with its diverse array of customers in the financial services, aviation, and telecommunications industries, requires increasingly higher degrees of accuracy. So, last year, NIST scientists demonstrated a new approach to atomic time-keeping, one that has the potential to be up to 1,000 times more accurate than today's best clock.
This is just one example of how NIST continues to improve its capabilities. As in so many other areas of science and technology, NIST is developing the measurement infrastructure that will open the way to breakthrough technologies like quantum computing and nanotechnology. These technological advances will help to secure our nation's economic future.
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program, the Advanced Technology Program, and Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: In addition to the technical accomplishments of the NIST laboratories, the Nation also is benefiting from NIST's other programs: the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program, the Advanced Technology Program, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
This past year was an especially notable one for the Baldrige Program. It awarded its first Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards in the education category. Two school districts—Chugach, Alaska, and Pearl River, New York—and one university—Stout University in Wisconsin—accounted for three of the five awards given this year.
These award winners will be excellent role models for 21st century education organizations. We are optimistic that, in the years to come, adoption of the Baldrige criteria for performance excellence will spread across the education sector. As it does, we anticipate that the Program will motivate the same kind of revolution in quality that it helped to launch in U.S. industry. The budget includes $5.8 million for the Baldrige Program.
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP), as this Committee well knows, has been the subject of perennial debate that has hindered its stability and effectiveness. Last summer, Secretary Evans initiated a review of the Program with a view toward resolving this debate. The results of that review are outlined in a report, The Advanced Technology Program: Reform with a Purpose, which was issued earlier this month.
Based on the Department's careful review and analysis of ATP, the report highlights important reforms for the Program and more clearly defines its role in the R&D enterprise. Technologies developed through the ATP have significant potential to bring economic growth and benefits to the entire Nation. Nevertheless, our review concluded that some reforms are needed to provide ATP with the proper tools and direction it needs in order to be effective in the 21st century. For example, much has changed since the Program's inception over a decade ago, such as the increasingly important role of universities in innovative activity and participation in commercial ventures. Despite this expansion in their R&D role, universities may not, under current law, lead ATP joint ventures or hold rights in the intellectual property that results from ATP-funded research. The Program needs to respond to this and other changes in the research and business environment.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
With the implementation of appropriate reforms, including some level of recoupment of the government's investment in profitable ventures, which can be re-invested into the Program, the stability and effectiveness of the Program, we believe, can be greatly improved. To go along with these recommendations, the Administration proposes a budget of $107.9 million.
The President proposes $12.9 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. This proposal would return the partnership to its original plan, which called for the phase out of Federal funds to MEP centers after six years. NIST MEP will continue to focus on providing a central coordination role for the network of centers.
NIST Laboratories: Overall, for the NIST laboratory program, the Administration proposes $396.4 million, an increase of slightly more than $75 million over last year's appropriation. Of this amount, $50 million will be used to complete and equip NIST's state-of-the-art Advanced Measurement Laboratory, now under construction. A facility like no other in the world, the Advanced Measurement Laboratory is due to be completed in late 2003.
This facility—the ''AML'' is tremendously important to the Nation's technology future and to the competitiveness of the industries of the future. Only in the AML's unique, highly controlled environment will NIST be able to develop essential capabilities and tools. High-technology industries need advanced measurement methods and standards to efficiently develop and produce new products and services. The semiconductor, telecommunications, data storage, biotechnology, and other key technology industries already require extremely precise measurements and standards that are approaching atomic scale. Growing demand for these and other exceedingly accurate measurement capabilities can only be met with special equipment in the unique AML environment.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In addition, we are requesting a total of $54.5 million for construction and renovation projects. A significant amount of this construction money will go toward long-overdue improvements at NIST's Boulder, Colorado, laboratories, where most of the buildings are nearly 50 years old. Obsolescence already threatens the ability of Boulder staff to provide services that meet the levels of accuracy required by their industrial customers. The list of improvements to be made is long, but we intend to make a serious start on improving those facilities.
Now, I would like to highlight a few key NIST laboratory initiatives. These illustrate the President's aim to leverage the Nation's technology resources to speed progress on the three security fronts.
Six million dollars will be used to expand operations and strengthen research capabilities at the NIST Center for Neutron Research, the best and most productive facility of its kind in the United States and among the best in the world. As growing numbers of researchers in many fields of science and engineering are discovering, neutrons are incredibly useful probes. Requests for ''beam time'' at this national user facility greatly exceed the center's existing capacity. Expansion and improvements will benefit investigators in fields ranging from materials science to biology to fuel-cell research.
NIST will expand its program in nanotechnology, the so-called ''tiny revolution'' in technology, with a $4 million increase. NIST is already a leader in this exceptionally promising area. Nearly all industrial sectors plan to exploit this emerging technology, and most of these plans call for appropriately scaled measurements and standards, NIST's specialty.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
NIST's standards and measurements activities actively support efforts to strengthen homeland security. Currently, NIST is conducting more than 75 projects that support law enforcement, military operations, emergency services, airport and building security, cyber security, and efforts to develop new types of security technologies.
For example, NIST's building and fire experts have just started to initiate a broad public-private partnership effort—an effort that is informal at this point—that would determine the probable technical cause of the building collapses in the World Trade Center disaster. NIST will use the knowledge gained from this effort to derive lessons learned, develop and disseminate immediate guidance and tools to assess and reduce vulnerabilities, and produce the technical bases for cost-effective changes to national practices and standards. NIST assisted the U.S. Postal Service and others to ensure that commercial radiation facilities can be used to sanitize mail tainted with anthrax or other contaminants. Further, NIST provided modeling assistance to the Environmental Protection Agency in evaluating the anthrax dispersion in the Hart Senate Office Building, and, as a result of the Patriot Act, NIST is working with the Departments of State and Justice in the development of a new technology standard to confirm identity.
To go along with these current efforts, the Administration is requesting an additional $2 million to fund a portion of the critical and urgent national needs in structural fire protection and operational guidance for first responders. Also, as the Congress well knows, the need to strengthen our public health system is critically important in the light of the bioterrorism threat. Therefore we propose a $3 million increase for NIST to provide advanced measurements and standards that will improve the quality of our health care infrastructure.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Examples of how NIST carries out its mission and delivers benefits to industry and the entire Nation are plentiful. They range from standards used to ensure the effectiveness of diagnostic mammograms to measurement tools that are helping the electronics industry progress in its continuous pursuit of faster, smaller, and ever more capable integrated circuits. NIST and its dedicated staff provide the Nation with a highly leveraged payoff that will help secure our future.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) PROGRAMS
NOAA plays a vital role in the everyday lives of our citizens through numerous contributions to the Nation's economy and environmental health. The FY 2003 President's Budget request for NOAA is $3.3 billion in total budget authority. This represents a net decrease of $45 million from the FY 2002 level. When the amount of the retirement costs that were formerly shown in the Office of Personnel Management's budget is removed, the net programmatic decrease is $136 million. The Department of Commerce proposes increased spending in the following critical areas of interest to this Committee: Improving Extreme Weather Warnings and Forecasts ($84.3 million increase); Climate Services ($36.2 million increase); Energy ($8.7 million increase); and Homeland Security ($23.1 million increase). I would like to highlight some of the major components of these priority funding areas. These particular programs are carried out by NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS), National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).
Homeland Security and Related Activities ($23.1 Million Increase): On September 11, 2001, the Nation experienced an unprecedented attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. NOAA immediately implemented its agency-wide Incident Response Plan and was able to rapidly deploy critical assets, capabilities and expertise to support the response and recovery efforts. NOAA personnel in weather offices, satellite and remote sensing teams, hazardous materials units, marine transportation and geodesy offices, and fisheries enforcement teams provided a wide range of products and services.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The September 11 attacks fundamentally altered NOAA's incident response planning. NOAA's Homeland Security efforts are focused on enhancing its response capabilities and improving internal safety and preparedness. These activities are dedicated to advancing the coordinated efforts of the Department of Commerce and the Office of Homeland Security and to assisting NOAA's many Federal, state and local partners. Highlights of this initiative include:
NESDIS Single Point of Failure: The Department requests a total of $2.8 million to provide backup capability for all critical satellite products and services. This effort would provide critical operational satellite products and services during a catastrophic outage.
Satellite Facilities Security: The Department requests a total of $2.3 million, an increase of $0.3 million, to enhance security at the Fairbanks, Alaska and Wallops, Virginia satellite Command and Data Acquisition ground stations.
NWS Gateway Critical Infrastructure Protection: The Department requests a total of $3 million for the National Weather Service Telecommunications Gateway Backup (NWSTG). This funding will allow NOAA to establish a NWSTG backup facility. The current NWSTG facility is a single point of failure vulnerable to natural disasters, human error, computer viruses, hacker attacks, and terrorism. If the NWSTG failed, more than 90 percent of weather observations would be lost and no national weather observations, products or prediction models would be sent to external users.
Weather & Climate Supercomputing Backup: The Department requests a total of $7.1 million to implement an operational backup system for the NWS weather and climate supercomputer. The supercomputer runs prediction models and is currently a single point of failure as the entire system is located in a single facility.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Improving Extreme Weather Warnings and Forecasts ($84.3 Million Increase). The continuity of NOAA's satellites and severe weather forecasts is critical to meeting our 21st Century mission. To ensure our success, the FY 2003 President's Budget request includes an increase of $84.3 million for a total of $766.7 million. I would like to highlight some of the programs that comprise this initiative.
U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP): The Department requests an increase of $1 million over the FY 2002 enacted level for a total of $3.8 million to support the transition of research and development into operations in order to reach the USWRP initial goals of improving forecasts of inland heavy precipitation associated with landfalling hurricanes. The increase will be used to improve the forecasts of heavy and, often, flood-producing rains associated with hurricanes and tropical storms as they move inland.
Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service (AHPS): The Department requests an increase of $4.7 million over the FY 2002 enacted level for a total of $6.2 million to accelerate nation-wide implementation of improved flood and river forecasts services in the Northeast, Middle Atlantic, and Southeast. As implemented, AHPS will: 1) produce new information with better predictions of river height and flood potential to reduce loss of life and property; 2) deliver high resolution, visually oriented products to provide partners and customers with valuable information for life decisions; 3) refresh aging hydrologic forecasting infrastructure to support rapid infusion of scientific advances; and 4) leverage NOAA's investments in observational systems and atmospheric models to enhance accuracy and resolution of river forecasts.
Tornado Severe Storm Research: The Department requests an increase of $1 million to develop new technologies for forecasting and detecting tornadoes and other forms of severe weather and to disseminate this information to emergency managers, the media, and the general public for appropriate action.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Weather & Climate Supercomputing: The Department requests an increase of $6.2 million over the FY 2002 enacted level for a total of $21.2 million to continue operations and maintenance of the current NWS IBM SP system (Class VIII) and to transition the next generation weather and climate supercomputing system into operation (system to be acquired and installed during FY 2002). The NWS supercomputer is the foundation for all NWS weather and climate forecasts. The increased capability of the supercomputer will improve both local forecasts and climate extreme events such as El Niño and La Niña.
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS): The Department requests an increase of $79.9 million over the FY 2002 enacted level for a total of $237.3 million for the continuation of the tri-agency NPOESS program that will replace the NOAA POES program after completion of the current NOAA K–N' series of satellites. The NOAA request represents the NOAA share of the converged NOAA/DOD/NASA program. In FY 2003, funds will be required to continue the development and production of the NPOESS instruments. The continued development of these instruments is critical for their timely and cost effective delivery to replace both the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and the NOAA POES spacecraft when needed. The first NPOESS satellite will be available for launch in FY 2008 when the last of the POES satellites is launched.
NOAA Polar K–N': The Department requests a total of $122.9 million for the NOAA Polar K–N' to fund the continuation of the production and launch of this series of satellites. NOAA will use these funds to continue the procurement of the NOAA M through N' satellites, instruments, launch services, and ground systems. Funding would also upgrade deteriorating ground systems to allow for continued operations of the Polar K–N' series through the end of its lifetime. The Polar K–N program is completing major procurement items and therefore does not need to continue the funding levels of previous years.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES): The Department requests a total of $227.4 million to support continued post launch requirements for GOES I–M. This decrease represents a program change resulting from the successful launch of GOES M, and the continued success of the GOES I–M series.
Joint Center for Data Assimilation: The Department requests an increase of $2.6 million over the FY 2002 enacted level for a total of $3.4 million for the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation. NOAA and NASA are partners in this national effort to more fully realize the potential of the vast quantities of new satellite data that are becoming available. The Center will reduce the average time for implementation of data from new satellite technology from two years to one year, resulting in improved weather forecasts and warnings.
