Segment 4 Of 9 Previous Hearing Segment(3) Next Hearing Segment(5)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
CHAPTER IV—Oversight, Investigations and Other Activities of the Committee on Science, Including Selected Subcommittee Legislative Activities
4.1—COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
4.1(a)—The Nation's Energy Future: Role of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
February 28, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–24
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to address three questions: (1) What are the current and projected near- and mid-term contributions of renewable energy and energy efficiency to the Nation's energy mix? (2) Have renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives performed as expected, and if not, why not? (3) What programs and/or policies are needed to ensure that renewable energy and energy efficiency achieve their potential?
The witness panel included: (1) Ms. Mary J. Hutzler, Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Dr. John P. Holdren, Harvard University, Chair, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Energy Research and Development Panel; (3) Mr. Kenneth K. Humphreys, Senior Staff Engineer, Energy, Science and Technology Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; and (4) Mr. Joel Darmstadter, Senior Fellow, Energy and Natural Resources Division, Resources for the Future.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Hutzler testified that EIA's twenty-year forecasts project continued increases in energy efficiency and in the use of renewable resources, whose market penetration is slowed by the competitive low cost of fossil fuels and related technologies. Many cases were examined, and the historical record proves that increased oil prices lead to reduced consumption. Mr. Humphreys testified that 50 to 100 year planning horizons are required to determine which large-scale technologies should be implemented, and that his forecasts show 40 percent of U.S. energy use being supplied by renewable energy sources by 2100, assuming a carbon-constrained economy and a doubling of overall energy use, even providing for large efficiency increases. Professor Holdren testified that the country faces challenges of imported oil dependence, air pollution and greenhouse effect that require private market and public policy actions to greatly increase energy efficiency and renewable energy use. He estimated that the recommended actions could be funded by two cents per gallon from the federal gasoline tax. Professor Holdren stated that increased efficiency standards and a carbon tax are needed. Mr. Darmstader testified that the percentage of electric power generated by renewable energy sources is expected to increase but to remain low in the next several decades. The cost of electric power from renewable energy has decreased more than expected in the past 30 years due to technological improvement, but so has the cost of the competing energy from conventional sources, forestalling greater market penetration by renewables.
4.1(b)—K–12th Grade Math and Science Education: The View From the Blackboard
March 7, 2001
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Hearing Volume No. 107–3
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to get teachers' perspectives on how the Federal Government can help improve K–12th grade science and math education. Four teachers representing elementary, middle, and secondary math and science educators testified before the Committee. Three members of the panel received the 2000 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching, and the fourth was a volunteer for Teach for America, a national ''teacher corps'' that places recent college graduates into K–12th grade teaching positions.
The Committee heard from: (1) Ms. Julia Anne Lewis, an elementary mathematics teacher at the Academy School in Brattleboro, Vermont; (2) Mr. Jonathan Brenner, a former middle school science teacher at the Eleanor Roosevelt Intermediate School 143 in Washington Heights, New York; (3) Ms. Felicity Messner Ross, a secondary mathematics teacher at Robert Poole Middle School in Baltimore, Maryland; and (4) Mr. Michael Stephen Lampert, a secondary science teacher at South Salem High School in Salem, Oregon who is also a Presidential Awardee.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting the extent to which progress depends on an informed and intellectually curious citizenry, and the common link of education in helping create this type of society. He stated that people in Washington spend a lot of time talking about teachers, but not enough time talking to them, and that the purpose of the hearing was to begin to correct that imbalance. The Chairman also noted that he intended to make this hearing an annual event.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Ms. Lewis discussed ways to assess children and noted that:
Spending a year out of the classroom to provide staff development helped tie together different parts of her career.
Knowing how to reach every child means working with families, extra assignments, networking, and perseverance.
Federal funding provides wonderful opportunities for both students and teachers.
Students benefit from the programs that teachers take part in.
Mr. Brenner stated that the following must be done in order to put quality people in schools:
A systemic review of the quality of education programs.
Financial incentives offered to educators willing to teach in under served areas.
Provide science teachers with the appropriate tools to teach.
Fostering the development of partnerships between universities and local schools.
Ms. Ross noted that external funding sources increase teacher performance in the classroom and said that:
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Many inner city teachers felt overwhelmed with demands and exceptional students may fall through the cracks.
Teachers must be flexible, know their students, and be dedicated to being a life-long learner.
Teachers can use their experiences to train others.
The Federal Government should support mentoring and professional development opportunities for math and science teachers.
Mr. Lampert stated that school children should have math and science role models and noted that:
Teaching affects many people's lives.
The Federal Government needs to keep funding the National Science Foundation and the National Science Bowl program.
Support for the Eisenhower program, which provides professional development for science teachers, should continue.
Support programs that intervene directly with classrooms and students.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
4.1(c)—Climate Change: The State of the Science
March 14, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–13
Background
The federal climate change research program has been the recipient of much scrutiny lately as the Administration moves to formulate its policy on dealing with the threat posed by climate change. The Committee is contemplating reauthorizing the 10-year-old U.S. Global Change Research Program and this hearing was held to help the Committee assess whether it needs to be restructured and/or redirected and whether its funding is adequate. The hearing examined: (1) the state of our understanding of climate science, (2) the gaps in our understanding that limit our ability to detect, attribute, and predict climate change, and (3) the adequacy of the Federal Government's approach to filling these gaps.
The Committee heard from three witnesses: (1) Dr. Daniel L. Albritton, Director, Aeronomy Lab, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Berrian Moore, Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire; and, (3) Dr. Charles Kennel, Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Albritton, who helped write the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, testified that:
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Science holds with very high certainty that there is a greenhouse effect due to water vapor, CO, and methane keeping our planet warmer than it otherwise would be, and that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. The causes of the increase in greenhouse gases are largely human in origin. Over the industrial era the concentration of CO has increased about 30 percent and that of methane has doubled. The question for science to answer about climate change is whether our changes to the concentration of these gases are altering the greenhouse effect.
Global temperatures have increased about 0.4 to 0.8 degrees centigrade (0.7 to 1b degrees Fahrenheit) over the last century. This conclusion is drawn from surface temperature readings in the northern hemisphere, ice cores, corals, tree rings and other historical measurements.
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is due to human activities. Climate models cannot reproduce the temperature record of the past 100 years based on the current understanding of natural variability alone. Only when the increase in greenhouse gases are included do the models match the temperature record closely.
A continued increase in greenhouse gases is projected, although with some degree of uncertainty, to lead to very significant increases in global temperatures and global sea level, based on a range of plausible future scenarios of economics, technology, and population growth.
If the climate is affected by the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, the extremely long half-life of those gases in the atmosphere and the extremely large heat capacity of the world's oceans will prevent any hope of quick recovery.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Moore outlined the key scientific challenges in order to better understand the nature of climate and climate change:
We must halt and reverse the decline in our observational systems throughout the world, especially in the developing world and we must expand the kinds of climate-related data collected, for example by monitoring carbon dioxide in the oceans, from space and in the atmosphere.
We understand better how different gases trap or reflect heat.
We must unlock the secrets of how clouds, ice and snow affect the climate.
We must better understand the natural variability and probabilistic nature of the earth's climate.
We must improve the computer resources available to climate researchers.
We must better understand climate and climate change at the regional scale, linking climate to its effects on human activities.
We must improve international cooperation because climate change is a global problem.
Dr. Kennel advocated the creation of an environmental information system that integrates the physical and social sciences and relevant information for the public and private sectors.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
While scientists now study climate mostly at the global scale, if we are to put the science to use we must endeavor to focus on smaller scales, first at the continental level, then the national and finally the regional.
We must also have a firm understanding of how the various ecosystems on the land function.
Finally, we must link regional climate models with ecosystem function to form a comprehensive environmental information system.
Creation of this system will require a high-level governmental authority to ensure the focused dedication of resources and to foster interagency cooperation.
4.1(d)—Space Station Cost Overruns
April 4, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–8
Background
The hearing reviewed NASA's management of the Space Station program, the status and underlying causes of recent cost growth, risks associated with increased reliance on international partners, the re-prioritization of planned science, and actions NASA is taking to address these issues.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The hearing consisted of two panels of witnesses. The first panel included: (1) Ms. Marcia Smith, Specialist, Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research Service; (2) Mr. Robert J. Polutchko, Member, Cost Assessment and Validation (CAV) Task Force; and (3) Mr. Russell A. Rau, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, NASA. The second panel included Mr. Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator.
Summary of Hearing
Ms. Smith provided testimony on the history of the Space Station program since its inception, including a history of cost growth and program delays.
Mr. Polutchko provided testimony on the findings and recommendations of the 1998 Cost Assessment and Validation (CAV) Task Force; his assessment of the current cost overrun in light of the recommendations of the CAV Task Force; and recommendations to minimize the probability of further unforeseen cost growth. Mr. Polutchko concluded that NASA must take a fresh look at conservative planning and that the program will require significant additional funding to fully realize its potential as a research laboratory.
Mr. Rau provided testimony on the overall management and adequacy of cost and schedule reporting on the Space Station program; NASA's management of Space Station contracts; and the adequacy of NASA's independent review process and cost estimating capabilities. Mr. Rau concluded that NASA must strengthen its program management practices and improve its oversight of contracts.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Goldin provided testimony on the current status and cost growth on the Space Station program; the underlying causes of the cost growth; and the steps NASA is taking to control cost growth and schedule slippage, manage risks associated with increased reliance on international partners, and address the re-prioritization of planned science. Mr. Goldin highlighted the extraordinary technical accomplishments of the Space Station program and provided an overview of actions the agency is taking to address cost control and management problems. Specifically, he testified to actions to improve cost estimating quality, management reporting, and the increase in use of civil servants while examining options with the International Partners.
4.1(e)—Proposed R&D Budget for FY 2002
April 25, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–14
Background
The hearing was held to consider President Bush's budget request for research and development. Four witnesses reviewed their agencies' budget requests in the context of the Administration's overall priorities in science and technology. In addition, the witnesses described the mechanisms that 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 heard testimony from: (1) The Honorable Dan Goldin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) The Honorable Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; (3) The Honorable James Decker, Acting Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and (4) The Honorable Scott Gudes, Acting Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Goldin praised the President's proposed funding level of $14.5 billion, a two percent increase over FY01. He said that it contained a disciplined budget plan for Space Station development and operation including management reform and budget restructuring. In addition, the budget would advance the privatization of Space Shuttle activities, create a more robust Mars Exploration Program and increase funding for a second generation Earth Observing System. Science and technology funding would make up 42 percent of NASA's overall funding.
Dr. Colwell stated that NSF requested $4.47 billion, which is $56 million more than last year. Highlights include: the Math and Science Partnerships, a $200 million initiative which will join states and local school districts with institutions of higher learning; $8 million to increase the stipends in its graduate research fellowships; and $20 million for the Interdisciplinary Mathematics Research Program. Four areas of emerging opportunity are also emphasized—biocomplexity in the environment, information technology, nanoscale science and engineering, and learning for the 21st century.
Dr. Decker described their $3.16 billion request to support the basic research that underpins the science, energy, environment and national security missions of the DOE. He addressed how the DOE determines priorities across scientific disciplines, how they coordinate their scientific research with that of other federal agencies, and he gave some examples of promising areas of research in their budget request (including Genomes to Life, Physics of the Standard Model and beyond, and Nanoscale Science).
Mr. Gudes described NOAA's budget request of $3.152 billion, a decrease of $61 million from current levels. The primary focus of the budget is investing in people ($60 million) and infrastructure. Other important programs included Severe Weather Forecasts, U.S. Weather Research Program, the national Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System, climate forecasting and ocean exploration.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
4.1(f)—Acid Rain: The State of the Science and Research Needs for the Future
May 3, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–5
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the progress that has been made in the reduction of acid rain and its harmful effects on the environment, as well as to identify the problems that still persist today. The Committee heard testimony regarding what types of research and monitoring networks were necessary to preventing the harmful effects of air pollution.
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Charles Driscoll, University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University; (2) Dr. Ellis Cowling, University Distinguished Professor at Large at North Carolina State University; (3) Dr. Jill Baron, Research Ecologist of the Biological Research Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and Senior Research Ecologist at the National Resources Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University; (4) Dr. Jerry Keeler, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Michigan.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Driscoll summarized the research of the past decade documenting the damage acid rain has caused to sensitive ecosystems like those that occur throughout the Northeast. He noted that:
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides strip critical nutrients like calcium and magnesium from the soil, which can make trees vulnerable to frost.
In sensitive ecosystems, such as those in the Adirondack Mountains of New York, recovery has been slow or non-existent. More extensive control efforts are necessary if those ecosystems are to recover within our lifetimes.
Human exposure to mercury primarily comes from eating fish; mercury bioconcentrates up to ten million times greater in fish than in water. Mercury deposition in the sediment cores of the Adirondack lakes peaked in 1980, but has slightly declined since then. Still, acid rain exacerbates the mercury problem, as the metal becomes more ''bioavailable'' in acidic conditions.
More extensive monitoring efforts are necessary if we are to understand how ecosystems, especially living things in the ecosystems, recover from acid rain.
Dr. Cowling testified that, unlike other parts of the country, the South has not seen improvements in air quality. He recommended improving the dependability of monitoring programs like the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP).
Dr. Baron outlined the sources and effects of atmospheric deposition in the Western United States regarding nitrogen. He believes that the environmental community and the U.S. Geological Survey need better measurement of, long-term monitoring and research about atmospheric deposition. He explained that:
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Nitrogen, which makes up 80 percent of the atmosphere, needs combustion for it to release the nitrogen oxide that eventually comes down in the form of acid rain. However, nitrogen can come from agricultural sources, such as fertilized fields or large manure piles, as well.
The West also suffers from substantial nitrogen deposition, due to high population density and high agricultural activity. Because cleaner sources of energy, such as low sulfur coal and hydroelectric power, are used in the West acid rain is less of a problem.
Ecosystems respond to nitrogen increases in unexpected ways. In Colorado, increasing rates of nitrogen cycling have been linked to better forest growth. However, higher elevation Rocky Mountain ecosystems that are accustomed to low levels of nutrients can respond negatively to excess nitrogen.
Dr. Keeler believes that the causes of acid and mercury deposition are similar, though he concentrates more specifically on the nature and causes of mercury deposition. He explains that, while recent studies have yielded new information about mercury contamination, these threats are still not fully understood. He says that:
Mercury, a dangerous toxin especially to children and fetuses, is most exposed to humans through fish. Consequently, mercury has a disproportionate effect on low economic status groups such as Native Americans who rely heavily on fish in their diet. Mercury-related fish consumption advisories have been issued in 39 states, which have affected recreational and commercial fisheries across the country.
A decade ago, alarming levels of mercury contamination in Florida were attributed to runoff and natural processes. Studies by the EPA have shown that theory to be incorrect; 95 percent of the mercury in the Everglades and 90 percent of the mercury in Lake Michigan is from atmospheric sources.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
More information is needed on the different forms of mercury emitted from all types of sources. For example, natural sources in the western part of the country could have a significant impact on the mercury in aquatic ecosystems.
Since it has been established that mercury is locally, regionally, and globally transported, it is necessary to determine how a specific ecosystem is affected by each of these modes of transport.
Mercury II is a highly reactive mercury compound that deposits more readily than the other forms of mercury. Studies indicate that Mercury II may be responsible for much of the local and regional contamination in the Great Lakes and Florida.
