Segment 6 Of 9 Previous Hearing Segment(5) Next Hearing Segment(7)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
4.3—SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
4.3(a)—H.R. 64: A Proposal to Strengthen Science at the Environmental Protection Agency
March 29, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–4
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 64. Introduced by Chairman Ehlers on January 3, 2001, the bill would codify the two primary recommendations of the recently released National Research Council report titled Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The legislation would require the President to appoint a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who would serve as an advocate for and reviewer of science at the most senior levels of the Agency and be responsible for coordinating scientific research among the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency. Second, the bill would set a six-year term for the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), to serve at the pleasure of the President, and gives that person the additional title of ''Chief Scientist of the Environmental Protection Agency.''
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Ray Loehr, a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Research and Peer Review in EPA; (2) Dr. Bill Glaze, a Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering and the Director of the Carolina Environmental Program at the University of North Carolina, and Chairman of the EPA's Science Advisory Board; and (3) Mr. Rick Blum, a Policy Analyst at OMB Watch.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Loehr testified in support of H.R. 64, which he said would elevate science considerations to parity with legal considerations in EPA decision-making processes. He noted that:
The bill would provide for better coordination of scientific information within the agency by separating the management of research programs from the management of the use of science and engineering knowledge in the regulatory process.
Extending the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development's term to six years would create more stability and strategic leadership for ORD science.
The National Research Council's report on strengthening science at the EPA outlines the science coordination problems that H.R. 64 would solve.
Dr. Glaze also testified in support of H.R. 64. He said that it would send a ''strong signal that we plan to make science a stronger and more integral part of the EPA.'' He also said that it would help the agency prepare to handle difficult environmental problems of the future and take advantage of new science in new fields. He emphasized that:
Placing a person of high scientific reputation into the new Deputy Administrator position would positively affect the quality of decisions being made, guide the agency towards a stronger role in setting the environmental and technology agenda of the country, and begin to shift the EPA's culture toward a greater emphasis on using science in decision making.
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Under the structure proposed in H.R. 64, the Assistant Administrator of ORD could better manage the science apparatus, serve as a better liaison with other agencies and other program offices within EPA, and thus promote better science upon which to make decisions.
These organizational changes would lead the agency to think more carefully about its use of emerging sciences (genomics, proteomics, etc.).
Mr. Blum argued that H.R. 64 could ''help overcome shortcomings in EPA's efforts to collect high-quality, timely information.'' He also mentioned that the new Deputy Administrator position could play a useful role in establishing good data collection practices within the Agency. But he was concerned that:
There would be significant overlap between the roles of the new Deputy Administrator and the strengthened Assistant Administrator for ORD and those of the recently formed Environmental Information Office (EIO).
Neither ORD nor EIO would have appropriate authority to ensure that their recommendations are carried out in the program offices.
The new Deputy Administrator's emphasis on science and technology, rather than information management and public access, might lead the agency to choose inaction if there is any level of uncertainty in the science.
4.3(b)—NOAA's FY 2002 Budget: Predicting Weather and Climate
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
May 9, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–28
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to review the Administration's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The witnesses discussed NOAA's overall budget and programs, with emphasis on issues relating to weather and climate prediction.
The President's FY 2002 Budget Request for NOAA is $3.15 billion and represents a decrease of $60.8 million, or two percent below FY 2001 Enacted Levels (FY00 Enacted was $2.34 billion). The lower request reflects the elimination of most congressionally mandated earmarks from FY01 and the addition of program increases in such areas as severe weather prediction, coastal conservation, and climate.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Mr. Scott Gudes, acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator; (2) Dr. Richard E. Hallgren, Executive Director Emeritus, American Meteorological Society and former head of the National Weather Service; (3) Dr. Eric Barron, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences and Director EMS Environmental Institute at Penn State University, chair of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council; (4) Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University, member of the NOAA Science Board; and (5) Mr. Joe Hoffman, Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, and representative of the Interstate Council on Water Policy.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Gudes presented the budget request, noting the smaller request than FY 2001, but emphasizing:
Areas of full funding, such as: the Sea Grant Program, climate and global change research, and weather radar modernization.
A top priority for NOAA's budget is supporting its workforce and maintaining its infrastructure.
Education and outreach are important to NOAA, and have been facilitated by improvements in the NOAA website.
Investments in NOAA programs have produced positive results in recent years, including, for example, improvements in hurricane prediction accuracy and acquisition reform, the latter of which has enabled NOAA to freeze the costs of geostationary satellites.
Dr. Hallgren testified that weather and climate prediction funding is constrained by the size of the overall NOAA budget, though he believes the Administration has done a good job of supporting high priority programs. In particular:
He noted that the U.S. has more severe weather and flooding than any other nation in the world, and approximately one-quarter of the GNP is affected by weather and climate. Severe weather and flood warnings have improved significantly in recent years because of the Nation's investment in the development of weather and climate services.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
He supports the increased spending on infrastructure improvements and core activities like operating costs and pay increases, that have not received adequate support in recent years.
Dr. Hallgren highlighted satellite and weather service funding, including increases for: sensors & processing capability, computers in the National Center for Environmental Prediction, the Environmental Modeling Center, the U.S. Weather Research Program, NPOESS, ARGO floats, etc. He expressed strong support for the creation of a joint Data Assimilation Center.
Dr. Barron noted that the ability to make climate predictions on the scale of seasons to centuries enables us to enhance economic vitality, better limit threats to life and property, and improve environmental stewardship. Dr. Barron asserts that in order to have a strong climate program, NOAA requires a robust observing system, commitment to modeling and prediction, and strong interface with decision-makers. He testified that:
Many different agencies are involved in collecting climate information, yet none of these agencies have climate as a top priority. This problem should be addressed by focusing on improving continuity, addressing overlapping measurements, and promoting free and open access of data. Investing in the efficiency of our observing systems will enable us to fill gaps and address weaknesses in our understanding of climate.
Because our modeling and prediction capabilities are so successful, we need to focus now on transforming research products into operational products society can use.
NOAA needs to better involve the user community and decision-makers in its observation and modeling efforts. Dr. Barron believes we need to develop ''environmental intelligence centers'' in order to make prediction capability and dispersed research more accessible to decision-makers and scientists.
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Pietrafesa addressed three questions asked by Chairman Ehlers: What is the NOAA Science Advisory Board? What are the major challenges facing NOAA in conducting research? What are specific areas that need more attention or coordination?
The NOAA Science Advisory Board is a 15-member panel, composed of life, physical, and social scientists and policy experts that link NOAA and the university community.
Major challenges facing NOAA research include: preservation of NOAA's data archive; integration of physical and social sciences; building the agency's strategic plan to include research, development, and technology transfer; investment in climate observation and modeling; ensuring the vitality of NOAA's future science and technology workforce through partnerships with universities; maintaining and upgrading NOAA's observational network and computational facilities; and working with other agencies to ensure that their observational networks are not reduced because of federal budget cuts.
Specific areas needing more attention or coordination include the study of conditions that pose immediate or long-term health or safety risks to humans, extreme weather events, and the coupling between physical and biological systems.
Mr. Hoffman discussed the importance of the interaction between the National Weather Service and state water management agencies as an example of interagency coordination. The benefits of continuing to fund this sort of work include:
Increased predictive capability that allows forecasters to issue early flooding alerts, which can help minimize property loss and lives lost.
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The flood warning system in the Susquehanna basin boasts a cost-to-benefit ratio in which every dollar expended on the system prevents $12.50 of flood damage loss.