Climate Services ($36.2 Million Increase): From the storms of next week to the drought of next season to the potential human-induced climate change over the coming century, issues of climate variability and change will continue to be a major issue for the Nation. The Department requests an increase of $36.2 million to improve climate services. The majority of this is for the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). Among the components of the CCRI are commitments to study areas of scientific uncertainty and to identify priority areas where investments can make a difference. In line with recent recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences, the CCRI promotes a vision focused on the effective use of scientific knowledge in policy and management decisions, and continual evaluation of management strategies and choices. The sections below describe NOAA's request for initial investments to address key priorities of the CCRI. The balance of the Climate Services increase would fund climate research in the Arctic ($2 million), climate monitoring and ocean observations ($5.4 million), use of UNOLS ships ($2.5 million), and archiving access and assessment of climate data ($8.3 million).
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Climate Modeling Center: The Department requests $5 million to establish a climate modeling center within the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) at Princeton, New Jersey, which will focus on model product generation for research, assessment and policy applications as its principal activity. GFDL has played a central role in climate research, pioneering stratospheric modeling, seasonal forecasting, ocean modeling and data assimilation, and hurricane modeling. This core research capability will be enhanced to enable product generation and policy-related research.
Global Climate Atmospheric Observing System: The Department requests $4 million to work with other developed countries to reestablish the benchmark upper-air network, emphasizing data sparse areas, and place new Global Atmosphere Watch stations in priority sites to measure pollutant emissions, aerosols, and ozone, in specific regions.
Global Ocean Observing System: The Department requests $4 million to work towards the establishment of an ocean observing system that can accurately document climate scale changes in ocean heat, carbon, and sea level changes.
Aerosols-Climate Interactions: The Department requests $2 million to contribute to the interagency National Aerosol-Climate Interactions Program (joint with NASA, DOE, NSF) currently under development. Specifically, NOAA will establish new and augment existing in-situ monitoring sites and conduct focused field campaigns to establish aerosol chemical and radiative properties. In collaboration with the NPOESS Integrated Program Office, NOAA will advance the development of the NPOESS planned satellite measurement capabilities.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Carbon Monitoring: The Department requests $2 million to augment carbon monitoring capabilities in North America as well as observations of globally relevant parameters in key under-sampled oceanic and continental regions around the globe, selected to reduce high uncertainty in current flux estimates.
Regional Integrated Science Assessments Program: The Department requests $1 million for the Regional Integrated Science Assessments Program (RISA). Working with the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA will augment its research capability in assessing climate change impacts vulnerability by utilizing the research on ''decision-making in the face of uncertainties'' in the framework of the RISA program.
Energy Initiative ($8.7 Million Increase): As part of an increase for an Energy Initiative, the Department requests $6.1 million to implement a pilot program that will provide more accurate temperature and precipitation forecasts, and additional river forecast products to help the energy industry improve electrical load forecasting and hydropower facility management. Based on industry estimates, this investment may result in savings of $10 to $30 million annually in the pilot region after the second year of the demonstration. Expanding the pilot nation-wide could generate savings of over $1 billion per year.
Another part of the Energy Initiative is the Department's request of $550,000 for energy management. The requested funds will be used to reduce NOAA's facility operating costs through actively pursuing energy commodities at competitive prices, identifying and implementing energy savings opportunities and applying renewable energy technologies and sustainable designs at NOAA-managed facilities. Many of the equipment retrofits that are a part of energy management have enabled facilities to recover their costs in less than five years.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Ocean Exploration: The Department requests a total of $14.2 million for ocean exploration. This program seeks to increase our national understanding of ocean systems and processes through partnerships in nine major voyages of discovery in FY 2003. It uses ten percent of all funds for education and outreach to teach America's school children and stimulate their interest in ocean science.
National Sea Grant College Program: The Administration proposes to transfer funding for the Sea Grant program to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Administration believes that there are advantages to locating such scientific research in the NSF, which has an outstanding record in administering merit-based research and education.
CONCLUSION
This completes my statement. The Department has many exciting technology initiatives. I look forward to working with you as these proposals move through the legislative process. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Bodman. Dr. Colwell.
STATEMENT OF DR. RITA R. COLWELL, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. COLWELL. Chairman Boehlert, and Ranking Member Hall, members of the Committee, I thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to discuss the President's budget request for the National Science Foundation.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Every year the Foundation's optimal use of limited public funds has relied on two conditions—ensuring that our research and educational investments are aimed and continuously re-aimed at the frontiers of understanding and certifying that every single dollar—I would even say every single penny—goes to competitive, merit-reviewed, and time-limited awards with clear criteria for success.
And when these conditions are met, our Nation gets the most intellectual and economic leverage from its research and education investments.
The National Science Foundation is requesting $5,036,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $240 million or five percent more than the previous year. For the United States to stay on the leading edge of discovery and innovation, we simply cannot do less.
Now, before providing a few highlights of the budget, let me stress that the priority-setting process at NSF results from a continual consultation with the research community. We add new programs or we enhance programs only after seeking the combined expertise and the experience of the science and engineering community, as well as the NSF Director, Deputy Director and the National Science Board.
The programs are initiated or enlarged based on considerations of intellectual merit, the broader impacts of the research, the importance to science and engineering, balance across fields and disciplines, and then synergy with research in other agencies and other countries.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
NSF coordinates its research with our sister research agencies, represented here at the table, and others, both informally, through the active monitoring by program officers of other agencies' programs, and formally, through the more than 150 MOUs and Interagency Agreements that spell out the various agency roles in research activities.
Now, one of the highlights of the budget is a second installment of $200 million for the national 5-year, $1 billion Math and Science Partnership Program. The program links local schools with colleges and universities to improve the pre-K through 12 math and science education. It also trains teachers and will create innovative ways to raise the performance of all students—and I emphasize all students—and schools.
Another important investment is $37 million, which will increase the annual stipends for graduate fellows to $25,000, to attract more of the Nation's most-promising students to science and engineering.
Now, the budget also includes funding for six priority areas—$221 million for nanotechnology research, $286 million for information technology research, and $60 million as part of a new priority area in mathematical and statistical sciences research to advance interdisciplinary science and engineering.
We are directing $185 million toward the NSF Learning for the 21st Century Workforce priority, and we are including $20 million to fund three or four of the new multidisciplinary, multi-institutional Science of Learning Centers. This will enhance our understanding of how we learn, how the brain stores information, and how we can best use this new information technology in learning. In other words, to bring science and pedagogy together to improve learning and teaching.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
We are also requesting $10 million to seed a new priority area in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. This is key. It will explore the complex interactions between the new technology and society so that we can better anticipate and prepare for their consequences.
Finally, the budget requests $75 million(see footnote 5) for research on biocomplexity in the environment. This builds on past investments to study the remarkable and dynamic web of interrelationships that rise when living things at all levels interact with their environment. And the research into specific areas this year in biocomplexity in the environment include microbial genome sequencing and ecology of infectious diseases. This will help us develop strategies to assess and manage the risks of infectious diseases, invasive species, modified organisms, and biological weapons.
I should add, as part of the Administration's new multi-agency Climate Change Research Initiative, we will implement a $15 million research program to advance understanding in highly focused areas of climate science—namely, to reduce uncertainty and to facilitate policy decisions. And our budget also includes $76 million for programs slated to be transferred to NSF from NOAA, EPA, and the USGS.
In the area of large facilities, we are going to continue support for the next phase of construction for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, otherwise known as ALMA. The new construction projects in the fiscal year 2003 budget include two prototype sites for the National Ecological Observatory Network, NEON, which I would call a biological early-warning system. And this will be a cost of $12 million, and it will allow us to analyze data to detect the abrupt changes or long-term trends in the environment.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And the budget also requests $35 million for EarthScope, to detect and investigate earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides on the North American continent.
Mr. Chairman, if there are no objections, I would like to include a copy of the NSF budget summary as part of my testimony.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection.
Dr. COLWELL. Thank you. And I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the Committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Colwell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RITA R. COLWELL
Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, thank you for providing this opportunity to discuss the President's budget request for the National Science Foundation.
Every year, the Foundation's optimal use of limited public funds has relied on two conditions: Ensuring that our research and education investments are aimed—and continuously re-aimed—at the frontiers of understanding; and certifying that every dollar goes to competitive, merit-reviewed, and time-limited awards with clear criteria for success.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
When these two conditions are met, our nation gets the most intellectual and economic leverage from its research and education investments.
The National Science Foundation is requesting $5.036 billion for FY 2003, $240 million or five percent more than the previous fiscal year. For the United States to stay on the leading edge of discovery and innovation, we cannot do less.
Before providing a few highlights of the budget, let me stress that the priority setting process at NSF results from continual consultation with the research community. New programs are added or enhanced only after seeking the combined expertise and experience of the science and engineering community, the Director and Deputy, and the National Science Board. Programs are initiated or enlarged based on considerations of their intellectual merit, broader impacts of the research, the importance to science and engineering, balance across fields and disciplines, and synergy with research in other agencies and nations. NSF coordinates its research with our sister research agencies both informally—through the active monitoring by program officers of other agencies' programs—and formally, through over 150 MOUs and Interagency Agreements that spell out the various agency roles in research activities.
One of the highlights of the budget is a second installment of $200 million for the national five-year, $1 billion Math and Science Partnership Program. The program links local schools with colleges and universities to improve pre-K–12 math and science education, train teachers, and create innovative ways to raise the performance of all students and schools.
An investment of approximately $37 million will increase annual stipends for graduate fellows to $25,000 to attract more of the nation's most promising students to science and engineering.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The budget will also include funding for six priority areas, including $221 million for nanotechnology research, $286 million for information technology research, and $60 million as part of a new priority area in mathematical and statistical sciences research that will ultimately advance interdisciplinary science and engineering. $185 million is directed toward NSF's Learning for the 21st Century Workforce priority area—including $20 million to fund three to four new multidisciplinary, multi-institutional Science of Learning Centers to enhance our understanding of how we learn, how we remember, and how we can best use new information technology to promote learning.
We are also requesting $10 million to seed a new priority area in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences to explore the complex interactions between new technology and society to better anticipate and prepare for their consequences.
Finally, the budget requests $79 million for research on biocomplexity in the environment. This builds upon past investments in the study of the remarkable and dynamic web of interrelationships that arise when living things at all levels interact with their environment. Research in two new areas this year—microbial genome sequencing and ecology of infectious diseases—will help develop strategies to assess and manage the risks of infectious diseases, invasive species, modified organisms, and biological weapons.
Additionally, as part of the Administration's new multi-agency Climate Change Research Initiative, we will implement a $15 million research program to advance understanding in highly focused areas of climate science, to reduce uncertainty and facilitate policy decisions. Our budget also includes $76 million for programs slated to be transferred to NSF from NOAA, EPA, and the USGS. The Administration believes that there are advantages to locating these programs at NSF, which has an outstanding record in administering merit-based research and education.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In large facilities, we will continue support for the next phase of construction of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA). New construction projects in the FY 2003 budget include two prototype sites of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) at a cost of $12 million to analyze data to detect abrupt changes or long-term trends in the environment. The budget also requests $35 million for EarthScope to detect and investigate earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides on the North American continent.
Mr. Chairman, if there are no objections, I would like to include a copy of the NSF budget summary as part of my testimony, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the Committee may have.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Dr. Carnes.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE M. CARNES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. CARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Energy Department's fiscal year '03 budget. Overall, our budget totals $21.9 billion, which is the largest amount ever requested for the Department. If you don't count the fiscal year '02 supplemental, the increase is nearly a billion dollars over the enacted '02 level. Of this amount, $8.3 billion is for R&D, including related construction.
The Department is in the process of aligning programmatic activities to adhere to our central mission. Secretary Abraham has made it clear, DOE has one mission, national security, and that includes advancing the Nation's energy security. He has outlined a series of programmatic priorities that tie to this overarching mission, and are reflected in this budget.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Our national security mission is readily apparent in the Department's national nuclear security administration work, but it is also inherent in our energy and science programs that advance the Nation's energy security, and in our environmental management programs, working to resolve the legacies of the Cold War.
This budget reflects efforts to refocus our priorities. In energy, the emphasis is on programs that help America increase its supply of energy through increased domestic production, advance how we approach conservation and energy efficiency, and identify a wider array of sources and types of energy.
Specific energy R&D priorities include tapping the potential of hydrogen. Advancements in transportation fuel cells and the necessary supporting infrastructure is the focus of the FreedomCAR initiative for which we are requesting $150 million.