4.1(g)—Improving Voting Technologies: The Role of Standards
May 22, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–20
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the role of standards in voting technology, keeping in mind the number of issues brought to light by the 2000 presidential election. The House Science Committee focused specifically on voting technology as part of a larger congressional effort to pass legislation reforming the voting process.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Project Manager of the CalTech-MIT Voting Project; (2) Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Assistant Professor of Computer Sciences at Bryn Mawr College; (3) Dr. Doug Jones, Associate Professor of Computer Sciences at the University of Iowa and Chairman of the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems; and (4) Mr. Roy Saltman, consultant and retired employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Ansolabehere believes that there are several fundamental problems with current voting technology. Referring to a number of studies undertaken in the months following the 2000 presidential election by a team of MIT and CalTech specialists, Dr. Ansolabehere notes:
Punch cards and electronic equipment have higher rates of uncounted, unmarked, and spoiled ballots than do hand-counted, lever machined, and optically scanned ballots.
Voter registration databases pose a management and technical problem because of their large size. According to the 2000 census, 7 percent of voters who did not vote reported registration problems as the reason.
The accessibility of voting equipment for use by the disabled is an issue.
Electronic equipment poses new problems for ensuring the security and integrity of the count.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
In terms of standards, Dr. Ansolabehere suggests that:
Minimum criteria standards implemented by the National Association of State Elections Directors covering equipment durability and accuracy should be extended to the areas of usability, accessibility, and auditability.
Federal agencies should compile and distribute information about equipment performance, cost, and administration.
Uniform specifications for voting technology, such as electronic and Internet security, must be made available by NIST and the House Science Committee.
Dr. Mercuri identifies a number of inherent flaws in the application of computer technology to the voting process. She believes that these flaws are both technologically and sociologically based, making both short and long-term solutions difficult. She points out:
Electronic systems of voting do not allow the voter to independently verify that the ballot they filled out was actually recorded, transmitted, or tabulated.
No encryption programs can be relied on to provide total privacy assurance.
Internet voting raises new concerns about ballot authentication and vote selling.
In the case of an election challenge, electronic balloting and tabulation does not allow poll workers or election officials to perform bipartisan checks. Since no clear audit trail exists, a manual hand-count of the ballots is impossible.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Newer electronic voting systems can make the balloting process more lengthy, tedious and confusing.
Technology does not, at present, provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of ballot tabulation.
Mr. Saltman, the author of two NIST reports in the 1980s on the problems caused by advanced voting technology, believes that the Federal Government should play a leading role in voting reform without conducting the elections themselves. He urges that the Federal Government:
Undertake data collection, data analysis and reporting, accreditation of independent laboratories, and documentation of voting equipment performance.
Support statewide voter registration programs and encourage grant programs for states and local governments.
Make research into voting technology a primary objective, especially in the areas of voter usability of different vote-casting methods, new types of voting systems, techniques to help the sight-impaired and new methods of vote identification. In all cases, however, the auditability of non-ballot voting systems must be maintained.
Dr. Jones believes that setting strong standards on voting technology is necessary and that the FEC Voluntary Certification Process standards are not stringent enough. He argues that:
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Electronic voting lacks an independent, verifiable record of the voter's actions. It is for this reason that he feels that the country should not rush towards making the transition to computerized voting systems.
Internet voting should be forbidden until truly solid standards are in place and audit requirements are met.
The country should work to slowly phase out poor voting systems, such as the punch card, and move cautiously toward using the newer voting technologies available. He stresses that there is no perfect voting technology, and that the Nation must not yet abandon ''old tech'' voting systems.
4.1(h)—National Energy Policy—Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group
May 23, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–42
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the National Energy Policy Development Group's May 16 report to President Bush, National Energy Policy—Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The panel of outside witnesses, who represented industrial and environmental organizations, consisted of: (1) The Honorable William F. Martin, Chairman, Washington Policy and Analysis, Inc., who testified on behalf of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth; (2) Ms. Katherine H. Hamilton, Co-Director American Bioenergy Association; and (3) Mr. David G. Hawkins, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Climate Center.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Martin testified that the industrialized world's dependence on imported oil is a major security concern, and if nothing is done will lead to shrinking economies as oil prices increase. He supported government action to spur markets toward energy efficiency and believes in the use of all our resources through application of science and technology. He stated that consumers have no expectation of rising energy prices, so that they have no incentive to invest in energy efficiency. Ms. Hamilton testified that DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) needs much more support and stimulus from the government. Her coalition criticized the President's Energy Plan as relying too much on conventional sources and slighting EERE. Mr. Hawkins testified that NRDC has published its own energy plan for the 21st Century and provided a critique of the Administration's plan.
4.1(i)—National Energy Policy—Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group—Administration View
June 21, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–44
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony from Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on the National Energy Policy Development Group's May 16, 2001 report to President Bush.
Summary of Hearing
The Secretary's testimony expanded upon the NEPD Report by stressing the importance of science and technology in meeting today's energy challenges. He stated, ''Promising developments in science and technology encourage us to believe that we can address this Nation's serious energy challenges in a way that balances our concerns for environmental protection with our needs for enhanced domestic supplies of energy.''
4.1(j)—Cyber Security—How Can We Protect American Computer Networks From Attack?
October 10, 2001
Hearing Volume 107–41
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the vulnerability of our nation's computer infrastructure as well as research-related challenges and opportunities facing the Nation's computer networks. Witnesses representing industry, academic, government and non-profit organizations testified before the Committee. They commented on gaps in research and education in the computer security field. Since most of the infrastructure in the United States is owned and controlled by the private sector, witnesses also commented on ways to encourage collaborative approaches to shore up our ability to predict, prevent, and mitigate attacks.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. William Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering; (2) Dr. Eugene Spafford, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security; Professor of Computer Sciences and Professor of Philosophy, Purdue University; (3) Ms. Terry Benzel, Vice President of Advanced Security Research, Network Associates, Inc.; and (4) Mr. Robert Weaver, Director, New York Electronic Crimes Task Force; Assistant Special-Agent-in-Charge, U.S. Secret Service, New York, New York.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Wulf discussed the problem of the minuscule size of our research base in computer security. This may be due to the fact that there has never been a funding agency that believed that it was its responsibility to develop the community of scholars researching in this area, he suggested. Because there is little funding, research is very conservative. Dr. Wulf stressed that we need money to fund out-of-the-box thinking.
Dr. Spafford focused his testimony on the important role that university researchers bring to information security and some of the challenges they have faced. Investing in computer security education and research is vital to securing the information infrastructure of the Nation. He then described challenges in five critical areas affecting university research: support, infrastructure, real-world data, personnel, and legal impediments.
Ms. Benzel stated that the threats to computer systems and networks are extensive and serious. These challenges will require federal funding and policy changes. We need to perform an in-depth vulnerability analysis in order to have a more complete understanding of the threats so that we can construct an R&D map. Three areas that need to be investigated are interdependencies, converged networks, and control systems.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Weaver reiterated the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure and financial payment systems and described the work of the Task Force. He stressed the importance of partnerships.
4.1(k)—Cyber Terrorism: A View From The Gilmore Commission
October 17, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–40
Background
The hearing was the Committee's second examining of the vulnerability of our nation's computer infrastructure as well as research-related challenges and opportunities facing the Nation's network security infrastructure and management.
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and Chairman of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, testified. Governor Gilmore assessed the threats to our nation's information infrastructure, described the level of preparedness to address these threats, and described steps that need to be taken to ensure that Federal, state, and local governments are prepared to respond.
Summary of Hearing
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Governor Gilmore summarized the key recommendations of the Advisory Panel. He emphasized the need for a national strategy including all levels of government, the private sector and universities. To safeguard our information networks, we need to protect both hardware from a physical attack and software and Internet controls from a cyber attack. Protection against physical attacks will be primarily conventional procedures; security against cyber attacks will require far greater coordination and cooperation. He then discussed Virginia as a case study for both vulnerability and model response. Some of the Panel's recommendations included: the creation of an interagency cyber security panel and Congressional independent advisory board to conduct a thorough review of federal statutes and to update statutes; unprecedented partnership between the public and private sectors; the establishment of a special cyber court patterned after the court established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; the creation of an entity to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for research, development, test and evaluation of processes to enhance cyber security; and, the continuation of the Y2K offices as cyber security offices in all government agencies.
4.1(l)—The Space Station Task Force Report
November 7, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–49
Background
The hearing reviewed the findings and recommendations of the International Space Station (ISS) Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force report, the credibility of NASA's cost estimates and program plan, and whether the Space Station as currently planned will be able to achieve meaningful scientific objectives. In addition, the Administration presented its assessment of the management challenges facing the Space Station program.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Witnesses for the hearing were: (1) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Chairman, IMCE Task Force; and (2) Mr. Sean O'Keefe, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Young provided testimony on the findings and recommendations of the IMCE Task Force Report. The Task Force found that the program was ''not credible.'' They found deficiencies in management structure, institutional culture, cost estimating, and program control. The Task Force recommended that NASA overhaul program management, clearly define the science goals, and significantly reduce workforce levels to keep the planned three-person U.S. core program within the projected budget. In addition, the Task Force recommended that the Shuttle flight rate be reduced to four flights per year to save funds which could be used to offset increased Space Station costs. The Task Force recommended a performance-based approach whereby NASA must demonstrate credibility over a sustained period of time as a prerequisite to proceeding beyond the U.S. core. The Task Force did caution that it would be very difficult for NASA's culture to change to the degree required to make the program succeed.
Mr. O'Keefe provided testimony on the Administration's strategy to ensure that NASA fully implements the recommendations of the IMCE Task Force. Mr. O'Keefe stated that OMB agreed in general with the findings and recommendations of the Task Force, but had yet to review all of the recommendations in detail. He did state, however, that it would be a big mistake to begin adding content back to the program now, when nobody has confidence that NASA can manage to finish the core complete Station and operate it within the available budget. He testified that Space Station capabilities should be driven by research priorities and that a change in NASA's management culture is essential for the station program and the agency to succeed.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
4.1(m)—The Decontamination of Anthrax and Other Biological Agents
November 8, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–39
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony regarding the decontamination of anthrax and other biological agents from public facilities. Specifically, this hearing explored the challenges of decontaminating civilian facilities, the experience gained by the U.S. Army in decontaminating property at Fort Detrick, and the potential of new decontamination technologies and methods.
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. James Baker, Jr., Director of the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology and Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan; (2) Mr. Manuel Barbeito (retired), Chief of Aerobiology Section, Agent Control Division, U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories, Fort Detrick; (3) Dr. Charles Haas, Professor of Environmental Engineering, Drexel University; and (4) Dr. Lynn Goldman, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert stated that there is much to be learned regarding the decontamination of buildings. The efforts to decontaminate the Hart Building illustrate that we need to develop an ongoing, coordinated way to evaluate different decontamination strategies. We need to know how clean a building needs to be to prevent disease when re-occupying the facility, and how to better communicate with the American people. With regards to decontamination of buildings, the Federal Government needs a more coordinated emergency response, improved research and development (R&D) programs and improved communications with the public.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Goldman testified that knowledge about decontamination for infectious agents has been developed for concerns such as drinking water, food safety, medical facilities, and industrial applications. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have responsibility for approving and regulating disinfecting agents. Very little proactive disinfectant R&D has been done by these agencies. She noted that prior to October 2001, there was no incentive for the private sector to engage in research in this area, and coupled with the fact that little research was ongoing in government agencies, we are now in a situation where nobody has given it much thought. She also noted that:
The need for disinfection is immediate, and a fundamental understanding of the infectious organisms is crucial in selecting what kind of disinfectant to use. To kill anthrax, radiation, heat, and other various disinfectants may be used but none have been tested in contaminated civilian buildings.
She called for a safety assessment to look at three factors: (1) the efficacy of the treatment options; (2) the side-effects and risks to health and the environment from using certain treatment options; and (3) feasibility in terms of the time, cost, and destruction of property that might occur from various treatment options.
The government needs to develop a clear method of assessing the safety of buildings and protection of people, and managing the risks. We need to develop a clear rationale for assessing buildings and we need statistically based sampling protocols for decontaminating these buildings.
We also need a set of rapid and reliable laboratory assays with good sensitivity and specificity.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The decontamination strategies need to take into account the safety needs of the public and decontamination personnel.
She also suggested that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should be responsible for the issue of public health pesticides.
We also need to have a better understanding about exposures to people in the postal system that may handle contaminated mail.
Officials need to better communicate these risks to the public in a straightforward fashion that provides facts, but does not contribute to undo fear or terror.
It is critical to strengthen our nation's public health system, including the areas of epidemiology, laboratory capacity, data-tracking systems, and the training and development of the public health workforce.
Dr. Baker testified that biological decontamination is simply defined as removing organisms that are potentially infectious or dangerous from the building. However, in order to do this, you have to analyze the type of organism, the residual risk and/or the chronicity of exposure. He noted that:
We need to develop an understanding for what is needed to carry out a decontamination and what would be a medically acceptable residual level of contamination. This is important in determining when people can safely return to decontaminated buildings. We do not know what a safe level is for residual anthrax contamination in a building.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Every anthrax spore will not be removed from a contaminated building. Therefore, standards need to be set in terms of anthrax exposure that take into account variables such as immuno-compromised persons, pregnancy, or underlying respiratory conditions.
Due to the varying designs of buildings, it is difficult to develop a general approach to decontamination. Different technologies will need to be used in different circumstances.
We need to learn and understand from our decontamination experience of the Hart Senate building, and apply this knowledge when decontaminating other buildings in the future.
Individuals who return to decontaminated buildings need to be given complete medical and psychiatric support, and followed prospectively once returning to the building.
He suggested that a commission should be set up to review data, provide protocols and advice on how to move forward with the decontamination process.
Dr. Haas testified that chlorine dioxide has been disinfecting drinking water for over 50 years and is known to be effective against viruses, bacteria and protozoa. He noted that:
While the mechanism of how chlorine dioxide kills microorganisms is well understood, relatively little is known about how it kills bacterial spores. It is clear that spores are among the most resistant organisms to chlorine dioxide.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Chlorine dioxide gas has been used as a disinfectant for over 20 years. However, there have been no studies pertaining to its use as a disinfectant for buildings or for the specific efficacy against anthrax spores.
A basic task in developing a decontamination strategy is setting a target clean up level. It must be recognized that it is impossible to be absolutely certain that all anthrax spores will be destroyed after any decontamination efforts.
A second task is to set technical specifications for the amount of reduction that needs to occur if the initial contamination and the pathogen dose response characteristics are known.
The time required for decontamination using a gas will be determined by factors such as the rate of decay during application and time of removal of the residual disinfecting gas.
Four important knowledge bases to better understand this problem are: (1) analytical microbiology, the ability to measure the organism in the state in which they occur; (2) chemical analysis of the disinfectants and of the byproducts that may result; (3) the modeling of air movement and movement of contaminants through the indoor environment; and (4) the health effects from inhaled chemical byproducts.
There needs to be a degree of coordination between multiple federal agencies and multiple disciplines outside the Federal Government.
Mr. Barbeito testified that the Safety Division at Fort Detrick, a highly regarded biological warfare laboratory, needed to periodically decontaminate facilities because of yearly maintenance, major renovations, changing research agents, and following exposure incidences. He noted that:
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The importance of selecting the most effective decontaminant. Some possible techniques include the use of liquid disinfections, vaporization of formalin, ethylene oxide, vaporization of peracetic acid, vaporization of beta-propriolactone, and the depolymerization of paraformaldehyde for the formation of formaldehyde gas.
The last of these techniques was the preferred method for large building decontaminations. It is easy to use, however it is a potential cancer hazard and is highly irritating.
3/10 of a gram of paraformaldehyde per cubic foot of space in an open container with a heat source needs to be depolymerized, in a room with a temperature of 75 1B5 degrees Fahrenheit and relative humidity to 75 percent. Time of contact should be 24 hours.
The residual gas can be neutralized using ammonium bicarbonate.