In the art of forecasting, ground-truthing with tools like stream gauges is essential to verify and adjust predictions.
4.3(c)—Science and Technology at the Environmental Protection Agency: The FY 2002 Budget Request
May 17, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–19
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the Administration's FY 2002 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Committee examined whether the budget for ORD, the research arm of the EPA, is adequate to meet the Agency's goal of using science as the foundation of its efforts to protect human health and the environment.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Mr. Henry Longest, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at EPA; (2) Dr. W. Randall Seeker, Member of the EPA Science Advisory Board's Research Strategies Advisory Committee; and (3) Dr. Ron Hammerschmidt, Vice President of the Environmental Council of the States and Director of the Division of Environment for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Longest testified that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) continues to be focused on providing the highest quality science in support of the Agency's mission. He pointed out that:
ORD has developed a research planning process, based on independently peer-reviewed research strategies and plans that outline their direction for the next five to ten years.
To establish baseline trend data on the condition of coastal estuaries, ORD has sponsored extensive survey programs in the coastal states and Puerto Rico.
ORD has led efforts to understand how young children are exposed to pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals.
The budget request for 2002, $535 million, supports in house research and the extramural Science to Achieve Results program. The FY 2002 budget request builds upon ORD's significant accomplishments, supports the Agency's mission, and provides the science and technical information that is essential for EPA to achieve its long-term goals. Their resources are directed towards core science issues in environmental media and problem-oriented research.
In order to compensate for an aging workforce, ORD's Postdoctoral Program provides the Agency with a constant stream of highly qualified, specialized workers.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
ORD is committed to providing a foundation for sound environmental science as well as assuming leadership on a national level in producing cutting-edge research.
Dr. Seeker believes that increasing the Science and Technology budget is necessary if EPA is to continue to make progress incorporating science more effectively into its decision making. He represented the EPA's Science Advisory Board and presented the board's findings regarding EPA's science and technology budget. He noted that:
The Agency should dedicate resources to develop and maintain an overall science strategy for the Agency that uses a science inventory.
The Administration should increase the Science and Technology share of the EPA budget from the current level of nine percent to twelve percent by FY 2004 because of the constant pressure on the Agency to make more decisions based on sound science.
The Science and Technology budget should be balanced between short- and long-term research activities as well as between core and problem-driven research.
ORD should expand the use of multi-year planning processes, along with the role of the Exploratory Grants Program, to avoid over-emphasizing short-term issues.
With fifty percent of ORD's workforce over the age of 50, the agency should define future core competencies needed and assemble the next generation of Agency scientists.
The Advisory Board is continuing with a number of reviews in areas such as the future of multi-year planning, strategic planning processes, and the peer-review process.
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Hammerschmidt explained that states rely heavily on EPA for the scientific information that guides their efforts to protect the public health and environment. He said that:
States are dependent on EPA to supply them with credible basic science that can be used in their day-to-day operations. Government regulatory programs, whose actions are often questioned by regulated private companies, must use science as a foundation for their actions.
Some fundamental criteria and standards maintained by EPA in areas such as fecal coliform and E. coli are based on work done during the 1970's and should be reevaluated.
Identification, characterization, and prioritization of risks associated with air contaminants will become increasingly important.
The Agency needs to help states determine best management practices to reduce or eliminate urban and rural non-point source pollution.
The states have a crucial need for the EPA to develop scientific information to guide and support state efforts to protect public health and the environment.
4.3(d)—The Future of the Advanced Technology Program
June 14, 2001
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Hearing Volume 107–23
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the future of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Committee examined both the structure and effectiveness of the program with particular emphasis on the findings of a National Research Council (NRC) review panel.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Michael Borrus, Managing Director of the Petkevich Group LLC and an Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley's College of Engineering; (2) Dr. Maryann Feldman, Research Professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at John Hopkins University; (3) Dr. Lewis Branscomb, Professor Emeritus at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and past Director of NIST; and (4) Dr. Claude Barfield, Resident Scholar and Director of Science and Technology Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Borrus testified that the ATP is clearly meeting its congressional mandate. He noted that:
Despite the large number of studies and reviews of the ATP, evidence suggests the program is generally working well. The NRC panel gave the program high marks for its design, its cost-sharing and industry-driven features, its use of peer review for evaluation of technical feasibility and commercial potential, its screening and selection procedures, and its ''extraordinarily'' thorough assessment process.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The ATP is an important and necessary complement to private capital. It fills in where there is a public need for technology but a lack of initial private investment. The program, for example, made up for an over-investment in Internet-related technology during the 1990's that drew investment away from biotechnology and energy technology-related fields.
Capital markets alone cannot be relied upon because of several market imperfections, including ''follow-the-leader'' or ''herd-type'' investing, and the need by private investors to liquidate their investments early, often before technology concepts can be fully realized.
While the ATP operates at a very high standard, that standard can be increased to get further benefits from the program by adopting changes recommended in the NRC report.
The NRC concluded that the ATP could make effective use of more funding.
Dr. Feldman remarked that the ATP is achieving its goals and is an important part of the Nation's technology policy. She said:
The ATP is funding broad-based projects with long-term economic benefits and which would have not occurred or advanced at the same rate in the absence of the program.
Her study of 1998 ATP applicants found that the program awarded grants for projects that were high-risk, potentially high-payoff, and helpful in forming new R&D partnerships. Firms that were awarded funding tended to have extensive linkages to other businesses and to share their research.
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The ATP funds projects that are not likely to be funded otherwise. Her study of 1998 applicants one year after awards were made found that 70 percent of the non-winners had not proceeded with their proposed project, while those who had were working at a much smaller scale.
By contrast, she found that firms who had won ATP funding often were more successful at attracting funding from other sources. Receiving an ATP award, she said, is apparently perceived by the market to be a certification or legitimacy, helping to attract additional funding in what she called a funding ''halo'' effect.
State programs are often the most important source of referral to the ATP. In addition, the majority of ATP funded firms are associated in some way with university programs.
Dr. Branscomb focused his comments on the role that the ATP plays in bridging the ''Valley of Death,'' the gap between a technological invention and its development into a commercial innovation. He said:
The U.S. R&D enterprise funds about $175 billion worth of science and technology research, while the business enterprise that capitalizes on the fruits of that research is worth over $1 trillion. The gap between the two is the so-called valley of death, or, as he put it, a risky ''Darwinian Sea'' of ideas.
The market supplies venture capital that rescues, in Branscomb's analogy, ideas from the Darwinian Sea and carries it to into the business enterprise. In 1998, venture capitol invested roughly $63 billion in this endeavor.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
However, much of that money was spent on technologies that had already been proven and on businesses that were already on a firm footing. Far less was spent on risky ideas. Compared to the total amount of money spent on such risky ventures, funding supplied by the ATP and SBIR programs made up as much as 20 percent.
The Small Business Administration has proposed major changes to several of their programs, potentially creating programs similar to the ATP.
Dr. Barfield believes there are several areas in which the ATP can do a better job. He said:
Vanevar Bush's idea of basic research being most beneficial when wholly untargeted was wrong. The U.S. has been successful in conducting largely targeted basic research since the end of the second World War.
Bush's linear idea of technological development beginning with research and leading to commercial development was wrong, too, since the process has many loops and feedbacks. Nonetheless, government should stick to funding ''real research areas'' rather than ''any kind'' of commercial development.