Other priority areas focus on long-term energy solutions, including high temperature superconductivity, the President's Coal Research Initiative, and the next generation of nuclear power generation for nuclear energy systems.
With regard to the Energy Department's science programs and how they relate to the national security mission, the connection is fundamental. Science furthers the cutting-edge knowledge that keeps our Nation competitive through continued U.S. technological strength and the promise of breakthrough technologies to solve our most pressing national problems.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
But programmatically, DOE's science is complex. It is big and its applications are sometimes difficult to categorize. Recognizing this, Secretary Abraham has challenged the science programs to sharpen their focus to better address the Nation's highest research priorities in areas such as energy, climate change, and threat detection. This effort is the subject of a review headed by Deputy Secretary Frank Blake.
Although the review is still in progress, this budget reflects clear priorities to support operation of DOE's scientific user facilities, invest in infrastructure improvements, maintain schedules for major construction projects, and support long-term, cutting-edge discovery in areas such as nanoscience, microbial science, and the fundamental understanding of matter.
A second factor shaping the formulation of this budget relates to the Department's management improvement objectives that reflect and expand on the recommendation of the President's Management Agenda. Though it will take time to full integrate these improvements, the '03 budget reflects our first steps toward a performance-oriented request.
Deputy Secretary Blake is conducting a strategic management review of all program activities, including those of the national laboratories, to identify their adherence to DOE's central mission. Program offices also submit their highest priority objectives and related performance measures annually to the Deputy Secretary. This information is tracked and used to identify issues that could impede the achievement of mission objectives.
The Deputy Secretary is also completing benchmarking for our science laboratories to ensure that they operate efficiently and evaluate whether current DOE requirements add value and are consistent with those of other Federal agencies.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In addition, we are moving toward integrated performance measurement. This year, as part of an OMB pilot effort, R&D criteria were set to evaluate funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy applied research activities. After further refinement, this approach will be used to evaluate R&D throughout the government. Criteria included the degree of private sector involvements, support for societal goals, the extent of external review, and so on.
Work is also underway to make our funding priorities more transparent in future budgets. We have added a new function to the Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation, which I head, called Program Analysis and Evaluation, and this element will apply rigorous analysis and long-term budgeting to program plans and funding proposals.
As our budgets become more related to performance indicators and results, they will also reflect integrated DOE planning. Beginning in fiscal year '04, the Department will use 5-year planning to formulate the budgets for all our program activities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement, and I would be happy to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Carnes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE M. CARNES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the FY 2003 budget submission for the Department of Energy (DOE). On September 11th our Nation changed as did our national security challenges. The Department of Energy's $21.9 billion budget responds to that change - in our focus as an agency and in the way we do business. This budget meets these challenges through investment in our national defense and in an important component of that, our Nation's energy security.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Refocusing Our Missions and National Priorities
Shortly after the September 11th attacks, Secretary Abraham, speaking to Department of Energy managers, laid out new priorities for the agency. These priorities center on our main overarching mission—national security.
Secretary Abraham outlined a plan to review DOE's programs to bring our national security priorities back into focus. They include:
certifying the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile;
ensuring that R&D and production plans support the Administration's nuclear strategy;
resolving the threat of weapons of mass destruction;
providing safe, efficient and effective nuclear propulsion for the Navy;
implementing the President's National Energy Policy;
directing R&D budgets to innovative new ideas while ensuring application of mature technologies;
exploring new energy sources with dramatic environmental benefits; and
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
supporting Homeland Defense through a focus on the threat of weapons of mass destruction posed by terrorist groups or nation states.
National security concerns clearly drive the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration and Other Defense programs but it is also a key component of our energy, science and environmental programs. Energy security is national security. Failure to meet increasing energy demand with increased energy supplies, and vulnerability to disruptions from natural or malevolent causes could threaten our Nation's economic prosperity, alter the way we live our lives, and threaten our national security. Our science research serves national security in an important way—furthering cutting edge knowledge to continue U.S. technological strength and offer breakthrough solutions that achieve national objectives such as energy independence and climate change mitigation.
As part of the plan outlined by the Secretary, the Department's Energy and Science programs will establish their highest research priorities to focus on our overarching mission. Energy programs will; direct research and development of new ideas that need encouragement; ensure greater application of mature energy technologies; and implement the President's National Energy Policy to increase domestic production, revolutionize our approach to energy efficiency, and identify a wider array of energy sources and types.
Since the announcement of the policy we have:
Ensured that our Strategic Petroleum Reserve protection is maintained in support of national energy security—the President directed Secretary Abraham to add 108 million barrels of crude oil to the stockpile. The Department has implemented a royalty-in-kind proposal to fill the reserve to its maximum capacity quickly and without draining appropriated funds;
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Set into motion a $300 million project (non-federal funds) to work with the private sector to upgrade California's Path 15 and alleviate California's major electric transmission bottleneck. To accomplish this, Pacific Gas and Electric will work with 6 other parties and the Western Power Administration; and
Continued the President's ten-year commitment to increase funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program to assist low-income families in reducing the cost for heating and cooling their homes.
Proposed an increase of $700 million in the Bonneville Power Administration's permanent borrowing authority to make needed investments in transmission and other infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest.
The FY 2003 budget for energy programs totals $2.4 billion. This request focuses Federal investment on future energy solutions and on R&D where our investment makes the most difference. To this end, the budget pilots a major DOE and OMB initiative—to be expanded ultimately to all other Departments and agencies—to evaluate applied R&D programs and projects against empirical, objective criteria to ensure that, in additional to their scientific merits, these programs and projects are appropriate activities for the Federal Government, are in accord with the principles of the National Energy Policy, and hold the most promise for delivering a product that will benefits the American people. As a result of these evaluations, some projects were terminated, and some resources were redirected to maximize delivery of public benefits and provide long-term energy solutions. Investments featured in this budget include: FreedomCAR, bringing a long-term hydrogen fuel cell focus to transportation research, High-Temperature Superconductivity, with the potential for significant improvements in power transmission performance, the President's Coal Research Initiative, recognizing the importance of cleaner burning more efficient coal power as part of the Nation's future energy, and Nuclear Power 2010, which aims to bring new nuclear power plants on-line in seven years.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Science programs will emphasize the most significant national priorities—to find new sources of energy, meet the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and make an essential contribution to the Nation's technological leadership, itself the foundation for national security in the 21st Century. The relevance of our science programs to national security was clear in the Department's response to the September 11th attacks. Federal authorities used a decontamination formulation developed at Sandia National Laboratories to help rid Capitol Hill buildings of anthrax. In addition, local officials throughout the country were helped by sharing a high-tech mapping program with demographic and traffic information designed jointly by Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories to protect against terrorism in U.S. cities by simulating terrorist attacks and assessing emergency preparedness.
The Department is requesting $3.3 billion for Science programs in FY 2003, an increase over FY 2002. The budget funds approximately 83,000 hours of operation of the user facilities, an increase of about 15 percent over the FY 2002 level. The budget increases DOE's investment in facilities infrastructures and excess facility disposal ($42.7 million, total) to ensure prudent stewardship of these resources. The budget also maintains major project schedules for the Spallation Neutron Source and contributions to the Large Hadron Collider. Funding also supports cutting edge discovery in nanoscale research, microbial science, and pursuit of a greater understanding of matter.
The Department's Environmental Management program will implement a recently completed top-to-bottom review to better ensure the cleanup of the Cold War legacies, and that future defense requirements, the security, health, and safety of individual Americans remains protected. On the basis of this review, the Department is requesting $6.7 billion for the Environmental Management program in FY 2003. This budget will have a new $800 million Cleanup Reform account out of which those States working with DOE can receive additional funds for alternate cleanup strategies that lead to greater risk reduction at their sites. Also key to achieving our cleanup objective is the Secretary's recent announcement of his intent to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for our Nation's permanent geological repository. Such a recommendation will bring us one step closer to permanently securing the nuclear materials currently stored throughout the country.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
We also discharge our National Security mission as the stewards of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The Department is requesting just over $8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a $433 million increase over the FY 2002 level, signaling a major boost in support for security programs. The Department, through the (NNSA), invests in advanced scientific and manufacturing capabilities to ensure the long-term capability to assess weapons status, extend weapon life, and certify that the stockpile remains safe, secure and reliable without nuclear testing. The Department has a long and successful history in combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Through strong support for nonproliferation programs this budget implements recent bilateral agreements with Russia to address the proliferation of weapons-grade material and supports the innovation needed to ensure homeland security. The budget continues to supply safe and reliable nuclear propulsion plants to the U.S. Navy, thus helping project U.S. military presence around the world.
Changing the Way We Do Business
And more than our mission has changed.
Secretary Abraham also laid out his vision and expectations of the DOE workforce. DOE must become a place where employees of other Departments wish they worked, and an agency every Cabinet member wish they led. Programs would be managed against measurable performance objectives and managers would have clear accountability. Every manager was asked:
to ensure the safety of our employees and the communities surrounding our facilities,
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
instill a respect for and adhere to the highest standards of security; and
build a culture where merit determines hiring and promotion and diversity is viewed as keys to recruiting and retaining the best people.
But the challenge is greater. The Department is also addressing long-standing criticisms of DOE management and moving toward the Administration's model as set forth in the President's Management Agenda. With an emphasis on measurable performance objectives and accountability, the Secretary is holding DOE managers responsible for making these changes. We have set priorities, disciplined our focus and will measure everything we do by reference to our missions and priorities.
Implementing the President's Management Agenda
The President has called for an active but limited government, one that empowers States, cities, and citizens, ensures results through accountability, and promotes innovation through competition. The Administration has targeted areas for improvement throughout the Federal Government. Our work to fully implement these initiatives will continue through FY 2004 and beyond, but we have a path forward and are making changes now.
Human Capital
In order to eliminate unnecessary layers of management, direct personnel to high-priority missions, address skill imbalances, and achieve a 5–10 percent savings in management expenses through comprehensive, creative management reform, DOE will accelerate workforce planning and work with the Office of Personnel Management to conduct complex-wide organizational surveys to analyze and evaluate DOE field and headquarters redundancies, fragmentation and duplication of effort.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Competitive Sourcing
We are initiating formal competitive sourcing reviews under the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 on approximately 1,000 positions. In addition, line managers are planning other reviews that may lead to formal studies. The longer-term goal is to conduct reviews on 50 percent of the Department's inventory of federal positions that are not inherently governmental.
Improved Financial Management
We will continue to build on the Department's unqualified audit opinion on the consolidated financial statements and work to integrate better financial, budget, and program information in order to provide costs information related to performance. Key to the success of this Initiative is the completion of the Financial Management module of the Department's Corporate Management Information System (CMIP).
E–Government
To make better use of computer information systems to improve management, promote efficient use of resources, and make our systems provide more people friendly information, the Department will strengthen its Information Technology investment portfolio by linking investment control processes, using enterprise architecture, and improving security policies and capital planning.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Budget and Performance Integration
We have strengthened the Department's ability to measure performance by establishing the Program Analysis and Evaluation Office and developing a five-year planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation process. Building on the integration of performance metrics into our FY 2003 budget submission, we are improving the performance measures contained in our FY 2003 budget request and will continue to improve performance measures and their integration into the FY 2004 budget. These improvements will provide clear, quantifiable outcomes to support budget requests.
Applied Research and Development (R&D) Investment Criteria
The President's management initiative on applied R&D calls for improved criteria to ensure that programs fulfill an essential Federal role, have well developed plans to achieve objectives, and achieve results that benefit the Nation. Our first phase of improvement is reflected in the budget for the Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. In FY 2004, all applied R&D activities in the Department will make use of these improved criteria.
Reporting on Progress
Management changes at DOE go beyond the objectives of the President's Management Agenda. To clarify roles, responsibilities and accountability, Secretary Abraham has also revamped the Department's management structure.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In October 2001, two new administrative elements were established within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to clarify lines of authority and accountability—Facilities and Operations for oversight of security, environment, safety, health, technical and management support for construction projects, and centralized support for all field-based activities and Management and Administration to manage finance, planning, administration, human resources, procurement, and information technology. NNSA is also taking action to streamline and clarify the chain of command and simplify the headquarters-field management structure.
The Secretary has strengthened the role of the Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment and given him direct line management responsibilities for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Science, Environmental Management; Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Environment, Safety, and Health; Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy; and Worker and Community Transition.