By using a surrogate Bacillus subtilis variety Niger spores instead of an actual Bacillus anthracis spores, it can be determined whether or not the decontamination process was effective.
Anthrax is present in 43 states. The Public Health Service has reported nine deaths between 1948 and 1964.
Activities in contaminated postal buildings should be terminated, an irradiation program on the incoming mail should be in effect, and a comprehensive quality-qualitative environmental surveillance program needs to be set up.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
4.1(n)—H.R. 3178 and the Development of Anti-Terrorism Tools for Water Infrastructure
November 14, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–29
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 3178, the Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act. The September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation highlighted the critical need for increased research on and development of technologies and techniques to prevent, mitigate, and respond to physical and cyber threats facing drinking water and wastewater systems.
The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. James Kallstrom, Director of New York State's Office of Public Security; (2) Dr. Richard Luthy, Silva H. Palmer Professor of Engineering, Stanford University, and Chair of the National Research Council's Water, Science, and Technology Board; (3) Mr. Jeffrey Danneels, Department Manager, Security Systems and Technology Center, Sandia National Laboratories; and (4) Mr. Jerry Johnson, General Manager of the District of Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority, representing the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
Summary of Hearing
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by addressing the vulnerability of our water supplies and sewage systems to cyberterrorism and bioterrorism. Based on the Committee's review, we know that we are not yet equipped with the knowledge or tools to respond adequately to the threat of terrorism. To fill in these gaps, we need to learn more about how to assess and prevent terrorist threats, how to respond to terrorist incidents, and how to remedy any damage terrorists might cause. At present, however, we do not invest enough in research and development to meet these needs.
Mr. Kallstrom testified that New York State strongly supports H.R. 3178. Governor Pataki has charged him with developing a comprehensive statewide strategy to secure New York State from acts and threats of terrorism. He noted that:
The Office of Public Security will tie together all state efforts to detect, identify, address, respond to, and prevent terrorist attacks in New York.
The risk to New York's drinking water supplies or wastewater treatment facilities is small, but real enough to justify implementation of H.R. 3178.
H.R. 3178 authorizes funding for research that would help find new means to protect the drinking water supplies at more than 4,000 community water systems serving approximately 17 million New Yorkers daily.
Physical destruction of a drinking water or wastewater system could deprive a population of its essential water supply, as well as cause severe secondary effects, such as the inability to ensure sanitation or to provide protection to the affected population. It could also deprive manufacturers and other businesses of water, resulting in serious consequences for local economies.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Although all water systems in New York State are on alert for catastrophic terrorist attacks, we need to improve analytical testing methodologies, to identify possible biochemical threats, and enable a rapid response to them.
The Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research at the New York State Department of Health, among others, has begun to research new methodologies that could help rapidly identify a contaminant introduced into a water supply.
Dr. Luthy testified that he supports H.R. 3178 and the development of anti-terrorism tools to protect the Nation's water supply, but that funding level needs to be at least $50 million to start to address these problems. He noted that:
Top priority should be given to protection of physical structures for water storage and transmission that serve large populations and would be very difficult to replace, and to maintaining water quality through better monitoring, new treatments, and incorporating the concept of multiple barriers.
Since many components of our water systems are aging and need repairs, new approaches to increase security should also look to enhance the reliability and the capability of such systems.
We need to understand (1) what elements of the water system are most vulnerable to physical damage and how we can protect them; (2) what chemicals or biological agents, and in what amounts, may do the most harm; (3) how we can achieve early detection of chemical or biological agents in time to take corrective action; (4) how operations can be reconfigured to provide greater interconnectedness among source supplies and among water distribution systems; (5) how multiple barriers may be incorporated in treatment plant operations and in the distribution system to ensure greater safety, and (6) how vulnerable our water systems are to cyber attack.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Any new research program must be organized and administered with great rigor and include a peer-review process.
Mr. Danneels testified that the steps already taken to improve security, such as adding guards and additional water-testing protocols, are neither sustainable, nor provide a balanced approach for improving security in all parts of the water infrastructure. Research should begin immediately on intermediate and long-term solutions that will significantly reduce risk to America's water infrastructure. He noted that:
H.R. 3178 should support security risk assessment methodology for water systems being developed by Sandia Laboratory, new security technologies, real-time monitoring, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system research (SCADA), and advanced treatment techniques.
The security risk assessment methodology being developed by Sandia will require significant improvement in coming years to both reduce the cost of performing the assessments and incorporate new features into the methodology.
New security technologies are needed for specific infrastructure threats. Examples for water utilities include on-line radiation monitors to detect radiation contamination in large flows and active access delay systems for remotely controlled facilities.
A significant effort will be required to design, integrate, miniaturize, and cost-effectively produce a knowledge-based, real-time monitoring system.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Most basic research on new identification schemes is scattered around the country at numerous institutions, resulting in the need for a new model of cooperation to develop integrated sensors into real-time water quality monitoring capability.
Research and development of standards, security and operation protocols, and secure platforms is needed to protect the current computerized control systems like SCADA.
H.R. 3178 provides flexibility in approaches and funding to support this type of effort. Current water protection programs, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, may need to be extended or altered to meet the new enhanced security requirements.
H.R. 3178 provides accountability, focus, and structure for a security program for water infrastructure.
Mr. Johnson testified that the drinking water community supports H.R. 3178 and similar bills that provide for improved security of our drinking water facilities. Additionally, he identified a strong need for more research and development in the area of water infrastructure security. He noted that:
Since September 11, the Nation's drinking water utilities have been on a heightened state of alert, but prior to the terrorist attacks, the water supply community was already at work with the EPA, the FBI, and other federal agencies to develop new methods and tools to protect water systems and facilities, and ultimately, consumers.
The water security research bill provides up to $12 million a year for five years, which would substantially improve the investment in water infrastructure, security, research, and development.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The EPA needs to place anti-terrorism research among its top research goals, and the passage of H.R. 3178 would accomplish this most effectively.
More knowledge must be ''gained and disseminated'' on the characteristics of possible biological and chemical toxins, instantaneous and on-line probes that detect contaminants, and remedial preventive actions to neutralize those contaminants.
The American Water Works Association Research Foundation, the EPA, and other water organizations have sponsored a number of research and development projects addressing water system security issues.
Rapid development of additional tools, technologies, and processes is needed to help water systems, especially on the local level, where water systems are stretching very limited resources to safeguard the delivery of water to consumers.
Increased computerization has increased efficiency, but also creates vulnerabilities to cyber attacks that could disrupt water systems and operations on a broad scale.
4.1(o)—Science of Bioterrorism: Is the Federal Government Prepared?
December 5, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–51
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony regarding the role of federal agencies in responding to bioterrorism. Specifically, this hearing explored the research and development underway at various federal agencies to improve our nation's ability to detect, prevent, respond to, and remediate bioterrorist attacks. In addition the hearing explored the relationship and information sharing among federal agencies and what efforts the Administration has underway to better coordinate the response to bioterrorism, particularly in the area of research and development.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, (2) Hon. Linda Fisher, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, (3) Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense, Department of Defense, and (4) Dr. Donald A. Henderson, Director, Office of Public Health Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened this hearing by stating that it is the Science Committee's responsibility to ensure that America is investing in the research and development (R&D) needed to combat terrorism and that the war against terrorism will be won in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield. And in order to accomplish this victory, we need a clearly led, well-organized, well-planned R&D effort. He stressed that while the Federal Government has done a remarkable job in responding to terrorism, by necessity this response has been ad hoc and put together on the fly. However, if this is still true six months from now, then we will have failed to respond adequately to the terrorist threat.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Marburger testified that the Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP) has broad mandates from both the Congress and the Executive Branch to coordinate scientific activities within the federal agencies. And in particular, OSTP can play an important role in coordinating the various science and technology activities related to antiterrorism. He indicated that he will draw upon the technical expertise housed in our science and technology agencies, making sure that relevant information and test results are disseminated to the appropriate parties, preventing unproductive duplication of effort and identifying opportunities for collaboration. Specifically, he testified that:
The National Security Council under this Administration established the Policy Coordinating Committee on Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction. The R&D subgroup of this committee will continue under a new National Science and Technology Council forum.
Under the structure of the National Science and Technology Council, OSTP is establishing an Interagency Task Force with several working groups. The fifth working group, a Technical Response Team, will establish subgroups on an ad hoc basis to serve as a clearinghouse for technical reviews of the incoming proposals on technologies related to homeland security. The goal of this subgroup is to review all proposals for scientific merit, and refer them as necessary to the appropriate agency for further review.
He stressed that as we fight this war against terrorism, we need a taxonomy and a common language to assess threats, avoid duplication and facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
OSTP has sought assistance from the National Academies and the RAND Corporation to develop such a taxonomy. The RAND Corporation's database, called Radius, is proving to be useful in this endeavor.
He also highlighted an ongoing interagency effort to address mail security issues. Following a request from Governor Ridge, OSTP convened an interagency meeting to ascertain the technical issues the U.S. Postal Service was encountering with regards to anthrax contaminated mail. Dr. Marburger met with chief science officials from 15 different federal agencies to create an interagency technical team to evaluate irradiation facilities in Lima, Ohio and Bridgeport, New Jersey.
Deputy Administrator Fisher testified that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has several specific missions regarding their role in counter-terrorism activities. These missions are a result of Presidential Decision Directives and include assisting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during crisis management in threat assessments and determining the types of hazards associated with releases of materials in a terrorist incident. Also, the EPA should provide environmental monitoring, decontamination and long-term cleanup at the site of an attack. And the EPA must help ensure the safety and security of America's drinking water. Specifically, she testified that:
Administrator Whitman has made reliance of sound science one of her highest priorities and despite the need for rapid response following the September 11 attacks, the EPA has continued to adhere to this goal.
In response to killing anthrax spores in buildings, the EPA has established a hotline for vendors who believe they have a product that can effectively kill anthrax, and the EPA is working quickly to verify these claims. In addition the EPA is conducting a review of specific cleanup technologies for anthrax and has determined that a number of liquid and foam applications, including Sandia foam and liquid chlorine dioxide, are effective in killing the spores. Also, the EPA has found that high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are effective in removing anthrax spores. However, it is clear that many science and technology issues still remain unresolved.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The EPA is expanding their biological testing capabilities, and are in the process of modifying an EPA lab in Cincinnati, Ohio so that tests involving anthrax and other biological agents can be done.
The EPA, along with the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal agencies are developing a state-of-the-knowledge report that will address the chemical and biological threats to our water supply, the capabilities of detecting these threats, and the ability to mitigate these threats.
The EPA is also working closely with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in areas of sampling strategy, remediation processes, and criteria for judging remediation processes to be effective.
She noted that the working relationship between EPA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was invaluable as remediation of the anthrax-contaminated buildings progressed.
The formation of the Homeland Security Working Group within EPA will develop a strategic plan describing the Agency's effort at preparedness and resource needs. The plan will be shared with other federal agencies that are part of the Office of Homeland Security.
Dr. Johnson-Winegar testified that while the primary mission of the Department of Defense (DOD) is to ensure that the war-fighter is protected, DOD is working with other federal agencies so as to provide technologies that can protect all U.S. citizens. The DOD has been addressing the use of biological weapons as a means of trying to counter America's overwhelming conventional war-fighting strength, and that much of this investment should be helpful to the civilian community. Specifically, she testified that:
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Within the program for biological defense, the DOD's efforts are categorized into three operational principles. These include contamination avoidance, protection of the war-fighter and restoration capabilities.
The DOD currently uses a biological integrated detection system mounted on a military vehicle. This technology is capable of detecting a number of different biological warfare agents in a relatively short period of time. However, DOD is working to reduce the time required for these systems to work, as well as increasing the specificity and sensitivity of these devices.
Other technologies currently in use by the DOD are the M99 Portal Shield that uses an immuno-based system to detect eight biological agents and the M291 skin decontamination kit that uses a resin-based material to remove chemical and biological agents from the skin.
In closing, Dr. Johnson-Winegar gave her commitment that DOD will continue to work closely with other federal agencies to develop and provide anti-bioterrorism technologies.
Dr. Henderson testified that the newly created HHS Office of Public Health Preparedness has been charged with providing direction to the many different HHS programs dealing with bioterrorism, and serving to direct and coordinate these activities with other federal agencies. He stressed that there is much we must still learn about bioterrorism and that R&D pertinent to bioweapons is desperately needed. Specifically, he testified that:
We do not as yet have an overall anti-bioterrorism research strategy and program, although activities with OSTP, the National Academy of Sciences, and others are playing an important role in beginning to move toward that important and much needed blueprint.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Until very recently, most academic institutions excluded anything to do with biological or chemical weapons from their educational and research programs. Because of this, there is little bioweapons expertise currently in academia.
There has been little support for research in the diseases and agents that might be used in a biological attack. Moreover, research biologists, academia and the biotechnology industry have had relatively little contact with the biological defense programs. Thus the development of new and creative research programs, involving particularly HHS and DOD, with academia and biotechnology firms, are needed.
HHS has identified several especially urgent R&D needs, which are all being pursued very aggressively. These include the development of a smallpox vaccine from tissue cell culture origin, development of a second-generation recombinant anthrax vaccine, development of antiviral drugs for treatment of complications from smallpox vaccination, and the development of reasonably priced diagnostic instruments capable of being used in field situations.
HHS has placed contracts to provide enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate all U.S. citizens, and is anticipating that a second-generation anthrax vaccine will come online within 18 months.
In closing, Dr. Henderson stated that after many years of permitting our public health infrastructure to deteriorate, we cannot expect to recover the level of competency and control that we need in one or two years. But certainly, a good beginning has been made in recent months.
4.1(p)—The Future of DOE's Automotive Research Programs
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
February 7, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–82
Background
The hearing addressed the Administration's newly announced FreedomCAR program, and its similarities and differences with the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. PNGV was established and operated as a joint cooperative research and development (R&D) program between the Federal Government and the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), which was formed by the ''Big Three'' auto manufacturers (Chrysler [now Daimler Chrysler], Ford and General Motors).
Witnesses included: (1) The Honorable David K. Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; (2) Dr. Vernon P. Roan, Vice Chair, National Research Council Panel on the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, and Professor and Director, Fuel Cell Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Florida at Gainesville; (3) Dr. Daniel Sperling, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies and Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis; and (4) Mr. Ross Witschonke, Vice President of Electrics and Power Electronics, Ballard Power.
Summary of Hearing
The hearing helped to flesh out the FreedomCAR proposal and how it differs from PNGV while addressing other, more philosophical questions, i.e., what is the proper goal for government in automotive research. The Administration made clear that FreedomCAR will continue much of the research that began under PNGV, will focus on hydrogen fuel cells, and will drop vehicle-specific goals while creating technical milestones for components and subsystems.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Garman gave the Committee little new detail about the FreedomCAR program, but pointed out that the appropriate role for government was higher risk, longer-term basic research. Hydrogen fuel cells meet the Administration's goal of providing an alternative to petroleum-based fuels.
Dr. Roan discussed the NRC panel report findings that PNGV was largely successful in achieving its goals, but would have fallen short in producing a pre-production prototype at a reasonable cost by 2004.
Dr. Sperling agreed with the change of emphasis from vehicle-based technology goals in PNGV to the component and subsystem emphasis in FreedomCAR. Dr. Sperling felt that incentives and regulations will be essential to the future of hydrogen and drew attention to the need to increase hydrogen-related engineering training in universities and resolve hydrogen infrastructure questions.
Mr. Witshonke discussed Ballard's role in PNGV and was upbeat about the potential for FreedomCAR. He also indicated that the government should avoid duplicating fuel cell research and focus instead on hydrogen supply and infrastructure questions.