The government should fund research where it can assure that the public can benefit because the government cannot fund everything and broad-based public benefits should be a government priority.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Some reports have been skeptical as to whether or not the ATP is producing commercial technologies that would not have been produced in the absence of federal funding.
If the goal of the ATP is to ensure widespread social benefits, then the Congress should consider preventing participating firms from being granted intellectual property rights or requiring them to agree to license widely and at low cost.
4.3(e)—Standards-Setting and United States Competitiveness
June 28, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–21
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to review the impact of standards on the United States economy and the ability of our Nation to compete internationally. The hearing also discussed reforms in the standards-setting process that could make American industries, such as the information technology sector, more globally competitive.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Mr. Oliver Smoot, Chairman of the Board of the American National Standards Institute; (2) Mr. Gerald Rittersbusch, Director of Standards and Regulations for Caterpillar, Incorporated.; (3) Mr. Scott Bradner, Senior Technical Consultant with Harvard University; and (4) Mr. Carl Cargill, Director of Standards for Sun Microsystems.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Smoot noted that both the landscapes of international and domestic standards are changing. To address new challenges, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) developed a National Standards Strategy. He testified that:
The central theme of the strategy is that each sector must decide for itself what methods of standards development are the most efficient.
Standard-setting in the U.S., based on voluntary consensus, has proven effective. However, faster development, coherence, and availability of these voluntary standards is necessary to improve their usefulness.
Observing the ANSI process for standards development assures U.S. industry and U.S. standards-developing organizations that their standards may be accepted in international markets.
ANSI endorses the placement of standards attaches in key U.S. embassies.
The information technology (IT) industry utilizes almost every kind of standardization process, from informal meetings to formal processes that result in an American National Standard.
The Department of Defense has recently interpreted a 1912 law as meaning that it is illegal for the government to pay an employee's salary, membership dues, or travel costs to participate in a standards organization that bases its activities on individual membership. This could be a major policy obstacle and must be rectified.
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Mr. Rittersbusch testified that it is important to make sure that the right standards are being developed for the right uses, whether those standard development processes be formal or informal, consensus- or consortia-based. He suggested that:
The National Standards Strategy can make a real difference if American businesses work through the 12 key strategies outlined, as well as working with the standards development organizations and the government.
Harmonized standards are absolutely necessary. American companies lose out when standards at home and abroad differ, since two different products must be built.
In order to remain a leader in international standards-setting, the U.S. must use its technical expertise to our advantage. Standards experts must be closely in touch with the markets for which they are setting standards.
The IT industry needs a balance of standards developed through both formal and consortia processes.
A consortia developed standard is not a consensus standard.
Mr. Bradner focused on the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which is the primary developer of basic standards for the Internet. He believes the IETF has and will continue to have a major part to play in the setting of standards for IT. He noted that:
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The IETF is consensus-based, self-funded, open to all participants, transparent, allows appeals, vendor-neutral, and uses merit-based evaluation. The group also deals with intellectual property rights and other standards development organizations.
The work of the IETF is done mostly through extensive Internet mailing lists, though the group does meet three times a year at face-to-face meetings.
IETF standards are voluntary, and the group does not make any attempt to police or mandate the use of the standards.
Mr. Cargill, who also specializes in information technology standards development, added that:
The IT industry has the ability and willingness to use different methods of standard-setting depending on the situation. Consortia, or groups of like-minded companies, generally get together and produce standards that will benefit the entire market. Over the past five years, consortia have become the dominant standards providers for IT technology.
These consortia for IT are not part of the ISO–ANSI federation, thus their existence is contingent on whether or not they maintain the support of their members.
For the future of standard-setting, he suggests that:
The Office of Management and Budget should define what a legitimate consortium is.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The National Institute of Standards and Technology can play a larger role in organizing IT consortia.
Our primary concern should not be with who believes in standards, but with those that do not standardize.
4.3(f)—Ocean Exploration and Coastal and Ocean Observing Systems (Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards and the Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources.)
July 12, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–26
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on federal interagency cooperation on ocean research and particularly on the progress of, and plans for, the implementation of an integrated and sustained ocean observing system. This hearing also examined the need to coordinate the rapidly proliferating coastal observing systems and review the Report of the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration and the implementations of that report's recommendations.
The Subcommittees heard from: (1) Mr. Scott B. Gudes, Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Dept. of Commerce; (2) Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation; (3) Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of the Office of Naval Research of the U.S. Navy; (4) Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., President of Consortium for Oceanographic Research & Education; (5) Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and Chief Executive Officer of Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute; (6) Dr. Robert Ballard, President of the Institute for Exploration; (7) Dr. Robert A. Weller, Director of Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; (8) Dr. J. Frederick Grassle, Director of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University; (9) Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Senior Science Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and (10) Dr. Alexander Malahoff, Director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory at the University of Hawaii.
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by stating that improved cooperation and coordination among federal agencies, Congressional Committees, and the research community is needed for a more effective ocean research program. Due to limited financial resources, these groups need to agree on specific priorities to achieve goals.
Mr. Gudes testified on ocean exploration, ocean observations, coastal observations, and the role of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He noted that:
The President's budget includes $170 million for NOAA to conduct ocean research in fiscal year 2002.
In 2000, a panel of marine scientists and explorers were convened to review U.S. efforts in ocean exploration. It recommended that the U.S. establish a national program of ocean exploration and discovery.
He discussed ocean exploration's role in the discovery of new species, our understanding of geological phenomena, etc.
There are fewer ocean-based measurement systems than there are land-based.
The National Ocean Partnership Program is an excellent mechanisms for coordinating oceans activities across agencies.
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
It is important, especially on the West coast, for tsunami warning devices to be improved.
Dr. Colwell testified that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has a proud history of supporting basic research and education in the ocean sciences. It has a ''broad, encompassing role that advances the frontiers of discovery and seeks to engage the public.'' Dr. Colwell showed footage taken from the submersible ALVIN two miles below sea level, and noted that:
The NSF accounts for less than four percent of the total federal research and development budget, yet provides about 70 percent of federal funding to academic institutions for ocean research.
More than 95 percent of the world's oceans remain unexplored.
The NSF is working with the academic community and federal agencies to provide a new infrastructure to gain access to the oceans and to facilitate the collection of time series data. This will help improve our understanding of the basic biology, chemistry, geology, and physics of oceans.
Admiral Cohen discussed the importance of ocean exploration, and strongly supports efforts to develop and implement an integrated and sustained national ocean observing system. He noted that:
Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface, and are constantly changing.
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Oceans are the Navy's operating environment. The Navy must continually collect and monitor data from all the world's oceans in order to ensure the safety of its fleet.
Admiral Lautenbacher represented the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE), a consortium of 64 premier oceanographic institutions. He noted that:
Ocean exploration and ocean observing are equally important, and we should emphasize the value we get from each approach to ocean research.
Now is the time for researchers to work together in a coordinated effort to advance ocean research. The technology available today is such that we can do things that were only dreamed about several years ago.
Sustained time series data from coastal areas and around the world in addition to the cooperation and coordination of federal agencies are needed to answer pressing questions on environmental management.
The National Oceanographic Partnership Act successfully established a super-agency mechanism to support and finance ocean exploration and observation.
Dr. McNutt re-emphasized the importance of ocean exploration. She strongly supports further research to learn more about this largely unexplored area. She noted that:
The ocean is earth's largest living space, containing 80 percent of all phyla. Most photosynthesis occurs there, it keeps earth habitable, and it processes our waste. It also provides an inexpensive source of protein to feed our population.