We have also launched a number of initiatives to address previously identified but long-standing problems in programmatic areas. We have:
Brought in outside experts to improve and streamline the Department's safety and security while bolstering our own safeguards and security, the Congress provided us with $368.7 million in FY 2002 supplemental funding to enhance post September 11th security;
Engaged in a top-to-bottom review of the entire Environmental Management program, identifying systemic weaknesses and proposing a new way to do business in the program; and
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Completed benchmarking activities for our science laboratories to ensure that they are operating efficiently and whether current DOE requirements add value and are consistent with other federal agencies.
The Department has made cross-cutting changes to strengthen accountability by:
Modifying the performance evaluation system for the Department's Senior Executives, making them more accountable for ensuring program success. These modifications will flow down to General Schedule employee levels during FY 2002;
Issuing ''Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets,'' (DOE Order 413.3) a major comprehensive resource to address all aspects of major project and program management and improve accountability for project and capital asset management;
Implementing the Project Management Career Development Program to enhance employee technical skills as recommended by the National Research Council;
Expanding the ''Chief Operating Officer's Watch List'' to monitor all significant major construction projects. This useful tool provides high visibility and increased management attention to projects that exhibit early warning signs of trouble. In addition, we are placing much greater emphasis on acquisition planning, incorporating better measurements of performance, conducting earlier independent reviews, ensuring appropriate senior management oversight and providing real-time feedback to influence better outcomes; and
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Initiating a process by which the Department's Program Secretarial Officers submit their highest priority objectives and related performance measures on an annual basis to the Deputy Secretary. This information will be tracked throughout the year and will be used to identify issues that may impede the achievement of these mission objectives.
We have streamlined and consolidated operations including:
Consolidating the Office of Assistant Secretary for International Affairs with the Office of Policy to create a new Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs;
Strengthening the Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance by adding environment, safety, health and security oversight to its responsibilities, and having that office report directly to the Deputy Secretary;
Separating the Office of the Chief Information Officer from the Office of Security and Emergency Operations and elevating it to report directly to the Secretary; and,
Merging the Offices of the Chief Financial Officer and Management and Administration to create the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation.
We are also improving our financial management. The newly consolidated Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation (OMBE) added a new function, Program Analysis and Evaluation, to bring rigorous analysis and long-term budgeting of program plans and funding proposals. These improvements will benefit the Department.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
OMBE will serve as a linchpin to improve the integration of the Department's strategic planning, budgeting and project management activities through the creation of a multi-year planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation capability. The National Nuclear Security Administration Act required the NNSA to submit a Five-Year Nuclear Security Program to the Congress in FY 2002. The Department is expanding this effort to conduct long-term planning for the entire Department of Energy in FY 2004.
In summary, this budget responds to a changing Nation. We will use every resource at our disposal to better support our National Security mission, ensure the Nation's energy supply, implement the President's initiatives, and realize Secretary Abrahams' vision for the Department. Mr. Chairman, this ends my opening statement. I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
Discussion
Climate Change Research
Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Marburger, how does the Climate Change Research Initiative differ from the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, and how will it be evaluated, and by whom?
Dr. MARBURGER. The new Climate Change Program includes two new elements that were announced by President Bush on June 11 of 2001. One, the Climate Change Research Initiative, and the second, the National Climate Change Technology Initiative. Each is scheduled for $40 million of new money,(see footnote 6) and each is designed to emphasize areas of research and technology that bear directly upon the Nation's policies for limiting its impact on climate change.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The existing Global Climate Change Research Program, which is quite large, includes a number of elements that, consistent with the way science is done, are somewhat opportunistic and go in directions whose relevance to climate change policy are not immediately obvious.
And, consequently, in the review of this program and with respect to the needs of policy-makers, it was felt that additional components were required to punch up, as it were, and highlight components of the research agenda that were going to be particularly useful as inputs to climate change technology. So there is a new structure that will be proposed very shortly—tomorrow, I suspect. There will be an announcement of this. But there is a new structure that will attempt to coordinate the policy-oriented components, the new components, with the existing climate change projects, in a unified way that increases the impact of these investments.
Chairman BOEHLERT. But who is going to do the evaluation?
Dr. MARBURGER. There will be a structure that—whose details will be announced in the near future that brings together the key agencies. Actually, in his June 11 announcement, the President did identify leading agencies. The Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Department of Energy are explicitly named in the President's announcement last June, and they will have major responsibilities for coordinating these efforts to focus on policy needs and future technology innovations.
So there will be a structure that is formed under their leadership. I continue to play a role as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Key coordination will continue to be provided under the aegis of the National Science and Technology machinery Committee, NSTC machinery. And we believe that the new structure will provide appropriate leadership and coordination, as well, of these activities.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yet to be defined.
Dr. MARBURGER. Yet to be defined, but it is—there—I don't think there will be any big surprises. I think that the needs here are fairly clear cut. We do have to have real focus on some remaining scientific issues that the science community itself has identified—to improve modeling, for example, to include certain types of observational capabilities that specifically focus on emissions, on atmospheric components, on mechanisms that have to be clarified to proceed with a more well-defined attack on the very serious problem of global warming.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Carnes, what is DOE going to spend its climate technology money on?
Dr. CARNES. Mr. Chairman, right now, let me just talk about climate as a whole, if I could, for a second. Overall, we are going to have $166 million in our '03 budget request related to climate, of which $126 million is in the Office of Science and the Climate Research—the Climate Change Research Initiative. Forty million has been set aside in EERE for the new Climate Change Technology Initiative, and our plan in that program is to focus on an existing base of research and development in climate change technologies. And the specific areas are right now being identified through an interagency review process. Yes, sir.
Balance and Funding
Chairman BOEHLERT. Let me get to Dr. Marburger again. In your testimony you state that the budget takes advantage of important opportunities for discovery and development and it also sustains the basic machinery of R&D. But in our analysis, we see the NIH budget representing about nearly half of the entire Federal science and technology budget. And I am not really challenging that, because I think they do very important work, and I have supported the direction we have been going these last five years. But I am not convinced that they have a monopoly of important scientific opportunities.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And I look at NIH's increase—just the increase of $3.9 billion. It is larger than the entire NSF research budget, which is only $3.7 billion. How were these opportunities defined and how was the funding for these programs prioritized?
Dr. MARBURGER. First of all, the emphasis on medical research and NIH is something that has been going on for some time, probably since the structure of DNA was finally unraveled, and people began to realize that knowledge of the molecular basis for the mechanisms of life was going to have a dramatic, significant impact on health, on the curing of disease, on problems with aging—some of the most difficult problems in our society. And that only goes for the applications to human beings and the microbes that infect us.
There are other applications of this new understanding at the molecular level in agriculture and other applications that are spun off. I believe that the assessment of the importance of this field has been an ongoing one for several decades where the just extraordinary, enormous, huge opportunity presented by the new molecular level understanding of life needed to be exploited by society. And many other nations have made massive investments in this area, so I believe that the President's recognition of this as the highest priority area for investing in science is a sound one.
Chairman BOEHLERT. And I would say that we generally are very much in agreement and we are cheerleaders too for NIH. But, you know, we are talking about balance and opportunities, and a lot of opportunities come from basic research investment and other places—biology and chemistry and physics and all the others—engineering and information technology.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And I am wondering, you know, if NIH does so well—and I want it to do well—let me stress that. I don't want anyone to interpret what I am saying as being opposed to what NIH is doing. I am a cheerleader. But I am concerned at the dramatic bump up year after year when other opportunities are not given the consideration I think they deserve.
So, I guess, what I am arguing is, all those other areas of the Federal budget should put a little more money in the S&T pot and we should put a little more money in sort of balancing the outlays so that Dr. Colwell doesn't have to reject, in that wonderful system they have, merit-based decision-making, peer review. What a wonderful example. Everybody cheers that, and I am trying to get other agencies to follow their lead. But when she has to go through the process and say, gee, this is a wonderful opportunity. We love it. We just don't have enough money. I am concerned about that.
Dr. MARBURGER. Mr. Chairman, there is a big installed basin in the other areas of research, and the President has identified priorities in some of those areas and moved to provide additional funding for them in a budget that takes place among constraints. We are waging a war against terrorism. We have other obligations in the budget. It is important to make priorities and to bite the bullet and live up to those priorities and to sustain progress in the other key areas. And we think this budget does that.
Chairman BOEHLERT. We all—you are being a good soldier and I commend you for that. And I would say, absent a 9/11—and 9/11 changed so many things—so I appreciate the enormous challenges facing the Administration. But I will tell you, if we didn't have to do what we are doing, with increasing defense spending—and we absolutely have to—and we didn't have to do what we are doing on homeland security, this Committee collectively would be madder than hell, to put it bluntly, at the level of funding for some of the other science enterprises.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And when I look at NIH, for—NSF, for example, 5.1 percent sounds great, but and then when you take out the transfers from—proposed from these other agencies and you take out inflation, we are talking about a very minimal increase, and I think that is not sufficient. But my time has long expired. Mr. Hall.
Oil and Gas R&D Programs
Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Carnes, you say in your statement, page 3, the first full paragraph, that science programs will emphasize the most significant national priorities to find new sources of energy, and then you go on to list, I think, a couple of other thrusts there. Yet, the President's recommendation this year is for substantial cuts in the oil and gas R&D programs.
For example, a cut of 50 percent in the Natural Gas Technologies Program, a 37 percent cut in the Oil Technology Program, a 27 percent cut in the Fossil Fuels Energy Environmental Restoration Program. All these total more than $40 million in cuts. And it is—and we find this at a time and a point in history where it seems that this is exactly the right time to solve a lot of our energy problems through production here in this country and in some shut-in areas and offshore and up north. And particularly at the time when Saudi Arabia seems a little bit reluctant to help us find what another Texan here in Washington calls the evil-doers.
It just—it seems to me that we ought to be doing everything we can to support new technologies, support new drilling to find new thrusts, to turn around that spiral of being dependent upon those folks, none of whom like us, and none of whom seem to appreciate us. And, yet, it just seems to me that we are making a mistake in making these deep cuts. Is that something that you all will carry along and that there may be some changes in? And maybe I ought to ask someone else that, but you are the key financial officer in the Department of Energy and I know—I think I know how you feel. What is the answer to that?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. CARNES. Mr. Chairman, there—I mean, Mr. Hall, there are a couple of——
Mr. HALL. Now, you got it right the first time.
Dr. CARNES. That is right. I was going to say I am not a real doctor. I just play one at DOE.
Mr. HALL. Yeah.
Dr. CARNES. My Ph.D. is in English. A couple of points I would make about fossil energy.
Mr. HALL. Uh-huh.
Dr. CARNES. First off, I would just say, there were a lot of difficult decisions we had to make——
Mr. HALL. Yeah.
Dr. CARNES [continuing]. In this budget——. And there were a lot of matters that were resolved very, very late in this budget. And some of them are in this particular area. I would also note that we only, about a week ago, got a confirmed Assistant Secretary to oversee this. And when he arrived in his office, he had found waiting for him on his desk a memo from the Secretary directing him to undertake a strategic mission review of this area. We have done that in a number of other areas, such as energy efficiency, and Dave Garman came up and testified about that. And you see our budget proposal reflects the results of that mission review. Mike Smith will be undertaking a similar review here in fossil energy. And we may see a different outcome in the future. I can't tell you that until we have completed that review.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
But I would add one further point, which is that in the particular areas you are talking about, we are trying to prioritize our funding on areas where we think the private sector is probably not doing enough. And we want to stimulate the private sector to step up and do more in some of these areas, particularly in oil and gas. And we are—and that is where we are putting the priority of our dollars, in those particular areas.
Mr. HALL. Well, on research and development, the major integrated oil companies have closed almost all their R&D. Haven't they? In this country. They have gone offshore on us, exploration and development programs in areas where it is cheaper and easier to find, and that leaves the future exploration to—and production to the little guys, the independents, who don't really have the deep pockets to fund the significant R&D programs.
Yet, we have had testimony here—and I think it is generally accepted—that there are huge oil and gas resources remaining to be discovered in this country. And H.R. 4, that this Congress has passed—this House has passed and sent on, I believe, over to the Senate to work on, alludes to support and new technology for the deep drilling, offshore drilling.
I think given this vacuum in oil and gas research and development that has been created by the exit of the major companies, it seems reasonable that we ought to be doing something. It would be appropriate, I think, for the government to step up its activity. You say the private sector. Well, these independents don't have it. They don't have the money. They can't borrow it. You can't borrow money to drill a well unless we have four or five years of stability in pricing, and that hasn't happened and it is not happening.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
But the little guys drill for it and then sell it to the big guys, but they find it, I guess 90 percent of it. They have got to have some help. But they—the private sector ought to do it, but they can't do it if they don't have some support. And the support is in that H.R. 4 that indicates Federal support, but a way that they can get their money back through leases and lease-backs. So it just seems to me that we ought to step up our activities in oil and gas to fill the gap rather than retreating from it. But this seems like it is the moment for it.