Questioning revolved around the broad themes of defining research needs and goals, the appropriate role for government and industry research and the fate of PNGV research. Chairman Boehlert asked the panel how to maintain research focus without strict goals. Mr. Garman responded that FreedomCAR will have goals but they will be on the component level and will be applicable to all vehicles. He added that DOE is ''not good at putting things together'' and should focus instead on developing breakthroughs in components and subsystems.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Roan, Dr. Sperling and Mr. Witshonke discussed the difficulty of bringing new technologies to market in response to a question from Representative Nick Smith. Dr. Roan said that there were no real breakthroughs in vehicle technology short of fuel cells. Dr. Sperling spoke several times about Detroit having plenty of innovation and research—''garages full of concept cars''—but little of that innovation making it to production. Mr. Witshonke said that many good ideas fall short in the real world of production constraints and costs, for example both Dr. Sperling and Mr. Witshonke agreed that without a hydrogen infrastructure, hydrogen research would be meaningless.
Representative John Larson asked about the appropriateness of using buses and trucks as platforms for nearer term deployment of fuel cells. The panel agreed that these larger vehicles, mostly operated from depots would be ideal.
Chairman Boehlert asked what guarantees exist that new technologies would be adopted once developed. Dr. Sperling responded that incentives and regulation are necessary technology drivers. Mr. Witshonke stated that Ballard ''is totally committed'' to making its hydrogen fuel cells commercially viable.
Representative Vernon Ehlers asked where the hydrogen needed for fuel cells will come from, and, if the hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons, what happens to all of the carbon. Mr. Garman responded that there are several DOE programs looking at sequestering carbon from the production of hydrogen.
4.1(q)—The R&D Budget for Fiscal Year 2003: An Evaluation
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
February 13, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–57
Background
The hearing was held to consider President Bush's budget request for research and development. Four witnesses reviewed their agencies' budget requests in the context of the Administration's overall priorities in science and technology. In addition, the witnesses were 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 heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President; (2) Dr. Samuel W. Bodman, Deputy Secretary, Department of Commerce; (3) Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation; and (4) Dr. Bruce Carnes, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Marburger testified that the Administration's R&D budget is the largest in U.S. history. In his testimony, he noted that:
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
At $111.8 billion, the budget represents an eight percent increase over the FY02 budget—the largest requested R&D budget increase in more than a decade.
The Administration's greatest priority in drafting the budget was combating terrorism. Funding for anti-terrorism programs, including homeland security and critical infrastructure protection, is tripled from $1 billion in FY02 to $3 billion in FY03.
Nanotechnology, another priority of the Administration, would increase by 17 percent under the President's proposed budget. At $679 million, this multi-agency initiative focuses on long-term research on molecular- and atomic-sized matter.
Networking and information technology R&D is funded in the budget at $1.9 billion, an increase of three percent over FY02.
The budget meets the President's commitment to double the FY98 budget of the NIH by FY03.
Climate change research was also an important priority in drafting the budget with two new initiatives receiving $40 million each: the Climate Change Research Initiative, and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative.
It is a goal of the Administration to measure the effectiveness of R&D programs, but such a ''score card'' approach is still in the development stage.
Dr. Bodman provided a brief overview of specific budgetary items within the President's proposed budget pertaining to science programs and agencies within the Department of Commerce. He noted in his testimony that:
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The budget for the Technology Administration, which is responsible for technology policy and partnerships between government and industry, remains unchanged for FY03 at $8 million.
At $577 million, total requested funding for NIST represents a $116 million decrease from FY02. Dr. Bodman attributed this decrease to a change in administrative procedure: beginning with FY03, employee retirement benefits will be included in the departmental budgets rather than the NIST budget.
Funding for NIST laboratories is increased $60 million to $396 million, of which $50 million is for the completion of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory.
NIST's nanotechnology program receives a $4 million funding increase to a total of $40 million.
Dr. Bodman stated that the Administration has serious concerns with the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This is reflected by a substantial decrease in proposed funding from over $100 million to $13 million.
Proposed funding for NOAA is $3.3 billion, a decrease of $136 million.
Specific areas deemed ''critical'' by the Administration would receive increased funding under the President's proposed budget—homeland security: $26.4 million, an increase of $23 million; extreme weather forecasting improvements: $766 million, an increase of $84 million; and climate services: $137 million, an increase of $36 million.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Testifying on the National Science Foundation's budget request, Dr. Colwell stated that NSF's use of public funds hinges on two conditions: its research and educational investments are aimed at ''the frontiers of understanding,'' and all awards are competitive and merit-based, with clear criteria for measuring success. The total budget request for the NSF is $5,036,000,000, a five percent increase over FY02 funding levels. Dr. Colwell testified that the total proposed budget includes:
The second $200 million installment of the five-year, $1 billion Math and Science Partnership, a program aimed at improving K–12 education in disciplines of math and science.
A $37 million investment that would increase annual stipends for graduate fellows to $25,000 in an effort to attract the Nation's most talented students to the fields of science and engineering.
Funding levels of $221 million for nanotechnology research, $286 million for information technology research, $185 million for the NSF Learning for the 21st Century Workforce initiative, and $75 million for research on biocomplexity in the environment, including microbial genome sequencing and ecology of infectious diseases.
Dr. Carnes testified that funding for the Department of Energy in the Administration's proposed FY03 budget totals $21.9 billion, of which $8.3 billion is appropriated for R&D. He further asserted that the budget is focused on the central mission Secretary Abraham set for the Department: national security. In accordance with this mission, Dr. Carnes told the Members of the Committee that the budget:
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Focuses on programs that increase energy supply through an increase in domestic production, conservation and efficiency, as well as an expanded array of energy resource options.
Seeks to develop the potential of hydrogen/fuel cells as a viable fuel by requesting $150 million for the FreedomCAR initiative.
Recognizes as high priority areas the President's Coal Research Initiative and a new generation of nuclear energy systems.
Focuses the Nation's research in areas such as energy, threat detection, and climate change.
Funds research in the cutting-edge areas of nanoscience, microbial science, and ''the fundamental understanding of matter.''
Dr. Carnes further stated that DOE programs and laboratories are being examined to determine the extent to which they further the central mission established by Secretary Abraham. DOE, he said, is also working toward integrating R&D performance measurements in an effort to evaluate these programs throughout the government.
4.1(r)—NASA's FY 2003 Budget Request
February 27, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–58
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Background
The hearing addressed NASA's scientific priorities as reflected in the budget request, the criteria by which these priorities were established, the high priority technologies proposed, and the program and management changes contemplated to support the President's Management Agenda. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe was the only witness.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. O'Keefe provided testimony on NASA's FY 2003 budget request and several initiatives he is undertaking to set priorities for NASA. Mr. O'Keefe testified that his first priority is a vigorous and aggressive implementation of the President's Management Agenda with special focus on management of human capital, competitive sourcing, e-government, financial management, and integration of budget and performance. Mr. O'Keefe highlighted the new Nuclear Systems Initiative as a major new program aimed at improving power and propulsion technologies to enable more capable solar system exploration programs. He also highlighted the increased focus on education initiatives.
Mr. O'Keefe endorsed the Young Commission's report as a blueprint on how to proceed with reforming the International Space Station (ISS) program. He identified the following five major areas that NASA will focus on for the Space Station: (1) ISS must be science-driven and have a clear set of science priorities; (2) address the engineering challenges to assembling and operating Space Station; (3) establish an independent cost estimate; (4) comply with the international agreements; (5) examine the operational requirements to support Space Station.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. O'Keefe testified that NASA failed its audit this year. The auditors were unable to give NASA a clean opinion because there was insufficient documentation to support a clean opinion. While there is nothing NASA can do to change this audit, Mr. O'Keefe assured the committee that NASA would provide the documentation required to perform a complete audit next year.
Mr. O'Keefe would not give a definitive answer on whether the U.S. Core Complete Space Station would fulfill the U.S. obligation under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Instead, O'Keefe stated that NASA would comply with the IGA over the next two years and assess, in consultation with the partners, whether to move forward beyond U.S. Core Complete. U.S. Core Complete was defined as the successful integration of Node 2 to the Space Station.
Mr. O'Keefe testified that NASA was investigating various alternatives to the Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV). He stated that the probability of a CRV's use would be extremely remote and implied that it would not justify the expense. He indicated that a better solution might be to pursue a Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV), which could perform the CRV mission and replace the Shuttle for other manned missions.
Mr. O'Keefe also provided testimony on Space Shuttle safety and upgrades, Space Shuttle privatization, NASA's aeronautics program, proposed space science missions to Pluto.
4.1(s)—Learning From 9/11—Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
March 6, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–46
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to analyze the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC). Witnesses from industry, academia, and government testified on the catastrophic collapse of the WTC complex and subsequent efforts by federal agencies and independent researchers to understand how and why the structures failed. Witnesses described why it was important to scrutinize the steel and other debris, blueprints and other documents, and recorded images of the disaster, so that engineers, designers, and construction professionals could learn valuable lessons that could ultimately improve the safety of buildings. Witnesses also described the many impediments they encountered, such as: no federal agency believed it was clearly charged with investigating building failures; nothing ensured that an investigation would begin quickly enough to preserve evidence; no federal agency had the investigative authority, akin to that of the National Transportation Safety Board, to ensure access to all needed information; and no one kept the public informed of the progress of the investigations.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Robert Shea, Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), accompanied by Mr. Craig Wingo, Director, Division of Engineering Science and Technology, Federal Emergency Management Agency; (2) Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E., S.E., American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Chair of the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) reviewing the WTC disaster; (3) Mr. Glenn Corbett, Assistant Professor of Fire Science, John Jay College, City University of New York; (4) Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley; and (5) Dr. Arden Bement, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Leading investigations of building failures:
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by recognizing that reviewing how the Federal Government investigated the collapse of the WTC was both a sensitive and difficult topic. However, he stated that it was the Committee's duty to do so for two fundamental reasons. First, the families of the victims had a right to know how the Federal Government investigated the collapse. Second, the Committee must assess how the Federal Government, as a matter of course, investigates building failures to determine if changes are necessary. He noted that the investigation of the WTC collapse ran into a number of troubling obstacles. Obstacles identified by the Committee include: federal agencies did not coordinate sufficiently, and some were slow to react; no organized team was at the site for weeks; potentially valuable evidence had been lost irretrievably; and blueprints were unavailable for months. Finally, he stated that the Federal Government must have standard protocols for conducting investigations to overcome many of the obstacles encountered during this investigation. He also added that it was the Committee's intent to work toward achieving this goal and to thoroughly review other matters relevant to this issue.
Witnesses testified as to the confusion that characterized the Federal Government's efforts to investigate the collapse of the WTC buildings. It became clear that while the federal agencies represented at the hearing tried to respond to the disaster in some fashion, no agency believed it had the authority to lead an investigation of a major building failure.
During the hearing when the witnesses were asked to indicate who was in charge of the investigation of the WTC collapse, several witnesses raised their hands. FEMA clearly believed it was initially in charge because it deployed the BPAT. However, Mr. Shea testified that FEMA did not have the authority to investigate the building disaster, but only to study it. Dr. Bement also appeared unclear as to where authority lay to conduct an investigation of the collapses. While he testified that he was acting as though NIST was in charge, it is clear that NIST initially took no action to conduct an investigation in response to the collapse of the WTC.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Ultimately, Mr. Shea concurred with the Chairman that for several months after the attacks it was uncertain who was in charge of investigating this disaster. In addition, Mr. Shea testified that FEMA turned to NIST to lead an investigation because FEMA does not have the technical capability or resources to conduct investigations of major building failures. Mr. Shea said that based on his experience, an overall Federal Government strategy for responding to building failures is needed and NIST should be vested with this authority.
Preserving evidence and gaining access to critical information:
Witnesses testified that confusion regarding who was in charge of the investigation and the BPAT's lack of investigative authority led to delays in deploying the BPAT team, problems in gaining access to the WTC site, an inability to preserve valuable steel evidence from the site, and problems gaining access to information the BPAT requested.
During the hearing, Members voiced concern about why the BPAT had not been deployed immediately after the attacks and whether the delay had hindered the team's ability to preserve important evidence. Dr. Corley testified that immediately following the attacks, ASCE began assembling a team of experts to study the disaster. Although this team later became part of the official BPAT that FEMA created, that official designation did not occur until late September, 2001. Furthermore, it was only at that time that the team was able to gain access to the disaster site. Dr. Corley believed that one possible reason for this delay was the uncertain relationship between the BPAT and ongoing search and rescue efforts, as well as the criminal investigation. During the time the team was not present on site, the City of New York decided to haul away and recycle the steel, which could have been useful as evidence for the investigation.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Even after the BPAT was on site and had actively assumed its duties, there was still confusion abut whether the BPAT had the authority to preserve evidence. Mr. Shea said that the BPAT was in charge of gathering the necessary evidence for an investigation. However, Dr. Corley, who led the BPAT team, said that he did not know whether anyone had the authority even to ask the City of New York to stop recycling the steel. When Dr. Bement was asked if NIST could presently sequester evidence for its investigation, he said that NIST could request that evidence be preserved, but that it had no power to enforce the request.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who was funded by the National Science Foundation to study the collapse, testified that he experienced the same problems that Dr. Corley's team faced in terms of gaining access to the site, and studying and preserving the steel evidence. He testified that he had, without any assistance from any federal agency, directly negotiated with the plants recycling the steel, and it was only because of their cooperation that he was given access to the steel.
Professor Corbett described the consequences of losing pieces of steel evidence. He said with steel from critical areas of the building (such as where the planes hit the building) would help the BPAT make more definitive statements as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse.
Several witness commented on the problems the BPAT faced in gaining access to information it required as part of its investigation. The BPAT requested access to the WTC building blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records. It planned to use these to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models to explain why and how the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future. The BPAT did not get immediate access to the full set of these documents and eventually, FEMA had to intercede on behalf of the BPAT. However, there was a significant delay in FEMA making this request. Mr. Wingo testified that FEMA did not ask the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for blueprints and design specifications for the buildings until December 21, nearly four months after the disaster, and Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT did not receive full copies of the blueprints and design drawings until January 8, 2002.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
In addition to the structural records, the BPAT team requested video footage from the television networks and tapes of 911 calls from the New York City Police Department. Dr. Corley testified that the BPAT team was only able to obtain from TV networks video footage of the collapse that had been played on air; the networks would not release unaired footage. The BPAT ultimately gave up on attempting to obtain the 911 tapes. During the May 1 follow up hearing held by the Science Committee (later described herein), Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor, Center for Fire Safety Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, who was also a BPAT member, said that after being denied access to the 911 tapes for several months, he withdrew the request for the tapes because the computer modeling that would have used the 911 tapes would not be completed in time for the BPAT report.
Dr. Bement explained that NIST's planned investigation could run into the same impediments as the BPAT in terms of gaining access to this information. Dr. Bement explained that, while NIST could request information, it lacked the power to issue subpoenas for information it deemed critical to its investigation, and that he therefore could not ensure that NIST would have total access to this information.
Informing the public:
Members expressed great concern about the lack of regular public briefings by FEMA, as well as the status of the BPAT investigation and its factual findings. Witness generally agreed that briefing the public was an important component of any investigation, but the hearing revealed that there were problems with how FEMA handled communications with the public during the BPAT study. While Mr. Shea testified that he believed FEMA did try to respond to inquiries from the public, he also said that BPAT participants were asked to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from publicly disclosing the conversations and opinions discussed during the course of the team's deliberations. He said this was standard practice with BPATs in order to protect the scientific integrity of the process. However, several Members point out that much of the public criticism and leaks to the press regarding the BPAT initial findings could have been prevented by regular public briefings.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Funding investigations:
Witnesses and Members expressed concern about the resources federal agencies were able to commit to investigate the WTC building collapses. Dr. Corley testified that the total amount of money (both public and private) supporting the BPAT study was about $1 million, and that, in his opinion, $40 million would be required to conduct a comprehensive study of the WTC disaster. Dr. Bement concurred with this figure by stating that $40 million ''wasn't too far out of the ballpark'' of what NIST would need to complete its proposed investigation. Professor Corbett summarized the general funding problems of this effort by saying that, ''a disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation.'' He further emphasized that ''instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget.''