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute is currently considering direct sequestration of carbon dioxide into the ocean 3 kilometers below the surface to mitigate global warming. However, it is having difficulty assessing the potential biological impact of such activity because so little is known about the organisms at that depth.
In order to know the right scientific questions to ask of ocean models and predictions, the U.S. needs to further explore the ocean.
Ocean exploration is defined as the systematic observation of all facets of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time. Ocean exploration leads to unpredictable rewards; possibilities include cures for diseases, discovery of untapped mineral, energy, and biological resources, insights into ocean system functions, and beautiful geological and biological vistas.
Many countries, including Ireland, Japan, France and Russia, are much more advanced in their ocean exploration tools and programs than the U.S.
Stakeholders such as federal laboratories, businesses, universities, educators, conservationists, students and relevant federal agencies should be involved in ocean exploration. The activities of these groups need to be coordinated through an effective management structure, which could potentially be the National Ocean Partnership Program.
Ocean exploration programs will be most effective and systematic with built-in mechanisms for educational outreach and information dissemination. Exploration would begin with reconnaissance mapping of the sea floor and water column.
Page 405 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Detailed exploration should be done by a state-of-the-art flagship equipped with new generation submersible technology and high bandwidth satellite communication to bring real-time discoveries to aquaria, schools, homes and offices over the Internet.
Mr. Ballard testified that oceans are our last unexplored frontier and that we need to develop a blueprint for future exploration. He noted that:
There is no major ocean exploration program in the U.S.
Ocean exploration can lead to great discoveries with the help of newer technologies such as autonomous underwater vehicles.
The future of sea farming will involve a shift from people as hunters and gatherers of the sea to shepherds of the sea.
The natural beauty and cultural heritage of the oceans need to be preserved for future generations by expanding existing sanctuaries such as The National Marine Sanctuary. Public access is necessary to gain the public support needed for long-term protection.
Dr. Weller gave a brief recount of his time in the Pacific Ocean during the onset of the 1997 El Niño. He noted that:
Oceanic measuring devices deployed by the National Science Foundation and international partners enabled early detection and warning of the 1997 El Niño, which gave people around the world time to prepare for its effects.
Page 406 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
In 1999 the value of these early El Niño warnings was estimated at $300 million for the agricultural sector, and $1 billion for all U.S. sectors combined. The payoff is huge considering that the U.S. puts only $12 million into the El Niño observing system annually.
The ocean system across the globe is interconnected; as such, research activities need to be globally focused.
The tools used to measure oceanic changes, like buoys and moorings, are available. We just need to get more of them out there.
Dr. Grassle focused on the need for a national network of linked and coordinated ocean observing systems, and on recommendations for how such a network should be established. He supports ocean exploration and the census of marine life programs and has suggestions for their advancement. He noted that:
An integrated national network of coastal ocean observing systems needs to be developed. More than half of Americans live in coastal zones, more than 95 percent of the Nation's foreign trade moves by sea, the fishing industry and other industries rely on ocean, and our understanding of it influences all of these activities.
A sustained network of linked and coordinated regional ocean observing systems will provide a new way of looking at, working in, and understanding the ocean.
The growing community of users of ocean information needs a modeling and measurement system that has the ability to continuously map surface current flows and obtain data from satellite observations, buoys, and autonomous gliders.
Page 407 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Intensive observatory facilities operated by scientists from all disciplines are needed to conduct long-term experiments, sustain long-time series observations, and test new ideas and equipment.
The National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research have played major roles in the development of the LEO observatory, and should continue to play a leading role in the development of intensive observatory technologies.
The National Ocean Research Leadership Council and National Oceanographic Partnership Program should be responsible for coordinating a national ocean observing system and approving standards and protocols for administering the system.
Dr. Beeton testified on ocean exploration in the context of the Great Lakes. He noted that:
The Science Advisory Board is the only federal committee whose responsibility it is to advise the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-term strategies for research, education, and application of science to resource management.
Coastal and ocean observations are necessary to predict events that effect commerce and life and to minimize financial and personal loss.
Ocean exploration activity should include geophysical surveys to update bathymetric charts for navigation, fisheries, and recreation.
Page 408 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
We need long-term monitoring to detect subtle changes in the Great Lakes ecosystems, make more coherent assessments of long- and short-term impacts, and understand coastal water quality's influence on public health.
Mr. Malahoff stressed that the oceans are an essential resource for the U.S., in addition to being our front line against adversaries. He noted that:
Oceans provide us with food, energy, and resources for a range of new industries specializing in marine byproducts and their uses.
NOAA's creation of the Office of Ocean Exploration is a catalyst that will enable the U.S. to lead the development of a holistic understanding of the world's oceans.
Grass roots partnerships are key to improving ocean exploration.
Core programs such as NOAA's National Undersea Research Program, along with programs at the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and The Environmental Protection Agency, need to be supported in order to accomplish the objectives of ocean exploration.
4.3(g)—Combating the Invaders: Research on Non-Native Species
July 26, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–25
Page 409 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on federal agencies' research on invasive species and how the National Invasive Species Council coordinates invasive species programs and activities among the various federal agencies. The Subcommittee reviewed the research provisions in the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 and the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 in order to update and improve them.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Peter Hoekstra, Congressman from Michigan (2) Dr. David Evans, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; (3) Ms. Lori Williams, Executive Director of the National Invasive Species Council; (4) Dr. James T. Carlton, Professor of Marine Sciences at Williams College and Director of the Maritime Studies Program of Williams College and Mystic Seaport; (5) Dr. Stephen B. Brandt, Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; and (6) Mr. Scott Smith from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Hoekstra expressed interest in working with the Subcommittee to develop legislation to combat non-native species and the ecological and economic damage they cause. He noted that:
The legislation he introduced earlier this year, H.R. 1680, addresses the introduction of non-native species in the Great Lakes through ballast water exchange. He stressed that this legislation should be considered as only one component of a larger package to solve invasive species problems.
Page 410 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
H.R. 1680 would require the Department of Transportation to institute rules and regulations to control the discharge of ballast water as well as to evaluate best possible practices and technologies to ensure further protection.
Dr. Evans testified that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, as mandated by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, has met a significant number of research needs. The role of the task force is to coordinate the federal agencies involved in aquatic nuisance species management. He noted that:
The Task Force has addressed the problem of zebra mussels, evaluated a range of ballast water technologies, sponsored research on responding to and monitoring non-indigenous species, and created new ways to educate the public regarding the issue.
The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 charged the task force with prevention, detection, monitoring, and control of aquatic nuisance species.
The task force conducts joint projects with agencies, provides aquatic nuisance species information to stakeholders, and funds research.
The National Invasive Species Council has a broader taxonomic scope than the task force, yet the council's work with technologies for non-aquatic environments can inform/guide the task force's work within water environments.
Control technologies still need to be developed for many taxonomic groups that currently have no known methods of eradication.
Page 411 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Carlton strongly supports research to prevent, understand, and manage invasive species. He noted that:
The role of research universities in addressing the threat from invasive species is to define the basic science, theory, and the ecology of invasions and also to partner with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and industry to develop solutions to invasive species problems.
What we can expect to get back from research on invasive species is only proportional to what we invest in it, and that investment over the past ten years has been disproportionate to the nature of the problem.
Creating a national baseline study would allow researchers to better understand the effectiveness of management plans to reduce future invasions.