You know, our Chairman is a super guy, supporter, and a strong leader in the environmental community. And George Miller, from the other side of his philosophy, is strong on environmental things. It has always been my hope that people like that would step up and lead us into more drilling and better technology. I don't say the Chairman ought to do that, but the President even turned to George Miller and Ted Kennedy to help him on his education bill. So I would take help from just about anybody I could get it from, as he did.
Dr. CARNES. Again, two points, if I could, sir. Number one, the funds that we do have in gas and oil are going to be focused on novel technologies. But I think your larger point, I know, is one that our new Assistant Secretary is looking at, among all the other things that are on his plate, as he undertakes this review. I don't think he is at all indifferent to this concern, and it is one of the issues that I have heard him talk about already.
Mr. HALL. Well, but you cut the budget before the review, but I will get back to that. I think my time is about up. And it just seems to me—not just in the oil and gas and fossil fuels—but coal. We have got an abundance of coal in the midsection of this country. If we could mine it, we could double the output of the OPEC nations all put together in energy if we could just mine it. And that doesn't mean run over environmentalists. That means new technology and that is the day and time for it. This is the time for us to strike if we are ever going to. And we ought to be led by the environmentalists who don't want to see their kids on ships going over there to fight for energy from somebody that has got what we have—when we have it right here at home. That is the shame of all of it. Thank you.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. CARNES. Yes, sir.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. And I would observe that this Committee acted very responsibly in dealing with its portion of H.R. 4, and we did, for example, have a major impact on the Clean Coal Technology Program. We dealt with the sense of the subject of ultra deep drilling. And so in many respects we are on the same wavelength. We have got to deal responsibly with these issues so on the one hand we can deal with the need for energy; on the other hand, do it in a responsible way in order to protect and enhance the environment for generations to come. And it is a pleasure to be your partner.
Information Technology Research
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions, and I would like to direct both to Dr. Marburger and to Dr. Colwell. And the first is this—the Office of Management and Budget commented about the Administration's proposed budget and pointed out that h of our gains and economic productivity since 1995—h are attributable to information technology. And without any question, any research and development done with the idea of improving information technology yields incredible payoffs.
And I know, Dr. Marburger, you mentioned in your testimony, for example, that nanotechnology, I think, went up 19 percent, but that is still within the context of less than half a percent of the research budget of the National Science Foundation and it is still within the context of a small base and it is still within the context of a declining budget in material science and in the chemistry and physics departments at the National Science Foundation.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
But my point is that given the indisputable and incredible benefits from investing in research and development of information technology and nanotechnology, shouldn't we be spending more on research and development budgets in those areas? And, Dr. Marburger, if you will respond first and then Dr. Colwell?
Dr. MARBURGER. As you mentioned, Mr. Congressman, the information technology and networking research are targeted for increases. It is a priority area and it is also a rather mature area. There is already a rather large investment in research in that area. It is an area in which, at least for short-term work, there is a good deal of industrial private sector research, and a lot of investment in that area, in terms of developing new products and new approaches. So within the constraints of this budget, the Administration believes that it has paid attention to information technology and has made it possible for us to continue to excel.
And I would add that the nanotechnology investment is also related to very long-term leadership in this area. The ability to continue to go up the curve of Moore's Law and make faster, smaller, cheaper devices that can feed the computer advances of the future—that capability also needs to be sustained. So I see investments in other key areas, such as nanotechnology, as part of the long-term insurance we need to have to maintain information technology. So, yes, it is important and the Administration recognizes that and has tried to deliver in this budget.
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. All right. Dr. Colwell, given that our Nation's economic health, I think, is arguably just as important as our Nation's physical health, and acknowledging its importance, shouldn't we be doing more on research and development given the importance of information technology to our economy?
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. COLWELL. Well, let me respond by saying that, indeed, this is a priority. And if you separate out the dollars for research from those for tools, you will see it much more clearly. The ITR research actually increases by $23 million and the terascale system is decreasing by $15 million. It is a final installment in the current investment cycle. So there is a net increase of about $8 million, or three percent for ITR.
High Risk Research Proposals
But let me add to that. We are asking the program directors to use about 10 percent of the information technology research money for very high-risk, high-potential projects. And so the program directors use external reviews and their own expertise in science and engineering to make sure that we are right at the cutting edge.
And, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Chairman and Congressman Smith for their attention to cybersecurity, because that is another very important aspect of information technology research, and that fits into the effort that we are making.
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Dr. Colwell, I appreciate your mentioning that. Again, my point is, I think we could be doing more given the importance of the industry. Let me squeeze in another question, and this goes to semiconductors. We were told by experts in the industry that literally in the next few years we are going to hit the brick wall. We are going to reach the physical limits of being able to improve semiconductors. Given that, shouldn't we be doing more? And what should we be doing to make sure that we are ready for the next generation of semiconductors, the next small electrical devices that are going to replace the current semiconductors? What are we doing there and——
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. COLWELL. Well, my answer, sir, really is——
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Okay.
Dr. COLWELL [continuing]. That we could do a lot more. We have to decline, on average, two out of every three proposals, including those that are in ITR and nanotechnology. We have an extraordinary opportunity; in the future we do need to do more.
Basic Research Funding
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. We are going to have to anticipate that time where the improvement and the growth stops and factor in the impact of that on the economy. And by anticipating it, I mean more research and development now rather than later. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Colwell. Thank you, Dr. Marburger, and, Mr. Chairman. That is the end of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. And I want to thank you for your leadership in that area—information technology and our partnership——
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you.
Chairman BOEHLERT [continuing]. In cybersecurity, and we are on the same wavelength.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me return, Dr. Marburger, a little bit, to where the Chairman was a few minutes ago, because I think he and I are on the same wavelength on that as it relates to the NSF budget and NIH. And I certainly agree with the funding we are doing at NIH. But the truth is, if we don't increase and balance that funding—and I hope you will respond to it a little more in depth—because our basic research comes through NIH—I mean, NSF. And NSF funding, if we can't increase it—and you have just heard it from Mr. Smith—we are going to run into a brick wall real soon.
And my question to you is, if we are headed in the same direction with this budget, if the Administration's proposal is to continue to flatline or, in effect, it will be a reduction with the transfers you have just heard—we are going to be in deep trouble.
Dr. MARBURGER. Let me respond to that first by pointing out that the commitment that the President made to double the NIH budget does end this year. The budget is doubled in this budget proposal and hopefully that will remove some constraints on the ability to fund other priorities—some of which have already been identified—in the future. But it is important to identify priorities and have the means to identify priorities and to go after them. So I think that the budgets are appropriate.
I would also like to point out that investments in the basic science and technology materials research necessary for the next generation of devices takes place not only in the National Science Foundation work, but also in the Department of Energy and Department of Commerce. Particularly, the Department of Energy operates facilities and has a priority nanoscience program of its own that definitely feeds into these areas that you are concerned about.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
But I do want to emphasize that the President has proposed a budget that has clear priorities in it. It identifies others. It doesn't denigrate the importance of any of these areas, but it has to make hard choices.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, I hope you understand the concerns of this member and, I think, other members of this Science Committee. And I would hope, as budgets continue to be developed, this is taken back, because if you don't get the basic research done at the universities—I know other committees are doing—other agencies are doing some, but NSF is where it really gets done.
Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service
Let me move to another question very quickly because my time is running out. I would like to highlight one increase in the Administration's request, that is of particular interest to me. An increase of about $4.5 million for the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service in the National Weather Service budget. This is important because we have to make sure—North Carolina is one of those states that has been hit harder than any state in the Nation in recent years with flooding, with hurricanes, etcetera, and we are facing some tough economic times as a result of it right now and a lot of our people are.
But I have a bill that the Chairman has been so helpful with—we have worked through in this Committee—that requests the NWS to improve forecasting of inland flooding associated with tropical cyclones. And this increase is consistent with NWS's activities that we are seeking to expand with this legislation. I hope that, as it moves through this body, hopefully in March, and through the Senate, that we can get your help in making sure that it is implemented. Because this is a critical issue certainly for the eastern part of—the southeastern part of the United States that gets hit harder than any other area, specifically North Carolina.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. BODMAN. Is that question directed at me, sir——
Mr. ETHERIDGE. It is, sir.
Dr. BODMAN [continuing]. We will certainly support your interests there. As you heard me say in my remarks, I believe, we have made recommendations not only for an improvement in our ability to forecast flooding, but also for the backup. One of the worries that we ran into as we evaluated what was happening after 9/11, was that, if we were to have some kind of an unexpected act and we found that some of our systems were not available, we would have found ourselves in a—potentially in a major problem. And so we have what I would describe as very delicate systems right now. But first we are going to try to improve that and then secondly we will be making this investment so that we can do a better, more effective job.
I would comment that I believe—I am a newcomer here, so I get no credit or blame for it—but I would tell you that based on what I saw that they were able to do in forecasting hurricanes, the folks at the National Weather Service did a first-class job this last season and have been properly recognized for that. So I would like to be able to take that capability—we would like to take that capability and see it applied in other areas to wit the flooding area that you have highlighted, sir.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, sir. And, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. BODMAN. Thank you.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. ETHERIDGE. And I would, if I may, Mr. Chairman, thank you and we were fortunate we didn't have any hurricanes this last year. So that is a big help too and so if you can have any impact on that, we would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, is recognized for his questions.
Importance of Research
Mr. EHLERS. And thank you. And I would remind Mr. Etheridge that he is welcome to move to Michigan where we have no hurricanes—just an occasional tornado. It is a real pleasure to participate in this hearing every year and to just get the overview of the picture. And I personally am very grateful for what we have in this Nation. Someone once commented that our national laboratories are the crowned jewels of our research effort. And I agree with that—at least most of them are. But we have other jewels. And it is clear that the National Science Foundation is one of our precious gems, probably an emerald since you got a green rating from the OMB.
But NIST is a real gem, a clear gem. And they have done marvelous work for this country, very quietly, for years. And NOAA is rapidly achieving that status as well. It is just a very good research enterprise.
Having said that, I have to also express some concerns. The President's budget's priorities, as Dr. Marburger has said, are clear. He has—it is international—or, pardon me, national security, homeland security, and economic security. Those are the three main priorities. And what the public and America has to understand, and what our Congress has to understand, is that good solid research undergirds each and every one of those priorities.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I mean, let us take national priority, for—national security, for example. We are just very amazed, and, in fact, pleased with what we were able to do with laser-guided bombs, and basically winning a war, so-called, with very little loss of life. And everyone thinks that is wonderful and they say, isn't it wonderful that our Armed Forces have done this research.
Well, I have got to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, the laser was developed based on principles developed by theoretical physicists before World War II. The laser, itself, was developed within about 10 years of World War II with no thought that it would ever be used for anything such as bombs, or, for that matter, surgery, which is commonly done today on eyes, and, for that matter, on hemorrhoids. So you have surgery from top to bottom. The laser is just an incredibly useful tool, but it was developed on principles developed by physicists years ago.
World War II was won—or ended with nuclear weapons based on predictions developed in the early 1900's by Albert Einstein. And I could go on and on. You can apply those—this also to economic security. The economic security we have had for the past decade is largely based on research that was done 30 or 40 years ago and just came through fruition during this decade.
We—and it is very important, as I say, for the American public and the Congress to recognize the importance of this research enterprise and support it appropriately. To get back to Mr. Smith's question a moment ago, about the funding for nanotechnology, I think it is important to recognize that you cannot fund nanotechnology with nano dollars. It takes real solid, concrete expenditures of sizable proportions.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
If I may, I would like to ask our audiovisual genius, in the back corner, to put up a chart that I have had prepared, and there we are. It is a bit hard to see, but if you can turn out some lights. This is only the research—R&D funding for the major agencies. I have another chart for the smaller agencies. But look at what has happened in the past decade. And the issue I am getting at here is the balance, which the Administration discusses in the budget document. And I am certainly in favor of balance.
But we see—what we see developing here is a very unbalanced situation. And I agree with Chairman Boehlert, I am not going to criticize the increases in NIH funding. But look what has happened. The increase alone in NIH funding over the past decade is greater than the total funding for the next three major agencies put together. Furthermore, they have all been constant or declined with the exception of NSF, which has shown a slight increase. I would maintain that we have gotten out of balance.