4.1(t)—The 2001 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching: Views From the Blackboard
March 20, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–55
Background
As demonstrated by the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 1994, and the repeat study in 1999, while fourth grade students in the United States perform above the international average in science and mathematics, U.S. middle school students perform at the international average and high school students perform well below their international peers. Perhaps even more disturbing, when the cohort of students who performed well at the fourth grade level in 1994 were tested as eighth graders in 1999, there was a marked drop in performance despite an increased focus on improving math and science instruction in the wake of the 1994 TIMMS results. Factors believed to contribute to poor student performance in math and science include: limited uninterrupted time-on-task in class, limited access to high-quality curricular materials, a shortage of teachers with solid academic preparation in math and science, insufficient faculty planning time, and a lack of stimulating, long-term professional development opportunities for teachers.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
In this hearing, the Committee on Science heard testimony from the Nation's best math and science teachers—recipients of the 2001 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching—on how to improve mathematics, science and technology education in the U.S. In addition to an open-microphone session in which all Presidential Awardees were invited to participate, the Committee heard testimony from: (1) Ms. Susan Kielb, a 7th grade mathematics and life science teacher at Tappan Middle School; (2) Ms. Jana D. Rowland, a 5th grade science teacher at Hydro-Eakly Elementary School; (3) Mr. Bill H. Schrandt, a math teacher at Valley High School; and (4) Dr. Frances Hess, a science teacher at Cooperstown Central School.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that there is no issue within the Committee's jurisdiction that he cares about more deeply than science and math education. None of the other things the Committee wants to do—whether it's understanding global climate change or completing the International Space Station—none of these things can be done unless we have the scientists and engineers to do the work and a scientifically literate citizenry who will support it and learn from it. And, of course, there's only one way we can create those scientists and engineers and educated citizens, and that's through education—starting from earliest childhood. The Chairman asked panelists to provide their reaction to H.R. 1858, House-approved legislation authorizing programs designed to create partnerships between universities, businesses and school systems, and to attract more top college students into teaching.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Ms. Keilb testified that in order to provide high quality math and science education to students, teachers must have a firm foundation in mathematics and science themselves. She credited her own training and experience as a scientist for her success as a math and science teacher and made the following recommendations:
Top graduates of mathematics and science degree programs should be encouraged to pursue careers in teaching and should be given grants to earn teaching credentials;
Educators must have high-quality professional development opportunities throughout their careers and must have time during the regular work day to collaborate and share new ideas about teaching;
Educators must be exposed to the outside world of science and mathematics so they can understand advances in science and mathematics; and
Students should be challenged to utilize reasoning and problem-solving skills in math and science rather than demonstrating knowledge solely through multiple choice tests.
Ms. Rowland commented that her training as a medical laboratory technologist helped her become a capable science teacher and that a primary concern for teachers in rural areas is the number of non-English speaking, transient students who don't stay in one school long enough to master basic skills. She made the following comments and recommendations:
There are inadequate resources for high quality teacher training and professional development in mathematics, science and technology;
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Test scores may not reflect a school's real progress in improving math and science education when the school has a large number of non-English-speaking, transient students who are not in a single school long enough to gain the fundamental skills and knowledge required to be successful;
Programs need to be implemented to encourage college students in the science fields to consider entering the teaching profession;
Students at the K–12 level need to be shown that the job opportunities in the future will be from the math and science fields; and
The Federal Government needs to support regional science resource centers.
Mr. Schrandt discussed the need to provide teachers with the same opportunities that other professionals are routinely provided in the area of continuing education, professional development, and ongoing collaboration. He testified that:
Teachers need to teach content in the context of applications that students value and understand so that students can see why learning math is useful and important;
Teachers need to be provided with regular opportunities to work together, formally or informally, so they don't feel isolated from one another in their professional lives;
Teachers are not perceived as professionals, largely because of low salaries; this leads to low expectations.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The government needs to promote the role and importance of teachers and to support workshops and collaborations among teachers to increase the degree of professionalism; and
Professional development opportunities, such as the ones provided by the NSF, should be expanded.
Dr. Hess noted the need for continued professional growth among teachers and better curricula for students. She recommended that:
Additional federal funding should be provided to help teachers grow professionally, develop better curriculum, purchase science equipment for classrooms and ease budget tensions among local school districts;
Teachers should be compensated for the money and time they invest in professional development programs; and
More programs should be created to encourage businesses to contribute resources and expertise to local schools.
4.1(u)—New Directions for Climate Research and Technology Initiatives
April 17, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–56
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive suggestions on how to focus the Federal Government's climate change research and technology programs. The hearing assessed how the new Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), intended to complement ongoing federal global change research activities, could be structured to yield more useful information for decision-makers and how the new National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) can be designed to be more effective than past programs at developing technology options that can assure our future energy security and at delivering those technologies to the marketplace.
Witnesses included: (1) Dr. Radford Byerly, Jr., Visiting Scholar, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado; (2) Dr. Eric Barron, Director, Earth Systems Science Center, Earth and Mineral Sciences Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University; (3) Dr. Edward Miles, Principal Investigator, Pacific Northwest RISA, JISAO Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington; (4) Dr. James Edmonds, Senior Staff Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute; and (5) Mr. Scott Bernstein, President, Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that this is a critical moment for global change research programs. While in many ways, the successes of these programs are inarguable, their future contours have never been more uncertain. Some experts suggest that the science program is focused on the wrong issues entirely, paying too much attention to long-range questions that will always be hard to resolve, while resource managers who raise shorter-range climate questions go begging for answers. Others suggest the need for heightened attention to a small set of long-range questions, such as the nature of the carbon cycle, and to providing the modeling and observational tools needed to answer them. Similar issues have been raised about focusing the government's technology programs, which have led to significant incremental technical improvements, but haven't usually been as successful at ''great leaps forward'' or market penetration.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Chairman asked the witnesses to explain what they would do if they were put in charge of the science and technology programs. What research goals would they set out and how would they set up an agenda to achieve them? We will then follow up on today's hearing with a hearing in late May or in June to hear from government witnesses to learn exactly how the Administration plans to proceed with the climate program.
Dr. Byerly began his testimony by telling the committee that having the data to make accurate climate change predictions does not make policy decisions easier.
CCRI will not help make better policy decisions on climate change because its data collection process was not designed with the needs of end users in mind.
Legislation should focus on developing research programs that cater to the needs of data users.
Dr. Barron took the view that the United States' Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP) and the development of (CCRI) are steps towards developing an ''Environmental Intelligence Center'' that should centralize climate data for decision-makers.
Multiple stresses and environmental factors affect climate and research should focus on the impact of a variety of human activities.
Collaboration across agencies will allow climate data sets to be analyzed for other environmental assessment programs, especially for evaluating health threats.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Miles provided testimony on behalf of Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments Program.
While climate data is recorded annually, this data is used on the regional level for more seasonal predictions, such as expected monthly rainfall.
The climate change data that is most useful for decision-making varies by region, whether it is interdecadal Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the Pacific Northwest, or the El Niño Southern Oscillation data for Florida.
Dr. Edmonds testified that stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere requires carbon dioxide emissions to peak and then decline indefinitely, effectively falling to zero.
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will require a revolutionary change in the global energy system, which would be extremely expensive if undertaken with present technology. Scientific developments are needed to facilitate new technologies.
Significant advances must be made in hydrogen, fuel cells, carbon capture and disposal technologies.
Biotechnology investments have the potential to return great dividends in terms of energy security and clean fuel production.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Since all technologies are unlikely to be successfully developed and deployed into the marketplace, it is critical to maintain a broad portfolio of investments in new technologies
Mr. Bernstein testified about steps the Federal Government could take to better align energy technology programs with climate and economic goods, total household energy consumption trends and their effect on greenhouse emissions.
Mitigation efforts would be enhanced if the federal R&D programs were focused more on deployment of technology and projects were organized by community needs rather than technologies or sectors.
Because building turnover is slow, (80 years on average for houses) programs should be shifted to focus on retrofitting buildings instead of just building efficient new ones.
Real-time information on consumption, demand and prices would create positive incentives for reducing energy consumption, lowering demand at peak usage times.
4.1(v)—The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps
May 1, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–61
Background
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the key findings and recommendations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC). The hearing also reviewed the plans of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to conduct a more extensive follow-up investigation and to establish a comprehensive research and development plan to improve standards, practices, and codes for buildings and fire. In addition, the witnesses were asked to comment on H.R. 4687, a bill that would confer to NIST additional investigative powers.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Robert Shea, Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency; (2) Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E., S.E., American Society of Civil Engineers, Chair of Building Performance Assessment Team reviewing the World Trade Center disaster; (3) Dr. Arden Bement, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology; and (4) Mr. Glenn Corbett, Assistant Professor of Fire Science, John Jay College, City University of New York.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by describing the Committee's findings from the March 6, 2002 hearing that examined the Federal Government's investigation of the WTC collapse. The main findings were that the study of the collapse had been hampered by: bureaucratic confusion, hesitation and delay; a lack of investigative tools; and excessive restrictions on the flow of information. He then described how legislation he had introduced with Representative Weiner (the National Construction Safety Team Act, H.R. 4687) would solve each of those impediments for future investigations.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Chairman stated that the three main goals of the hearing were to: examine the findings of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that was responsible for studying the collapse of the WTC; discuss the NIST plan for a follow-up investigation of the ASCE study; and facilitate a public discussion of the National Construction Safety Team Act. Finally, he declared that it was the Committee's intent to push for enactment of the National Construction Safety Team Act and to secure funding for NIST's follow-on investigation of the WTC collapse.
Mr. Shea introduced the report of the Building Performance and Assessment Team, entitled: ''World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations'' (FEMA publication #403). He commended the team's work, and expressed his sense of the human tragedy.
Dr. Corley described the building performance team, the tools they used to evaluate eight buildings in the World Trade Center complex, and the findings and recommendations of the report. He noted that:
The team comprised 25 people including structural engineers, designers, analysts, professors, firemen, investigators, etc.
The scope of the BPAT's work included collecting and preserving data, undertaking preliminary analyses, recommending areas for further work, and offering suggestions that might improve the performance of buildings in the future. The BPAT was not intended to make final conclusions.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The impacts of the aircraft were not sufficient on their own to bring down either of the towers. Because of the buildings' redundant design, the loads were redistributed to intact columns after the impact, enabling the buildings to stand for nearly an hour. The collapse occurred because of the compounding effects of the ensuing fire.
The impacts dislodged some of the fireproofing from the steel, and also damaged the stair enclosures, thereby blocking all three stairwells in Tower 1 and two of the three in Tower 2.
Several lessons can be learned from the performance of the WTC buildings. For all buildings: elements that connect beams and columns should be fire-rated. For buildings identified as potential terrorist targets:
1. Redundancy (buildings being able to transfer loads to other structural elements should some fail) and robustness (designing elements in a manner in which they can carry additional loads in extreme circumstances) are necessary to avoid collapse;
2. Fireproofing should better adhere to the steel, making dislodgement in an impact less likely;
3. The sprinkler systems in buildings should have redundant water supplies; and
4. Redundancy, distribution, and impact resistance of exit pathways should be improved.
Additional research is needed to understand the performance of structural connections under fire conditions, why Building 7 collapsed as a result of fire alone (not physical damage), and the human elements of the evacuation.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Bement testified on NIST's proposed follow-on investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings. He said that the plan consists of three key program elements:
A 24-month building and fire safety investigation into the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 that will look at building construction, materials used, and technical conditions after the impacts;
A multi-year research and development program (examining fire safety, prevention of progressive collapse, and equipment standards for first responders) to provide the technical basis for improved building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
An industry-led program to provide practical technical guidance for facility owners, contractors, designers, and emergency personnel in preparation for responses to future disasters.
Dr. Bement further testified that:
All of the BPAT recommendations map into the three elements of the NIST response plan, which has been shared with public and private organizations.
NIST continues to revise the plan as more technical information becomes available and in response to the suggestions of stakeholders.
NIST believes strongly that the lessons learned from the investigation will be applicable to a broad range of building types.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
NIST will liaise with professional communities and families of victims, consult with local authorities in New York, and share the details of the plan with the public.
The Administration has expressed a strong commitment to the plan and has asked for $16 million as a part of FEMA's FY 2002 supplemental budget request to support the NIST investigation.
The President's FY 2003 budget request includes $2 million in base funding for the plan, and $2 million of existing base NIST funds have been redirected toward this effort as well.
Professor Corbett argued that the generalized nature of the BPAT's recommendations and the limited scope of its assessment leave us with little hard evidence with which to make specific improvements to codes, design practices, and emergency response procedures. He said that:
The report recommendations are a useful starting point, but much work remains to be done.
The proposed NIST investigation is the type of large-scale forensic inquiry the Federal Government should have launched in September 2001.
He has reviewed the plans for the NIST investigation and identified three areas of concern: the need for rapidly assembling individuals to form the core Federal Advisory Committee; the need for subpoena power; and the need to develop defensible and detailed proposals for changes to building and fire codes, response procedures, and emergency response technologies.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Federal Advisory Committee's oversight is important because of the multidisciplinary nature of the investigation, which involves some issues that are outside NIST's traditional realm of expertise.
The Federal Advisory Committee should contain a variety of individuals from different disciplines in order to avoid making the same mistakes as the BPAT team.
A legal means for obtaining information that would otherwise be unavailable (subpoena power) is necessary in order to conduct a complete investigation from which conclusions may be drawn.
NIST must make recommendations to specific sections of model building codes accompanied by the corresponding supporting evidence in order for the lessons learned to ultimately be applied in building codes, standards, and practices.
It is critical that the investigation be as comprehensive as planned and be funded at appropriate levels so that the lessons of the WTC disaster may be learned and applied.
When asked to comment on a draft of H.R. 4687 during the question and answer period, the witnesses made the following observations:
Professor Corbett suggested that the bill's use of ''building failure'' be altered so that it also includes failures of design in cases not involving collapse. He felt that the bill should also apply to situations involving chemical or biological attacks on buildings. Additionally, he argued that there should be a formalized relationship between code-writing organizations and the Construction Safety Teams.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Corley commented that the bill addresses many of the difficulties he encountered in the BPATs in which he has participated. He suggested that the bill be clarified with regard to its coverage of building damage due to earthquakes, tornados, and hurricanes. Additionally, he suggested that the teams contain a minimum of ten members in order to cover various fields of engineering expertise. And finally, he felt that the section about changes in building codes should be worded more carefully.
Mr. Shea explained that he met with the leadership of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to discuss whether their authorizing legislation provides them with the range of authority they require. NTSB indicated that it does, and Mr. Shea noted that H.R. 4687 parallels the NTSB legislation. He also expressed support for the bill's inclusion of the U.S. Fire Administration in the teams' efforts.
4.1(w)—Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: What Does the Science Say?
May 8, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–60
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine what is known about the impact of small particle air pollution on human health. The hearing assessed the state of our scientific knowledge about small particle air pollution and its effects on health and asked how we should go forward with a research agenda to address outstanding questions.