Ms. Williams stressed the diversity of invasive species and the extent of damage they can inflict on the environment, the economy, and animal and human health. She focused on coordination issues and the role of the National Invasive Species Council. She noted that:
An effective research response to invasive species problems needs to be coordinated, interdepartmental, and multi-jurisdictional.
It is the National Invasive Species Council's role to help coordinate research efforts across the 22 federal agencies involved in invasive species.
Page 412 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The Invasive Species Advisory Committee, which provides input to the council, is a 32-member group of non-federal stakeholders who represent diverse geographic areas, expertise, and interests.
The Council developed a National Management Plan that outlines broad strategic goals for research and other aspects of invasive species. This is the first comprehensive federal action plan for invasive species. Highlights include: federal cooperation with stakeholders, development of a cross-cutting invasive species budget, research to improve invasive species threat assessment, better baseline data and monitoring, and improved data on economic impacts of invasive species.
Dr. Brandt testified that over the past few decades, rates of invasions have accelerated, especially in larger aquatic environments including the Great Lakes. He noted that:
The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) is the leading institution for aquatic species invasion research within NOAA. GLERL has a strong history of collaboration and partnerships in support of high-quality research, and has recently taken the lead to develop strategic plans on invasive species for NOAA.
Current research is focused on preventing introductions and understanding ecological impacts.
Prevention and control of ballast water introductions are critical research priorities. Ballast water is responsible for nine of the twelve recent invasive introductions in the Great Lakes.
Page 413 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
More emphasis should be placed on implementation of planning efforts, ideally at the regional level.
Mr. Smith used a variety of slides depicting invasive species to illustrate how some non-native species invade aquatic environments. He offered a state and regional perspective and noted that:
The aquaculture industry in Washington State has been very concerned about the impact that spartina, zebra mussels, and green crabs have on the environment and the economy.
The National Invasive Species Council coordinates both terrestrial and aquatic species, while the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force focuses on federal coordination of aquatic species efforts.
The weakest link is at the state level; state aquatic nuisance species committees, an aquatic nuisance species coordinator in each state, and state plans are needed.
Ballast water treatment research funds should be available to more than just Great Lakes states.
We should improve the use of aquatic nuisance species regional panels, and encourage states that are not affiliated with a panel to join.
With regard to zebra mussels, funds should be focused on areas that do not have zebra mussels for education and inspection programs to prevent introduction. Ballast water treatment research and technology development should be promoted.
Page 414 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
4.3(h)—Arsenic in Drinking Water: An Update on the Science, Benefits, and Cost
October 4, 2001
Hearing Volume No. 107–32
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on three reports recently submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that update the state of knowledge on the science, benefits, and cost of regulating arsenic in drinking water. The Subcommittee was especially interested in the latest findings that will inform EPA as it sets the maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water, due to be published in February 2002.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Robert Goyer, Chairman of the National Research Council Subcommittee to update the 1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water Report, Committee on Toxicology; (2) Dr. Maureen Cropper, Chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board, Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel; Lead Economist, The World Bank; Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland; (3) John Scheltens, National Drinking Water Advisory Council, Arsenic Cost Working Group; City Engineer, Public Works Director, Hot Springs, South Dakota; (4) Barbara Beck, Ph.D., Principal, Gradient Corporation representing the Environmental Arsenic Council, the National Wood Preservers Institute, and the National Rural Water Association; (5) Scott Rubin, Attorney & Consultant presenting research on water system affordability that he conducted for the National Rural Water Association; and (6) Erik Olson, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Page 415 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by pointing out the controversy surrounding the appropriate standard for arsenic in drinking water. He pointed out that the Committee's review evaluating the science of the risk of arsenic in drinking water is important, relevant and timely, not only because arsenic has received so much public attention, but also because it highlights the importance of using science as the basis of important public health and environmental decisions.
Dr. Goyer testified on the National Research Council's September 2001 report, ''Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update''. He noted that:
On January 22, 2001, EPA issued a proposed standard for arsenic in drinking water of 10 micrograms per liter. This proposed standard is based primarily on response models and extrapolation from cancer studies of the Taiwanese population exposed to high concentrations of arsenic in its drinking water.
On March 23, 2001, EPA published a notice that delayed the effective date of the arsenic rule pending further study.
To incorporate the most recent scientific research into the EPA's decision on a standard, the EPA's Office of Water requested that the National Research Council independently review studies on the health effects of arsenic published since the NRC published its 1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water Report.
Page 416 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The NRC assigned the project to the Committee on Toxicology, which prepared the updated report. The report also evaluated the analysis conducted by the EPA in support of its regulatory decision-making for arsenic in drinking water.
The Subcommittee did not address economic questions, cost benefit assessment, control technology, exposure assessment in the U.S. population, or regulatory decision-making.
The Subcommittee concluded that there is a sound database on the carcinogenic effect of arsenic in humans that is adequate for the purpose of risk assessment, and that arsenic causes cancer in humans at doses that are close to the drinking water concentrations that might occur in the United States.
The new report suggests that the risks for bladder and lung cancer are greater than the risk estimates on which the EPA based its January 2001 pending rule. Reasons for the increased risk estimate include the use of a different biostatistical model that provides a better fit to the available data, the use of an external, rather than internal, comparison population, improved assumptions for determining arsenic exposures, and relating the risks to the Taiwanese population to the U.S. cancer rate, which is higher than the Taiwanese rate.
Estimates of risk from low-level arsenic exposures were based on a Poisson linear extrapolation from observed data. Available data does not provide evidence for a threshold or non-linear dose response.
Studies have also shown that arsenic is linked to cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, as well as reproductive disorders. Age, sex, and simultaneous exposure to other carcinogens may influence risk estimates.
Page 417 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
More research needs to be conducted to reduce uncertainties relevant to risk assessment and to gain knowledge of other effects of arsenic on the human body.
Dr. Cropper testified on the soundness of the benefit-cost analysis that was done in support of the arsenic rule, as evaluated in the report ''Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: A Science Advisory Board Review.'' She focused on the economics of this and the economics of measuring the benefits and comparing them to the costs. She noted that:
The ratio of benefits to cost is much lower in small drinking water systems. Although, the Safe Drinking Water Act calls for a uniform drinking water standard throughout the country, from an efficiency perspective, consideration should be given to the idea of allowing standards to vary by community.
Avoided cases of illness and mortality should be broken down by age.
Attention should be focused on the number of cases of premature mortality or fatal and non-fatal cancers expected to be reduced every year after the new drinking water standard is implemented for people who want to adopt their own discount rates or dollar value of a life.
Other health endpoints besides lung and bladder cancers need to be quantified in order to be considered in an effective benefit-cost analysis.
The timing of health benefits needs to be considered in cost-benefit analyses. More research is needed to assess the risk after exposure has stopped.
Page 418 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The methodology used by the EPA to assess the valuation of benefits was sound.
Mr. Scheltens testified on the three major recommendations of the ''Report on the Arsenic Cost Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee.'' He noted that:
The methodology the EPA used to produce a cost estimate for implementing the rule may not be sufficiently detailed to be able to fully understand the impact of the rule, particularly on small systems.
95 percent of the water systems affected by the arsenic rule are small systems, which are less able to absorb the costs (in terms of user rates) than the large systems.
The working group proposed recommendations for improving future cost projections.
Many additional contaminants will be regulated in the future, which expands the scope of this issue to the affordability of all drinking water regulations. A national panel of experts needs to be formed to deal with the affordability issue, and a ''sustainability'' fund needs to be set up by the Federal Government.