In addition to that, I would point out that in research spending per dollar of GDP, we are already trailing both Germany and Japan. And interestingly enough, little old South Korea is very rapidly overtaking us and, very shortly, if we don't increase our funding per GDP, we will be fourth rather than third among the developed nations. We cannot continue in this pattern.
Now, I am not here to berate any of you. I am just saying, we have to educate the American public and the Congress on the importance of this, and, for that matter, the Administration, as well.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. Marburger, I am heartened by your comment that since the doubling of NIH ends this coming fiscal year, I understood your words to say, now, maybe we can use that increase to fund the others. Because the increase alone in NIH this coming year is almost as large as the total budget of NSF. And that, again, is a matter of imbalance. NSF should be going up just as rapidly. And the reason is very simple. Because you cannot continue getting good results in NIH or any health-related research without the accompanying research in physics, biology, chemistry, and the other basic sciences. Who developed the X-ray, a marvelous diagnostic tool? Physicist. Who developed the CAT scanner, MRI? Physicist. And you can go on and do the same thing with chemists, biologists, and so forth.
My point is simply, we have to look at the whole picture, we have to get back in balance, and we certainly have to increase our funding so that it will match the rest.
Now, I want to ask you to comment, Dr. Marburger, and I suspect you agree with me on all this, but you—we have to join with you and everyone else in this room in educating everyone involved. I see you want to make a comment. I have a question for Dr. Bodman too and my time is running late. Dr. Marburger.
Dr. MARBURGER. I do want to make a comment. And, you know, we really have to be concerned about arbitrary formulas and——
Mr. EHLERS. Yeah.
Dr. MARBURGER [continuing]. Bringing everything up. And the comment I want to make is a science comment. You have got to have some basis for distributing the money to the different areas of science. If you made the basis the complexity of the systems that are under study, huge increases for NIH relative to the other areas of science are justified. The complexity of living systems so vastly exceeds the complexity of systems that are studied in other areas of science that it is going to take this kind of mass of investment in order to understand it and take advantage of our current capabilities.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
So we are really looking for measures, for reasons, for singling out one area or another and shifting our investment around. And I think that is the point of the President's Management Agenda as applied to the sciences. We are not looking for formulas like doubling, tripling, and so forth, but we—what we really need to do is understand what the basis is for making decisions. So you may think that that is a big imbalance, but nature has big imbalances too. And the frontier of complexity is largely in the area of living systems.
Mr. EHLERS. We could get in a discussion about that. Based on complexity, I suspect astrophysicists would get the greatest amount of money. But the—because they are dealing with every atom in the whole universe. But I don't disagree with your point. I mean, that is precisely what we have to do, but we have to do it very carefully, very thoughtfully. In the past, it has been largely a political judgment and I am saying, let us get away from that. Let us make very thoughtful balanced decisions.
MEP and ATP
Dr. Bodman, just on your budget, as I have already said, you have some of the best jewels in the country under your jurisdiction. And I hope that will continue. In regard to technology assistance, I believe something that we are lacking in this country that other countries, particularly Japan, does very well, and that is what I might call a cooperative extension approach.
I have always been amazed—Michigan State University in my state, agricultural university—that research discoveries one year are used out on the farms the next year. But in most of the research in this country, there is a 10- to 20-year lag and frequently more. And the Commerce Department is probably the logical way to get that information out and get it integrated.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I noticed, in your budget, you are essentially zeroing out MEP, and ATP is going to make a drastic change in form. I have no—I have some questions about that. We don't have time to get into it. But I really hope that everyone can recognize that you and your department have the responsibility of trying to transfer a lot of this scientific knowledge or supervise the transfer out to other areas. And I hope that you have some ideas and are thinking very deeply about how you can do this and how you can help the other scientific—scientists working on government contracts to transfer that information out quickly. I would appreciate your comments on that and what your plans and ideas are.
Chairman BOEHLERT [presiding]. Dr. Bodman, you may respond. The gentleman's time has expired, but we want to give you the opportunity to respond.
Dr. BODMAN. Thank you, sir. First, we believe that we have an approach in the ATP program that will, in fact, help with the utilization of technology as it is developed and bring it to the country on a more equitable basis than is the current case.
I would also comment, sir, on that general issue that NOAA has done a particularly effective job in bringing its research efforts to the field. And part of the challenge in managing NOAA that Admiral Lautenbacher has is that we not only do fundamental research, which we do in that agency, but we are also responsible for education. We partner with universities, with non-profit groups, non-government organizations around the country—in fact, around the world, and try to make that research available.
So we have learned a lot there. And I think that that also serves as a model as to how we can continue to do a better job. So it is in both of these agencies that, I think, we do have outreach, we do have the analog of the kind of extension plans that many of the universities that I—that many of the state universities, more land grant type universities have. And I think that that—we have a reasonable model and one we are going to continue to work on.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. EHLERS. How do you expect to carry on the—what MEP has done—manufacturing as—are you developing——
Dr. BODMAN. I don't have a good answer to that. I can tell you that, you know, we have—I think it is a reasonable proposal that the—or at least a question that the Administration has raised as to how long should an MEP center be funded? Is it something that can achieve stability on its own? Is that a reasonable thing to do? I think it is a fair question and one which we would like to answer depending upon the development of the budget. I think it—I think that the question is a good one. Whether it is realistic to expect these centers to exist without Federal support, I don't have a quick answer for you, sir.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, that is one that we have a deep interest in here—Dr. Ehlers and I and several others on this Committee. Manufacturing Extension Partnership, I think, is a program that has proven its value. And I am a little bit concerned about the limited resources allocated in the proposed budget, and we will have something to say about that. Mr. Larson.
Aviation R&D
Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This past year we had the opportunity with the Chairman to travel to Europe to the Air and Space Exhibit. And one of the things that I came away with from that visit was a frank discussion with the Europeans and their vision for their future, is something they call 2020, and where they anticipate being in terms of aviation and aerospace.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And what disturbs me—or I guess confounds me is how the United States is responding in turn. This, of course, has only become exacerbated since September 11 by the problematic concerns that plague our commercial aircraft travel. And, yet, in terms of an industry that both provides jobs, technology, research, and masters all of the techniques of science and engineering, that are necessitated in order for this country to continue to remain on the cutting edge of technology and flourish and produce the kind of jobs and transportation systems that will keep us out front of this market, we seem to be woefully behind.
The Administration's policy toward aviation R&D is very unclear. And so I wanted to ask, first—and if you can bear with me in this line of questioning. NASA issues an ambitious blueprint for aeronautics days after we learn that NASA's aeronautics R&D funding is being cut again in fiscal year 2003's budget request.
OMB's score card indicates that NASA needs to improve the rate at which industry makes use of NASA's aviation technology developments, while others argue, in the Administration, that the R&D benefit to the aviation industry is corporate welfare. Meanwhile, back in Europe, they are eating our lunch, focusing on a plan to capture the market we are trying to hold on to.
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. My question—and I guess, I will start with you, Dr. Marburger, is, can you explain what is going on and what role you think the government should be playing in aviation R&D? And does the government see 2020 as a real threat to our European counterparts taking away our commercial markets in a value-oriented industry here in this country?
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. MARBURGER. Mr. Congressman, I have met directly with representatives of the aircraft industry to hear their concerns and you have characterized them quite well. There is a Federal role for R&D associated with maintaining competitiveness in this critical area of our economy. And I believe that this budget demonstrates its commitment.
In the science and technology category that I defined earlier, identified by the National Academy of Sciences, the budget for NASA's aerospace technology component increases 12 percent, which is significantly above the two percent overall base that I measure success in this budget by for science departments. So there is an actual increase in funds available at that area.
As you probably are aware, there is a commission chaired by former Congressman Walker looking into the issues that have been brought forward from a number of directions. And I am personally in touch with people who are concerned in this area in the Department of Transportation. And I believe that it is necessary to pay attention to these issues and to track them. I personally testified before the Walker Commission earlier this year—actually, it was in December—to express my commitment to continued strengthening of the U.S. aerospace and civil aviation systems.
So I think there is a commitment there. I do believe that there is a role for the Federal Government. And it is important to continue to support——
Mr. LARSON. Well, with all due respect, Dr. Marburger, isn't the 12 percent increase that you noted for space launches and not aeronautics? And what ever happened to the ultra-efficient engine technology that we should be pursuing? And why is it that we can't compete? How are American companies going to compete with the combined nations of Europe if the Federal Government doesn't step up to the plate and provide significant amounts of research and development monies? These guys have laid out a goal to basically take this market away from us.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
In our arrogance, because we control the airwaves militarily, we are allowing a valued industry to slip away because we don't have the wherewithal to put the money forward in R&D to continue to have us produce cutting-edge technology that will allow us to compete. Look at the shape that Boeing finds itself in today. Look at the shape of Lockheed Martin, all great American juggernauts and captains of industry now find themselves in a situation where how do they compete with both pleasing their shareholders and trying to compete with a nation that provides both direct and indirect subsidies to their aerospace industry.
Dr. MARBURGER. I can only repeat that this is an issue that the Administration is aware of and sympathetic with the industry on. There is an appropriate role here. It does need to be carried out through the mechanisms that we have available to us. And I will provide more detail on that issue, if you wish.
Mr. LARSON. Well, far from being corporate welfare, this is corporate initiative. This is jobs created. This is true economic stimulus in terms of what the Nation needs. And to stand by and watch this slip away, when our enemy, so to speak, in the context of global competition, has already drawn the line in the sand, I think not to act is at a peril of seeing this valued industry slip away. And I don't know if anyone else—I see my time is up. But——
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I would invite Mr. Larson to present that same question when we have Mr. O'Keefe here, the Director of NASA. This isn't a NASA hearing. This is—and NASA is for a Space and Aeronautics Committee.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. LARSON. And I welcome the opportunity.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I am looking forward to you presenting that same gutsy presentation there at NASA. One—I might—my question may help answer your inquiry, why haven't we been spending more money on this? You know, there is only a certain amount of money. Mr. O'Keefe came here and he had a big pile of beans and showed us how many beans could go where.
Global Climate Change Research
And, you know, we have been spending—and where I do disagree with my chairman—and I say respectfully—I know we disagree on this issue—we have been spending an awful lot of money on global warming research for the last 10 years. And, in fact, to answer my colleague's question—why haven't we spent more money on aviation research? Because the last Administration's priority was not to keep our airlines competitive and our aircraft manufacturers competitive. Their priority was to prove that global warming exists, for Pete's sakes. And that is why we spent tens of billions of dollars in these last 10 years just to prove that.
And then I read in the newspaper the other day that in the South Pole it is getting colder. Is that right? Is the South Pole getting colder? I just want to ask that right off the bat here.
Dr. MARBURGER. The expert on the South Pole is to my left.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. COLWELL. Let me say that Dr. Susan Soloman has just written a very nice paper. I think it will appear in Science shortly. Which shows this so-called colder regime is due to air circulation patterns and ocean circulation patterns. And I would be very happy——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. You mean the answer is, yes, but there is an explanation. That still protects the global warming theory. So, okay. Now, I am going to tell you, it is a lot colder in—you know, people are saying that we have—it is such a warm, warm winter in Washington. They were saying that up until about a week ago when it became really cold again. And I want you to know, during that same period of time in California, we were saying, it is really cold. We are having the coldest winter that we have had for a long time. The earth seems to have this balance to it. And from everything I have heard from the very beginning on this issue of global warming, it is about maybe five percent of—if there is global warming or some impact—that maybe five percent of the gases that we are talking about actually have anything to do with the human race whatsoever, and the rest of it is natural gases and things coming from bugs and farts coming from cows and things such as that.
But let me just ask you this—and, by the way, I agree, you are—what you are doing and what we are doing here, in terms of research and development, is vital to our country. And that is why I take the issue of global warming seriously on the other side, because I believe we are siphoning off really important money that should be going into developing new jet engines and keeping us competitive into this type of nonsense which is just—you know, so how much money—the question is, how much money are we going to spend this year on global warming and how much have we spent in the last 10 years?
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. MARBURGER. I——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is the question.
Dr. MARBURGER. Yeah. I can't answer that question specifically about the last 10 years, and I haven't pulled out the money in the Climate Change Research Program that is specifically on global warming. We are spending about $1.9—$1.7 billion in the Global Climate Change Research Program at this time. And that is——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is the one program.
Dr. MARBURGER. That is the cross-cutting roll-up of the——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.
Dr. MARBURGER [continuing]. Now being spent in all the agencies.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does that include NASA?