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. Daniel S. Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute; (2) Dr. Ron Wyzga, Technical Executive, Air Quality, Health, Risk and Electric Power Research Institute; (3) Dr. Joel Schwartz, Associate Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health; and (4) Dr. Praveen K. Amar, Director of Science and Policy, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Greenbaum summarized the current scientific literature linking particulate air pollution to premature mortality. He noted that:
In 1997, EPA promulgated ambient air quality standards based on epidemiological studies that suggested a correlation between daily levels of air pollution and hospitalization and found that the risk of premature death was elevated 17 to 24 percent for residents of the most polluted cities.
Since then, more comprehensive studies have corroborated these initial findings. Although the influence of particulate matter on mortality may be smaller than the initial data suggested, there is solid evidence that the effect is real.
There is a need for research on what types of particulate pollution are most toxic. Several such studies are underway, but would benefit from a boost in resources from EPA.
Dr. Wyzga's testimony focused on the need to determine which categories of particulate air pollution present health risks and the current research conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in this field. He noted that:
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
While ample evidence suggests that particulate air pollution contributes to adverse health effects, there is a dearth of knowledge about the biology of this interaction and the types of particulate matter which pose the greatest risk.
Research conducted by EPRI suggests that different types of air pollution differentially affect respiratory and cardiovascular health, and that fine particulates containing carbon are an important player. By contrast, there is little evidence that acid aerosols, soluble metals, ultrafine particles or sulfates pose a health risk.
Pollution controls need to be targeted at those pollutants which present real health risks.
Dr. Schwartz used his testimony to refute claims which question the link between health and particulate matter and the quality of research. He noted that:
Particulate matter is strongly correlated with premature mortality, even when gaseous pollutants and seasonal effects are controlled for.
The premature mortality is not a ''harvesting effect,'' that is, the deaths do not occur exclusively in a population of individuals who would have soon died anyway. Studies that control for this effect, rather than relying on day-to-day comparisons of ambient air quality and mortality, actually find a substantially larger correlation between mortality and particulate air pollution.
Studies suggest that there is not a threshold of air quality beneath which further reductions have no beneficial consequences.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Since 1997, a number of careful studies have begun to establish the precise biological links between particulate air pollution and adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects.
Multiple studies indicate that an individual's exposure to particulate matter is well correlated with ambient air quality.
Dr. Amar testified on the current extent of particulate air pollution, the available control technologies, and the barriers to their deployment. He noted that:
Both the East and West coasts have major air quality problems, and often are not in attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
Particulate pollution is often formed from gaseous pollutants (such as NOX and SOX) components that we have been regulating for years and for which good control technologies exist.
Combinations of control technologies—such as electrostatic precipitators with baghouses and scrubbers with selective catalytic reduction—are often very effective. Baghouse and scrubber use needs to be increased.
Vehicles burning diesel gas should be equipped with filter systems.
Setting clear emissions targets without specifying control technologies is the best way to control pollution, as evidenced by the success in controling power plant emissions of NOX and SOX.
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
4.1(x)—Drought Prediction, Preparation, and Response
June 3, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–77
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to drought prediction, preparation and response in Utah. Drought is a normal part of the climate cycle and occurs throughout many regions. The impacts of drought on our economic, environmental and social systems are significant. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimated annual losses attributable to drought in the U.S. were $6–$8 billion in 1995.
The Committee heard from: (1) Mr. Mark Eubank, meteorologist, Channel 5, KSL TV; (2) Dr. Thomas D. Potter, Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for Regional Prediction, University of Utah; (3) Mr. David G. Ovard, General Manager, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District; (4) Mr. Leon Bowler, Farmer and Rancher; (5) Dr. Michael J. Hayes, Climate Impacts Specialist, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and (6) Mr. Robert Morgan, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Potter provided some historical data on droughts in the Western United States and compared those incidences with the current drought. He indicated that much of the Western United States is experiencing a drought with consequences reaching into agriculture, water resources and fire risk. He also suggested the global climate change may make drought conditions both more common and more severe.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Eubank addressed short- and long-term weather prediction systems. He noted that:
Better assessments of soil moisture are needed to compliment precipitation data.
Better predictions of the intervals between precipitation events are necessary.
Global and solar climate patters correlate to drought incidence; more data is needed to pursue these long-term predictors, especially for mid-range latitudes.
The Federal Government should promote research into long-term drought prediction, perhaps by giving grant money or prize money.
Mr. Morgan summarized the current drought conditions in Utah as well as the government's response. He noted that:
Governor Leavitt's water conservation initiative is an important step towards responsible water use.
Better data on snowpack and hydroclimatic variables are necessary.
Mr. Bowler provided a rancher's perspective, characterizing this year's drought as the worst in living memory. He and other ranchers are being forced to sell cattle at severely reduced prices, and some ranchers are being driven out of business.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Hayes addressed issues related to long-term water and drought planning. He noted that:
It is very difficult to assign specific dollar values to the economic losses associated with drought.
The National Drought Mitigation Center has made important progress in working with States to prepare for droughts and minimize their consequences.
A difficult but important step will be to move from drought response to drought preparedness.
4.1(y)—Homeland Security: The Federal and New York Response
June 24, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–71
Background
The hearing was the third in a series of hearings examining the vulnerability of our nation's computer infrastructure. The Committee also examined research and education challenges and opportunities in computer and network security, as well as the connections between the Nation's science and technology enterprise and U.S. law enforcement and other first responders in the fight against cyberterrorism. Witnesses from government, academia, and industry testified on issues such as the potential ramifications of a cyber attack, as well as the steps that could be taken to improve the research and development of the United States' computer infrastructure.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Committee heard testimony from two panels of witnesses. Panel 1: (1) Dr. John Marburger, Science Advisor to the President, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White House; (2) Mr. James K. Kallstrom, Special Advisor for Public Security to Governor George S. Pataki; (3) Mr. John S. Tritak, Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), The White House; and (4) Dr. James Engle, Deputy Undersecretary for Science and Technology, United States Air Force. Panel 2: (1) Mr. Robert Weaver, Deputy Special Agent-in-Charge, New York Field Office, Director, New York Electronic Crimes Task Force, United States Secret Service; (2) Dr. Yacov Shamash, Dean of Engineering, State University of New York at Stony Brook; and (3) Mr. Michael Miravalle, President & CEO, Dolphin Technologies, Inc., Rome, New York.
Summary of Hearing
Panel 1:
Dr. Marburger discussed the newly created Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and its standing committees. In his oral statement, he explained that:
The standing Committee for Research and Development (CR&D), which he chairs, is responsible for coordinating a program of Federal Government R&D for the protection of critical infrastructure as well as ensuring coordination of government activities with corporations, universities, and federally funded research centers.
CR&D's goal is to create a national critical infrastructure that is trustworthy and resilient.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The two primary objectives of the federal program in critical infrastructure technology are the promotion and coordination of research to reduce vulnerabilities in the critical infrastructure, and the promotion of R&D technologies that will detect, contain, and mitigate attacks against infrastructure failures.
In order to cover all of the areas that are affected by critical infrastructures, CR&D has created eight working groups: (1) Information and Communication; (2) Banking and Finance; (3) Energy; (4) Transportation; (5) Vital Human Services; (6) Interdependencies; (7) Outreach; and (8) Physical Asset Protection.
Mr. Kallstrom explained the efforts of Governor Pataki and the Office of Public Security to neutralize security breaches throughout New York State. He testified that:
The threats posed to networks and systems are related to a deficiency in systems redundancy and physical security standards of critical cyber infrastructure sites, as well as a lack of surplus generators, transformers, and other infrastructures, which would result in prolonged system outages in the event of an attack.
The State's cyber security task force is tasked with evaluating the state's critical cyber infrastructure, identifying potential means of cyber attack, and devising security practices for private industry, State-operated information systems, and the general public.
Government and academia must communicate with the private sector to avoid duplication of efforts resulting from federal grants and development projects.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Outdated public disclosure laws at the State and federal level hinder homeland security efforts, causing public and private infrastructure operators to be unwilling to share information with the government because of fear of public exposure under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Kallstrom hopes the passage of the President's Homeland Security measure will rectify the problem.
Mr. Tritak spoke of the ways in which cyber attacks can be just as dangerous as physical attacks. In his testimony he noted that:
National security and economic security are now interconnected in such a way that the Federal Government cannot provide adequate safeguard merely on its own; our economy and infrastructure are largely privately owned and operated.
The successful actions of the State and local governments in coordinating response efforts during and after the 9/11 attacks provide a case study in what critical infrastructure assurance is all about.
Cyber attacks are often thought to be less hazardous because they are more removed from the public. In pointing out the dangers of such an attack, Mr. Tritak wondered what could have happened had emergency services communications been disrupted on 9/11.
Information sharing between the private sector and the government needs to improve because critical infrastructure security needs to be analyzed by using a business-type model of examining capabilities and potential vulnerabilities—how disruptions in one area can create disruptions in other areas.
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Engle explained the Air Force's reliance on critical information infrastructures in combating terrorism. He noted in his oral testimony that:
The Air Force needs assured and dependable information for war fighters, requiring strong investments in science and technology.
Air Force investments are focused on the highest priorities needed at a given time as the Air Force works with the intelligence community, universities, and industry on a number of leading edge activities to secure information networks.
In terms of cyber security, the Air Force system requires the following capabilities and focuses its research on these areas: the ability to transfer information across coalition networks; the ability to test and exercise information operation of personnel, equipment, etc. in a realistic setting; the ability to assess the risk of information systems; and the automatic ability to globally correlate attack information.
Even before 9/11, the Air Force directed much of its science and technology research toward cyber security.
During the question and answer period, the following issues were discussed:
Role of DOD laboratories:
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Marburger said that DOD laboratories have enormous capabilities in terms of investing in vital technologies and training professionals. Other laboratories can look to labs such as AFRL, which have reoriented themselves with modern needs, including those of the military and the Nation as a whole.
Dr. Marburger concurred with Chairman Boehlert that the coordination of cyber protection will be problematic, but he believes that consolidation under the Department of Homeland Security could address many problems.
Relationship between the government and the private sector:
Mr. Kallstrom agreed with the other witnesses in describing the difficulties in getting private operators of critical information infrastructures, such as operators of power grids, to openly discuss cyber security laws with the government because of freedom of information laws. He believes that these laws need to be modified accordingly.
Mr. Tritak concurred with Mr. Kallstrom, and went on to testify that industry and government need to be co-partners in dealing with cyber protection because homeland security relies on both working together.
Secrecy and Overspending:
Dr. Marburger acknowledged Representative Nick Smith's concerns about wasteful spending on protection and the secret nature of some research and development activities. He testified, however, that expenditures on cyber security could serve a dual purpose of providing protection and of creating economic competitiveness because research expenditures made by the private sector could add value to products and make them more desirable to a larger market. Also, he testified that the Department of Homeland Security would narrowly identify the kinds of information that needs to be protected so that secrecy is not rampant.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Panel 2:
Mr. Weaver explained the role of the Secret Service in protecting against a cyber attack. He noted in his testimony that:
The Secret Service fights cyber crime as part of its core mission to protect the Nation's financial payment systems through its working relationship with the banking and financial sectors as well as the telecommunications industry.
The partnership between law enforcement, industry, and academia has a demonstrated importance because law enforcement is not sufficiently equipped to face cyber security unaided.
The Secret Service provides physical assistance to other government departments for training and for performing computer-related analysis or technical consultation.
A well-placed cyber attack against a weak technology or support infrastructure system can render an otherwise sound physical plan vulnerable or inadequate.
Dr. Shamash discussed the activities of New York State's higher education and information technology industry sectors, as well as ways in which the State's resources may be used to address cyber threats. He specifically noted that:
The shutdown of New York stock exchanges last fall provided a brief glimpse of what could happen if critical information systems are not protected in the near future.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Among other resources, the State is home to five national security agency centers for academic excellence and information assurance, and two federal research labs including the Air Force Research Facility in Rome, NY. These resources combine the efforts of the government and the private sector in researching the security of information systems.
A national cyber security center should be created to mobilize the best academic, research, and industry resources of the State and the Nation to define cyber threats, to develop effective solutions through new countermeasures and strengthened systems, and to use its expertise in assisting in the implementation of those solutions.
Mr. Miravalle discussed the importance of giving researchers the freedom to collaborate on the issues raised by cyber terrorism. In his testimony, he noted that:
In much the same way that the private sector approaches R&D, cyber security R&D needs to develop a business-type model that would create a research agenda and connect private, public, and academic organizations.
Along with fulfilling long- and short-term cyber security objectives, the research agenda needs a technology transition process to ensure that new knowledge emerges from the research community and enters a process of implementation.
It is important to allow government agencies to work in conjunction with each other and the private sector to maximize the information learned from research activities. If the government creates products that it will not utilize, the knowledge should be made available to private industry, where it could be used in the development of cyber security innovations.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
During the question and answer period, the following issues were discussed:
Potential for growth in Central New York:
Mr. Miravalle testified that the existence of the Air Force Research Lab and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Cyber Science Lab, as well as local academic institutions, could create a Cyber Security Valley similar to a Silicon Valley. The fragmented nature of the research in Central New York is similar to the splintered nature of information assurance in the economic community, an area that needs to come together somewhere.
Mr. Weaver testified that because 80 percent of cyber crime occurs on the State and local level, the role of labs such as the NIJ Cyber-Science Lab has become more significant.
Creating a national cyber security research center:
Dr. Shamash testified that business and software companies, academia, and labs such as the Air Force facility in Rome are already engaged in cyber security research. The intellectual and financial capabilities of these institutions need to be brought together in creating a national center.
Mr. Miravalle testified that all parties engaged in cyber security research must be brought together as a team. A system of incentives and rewards for work based on partnering could be offered.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Computer and information systems education:
Dr. Shamash acknowledged Representative Nick Smith's concern that INS's tougher enforcement of immigration laws could cause a shortage of workers in math, science, and engineering in the U.S. However, he hopes that if a student graduates and has a job in industry, the individual would still be eligible for employment, pending necessary security and background checks.
4.1(z)—Science and Technology to Combat Terrorism
June 25, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–68
Background
The House Science Committee and the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a joint hearing to examine how science and technology can best be utilized to defend our nation against the threat of terrorism. The hearing focused on a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences (that was released on the day of the hearing) on science and technology to counter terrorism. The two Co-chairs of the study—entitled Making the Nation Safer: Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism—testified at the hearing. The hearing addressed questions over the types of research programs needed to combat terrorism, harden civilian infrastructure systems, and understand terrorist motives as well as the impact of the threat of terrorism on research.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
In December 2001, the National Academy of Sciences, using its own funds, initiated a study of science and technology to counter terrorism with the purpose of helping the Federal Government effectively mobilize the Nation's scientific and technical resources to respond to the threat of terrorism. The focus of the Committee's work was on improving our nation's resilience to likely or emerging terrorist threats. The Committee's approach was to identify current and likely threats to the Nation, understand the most likely vulnerabilities in the face of these threats, and identify opportunities for science and technology to contribute to counter-terrorism in both the near- and long-term.
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, Emeritus Aetna Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management and Emeritus Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program in the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government; (2) Dr. Richard D. Klausner, Executive director, Global Health Programs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; (3) Dr. John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University; (4) Mr. Paul H. Gilbert, Director Emeritus, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.; and (5) Dr. William Happer, Professor, Department of Physics, Princeton University.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Branscomb discussed the recommendations and themes inherent in the National Academy of Sciences Report, Making the Nation Safer: Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. In his oral statement he explained that:
There are three types of recommendations included in the report: those which do not require research, but rather seek to reorganize existing technologies to improve our security; those which recommend available technologies to be deployed and new research activities to be undertaken; and those which deal with the deployment, construction, and funding of such activities.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The report is not a catalogue of the Nation's vulnerabilities, but in some cases identifies vulnerabilities to encourage investment.