The funds to update arsenic treatment facilities in small towns are important, but only solve a portion of the problem for small communities that can't afford the higher operation and maintenance costs.
Page 419 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Beck provided comments on several of the recent evaluations of arsenic toxicity and risk, especially the NRC 2001 report and the Science Advisory Board benefits review. She noted that:
There is no evidence of arsenic-related diseases at typical U.S. exposure levels.
The lower levels of arsenic that are typical of the U.S. situation are relatively low risk or perhaps no risk, which is consistent with a non-linear or sublinear dose response model.
The key conclusions in the NRC Report, especially as reflected in the Executive Summary, are not well supported by scientific evidence, and in some cases, are inconsistent with the body of the text.
Four main lines of evidence support a nonlinear response model: (1) other models such as the Weibel model and a paper by Morales cited in the NRC 2001 report; (2) arsenic doesn't interact directly with DNA; (3) there are qualitative differences between what happens at low doses versus high doses of arsenic in cells; (4) epidemiology studies do not find any consistent or convincing effects of arsenic at levels less than 100 micrograms per liter.
The non-cancer effects of arsenic in drinking water are not quantified and could be less serious than the NRC report leads one to believe.
Other nonlinear dose response models for the relationship between arsenic and health effects need to be explored. The Utah study of arsenic in drinking water offers a good opportunity for further evaluation of the data from that study to determine whether its results are consistent or inconsistent with the risk estimates in the NRC report.
Page 420 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Mr. Rubin testified that the Arsenic Cost Working group recognized that there might be small water systems that will not be able to afford to comply with the arsenic rule, but that it understates the problem and fails to discuss its consequences. He noted that:
The EPA assumes small communities can afford a quadrupling of their water bills to $800. There are four significant problems with the EPA's assumptions: (1) the EPA focuses on median income rather than a more accurate measure of economic need, such as poverty; (2) EPA's assumption that 2.5 percent of income is affordable is inconsistent with the experience of other utility services; (3) The EPA's use of national averages and medians does not accurately measure the people who will have to pay for arsenic compliance; (4) existing water bills in many parts of the country are significantly higher than the EPA assumed.
Several studies show that most low-income families will pay their utility bills and cut back on food or medical care. We need to evaluate not only the health impacts of reducing arsenic levels, but also the offsetting health impacts of reduced spending on other necessities.
The Arsenic Workgroup recommends that Congress should authorize additional funding to help small water systems that face serious economic problems meeting the standard.
The EPA must change the way it evaluates whether small water systems will be able to afford a new regulation, set a reasonable and realistic threshold for affordability, and evaluate the public health consequences of tradeoffs that low-income households will be required to make in order to pay higher water bills.
Page 421 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Mr. Olson testified on the history of the arsenic rule and called for a new arsenic standard of three parts per billion (ppb). He noted that:
The original standard was set in 1942, and recommendations to lower the standard to 10 ppb have been suggested since 1962. The current range of acceptable arsenic levels is as low as 3 ppb.
The National Academy of Sciences affirms that even at 3 ppb, arsenic levels are ten times more carcinogenic than the EPA says is acceptable. It also holds that there is not sufficient evidence to show that there is a nonlinear dose response.
The EPA estimates that 36 million Americans drink water everyday that contains over 3 ppb of arsenic.
The EPA has produced credible estimates of the cost of arsenic compliance, given the constraints of the present rule-making, data-gathering, and cost models.
The benefits of lowering the standard to 3 ppb are much more than the EPA initially thought. The costs would be about $3 per household for 90 percent of the people that are affected.
Public water systems in small communities need to be targeted for the $1.7 billion in federal money designated for public water systems.
4.3(i)—Weatherproofing the U.S.: Are We Prepared for Severe Storms?
October 11, 2001
Page 422 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Hearing Volume No. 107–31
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony about research efforts into the prediction of severe storms, with emphasis on hurricanes, flooding, and wind-related damage. The hearing addressed the needs of emergency management officials to ensure the public is adequately warned about storms and their effects. In addition, the hearing examined three related legislative issues: H.R. 2486, the Tropical Cyclone Inland Forecasting Improvement and Warning System Development Act, introduced by Representative Etheridge; draft legislation by Representative Moore on research related to severe wind damage and its amelioration; and reauthorization of the U.S. Weather Research Program.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Chris Landsea, Hurricane Research Division, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): (2) Dr. Len Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Mathematical Sciences, N.C. State University; (3) Dr. Steven L. McCabe, Professor and Department Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Kansas; (4) Mr. John L. Hayes, Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Weather Service; Co-chair, U.S. Weather Research Program; (5) Mr. Doug Hill, Chief Meteorologist, WJLA—Channel 7 News, Washington, D.C.; and (6) Mr. Robert Shea, Acting Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Summary of Hearing
Page 423 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Landsea presented his research regarding hurricanes and the likelihood of increased hurricane activity in the coming decades. He noted that:
The formation of hurricanes requires a specific combination of environmental factors.
Hurricane activity seems to be cyclical with the 1940's—1960's being quite active, and the 1970's-early 1990's relatively quiet.
It appears the Atlantic is beginning to enter another active period, with much more dangerous consequences because of increased population and economic develop along the East Coast.
Dr. Pietrafesa discussed the need for an interdisciplinary approach to severe storms through research and management. He emphasized that:
The roots of the problem lie in the interactions between the environmental physical system, which are not well understood and changing, and those interactions with the human system, with its social and demographic characteristics. This is especially true in the loss of life and destruction due to floods.
In North Carolina, Category 2 Hurricanes (as opposed to those much stronger) are responsible for 42 percent of all damage because of their high moisture content and the hidden nature of estuarian, coastal, and inland flooding.
Proper funding of the U.S. Weather Research Program will increase our ability to handle severe storm events.
Page 424 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
He supports the legislation put forth by Congressman Etheridge to develop a new flood warning index.
Dr. McCabe discussed the issue of windstorms and their effects on the citizens and economy of the United States. He noted that:
Property damage, personal injuries, and death from wind storms is a national problem, resulting in an average economic loss in the United States on the order of several billion dollars.
The Federal Government needs to do more toward preventing or minimizing the impact of windstorms.
Legislation developed by Congressman Moore and the Science Committee staff would better coordinate federal wind hazard reduction efforts and research, and provide sufficient funds to accomplish its goals.
One area where this legislation would help is roof system testing procedures and new devices for wind resistance.
Dr. Hayes discussed the importance of the U.S. Weather Research Program. He emphasized that:
Hazardous weather, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storms each year cause thousands of fatalities, far more injuries, and tens of billions of dollars in property damage.
Page 425 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) can improve warning and forecast accuracies and lead times by more fully exploiting our advanced technologies and improving the scientific basis for weather prediction.
The USWRP is a $9 million multi-agency collaborative effort of operation and research communities, and academia and government. The current participants include NOAA, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Defense.
Mr. Hill presented his perspective as a television meteorologist about communicating information on severe storms to the public. He noted that:
Most people have become desensitized to emergency weather warnings, especially while riding in automobiles.
We need to find a way to make it mandatory that radio stations issue severe weather warnings.
Many times the people providing local weather information in smaller areas are not specifically qualified or certified.
Television meteorologists and the staff with the national weather service forecasting offices must have a good working relationship.