Dr. MARBURGER. And I don't know——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. That includes NASA.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. MARBURGER [continuing]. What the figures for the—yes, that does include NASA.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So it is almost $2 billion.
Dr. MARBURGER. Yes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And——
Dr. BODMAN. There—if I may add, sir?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay.
Dr. BODMAN. The number Dr. Marburger gave you is for Global Climate Change Research.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.
Dr. BODMAN. In addition to that, there is Global Climate Change Technology, namely developing processes, developing equipment that would respond to the need to reduce the emissions of those gases that are deemed to be contributors to global warming. And that number—my colleague seated on the far left would be able to give you a better number, but I think it is up over $2 billion that is being spent in the Global Climate Change Research area.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. So——
Dr. BODMAN. Well, it is a substantial—it is——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. By the way, if engines are made——
Dr. BODMAN. It is a substantial amount of money.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. By the way, if engines are made more efficient, in order to make sure that the air is cleaner so that people live better, I think that is a good investment. If we are, instead, spending all sorts of money on engines so that we can, in some way, affect the global climate, I think that is nonsense. They may be parallel. I am not sure. That may be a parallel goal. But——
Dr. BODMAN. With all due respect, sir——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Dr. BODMAN [continuing]. I believe that most knowledgeable scientists would disagree with you.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, to be fair, you are wrong.
Dr. BODMAN. Well, but I am——
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I mean, every time I hear this—all the scientists disagree with global warming. Sir, that is baloney. I have over and over again, when we confront the issue, we get letters from thousands of scientists and signing petitions saying, no, this isn't true. We don't agree with that. And it is just that the scientists who are for—who are presenting this case to us really understand PR and they know how to try to get their hands on Federal research dollars. The other guys are just out there doing research on projects and they know they are not going to get money by saying there is no global warming. And ever since the last Administration came in, that was the policy. So now we've got a new Administration. I was hoping there would be a new policy.
I—again, I know I disagree honestly and I know Sherry Boehlert, our Chairman, has a totally opposite point of view and there are many other people who have opposite points of view on this. I would just hope that we all can agree that some people can honestly disagree on it. It is just up until now it has been a steamroller and I think we have wasted a lot of money. Thank you very much.
Mr. GUTKNECHT [presiding]. The Chair allowed the gentleman from California to go on longer because the Chair generally agrees with the gentleman from California. As a matter of fact, on behalf of my constituents in Minnesota, I always say, if there be such thing as global warming, let us have more of it. And we are appreciative of the mild winter. The gentleman from California, Mr. Honda.
Advanced Technology Program
Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. And not to extend the issue of the global warming, but if we have too much of it, some of the islands in the Pacific may disappear. Well, I appreciate the discussion—previous discussion on NSF and on MEP. My question is concerned about the fate of the Advanced Technology Program at NIST. The President's budget proposal notes that the program has been associated with some technical successes, but it also suggests that the program constituted unwarranted corporate subsidies to large corporations.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
The solutions to this problem is that ATP is slated for a 21 percent funding cut to minimize corporate subsidies. Doesn't this seem like, you know, cutting off your nose to spite your face? Last year alone, eight small companies from in and around my district were awarded new grants through ATP. The total funding proposed for all new programs nationwide in the fiscal year '03 budget is roughly equal to the new funding companies in the Bay Area secured last year. These small companies, not the large companies, the budget proposal claims to target.
Are there other ways the corporate subsidy problem might be addressed? It seems like we are playing within a budget item and saying there is an increase, but we really make some decreases in other areas. Is there a way we can approach this?
Dr. BODMAN. Well, we think, sir, that the—assuming that the question was directed to me—we think, sir, that the proposal that we have made for the modification of the ATP program deals with the questions of corporate subsidies. They are inappropriate corporate subsidies—by advancing the possibility of universities and smaller businesses taking a larger share and playing a more prominent role in—as grant recipients of this program.
As to the amount that has been requested, there are two things that I would comment on. First, that this has been a difficult year. It is a challenging year in terms of the budgetary requirements for homeland security, for prosecuting the war. And so every dollar that has been proposed has been looked at very carefully, not only by us, but by the folks at OMB. And judgments have been made as to what the right amount of money is. Those decisions can obviously be debated and there can be alternative views.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
But I will tell you that at least as far as the Department of Commerce is concerned, as far as NIST is concerned, that the modifications have—at least in our mind, have answered the questions that came from various parts of the Administration involving whether this program should stay and should continue to be an important part of what we do.
Mr. HONDA. I appreciate the response and I understand that the relationship with the universities is important. Now, I support that. But really when we are saying we are targeting large corporations, but we affect the small companies, there seems to be a disconnect there in terms of the rationale. And when we look at the amount of investment that we could be making in these companies, that is a small amount of money to be investing for the dividends that we are looking for in homeland security, in airline security, and all the other areas that we are looking at, whether it is biometrics or IT or whatever other activities that these companies are involved in. And it is—we are looking at, I think, approximately $49 to $50 million. And that is not a whole heck of a lot in the whole picture of things.
Someone else said, you know, a billion here, a billion there, then you start talking about real money. Here we are talking about matters of a few million dollars that we could invest properly for long-term investments. And we know that in this Committee that investments in these kinds of R&D are critical for the role that the Federal Government can play. I appreciate your response and I will look forward to some—perhaps some, you know, mushing around on the—in the budget.
Dr. BODMAN. I would just have a quick comment, if I may, sir. That is, when you talk about targeting large companies, it was our view that the large—that the very large companies that are research-intensive themselves have taken a disproportional share of the dollars out of this program. And the idea here was not to eliminate the Fortune 500, but to cause them to share with other entities, be they universities or small businesses, to a greater degree than they have in the past, and to have a disproportional share go to small business, medium-size business, as well as universities to make——
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. HONDA. Now——
Dr. BODMAN [continuing]. If you will, a more even playing field.
Mr. HONDA. Right. But the large corporation—there are, indeed—or was that money being used for product development or is that primary research?
Dr. BODMAN. I think it—in the past, sir, is your question, about what has happened in the past?
Mr. HONDA. Well, the reason for the targeting of larger corporations and the utilization of this funding for their types of research.
Dr. BODMAN. That is what I am——
Mr. HONDA. Because that is what——
Dr. BODMAN. That is where I think there may be a misunderstanding. When you say targeting, you and I aren't communicating on that. The idea is to reduce or de-target, if you will, the proportion of money going to the large corporations and to make that money—to cause that money to be spread among both academic institutions as well as small and medium-size business. And so I am not sure, when you say target, they have been targeted in my mind to cause a reduction in the proportion of this program that they enjoy.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. HONDA. Well, I guess the reason I used the word target is that maybe corporations are corporations in some people's mind, but large corporations—there is a distinction between large corporations and small companies.
Dr. BODMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HONDA. And perhaps my eight companies can get together with you and sort of help clarify this, if that is okay with you.
Dr. BODMAN. I would be happy to do that, sir.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much.
Basic Research
Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert.
Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there have been a lot of questions that have been asked on a general theme, and that is basic research. So I would like to associate my comment—or my comments with particularly Dr. Ehlers and other colleagues who believe so strongly in that. So I want to turn to a little bit more specific area.
And, first of all, I would like to applaud Dr. Carnes, the Department of Energy, for providing increased funding for our national laboratories. And as you—I represent Argon Laboratory, which includes the Advanced Photon Source. I think that this is a facility that provides the country's most brilliant X-rays for research and I am very proud to represent that facility. But I am concerned that with the Department of Energy's cutting of the spent fuel by hydroprocessing and transportation program.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
And I know that certainly the President's National Energy Policy recommended that the United States should re-examine its policies to allow for the research and development of the fuel-conditioning methods. And now, there is a sizable cutting of that. And instead, there is a development for a nuclear power increase and a power plant by the year 2010. And, yet, the Yucca Mountain, which I think the DOE is really going to go ahead with that—and it really does—probably will only hold the current inventories of spent nuclear fuel that we have now. And I don't understand why we would cut that program when it is so close to really being of great benefit to reduce the amount of nuclear waste that we will have, as well as to be able to use some of that spent fuel again. So I guess that is my question.
Dr. CARNES. Yes, ma'am. And that is a good question. We are, in this budget, requesting essentially the minimum level of funding for spent fuel processing. We recognize that it is a priority. But we need to respond to a Congressional requirement for a report this spring, due in just a couple of months to the Hill, to—that is a re-evaluation of that program. We have been asked to rethink the program, and that is what that report will do. And on the basis of that report, I think it will give us an indication of what our path forward here is. But in the meantime, we are sustaining the program at basically a sustaining level until we complete that analysis.
Ms. BIGGERT. Well, it seems that there has been a request for that report for every year that I have been here. And we haven't really heard anything yet.
Dr. CARNES. Well——
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Ms. BIGGERT. And yet with that direction to increase that, it just seems like it is——
Dr. CARNES. I have recently spoke to the director of that program and he told me that he expected to have that report ready to come up here in about two months.
Ms. BIGGERT. And then what will happen as far as——
Dr. CARNES. Well, on the—I think what——
Ms. BIGGERT [continuing]. The budget?
Dr. CARNES. Well, it would depend on what the report says. I think once we see what the report says, we will see where we want to go.
Ms. BIGGERT. Okay.
Dr. CARNES. But we don't want to commit to a direction until we have completed the report.
Ms. BIGGERT. Then it is also my understanding that OMB has developed performance measures for applied research. And that OMB then is going to unveil these performance measurements criteria for basic research this spring. So I guess that applies to everyone. I imagine that this is going to be a difficult task, given the benefits of basic research are most often realized in the long-term. So my question is whether the agencies have sufficient staff expertise in this area and the methods to assess the outcomes of their agency's basic research portfolio. And is this going to be able to be implemented or is the process—are you all working on that? And there is no problems with it?
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. MARBURGER. Well, let me answer that question. I personally have been working with officials in the Office of Management and Budget on that issue, the question of how do you apply the President's Management Agenda to basic research. And under the NSTC framework, we have a cross-cutting interagency committee on science that has been tasked to look at that. And so there is representation through that group from the agencies that would be principally affected by it. So we do have agency input.
We also have a lot of studies on how this might be done—one—a significant one from the National Academy of Sciences several years ago, and there is literature on doing this. The important point is that choices have to be made and they usually are made by peer groups and other mechanisms of evaluation that the agencies already have instituted. And we need to find out what—how those peer groups work. They usually can agree on what is important and what is not. We need to make those processes of choice more explicit so that the American people can be aware of the basis for the investments that we are making with their money.
I don't think this is going to be an impossible task at all, especially if we agree that we are not looking for dollar returns in a few years. We are looking for potential for discovery, for example. Discovery is a perfectly legitimate result of a return on an investment in science. So we just need to be clear that different methods are necessary for basic research as compared with applied research, which tends to have a more easily identified deliverable.
Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. And then, just one quick follow-up for Dr. Carnes. When you say there is going to be the minimum, does that mean there will be layoffs or—you know, our concern has always been is that when scientists are into a program and it continues and then there—it is cut, there is always a layoff of a scientist. And let us say then they want to gear it up again and these scientists have gone off onto some other program which makes it difficult to keep that going.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. CARNES. Right now, I am not anticipating that. And I will just leave at that. Right now, I don't——
Ms. BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu.
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Carnes, I would appreciate hearing from the perspective of the Department of Energy—the Department's view of what is an apparent decision by the Administration to de-emphasize the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles, and, in my view, switch to what I would characterize as throwing the long ball for fuel cell and hydrogen technology. It seems that fuel cell and hydrogen technology may not be right for widespread commercial use for 15 or 20 years, whereas we are already seeing the roll-out of hybrid vehicles. Some of my colleagues in the House have already purchased them.
It seems sensible to me to have both a short-term and a long-term strategy for decreasing our dependence on using petroleum as strictly an energy source. And that, if you will, this approach potentially is like using a petroleum credit card, you know, instead of decreasing our usage, our family usage, in both the short term and the long term—having a short-term plan and a long-term plan. This is betting the ranch on—well, we will keep on using the credit card, the petroleum credit card today in the hopes that we can bring it under control 20 years from now. And I am concerned about what we are giving up in the interim. If you could address that concern, I would appreciate it.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. CARNES. Thank you, Congressman. I wouldn't call it a gamble. I would call it an investment. I think Assistant Secretary Dave Garman testified before this Committee, I think, last week, about this program, and I doubt that I can excel what he has already said. I would just reiterate that I think the fact that people are already driving hybrid vehicle cars suggest that maybe the Federal Government doesn't need to do as much as it has in the past to develop those vehicles.