Nuclear issues were largely dealt with in a classified report available to government employees with adequate clearance.
The report covers nuclear threats, biological threats, chemical issues, information technology, energy infrastructure, transportation, and complex systems, but it is very difficult to prioritize without knowledge of terrorist capability and intent.
The report lists seven things that could be done now with existing technologies and seven research activities that ought to be undertaken immediately.
There are many areas with overlapping problems and technologies that can be, and should be, addressed at one time.
Dr. Klausner spoke about the concept of ''dual use,'' or the integration of civil society and government research and development. He explained that:
An integrated approach is the most productive and beneficial approach to research and development.
One of the strong recommendations is the development of a Homeland Security Institute, to advise the Federal Government at the highest levels on vulnerabilities through independent analytical work.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Government must engage the universities that are so vital to research and development, without compromising the independence and functionality of such institutions.
We need to focus on the introduction of new individuals to the fields of science and technology, particularly women and minorities.
During the question and answer period the following issues were discussed:
New Technology and Innovations:
Dr. Branscomb agreed with Senator Wyden that we need a strategy for new technologies, particularly those intended to thwart terrorism, to cut through the bureaucratic mess. A process is needed for deciding what arm of the Federal Government will purchase and coordinate the development of the technologies, and another process is needed for implementing said technologies.
Dr. Klausner emphasized the points raised by Dr. Branscomb regarding the daunting confusion associated with Government bureaucracy. He pointed out that a solution to this problem was an intention of the report, or at the least an initiation of a process to resolve this issue.
Under Secretary for Research and Development:
In response to a question from Chairman Boehlert, Dr. Klausner pointed out that the proposed Department of Homeland Security is going to have to deal with a broad range of technical information. In his opinion an Under Secretary for R&D is needed to coordinate this massive effort. The Under Secretary might also serve as the logical office to which the Homeland Security Institute reports.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Branscomb addressed this issue in his personal opinion, as it was not a concern of the report. The proposed Under Secretary would be the senior technical officer for the Federal Government and should be in control of the entire budget allotted to R&D within the proposed Department of Homeland Security.
Cyber Security:
Dr. Hennessy acknowledged that cyber security research is lagging. Standards need to be set for cyber security throughout the Federal Government, and adequate support needs to be given to local agencies to survive a terrorist attack to their computer systems.
Security of the Energy Sector:
In response to questioning from Ranking Minority Member Hall, Mr. Gilbert mentioned that the energy sector is broken into several sections, each regulated differently. With these differences (between for example, a regulated utility and a private sector company), it is hard to have a standard of redundancy and security in the system as a whole. The report addresses this issue and recommends some actions to prevent a cascading failure of systems across broad areas.
NIST and Information Security:
Dr. Hennessy reiterated that the important step in cyber security is setting standards, particularly for computer systems on the local level. In response to a question from Congresswoman Morella, he stated that he did not believe NIST should be moved to the proposed Department of Homeland Security.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Branscomb agreed to the latter, but emphasized that NIST and the private sector do not provide for adequate research.
Mr. Gilbert added that fire codes, such as those brought to light in the wake of the WTC collapse, are outdated, and NIST should be the lead agency in reworking standards to current science.
Recruitment/Retention of Science and Technology Professionals:
Dr. Hennessy agreed with Representative Lynn Woolsey that we are lacking sufficient interest in the physical sciences and engineering. He attributed a large part of this to little recruitment of women and minorities.
First Responders:
Mr. Gilbert testified that the real importance of first responders lay in the cities. He also testified that sufficient protection and training need to be distributed to local officials for regular use, so as to pre-empt the harm caused to unsuspecting first responders.
Public/Private Research Partnerships:
Dr. Klausner, when questioned by Representative Nick Smith over the coordination of NGO's such as NSF with the government, responded that it is hard to predict what science may reveal in the future and science may be stunted by direction. He proposed research investment aligned with a subject rather than a goal.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Quick Response Capacity:
Dr. Branscomb, when questioned by Representative Brian Baird over the ability of the science community to study tragedies such as the WTC attacks immediately, responded that the NSF, had in fact responded within days to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. He suggested special rules for extenuating circumstances and said that the report laid out a plan for an expedited scientific review leading directly to the production of new technology.
Dr. Klausner added that the agencies in question often rely on Congress, and that it is not that the agencies do not wish to move quickly, but that government often restrains them. He suggested this might be a goal of the Committee.
Psychological Aspects of Terrorism:
Dr. Branscomb commented that while he felt concerned about psychological factors, this was not included in the report, much to the chagrin of Rep. Baird.
Science and Technology in Identifying Priorities:
Dr. Branscomb, responding to Representative Roscoe Bartlett's question over the role of science and technology in determining the most likely terrorist targets, said he intended for the Institute of Homeland Security to do just that. Also in the field of war gaming, Dr. Branscomb suggested more use of the private sector.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Women and Minorities in Science and Technology:
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee commented on the need to expose minorities to science and technology.
Local Responses:
Rep. Jackson Lee commented on the need to coordinate even the simplest responses in local communities, for protection against mass confusion.
Representative Vernon Ehlers commented that he thought the Homeland Security Institute to be a very important step.
Eliminating the Source of the Threat:
Dr. Happer testified that steps we can take proactively to prevent terrorism include hastening the reduction of nuclear arms in Russia and undermining the teaching of hatred.
Openness of Information and Security Concerns:
Senator Wyden asked what one might recommend for maintaining secrecy in National Security Research without slowing scientific progress. He asked to apply the debate over security and freedom to the scientific realm.
Dr. Klausner replied that this is of concern and he believes that the steps need to be taken in coordination rather than unilaterally by a government agency.
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Hennessy cautioned the security move as to not constrain current Research Centers.
Returning to this issue, Representative Zoe Lofgren asked how we can conserve and share information at the same time, and inquired as to whether the proposed Homeland Security Institute would resemble the DARPA.
Dr. Klausner replied that he did not believe the proposal would follow a DARPA model in that it would repeat its imperfections.
Dr. Branscomb testified that we must be careful to only restrict information that might be used by would be terrorists.
Roadblocks to Sensor Research, Development, and Deployment:
Representative Felix Grucci sought an explanation of the roadblocks to Sensors from those testifying.
Dr. Klausner answered that technology has not yet solved the dilemma of recognizing a particular object. He also said that the Homeland Security Institute is designed to solve these types of problems.
Information Sharing and Foreign Scientists:
Dr. Klausner, after being pressed by Rep. Grucci, testified that we must be careful not to impede the very important work of foreign scientists.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
DOE Labs and The Department of Homeland Security:
When asked about this topic by Chairman Boehlert, Dr. Happer testified that if done carefully he foresaw a workable relationship created by the new proposed department.
Information Sharing:
Dr. Klausner, responding to Senator Wyden's question, testified that standards need to be set in order to achieve the level of information sharing we are planning for in the creation of the proposed Department of Homeland Security. He added that the proposed new department has to embrace innovation for it to function as proposed, but also for the standard to be raised throughout the Federal Government.
The Marketplace and Homeland Security:
Dr. Klausner pointed out that a priority of the proposed Institute of Homeland Security is to set standards to eliminate the marketing of scientifically inferior products to the emotional fervor surrounding terrorism of all kinds.
Protecting Communities:
Dr. Klausner testified that communication between communities was one of the Committee's top seven priorities, and something the government should take action on immediately.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Branscomb added that technology has to be distributed in collaboration with local officials in order to best integrate technology and the education level of the community.
The Role of NASA in Combating Terrorism:
Dr. Branscomb testified that the proposed Institute would be a think tank and acknowledged that NASA is a valuable resource.
4.1(aa)—Creating a Department of Homeland Security
June 27, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–73
Background
The hearing examined the President's proposed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The hearing focused on issues within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee including the organizational structure for research and development (R&D) within the new department, and the transfer of functions from existing agencies to it. The hearing helped guide the Committee in drafting its legislative proposal regarding the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy testified along with officials representing the Departments of Commerce and Energy.
The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President; (2) Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy; and (3) Mr. John S. Tritak, Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Marburger discussed the role of science and technology in the new department. He said:
President Bush's vision is that the Department of Homeland Security will have four primary missions: 1) it will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering the country; 2) it will work with state and local authorities to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies; 3) it will analyze intelligence and law enforcement information from all government agencies; and 4) it will bring together scientists and engineers to develop technologies that detect and protect against biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
The Under Secretary for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Countermeasures would be responsible for coordinating the science and technology element of the new department.
There would be four priorities for this Under Secretary: 1) securing the U.S. from acts of terrorism involving chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and other emerging threats; 2) conducting homeland security-related R&D as well as developing a national policy for coordinating federal efforts to counter threats; 3) establishing priorities for directing funding, and conducting R&D and procurement of technology related to countering weapons of mass destruction; and 4) establishing guidelines for State and local government efforts to counter these threats.
The new department would enjoy maximum flexibility to quickly adapt to new and changing threats, something the current homeland security infrastructure does not allow.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Orbach explained that the proposed changes in the Office of Science will allow for more efficient protection of the homeland. He noted in his testimony that:
The program in pathogenic microbes would be transferred to the new department and would be involved in DNA sequencing, technology development, computational tools, and databases.
The new department needs the in-house capability to understand the nature of this type of threat and the ability to respond to the threat.
A director of homeland security has been appointed in each of DOE's ten national laboratories. Through Dr. Orbach's office, each director will serve as a single point of contact for both universities in the surrounding region and DHS.
Mr. Tritak discussed the transfer of the Department of Commerce's Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) into DHS. He noted:
The responsibilities of CIAO are to promote national outreach with the private sector and State and local government, to assist federal agencies in analyzing their dependencies on critical infrastructures, and to coordinate the preparation of a national strategy for critical infrastructure assurance.
Because a majority of critical infrastructures are privately owned and operated, the government cannot secure them alone. CIAO attempts to translate the concerns of critical infrastructure assurance into terms that business leaders understand.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
An Information Integration Program Office within CIAO would serve to improve the coordination of information sharing that is essential to combating terrorism.
The CSD works with industry and government to establish secure interoperable information technology systems and networks.
NIST has statutory responsibilities under the ''Computer Security Act'' and the ''Government Information Security Reform Act'' for developing standards to assist federal agencies in the protection of sensitive and classified systems. In support of this mission, the CSD conducts research to help industry produce more secure, yet cost effective products for the marketplace.
The President's homeland security proposal is an attempt to balance consolidating multiple functions under one agency and coordinating the remaining agencies in their efforts.
During the question and answer period, the following issues were discussed:
Need for a DHS Under Secretary for R&D:
Dr. Marburger testified that the assignment of responsibilities under Title III to the Under Secretary for CBRN effectively provides leadership for R&D.
Chairman Boehlert advocated the Committee's recommendation that an Under Secretary for Science and Technology was needed in the new department to provide a focal point for guiding key R&D programs across the new department, and to maintain a degree of involvement with agencies from the major science, engineering, and medical fields that will not be a part of DHS.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Transfer of NIST Computer Security Division to DHS:
In response to Representative Zoe Lofgren's concern that moving CSD to DHS would damage the agency's relationship with the private sector and NIST, Mr. Tritak testified that the new department would be a civilian agency whose structure would encourage a collaborative relationship with private industry.
Mr. Tritak testified that a decision had not yet been made to physically move CSD from NIST. The focus was to develop a transition process that looks at bringing groups together organizationally. At the same time, CSD will retain its close relationships with private industry in the field of computer security.
Setting the Homeland Security Research Agenda:
According to Dr. Marburger, the research agenda for Homeland Security is the responsibility of the Undersecretary for CBRN. OSTP would continue to provide interagency coordination of research and would continue to provide technical support to the Office of Homeland Security.
Creating a Modern, Agile Department:
Dr. Marburger concurred with Representative Vernon Ehlers that an objective of the new department is agility and rapid response. The objective is not merely to collect departments; rather, it is to give DHS certain capabilities so that it can be responsive to the needs of Homeland Security.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Dr. Marburger testified that the decision to pull certain units into the new department while leaving others out (like the FBI and CIA) is a judgment call; the desire is to establish a capability that permits the translation of science into action.
Cyberspace Capabilities:
Mr. Tritak testified that there is increased awareness that harms in cyberspace don't necessarily remain in cyberspace; rather, in certain situations, these attacks can do serious physical harm. The U.S. depends on information systems and networks to operate physical assets. Part of the goal of DHS will be to make the owners and operators of these infrastructures aware of that dependency and to manage that risk accordingly in a collaborative fashion.
Timeline for Establishing DHS:
Dr. Marburger testified that the President would like a one year transition period between passage of the bill and activation of DHS. The hope is that the integration of a number of agencies into the new department will not be especially difficult or time consuming.
Protecting Our Critical Infrastructure from Cyberterrorism:
Dr. Marburger concurred with Representative Roscoe Bartlett's concerns that the opportunities for cyber attacks outnumber the capability of addressing them all simultaneously. DHS will accept the responsibility for prioritizing threats and presenting them to the President, as well as proposing a budget that addresses those threats by utilizing threat assessments and scenarios produced by other agencies and departments, such as the Department of Defense and DOE laboratories.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Broadening the Scope of DHS:
In response to Representative Nick Smith's concerns about over emphasizing protection against an outside attack at the expense of an inside problem (such as a natural disaster), Dr. Marburger testified that DHS can perform double duties in many areas. In making systems for everyday life more robust and less vulnerable to terrorist attacks, these systems will also be more useful and less vulnerable in general.
Dr. Orbach concurred on the duality of purposes by discussing the research of pathogens, which can be introduced by an enemy or merely exist in nature, and which can cause severe diseases and epidemics.
Openness of the Administration to Outside Suggestions Regarding DHS:
Dr. Marburger testified that the President's proposal is intended to set a general framework that embraces certain principles but provides flexibility for modification. His office has been working with the National Academies on the proposal and will consider using some of the Academies' recommendations, which are more detailed. The Academies' report will not be ignored nor its recommendations rejected without having been thoroughly examined.
4.1(bb)—The Administration's Climate Change Initiative
July 10, 2002
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Hearing Volume No. 107–75
Background
The hearing reviewed the Administration's climate change research and technology programs. The hearing assessed the goals of the President's Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), how it relates to ongoing federal climate change research activities, and how it could be structured to yield more useful information for decision-makers. The hearing also assessed the goals of the President's National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), how it relates to existing climate technology programs, and how federal climate technology investments could do more to enhance our energy security and ensure that new technologies are deployed in the marketplace.
This hearing built on an April 17, 2002 hearing, at which the Committee heard from climate change science and technology experts outside the government about possible new directions for the Nation's climate change science and technology programs.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the White House; (2) Dr. James R. Mahoney, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce; (3) Mr. Robert G. Card, Under Secretary for Energy, Science, and Environment, Department of Energy.
Summary of Hearing
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by stating that it's been extremely hard to figure out what the Administration is doing in, or planning for its climate change science and technology programs. We have had trouble getting answers to our questions, we've heard contradictory descriptions of programs from different agencies and even from different parts of the White House, we've had trouble learning how the Administration plans to spend the $80 million for its initiatives, and the list goes on and on.
He continued, stating that we want to get on the record a clear sense of what the Administration intends to be the focus of the Climate Change Research Initiative and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative, and how those relate to each other and to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which this Committee created in 1990. We want to know how the Administration's new organizational structure can enhance the coordination of the programs. And finally, we want to know how we will finally get a coherent, cohesive budget for climate change programs.
Dr. Marburger started by reaffirming the President's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and its central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate.
The Administration's position is that the policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.