Mr. Shea discussed the need to ensure that research into natural hazards is translated into effective practice for emergency managers and the public. He emphasized that:
Page 426 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been developing a multi-hazard risk assessment and loss estimation tool called HAZUS or Hazards U.S. The first one was for earthquake issues, the next one due is for flooding and there is a prototype of one concerning wind issues.
The HAZUS tools are designed to provide federal, state and local people with information to understand the risks involved with specific natural hazards, and then how to deal with it.
Congressman Etheridge's legislation to create a new flood warning system, which would also educate local officials and the public about the new system, would help to save lives.
FEMA and the National Weather Service are working together to develop enhanced flood maps and flood modeling capabilities, but more collaboration is needed.
4.3(j)—Sea Grant: Review and Reauthorization
February 28, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–47
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget proposal to transfer the Sea Grant College Program from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The hearing also explored H.R. 3389, a bill that would reauthorize the Sea Grant College Program within NOAA.
Page 427 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Russell Moll, Director, California Sea Grant College Program, University of California San Diego; (3) Ms. Mary Hope Katsouros, Senior Fellow and Senior Vice President, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment; (4) Dr. Nancy Rabalais, Professor, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium; and (5) Mr. Michael Donahue, President/Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Commission
Summary of Hearing
Admiral Lautenbacher deferred to his written testimony, which reiterates the justification put forward by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Commerce for the President's FY 2003 budget request. With regard to the proposal to move Sea Grant to the NSF, he commented that the Administration believes that NSF would better manage Sea Grant's research, which would maximize the benefit received from each dollar invested. Admiral Lautenbacher supports Sea Grant and noted that, under NOAA, he intends to manage the program for the remainder of FY 2002 in accordance with the intent of the President and Congress, as stated in the current authorizations.
Dr. Moll described Sea Grant as a broad-based, priority-driven program that balances research, extension, and education. It matches federal funding with local support to build partnerships to investigate issues such as aquaculture, marine biotechnology, and non-indigenous species. He argued that:
Page 428 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Sea Grant's local, State, and national programs use a strong peer review process for evaluating potential research projects. And, every four years each Sea Grant program undergoes an external review.
Whether the Sea Grant program remains at NOAA or is transferred to NSF, the program's strengths (partnerships, research interwoven with outreach, and coastal focus) should be maintained.
Since Sea Grant is already authorized for several more years within NOAA, the Administration should wait for the President's Commission on Ocean Policy to finish their review of the structure of federal maritime programs before moving Sea Grant.
There should be no change in the mission, structure, or function of Sea Grant until the Commission's report is released.
NSF is not particularly well vested in outreach activities nor is NSF likely to support Sea Grant's matching provision; both are elements of the program's current strengths.
If the Coastal Ocean Program is merged with Sea Grant, the integrity of both programs should be maintained.
Ms. Katsouros noted that Sea Grant creates partnerships involving 300 institutions and 3,000 scientists each year. ''It helps people,'' she said in regard to the program's role in federal research. She testified that:
Page 429 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Sea Grant should not be moved from NOAA to NSF because Sea Grant currently funds applied research, responds to local, State, regional, and national goals, is supported by matching funds, and conducts extension activities—all elements that would be lost under NSF administration.
Congress should reconsider implementing a 1994 National Academy of Sciences recommendation to elevate Sea Grant to the Office of the NOAA Administrator.
Since 1994, the Sea Grant peer-review process has improved.
The Coastal Ocean Program supports long-term, multidisciplinary research, whereas the Sea Grant program is focused on single investigator, State and national priority research.
Dr. Rabalais is a scientist who has been doing marine coastal research for twenty years. She has received grant money from Sea Grant, The Coastal Ocean Program, and NSF, and has had proposals rejected by each organization as well. She testified that:
These programs serve different constituencies, do different kinds of research, and address different needs.
The fear among the marine science community is that moving Sea Grant or the Coastal Ocean Program would jeopardize the purpose and integrity of each program.
The NSF budget needs to be increased on its own; not by moving other programs into it.
The U.S. Ocean Commission review and Vice Admiral Lautenbacher's bottom-up review of NOAA's programs should be completed before research dollars and programs are moved around.
Page 430 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Donahue discussed Sea Grant and the Coastal Ocean Program from a Great Lakes perspective. He testified that:
The Great Lakes Commission and member states rely fundamentally on the research and extension services Sea Grant provides.
The Great Lakes Commission opposes the proposed transfer of the program from NOAA to NSF; attention should be directed towards strengthening the program within NOAA and working towards reauthorization.
If the Federal Government provides less or no funding for Sea Grant's activities, the ability of the states to perform their mandated functions would be severely compromised and could cause the outright elimination of entire research, education, and outreach programs. The implications of which might include loss of local economic development opportunities, a less informed public, a compromised decision-support system for state legislators, and in some areas increased exposure to environmental contaminants.
Several Sea Grant issues merit evaluation: the program's stature and base funding need to be elevated for it to realize its potential; Sea Grant's outreach needs have increased because of the downsizing of government but its budget for extensions has not; Sea Grant's focus on regional, in addition to state-level, issues should be expanded.
Sea Grant needs to be reauthorized, appropriated not less than $100 million, and its profile within NOAA should be elevated over time.
Page 431 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
4.3(k)—Technology Administration: Review and Reauthorization
March 14, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–54
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the President's Fiscal Year 2003 Budget request for the Technology Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In addition, the Subcommittee reviewed the Administration's proposed reforms for the Advanced Technology Program.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Mr. Philip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology and Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Commerce; (2) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); (3) Mr. Michael Wojcicki, President, The Modernization Forum; (4) Ms. Birgit M. Klohs, President, The Right Place Program; and (5) Dr. Christopher T. Hill, Vice Provost for Research and Professor of Public Policy and Technology, George Mason University.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Bond testified that the Department of Commerce and the Technology Administration (TA) are carrying out their respective missions by focusing resources on the following goals: fostering job creation, assisting homeland security initiatives within the Administration, and helping to fight the war on terrorism.
Page 432 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
He testified that technology will play a significant role in meeting these goals. He outlined the different roles the Federal Government and the private sector can play in developing technology. He argued that the private sector must assume the lead in technology development; however, the Office of Technology Policy (which is part of the Technology Administration) is developing and advocating national policies that use technology to build America's economic strength. To that end, he explained that the office seeks to encourage research, development, and commercialization of new technologies, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. At the same time, the TA has been working to encourage students to pursue high tech careers.
Lastly, he recognized the Administration's proposed reforms to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and requested funding level for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) (both programs are run by NIST) are controversial. Specifically, he noted that the Department of Commerce recognizes the value of the ATP program, and that the Administration felt the proposed reforms would help the program in the long run. In regards to MEP, he testified that the current budget climate led to the proposed cuts in MEP. He argued that because the program is successful, large and small manufacturers would have an incentive to supplement the loss of federal funding for the centers that carry out MEP's mission.
Dr. Bement discussed the President's budget request for NIST for Fiscal Year 2003 and its recent work in responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11. He testified that NIST had many examples of meeting the Nation's security, research, and commercial needs in the wake of that event. Among the activities that NIST undertook in response were: assessing structural damage to, and building standards for, the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon; testing and establishing dose standards for irradiated mail to ensure the destruction of anthrax spores and other pathogens; and providing research support through 75 different ongoing projects for sensors, biometrics, information security, and support for emergency services and law enforcement.