Second, I think PNGV was heading in a path that was not necessarily the path where the American consumer seems to want to go, which is into light trucks and SUVs and other kinds of vehicles like that, rather than necessarily some of the other things that we have been doing in the past. And in the case of FreedomCAR, this is a cooperative research endeavor, not just totally funded by the Federal Government, but it involves the automakers because I believe they see that also there is a role here, not only for them, but that they think they need to move in this direction too.
So I think hydrogen—a hydrogen-fueled vehicle is definitely a challenge—no question about it. But I think this is a challenge where the Federal Government can make a real difference.
Mr. Wu. Well, my concern in this arena, I certainly hope that hydrogen technology offers us some prospects for the future. And my concern is, you know, when I was a kid, I saw all sorts of things at Disneyland that were supposed to be here with us by the year 2000. And I take my son to Disneyland now and I still see some of those things, and they are probably still 30, 40 years out in the future. There are some things that are always a little bit beyond the horizon. And I just hope that we get over that horizon before we run into crunch time with petroleum supplies.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I guess the question to you is, even though there are marketable products or products on the market that use hybrid technology, what are we likely to lose by pulling the plug now on the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles? What further developments in hybrid technology or other bridging technology to what we hope to be a tomorrowland future of hydrogen—what bridging technologies are we potentially giving up by pulling the plug soon?
Dr. CARNES. Well, I think—again, Dave Garman is our expert on this point. But I don't think that we are suggesting that what we are going to do is write off a loss here. That is, we are not going to throw in the trash can everything we learned under PNGV. In fact, there are very great lessons that we have learned under PNGV and we are going to apply some of those in both research methods and technologies and ways to involve partners in this. This is—this was—we are not suggesting, because we want to move in the direction of hydrogen, that everything we have done before was a mistake. We don't think that. In fact, we have got results to show for what we have done before, and now we want to apply those lessons that we have learned there in a direction that we think we actually need to go in the future. I am not—well, I will just leave it at that.
Mr. Wu. I see that my time has expired, but I just want to make one point that I hope that we all are moving strongly toward a wise energy policy and not shifting policy with the thought that there would be a high consumption period between now and some brilliant future when hydrogen technology will hopefully be with us.
Dr. CARNES. I can assure you we are moving toward a very wise energy policy.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. Wu. I look forward to working together with you on that.
Dr. CARNES. Me too. Thank you.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith.
Basic Research
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, thanks. First of all, welcome to our witnesses and also the first two rows, which represent a lot of knowledge and talent. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, but five minutes is probably is hardly long enough for us to lecture you, but I will try to get in a couple questions. First of all, it would seem, in light of the September 11 happening, that we came out respectably well overall in terms of research funding with spending of $57 billion. And like some of the other members expressed, I am a little concerned maybe how that is divided up. I think, for example, if NIH would come down a couple percentage points from their approximately 17 percent increase and give that to NSF, then NSF and—then they would both have identical increases of about 14 percent or so.
It would seem that too much of our decisions too often are politically motivated either in the Administration or in Congress of what is popular, plus the tendency simply to look at the previous year's base spending and then go from there as some kind of a justification that the base spending was correct.
And I just want to reinforce the point, I think, that Vern made and some others, that whether it is smart bombs or smart planes or smart warfare, or moving ahead with NIH, you need the kind of basic research and the basic information on the kind of tools that can best accomplish those new research objectives. So I am happy to see the Administration's thought, at least, that we have a reform agenda, that we go on a peer review process that NSF has been commended for several times.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr.—Dr. Marburger, let me start with you. In terms of the efficiency of research efforts, I have been contemplating looking at the possibility of giving you more authority and more direction in reviewing all the research, including military research, including the research that we do in our government labs, to help assure—plus all of our university research—to help assure that we are minimizing duplication and maximizing efficiency. Can you give me your reaction?
Dr. MARBURGER. Well, Mr. Congressman, I believe that mechanisms do exist to coordinate those science budgets. We do have the mechanism, as I have referred to it, of the NSTC, the National Science and Technology Council, which brings together the agencies who have science missions. And under that mechanism, we have a number of subpanels for cross-cutting science areas to make sure that we avoid duplication and fill gaps where it is needed.
Before I came to Washington, I was only dimly aware of that mechanism. But now that I have been here a few months, I can see that it works better than I might have expected.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Which isn't very good. I mean, our database for who is doing what research and what has been accomplished so far, especially the coordination, whether it is DARPA or other military-type research projects, it seems to me that it is an effort worth pursuing to minimize duplication. In fact, our labs, whether it is the energy labs and the duplication of some of our efforts in our energy labs with research, politically it has been very difficult to get rid of some labs and say we can do it more efficiently. But it is something that we need to look at as we look at more restrained funding.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
R&D Tax Credits
A question on research—our tax credit for R&D. Can you—I mean, acknowledging the fact that essentially there was no basic research done by the Federal Government until after 1950, and since that time, government has taken on the responsibility for that basic research effort, and industry is more and more dependent on government to do it, is there a possibility that as we renew the R&D tax credit that we can develop it in such a way that it really expands increased research and not the vagaries that are now claimed to be research efforts, especially maybe in some kind of a credit for new research or basic research? So I would look for your ideas on how we might restructure that R&D tax credit as we hopefully make it permanent.
Dr. MARBURGER. I think R&D tax credits can have an effect. And there is an unprecedented investment in R&D by industry in the private sector today. Pharmaceutical companies are really putting their money into this, and there are increasing efforts to encourage them to do that. But it is true that there is a role for the Federal Government in long-lead time, high-risk research, and that does strongly affect the funding priorities that you will see in this Administration's budget.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Rita.
Interagency Cooperation
Dr. COLWELL. Congressman, I—with respect to your concern about duplication, I would like to say a word that we do a lot of very, very good interagency cooperation. With Energy (DOE), the high-energy physics research has been a partnership that has been extremely effective and avoids duplication. And with NOAA, we have done some very, very fine work in climate and atmospheric research. And with NIH, we have been working in bioengineering, etcetera. So I would like to simply point out that interagency programs have been extremely effective.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
I would also like to make sure the record shows that my compliments for the information technology was a plural, Congressman Smith. Thank you very much.
NSF Large Facilities Personnel
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. And I hope you all support 3400, the IT bill that hopefully we can move ahead with. Dr. Colwell, just briefly, either later or now, respond to me on the hearing that we had last September on major research projects. At that time, you—I was concerned that we have a Deputy Administration for MRE. At that time, you suggested we would have one by January. The status of whether you are going to drop the idea that we need a Deputy Director, or how is that proceeding?
Dr. COLWELL. The search for the major facilities person is underway. I think it may have closed. And we are in the process of making the selection. So it is moving.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I am sorry. So does that mean——
Dr. COLWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN [continuing]. You think in the next couple months or couple three months?
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. COLWELL. Oh, yes. Yes, sir. I would say in the next month, I would hope.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Okay.
Dr. COLWELL. Oh, by the way, I would like you to know we had 130 applications. So it looks as though we have got a good talent pool to draw from.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Anyway, thank you all very much for being here, and hopefully we can move ahead and we will proceed with our NSF authorization bill with another meeting with your folks, Dr. Colwell.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. We thank the gentleman. And so you believe that some of the decisions we make here in this town are politically motivated. I am shocked. Listen, I want to come back to a couple of things. One——
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, before I—I want you to know I sort of agree with you on global warming also. So——
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Good. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN [continuing]. Thank you for the extra time.
Global Warming Research
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Because—and I hate to beat this dead horse, but I think it really gets to a bigger issue, in terms of how we dispense. And let me say, first of all, that I generally am very pleased at the way and the nonpolitical way in which you dispense various amounts of research and development dollars.
But I do want to come back to an issue that I think sometimes gets overrun. And the issue of global warming sort of brings us to this, but I think it affects a number of kinds of research that we do. I guess my first question would be, if we are spending somewhere north of $1.6 billion on global climate change research, how much are we—how much of that money is being spent with researchers who may have a different point of view? Any?
Dr. MARBURGER. Well, let me respond at a very high level to that. Most of the research expenditures in this program are done in a fairly open way. There are competitive grant programs, peer-reviewed, and the programs don't focus on a point of view. They focus on aspects of the environment that are necessary to understand so that we can model climate change and things like that. There is a great deal of research that is independent of point of view. It is only sort of at the very end when we know what is happening that other policy issues begin to intrude.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. But I am not just talking about that. I mean, in general, there are scientists who disagree. Now, if they are not part—and I am not just talking about this issue. I am talking about lots of issues. Who—there are scientists who take a somewhat different point of view on all kinds of things. And yet there does seem to be a tendency that their projects never get funded by the peer-review group that have all decided that they accept one point of view. Do you follow what I am saying?
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. MARBURGER. Yes, I do. But the actual method of allocating funds doesn't work that way. The fact is that even people on the review committees don't agree with each other, and many of them are assembled just to make sure that that happens. There is a great deal of disagreement within the science community on details and exactly where things are going, what is most important and what is not. And the progress that we make in science is by consensus. When we ask nature the questions to resolve these issues, nature usually has an answer.
So I believe that there are very good mechanisms for permitting people with divergent points of view for getting funding for their work. And one of the reasons that OMB has praised the National Science Foundation for the management of its resources, is that they have set up a process of grant awards that is quite open and has specific mechanisms for funding very high-risk, sort of far-out science.
Math and Science Education
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Can I change the subject to one last point that I want to bring up? And it is one of my pet issues. And we have had several hearings on this. And perhaps, Dr. Colwell, you are the correct person to touch on this. And that is, one of the problems we have right now in America is in science and math education. Particularly—and we have talked specifically about it—attracting more young women into the field. But beyond that, it seems to me that we do begin to stumble. And I have met with my universities and folks in the colleges around my state, and their concern is that we are just not getting the kids interested in math and science, say, from about sixth grade through 12th grade. And, as a result, you know, it makes their job much more difficult to try and get more interest in science and technology.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Dr. COLWELL. You have touched on what I think is fast approaching to be a national crisis. But interestingly, it is also occurring in other countries. The same theme can be stated for France and Germany and even Japan, which is quite a surprise. I think probably the only country that is an exception may be China because it is viewed as a way of career development. But we are—what we are doing is taking a very hard look at the programs within the National Science Foundation to find what works and to apply it in this new program, which I am very excited about, which is the President's Math and Science Partnership.
In addition, we have formed a Tiger-Team with the Department of Education that has not been done ever before. And that is to focus, again, on how we can leverage the opportunities in both Department of Education and the National Science Foundation. We have programs that work extremely well, like the Louis Stokes Program and Crest Program and other programs.
What we are trying to do now is to develop a vertical integration so that we can follow children who start in the elementary school and are involved in, let us say, special programs for science and math, and ensure that they move into other programs that will keep that interest high. I think this is something that we must do throughout the Foundation, not just through the Education and Human Resources Directorate, but it is something that we have got to pay attention to.
And I would say, I have stolen one of the terms of Congressman Ehlers, when he has referred to the Valley of Death. I would refer to it as that period of time between grades 4 and about 8 when we lose the spirit of inquiry in children and the lost—you know, the search for discovery, and we get into sort of disinterest in science. We have got to work at that period of development in our school kids. I think that is very important.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 4
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, you have—we are—again, I would just say that we appreciate the work that all of you do. And you—particularly this year. It is a difficult budget year. We will probably do a little bit of nip and tucking as we go along and, perhaps, we can improve the plight of some of these programs. So, again, on behalf of the entire Committee, we thank you for coming today and appearing before us and sharing with us your ideas.
And with that, I will say—I will ask unanimous consent that all Committee members have five days to submit written questions for the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. If I can find the gavel. The meeting is adjourned. Here it is.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Next Hearing Segment(2)
(Footnote 1 return)
Budget authority: Authority provided by law to incur financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays of Federal Government funds.
(Footnote 2 return)
Outlays: Spending made to pay a Federal obligation. For most categories of spending, outlays are recorded when payments are made or when cash is disbursed from the Treasury.
(Footnote 3 return)
In the financial management initiative a serious flaw would include having financial records in such poor shape that auditors cannot express an opinion. For more information, see pp. 43–52 of the FY03 Budget.
(Footnote 4 return)
We propose an increase of $7 million.
(Footnote 5 return)
Dr. Colwell clarified that the budget request for biocomplexity in the environment is $79 million.
(Footnote 6 return)
Dr. Marburger clarified that out of the $80 million requested for these two programs, $40 million of that amount is new money.