Much of the climate change discussion and its impacts centers on the use of computer models, but today's climate models cannot be used for definite predictions of regional or local conditions.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Administration established a new management structure to advance and coordinate climate change science and technology research, including a Cabinet level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration to oversee the effort.
Dr. Mahoney stated that the status of the earth system, including potential impacts of climate and ecosystem variability, is a capstone issue for our generation and will continue to be so for our children.
Much scientific progress has been made since 1990, but substantial uncertainties remain to be addressed. Resolving this scientific uncertainty in global climate models will have a major impact on determining the optimal types, amounts and schedules of greenhouse gas emission management.
An interagency group is currently developing a fully updated strategic plan for the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) activities. The updated draft proposal will be posted on the USGCRP/CCRI website by November 1, 2002, with a workshop to be held in early December 2002, and a final plan will be published in March 2003.
The Administration wants to initiate a new three-tiered research strategy: (1) continued scientific inquiry; (2) increased emphasis on measurements and monitoring systems for climate and ecosystem information; and (3) substantially increased focus on providing information useful to decision-makers.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Card testified that a number of technologies exist that may be used to mitigate climate change options, though they are currently prohibitively expensive for broad use.
Greenhouse gas reduction has been used as an explicit and top tier funding criteria for making R&D investment decisions.
Tax incentives are being used to pull technology forward such projects as high graded and fuel cell vehicles.
The Department of Energy is committed to meeting the President's commitment of 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity reduction by 2012.
4.1(cc)—''The State of the Nation's Ecosystem,'' The Heinz Center Report and Its Implications
September 24, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–87
Background
The hearing examined the key findings and recommendations of The Heinz Center's report on The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. The Committee heard testimony regarding what is known and, in many cases, still unknown about the condition of our ecosystems, and received recommendations for filling data gaps and ensuring the ongoing collection of scientifically credible information.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. William Clark, Chair, Design Committee and member of the Senior Advisory Group of the Heinz Center Report, and Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government; (2) Ms. Kim Nelson, Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (3) Ms. Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Department of Interior; (4) Mr. Fred Krupp, Executive Director, Environmental Defense; and (5) Ms. Kim Coble, Maryland Senior Scientist and Assistant Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by praising the report for being the only recent effort to develop a compendium of available data on ecosystems, as well as for pointing out how far we have to go to fill in incomplete or missing data. He warned, however, that more data is not a panacea and that decision-makers in both the Executive and Legislative branches have some tough decisions to make about what data we want to gather and how much we want to spend to do so. Which data we do collect will shape policy decisions, though it is not likely to be the ''Holy Grail'' of environmental policy. We know that good economic data has not put an end to debates on fiscal policy, and good quality environmental data on air quality that we now collect has not ended debates on clean air policy.
Dr. Clark began his testimony by outlining the importance of identifying a set of scientifically credible and well-respected national environmental indicators in order to frame policy debates.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The report details the current condition and historical trends of the Nation's coasts and oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and shrublands, and urban and suburban lands.
It identifies 103 indicators—statistics that represent the health of ecosystems. However, there are complete data for only 32 percent of the indicators, and partial data for another 24 percent. It is not possible to report nationally on close to 45 percent of the indicators, because either the data is unavailable, or the indicator itself needs further scientific development.
Experts from the business community, environmental organizations, all levels of government, and academia developed the reporting framework, selected the ecosystems, identified the key characteristics of those ecosystems, and chose the measurable indicators included in the report.
The report presents data and trends but does not draw conclusions about the meaning of the data or evaluate specific policy choices.
The Nation needs a place to collect and report on national environmental indicators over time, much the same way the Nation collects data on economic indicators.
The Heinz Center plans to produce annual web-based updates of the data in the report, and prepare a second written report in 2007.
Ms. Nelson emphasized the importance of scientifically valid and measurable indicators, and reminded the committee about EPA's ''State of the Environment'' report, expected to be released in November 2002.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
EPA strongly supports the Heinz Center effort and provided technical and financial resources to prepare it.
In addition to reporting on ecosystem conditions (though in a more streamlined way than the Heinz report), EPA's upcoming study will report on (1) the impact of environmental quality on air, water and land and public health, and (2) the stressors affecting environmental quality.
The Heinz report is significant for bringing a variety of representatives and viewpoints together to agree on indicators.
Ms. Scarlett outlined the Department of Interior's role in preparing the report, emphasizing the data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The Department sees the development of national indicators as a step towards establishing stronger accountability through the Government Performance and Results Act.
The USGS and other divisions of the Department are available for future partnerships with State and private organizations in order to further the development of indicators for policy-making.
Mr. Krupp praised the collaborative approach that made the selection of indicators for the report possible and added that the transparency and objectivity of the report will make it a useful tool for policy-making.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Heinz Report sends an important message that we do not have a sufficient picture of the health of our nation's ecosystems.
Many of the indicators are not well established enough to be reported nationally.
However, incomplete national information should not hinder important local actions, where sufficient data often exists.
The most surprising finding of the Heinz Center report is that nearly all the monitored streams in the United States show contamination from one or more pollutants.
Ms. Coble briefly described the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's experience developing a ''State of the Bay'' indicators.
The Foundation has developed 12 quantitative and qualitative indicators, organized in three categories that impact habitat, fisheries and pollution and reflect the effects of stressors on the health of the bay.
The Foundation's indicators provide a quantitative score for the state of the Bay, and help inform environmental and economic policy and legislation.
The Heinz Report is important on a local level because it will raise awareness of specific indicators and may assist in the development of new regional measures.
4.1(dd)—Meeting the Needs of the Fire Services: H.R. 3992 and H.R. 4548
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
October 2, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–88
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to: receive testimony on H.R. 3992, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act of 2002; and H.R. 4548, concerning the Assistance to Firefighters grant program.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Steve Williams, President, Houston Professional Firefighters Association (testifying on behalf of Harold Schaitberger, General President, International Association of Firefighters); (2) Mr. Randy Bruegman, President, International Association of Fire Chiefs and Chief, Clackamas County, Oregon Fire District; (3) Mr. Jim Monihan, Chairman, National Volunteer Fire Council Legislative Committee and Director, Delaware Volunteer Fire Council; (4) Mr. David James, Chief, Weedsport, New York Fire Department; and (5) Mr. William Antilla, Director of Maritime Science and Fire Science, Clatsop Community College, Astoria, Oregon.
Summary of Hearing
Chairman Boehlert opened this hearing by noting that most of us think of fire as a distant, perhaps even archaic threat, yet it kills about 4,000 Americans each year. Since the Federal Government began investing in fire protection in 1974, the number of fire deaths has dropped by two-thirds, but we need to do better. While firefighting is, and should remain, a local responsibility, the Federal Government also has a role to play in saving lives and property.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Chairman Boehlert also stressed the long history of the Science Committee's role in helping to improve fire safety in the United States, noting that the Hotel-Motel Fire Safety Act was one of the first bills he sponsored as a Member of Congress. He described his legislation, the SAFER Act, and stated that he saw this hearing as a first step in our continuing effort to ensure that the Federal Government does its part in seeing that our nation's fire departments are adequately trained, equipped, and staffed.
Mr. Williams discussed the effect of September 11, 2001 on the Nation and on the International Association of Fire Fighters, noting that the IAFF lost 343 members that day. He testified that 9/11 was a defining moment for IAFF, and that H.R. 3992 represents the most significant contribution that the Federal Government could make toward building a living memorial to those firefighters that died on 9/11. He also stated that:
h of all fire departments in America lack adequate personnel, and the problem is growing. He cited several examples of municipalities that have had to eliminate firefighter positions for various reasons.
Several studies exist showing a direct correlation between staffing levels and the safety and effectiveness of emergency response operations.
The need for adequate fire services personnel has been recognized by both Federal Government standards (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), as well as fire service industry standards (National Fire Protection Association).
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The events of 9/11 and the new threat of terrorism should eliminate any question regarding whether the Federal Government should be involved in fire protection.
Federal Government grant programs work best when funds are directly awarded to local fire departments, best exemplified by the successful FIRE Act grants.
Mr. Bruegman declared the International Association of Fire Chiefs support of H.R. 3992, noting the legislation has garnered bipartisan support in both house of Congress, as well as the support of all the major fire service organizations. He testified that:
Hiring additional firefighters will (1) enhance on-scene efficiency; (2) increase safety for both firefighters and victims; and (3) enhance planning and training to protect both firefighters and the communities they serve.
While most jurisdictions require four firefighters to staff a single piece of fire apparatus, most staff with only three.
H.R. 3992 will help fire departments meet nationally recognized standards for operating procedures.
The FIRE Act grant program is an example of good government: targeted, efficient, and effective. The only problem with the program as it is currently administered is the size of the funding. It is also important that the program is not consolidated into the President's proposed first responder initiative, per the language of H.R. 4548.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Mr. Monihan testified that nearly 75 percent of all firefighters are volunteers, who save taxpayers amounts estimated to be as much as $40 billion annually. He noted that today's fire departments are being asked to respond to emergency calls involving hazardous materials, wildland fires, search and rescue, natural disasters, clandestine drug labs, and terrorism. He praised the Assistance to Firefighters grant program's (FIRE Act) effectiveness in helping volunteer fire departments meet equipment, apparatus, and training needs to better meet these new challenges. He also testified that:
The Assistance to Firefighters grant program is successful because it is the only federal program that provides funding to fire departments, and that far too often funds intended to aid fire departments are diverted to other uses by state and local officials.
The National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) supports H.R. 4548, and believes that Assistance to Firefighters grant funds should remain separate and distinct from the President's new counter-terrorism initiative.
The NVFC supports passage of H.R. 3992, but believes that any initiative by Congress to address personnel shortfalls should include a significant recruitment and retention component, which is the number one challenge facing volunteers, whose ranks have decreased by ten percent in the last 20 years. The biggest factor in this decrease has been increased time demands on volunteers.
Mr. James discussed his experiences as Chief of a small volunteer fire department in upstate New York. He noted that his department is also experiencing personnel shortfalls. He discussed the proud tradition held by America's firefighters, but noted that time and money have become the two worst enemies of the fire service, and most people are now simply too busy to get involved. He also testified that:
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
The Assistance to Firefighters grants have allowed many departments across the country to update old equipment and purchase new equipment that was not possible before, certainly improving their ability to respond to incidents.
Volunteer departments are challenged with maintaining the same standards of training and preparedness that career departments are. While career personnel often receive their training on the job, volunteers have to do this at night after completing a full day's work.
The shortage of manpower is putting firefighters lives at risk. Mr. James's fire department recently had to activate six different departments to a fire so an incident could be handled effectively.
Mr. Antilla discussed the challenges associated with maritime firefighting. He noted that each year, 60,000 ships traverse the Nation's waterways (20,000 of which carry petroleum or other chemicals), and that fire departments tasked with fire protection in such areas often lack the resources and training to handle a major shipboard fire without significant assistance. He also discussed:
The unique dangers incurred when land-based firefighters are asked to respond to incidents on ships, noting they have no personal knowledge of the vessel's design, layout, or cargo.
He stressed that, without a financial incentive to provide an increased scope of maritime firefighting training, many departments will not go forward until a response to a fire reveals the need.
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
4.1(ee)—Conducting Research During the War on Terrorism: Balancing Openness and Security
October 10, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–90
Background
The hearing was held on balancing the need for greater security with the need for open scientific communication. Since the September 11th attacks and subsequent anthrax incidents, Congress, the executive branch, and the scientific and technical communities have begun discussions on how to prevent scientific research results and information from becoming national security risks. This hearing focused on the treatment of sensitive information and of foreign faculty and students.
The Committee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. John H. Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President; (2) Dr. Ron Atlas, President, American Society for Microbiology and Dean of the Graduate School and Professor of Biology, University of Louisville; (3) Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor, University of California-Santa Cruz; and (4) Dr. Sheila Widnall, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Summary of Hearing
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Chairman Boehlert opened the hearing by noting that this was the first hearing Congress has held since September 11th on the central question of balancing security and openness in the conduct of research. He stressed that the war on terrorism would be won in the laboratory just as much as on the battlefield. Since war demands secrecy and science thrives on openness, it is important that we determine how a free society balance those competing demands.
Chairman Boehlert noted that today's enemy is more insidious and dispersed than that of the Cold War days. Further complicating matters, in fields such as biology, the exact same research could be used for both benign and malevolent purposes. A balance must be struck however, and it must be finely tuned and constantly recalibrated. The Chairman stated that he sees the Committee as an ''honest broker'' in those important discussions.
Dr. Marburger updated the Committee on three topics relevant to balancing scientific openness and national security: 1) biosecurity, 2) international students, and 3) homeland security.
Biosecurity—Progress has been made towards creating safeguards for select biological agents and the laboratories that have them. P.L. 107–188 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to update registration of select biological agents and create a process to register the possession and use of such agents.
International students—The Interagency Panel on Advanced Science and Security (IPASS) is a new mechanism to review student visa applications, which focuses on graduate and other advanced students who are going into sensitive fields of study. The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) will review IPASS to ensure a balance between scientific openness and homeland security.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
Homeland security—The Administration is not considering a pre-publication review policy of sensitive research as is commonly thought. OHS has, however, asked OMB to create a system for handling sensitive homeland security information.
Dr. Atlas testified representing the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the world's largest life sciences organization. He stated:
ASM is wary of any new limitations on publications, and fears that new policies may hinder research, though it understands the need to limit access to information that could be useful to terrorists.
The only way to truly reduce the risks of bioterrorism is through international efforts because so many nations conduct research on infectious diseases.
Balancing security and scientific freedom places a burden on researchers. A tenet of the scientific method is reproducibility. Research articles must be detailed enough that other scientists can replicate the results. At the same time, care must be taken not to release information that could be useful to our enemies.
ASM supports National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD189), which establishes only two categories for research—unrestricted and classified.
Dr. Greenwood, a biologist and Chancellor of the University of California-Santa Cruz, emphasized that a dialogue between university and government officials is needed before any changes in policy should be made. Additionally, she stated:
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
In general, creating new levels of classification should only be considered if there is a real and agreed upon threat. Specifically, a 'sensitive but unclassified' designation should not be created because of its ambiguous nature.
Universities usually do not conduct classified research because of the restrictions it places on the open and collaborative nature of the scientific process. However, some universities do manage national labs where classified research takes place.
Restricting the fields of study available to some students in the U.S. is not an adequate safeguard due to the educational opportunities available in other countries. Currently more Ph.D.s are awarded by European nations than by the U.S. So a more effective defense would be to strengthen the U.S.'s science and technology enterprise by attracting the best students, regardless of nationality.
It is impossible to completely restrict potential terrorists from access to American universities because terrorists do not represent nations.
Excessive restrictions may damage America's economy, which would aid terrorists in achieving their goals.
Dr. Widnall concurred with Dr. Greenwood that the sensitive but unclassified designation should not be adopted, and said that it is 'doomed to failure.' The current policy set by NSDD189 is preferred. Dr. Widnall also summarized some of the recommendations made to MIT by MIT's Committee on Access to and Disclosure of Scientific Information, of which she is the chairman. These include:
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 9
No classified research should be done on campus. In addition, no student should conduct classified research or research that requires access to classified information.
MIT should not agree to have any research reviewed for the inadvertent release of 'sensitive' information.
The physical sciences and engineering communities have balanced scientific openness with national security for 50 years, but for the biological science community this is a new issue. Dr. Widnall made personal recommendations to the biological and health science community. These recommendations are:
Determine how much of the biological sciences should be classified.
Establish an institutional and agency framework by which to classify the research.
Create an advisory committee composed of members of the scientific community to guide the classification process.
Dr. Widnall cautioned that the decision to classify should not be taken lightly because any research so classified would not occur on university campuses nor have the benefit of open collaboration.
Next Hearing Segment(5)