Page 433 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
He outlined NIST's funding needs within the context of the President's budget request. Specifically, he called attention to the $35 million request instruments for the soon-to-be-completed Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML), the $54.5 million request for construction and maintenance of NIST's facilities (which would allow for upgrades and new facilities in NIST Boulder, Colorado labs and equip the AML), and the $396.4 million request for laboratories (which would help strengthen NIST's core mission in several key areas including: health care, nanotechnology, measurement science, cyber security, Homeland Security, and neutron research). He added that demand for the use of NIST's neutron facility has increased dramatically, since it is now the only such facility in the U.S. The Administration's funding request would go toward meeting this demand.
Finally, Dr. Bement echoed Mr. Bond's comments regarding the Administration's funding requests for ATP and MEP, by arguing that the current budget climate led to the Administration's request for funding cuts in the ATP and MEP programs. He added that NIST's headquarters would continue to coordinate the state MEP centers, even with a substantial decrease in funding.
Mr. Wojcicki testified to the importance of the Federal Government's role in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, as both a leader in the partnership and as a major source of funding. He indicated that State funding for the Manufacturing Extension centers is either explicitly or implicitly contingent on federal funding in two-thirds of participating State governments. Mr. Wojcicki concluded that if federal funding is not allocated, a majority of the MEP centers would be threatened, as state budgets would be redirected to receive federal matching grants.
Page 434 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Mr. Wojcicki asserted that centers continuing to operate in the absence of federal funding, would need to increase their hourly fees, focus on larger projects, and decrease the use of private consultants. He believes that each of these changes would affect the accessibility of the program to smaller manufacturers and would favor a shift towards larger manufacturers that would be capable of paying higher fees and taking on larger projects. He added that, without federal funding to serve as a catalyst, the MEP centers will not be able to carry out their original mandate to help small manufacturers become more competitive and productive. For MEP projects in Fiscal Year 2000, client firms reported $2.3 billion in increased sales and more than 25,000 jobs created or retained. Mr. Wojcicki reported that a conservative estimate indicates that the Federal Government receives $4 in federal tax revenue for every $1 invested in the program.
Ms. Klohs discussed the Right Place Program's work to attract, retain and grow businesses in Grand Rapids. She explained that because a large part of the local economy is based in manufacturing, a lot of her work is focused on helping small to medium manufacturers through the West Michigan MMTC Center. She reported that independent analysis has shown that in Western Michigan, manufacturing jobs account for 26 percent of employment and 42 cents of every dollar earned is a manufacturing dollar.
Ms. Klohs reported that federal funding for MEP is matched by state funding and is used to support outreach activity, informational events, program development and industry benchmarking assessments. The MEP network links Michigan's programs to resources nationwide. MMTC serves as a catalyst for reducing waste in business practices for small manufacturers such as lean enterprise user groups and helps them cut lead time. Citing independent research Ms. Klohs asserted that by continuing to support smaller manufacturers in Western Michigan, the MEP program has helped boost manufacturing employment 60 percent with the help of State and federal funding.
Page 435 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Hill focused his testimony on evaluating four proposals in the Department of Commerce's report for reforming the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The first recommended change would allow institutions of higher education to lead ATP joint ventures with private industry, including the authority to organize proposals. He believes this would be an effective use of funds because new proposals would still require educational institutions to work with industry, rather than use ATP funding as another university funding source.
The second reform would amend the ATP statute to permit universities and other nonprofit members of ATP to establish joint ventures to negotiate intellectual property rights. Dr. Hill supported this reform, however, he believes the disposition of future property rights should be agreed to before the award is made, avoiding difficult negotiations afterward.
The third recommendation would limit large companies from participating in ATP ventures. Dr. Hill did not support this proposal and argued for the continued inclusion of all sizes of firms, since, as Dr. Hill reports, the research funded by ATP does not take into account the size of the firm, and the purpose of the research is to encourage basic research that would be overlooked by either large or small firms in the private sector. The fourth major reform would require ATP grant recipients to make a royalty payment of five percent of gross sales to be paid on ATP investments and profitable ventures up to 500 percent of the original award. Dr. Hill did not support this reform and argued that it would be difficult to administer and would impose a usurious rate of interest. In addition, he argued that this reform would produce a number of counterproductive incentives that would undermine the original intent of the program.
4.3(l)—Science and Technology Programs at the Environmental Protection Agency: The FY 2003 Budget Request
Page 436 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
April 23, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–53
Background
This purpose of the hearing was to review the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) FY 2003 budget request for Science and Technology programs. The Subcommittee planned to examine the strategic directions in the Agency's R&D budget and whether the resources available to EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) are adequate for producing the science necessary to protect public health and the environment.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant Administrator, ORD, EPA; (2) Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University; Member, Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC), EPA; and (3) Dr. Eli Pearce, President, American Chemical Society.
Summary of Hearing
Subcommittee Chairman Vernon Ehlers opened the hearing by describing the purpose of the hearing to examine the budget request for both ORD and the Agency's overall Science and Technology (S&T) budget. He raised several concerns about the Agency's budget proposal. First, he indicated concern about the absence of a rationale for eliminating funding for the highly successful Science to Achieve Results (STAR) graduate fellowship program. He questioned the size of the proposed transfer of $75M from the Superfund Trust Account to the S&T account for the detection and cleaning of buildings contaminated with biological or chemical agents. Finally, he raised a longstanding concern about the rapid growth in federal investment in life sciences research relative to the relatively flat levels of investment in the physical sciences, including EPA's science and technology budget.
Page 437 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Gilman provided an overview of EPA's FY 2003 budget request. He pointed out that:
Of the $627 million total request, $514M would come from the Science and Technology appropriation. It would represent 75 percent of the Agency's S&T account.
ORD expects to continue critical environmental research programs in such areas as children's health, drinking water, and particulate matter research. The agency is also proposing budget initiatives in homeland security, computational toxicology, biotechnology, and the Central Basin Integrated Assessment.
ORD is proud of several recent scientific accomplishments. For example, Microarrays or gene chips are being developed and used in rapid testing of drinking water for harmful pathogens and chemicals and detecting environmentally induced male infertility. ORD scientists are also developing new technologies to better measure the distribution and the control of contaminants in areas such as absorptive membrane systems that can effectively eliminate heavy metal impurities from moving water sources. ORD is also developing methods, data, and models for evaluating children's aggregate exposure to pesticides.
The methodology in ORD's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) promises to improve assessments of ecosystem conditions and that many states are now using it as an efficient way to monitor coastal conditions.
Dr. Matanoski summarized the findings of the SAB's review of EPA's budget request by pointing out that:
Page 438 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
EPA should continue to strengthen the link between R&D and the Agency's strategic plan, and to improve recruitment that will help maintain core scientific competencies within the Agency's R&D programs.
Many of the environmental problems that we face are not explicitly identified in statute, and that the Agency needs to maintain a forward-looking research program to identify future problems which will support non-regulatory approaches.
The Agency needs to maintain and augment research and development in emerging and under-funded avenues. She agreed with the other witnesses about the need to provide sufficient resources for exploring the next generation of environmental problems.
Dr. Pierce highlighted that:
This year's budget request for the EPA Science and Technology account continues a trend that diminishes support for science programs, which are critical for sound regulatory decisions, and in new areas such as nano and biotechnology.
Core programs, such as the STAR program, which build the talent pool for the environmental sciences, should not be cut.
EPA's need for structural management reform in its science programs is becoming more pressing.
Page 439 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
EPA needs to improve recruitment in response to the pending wave of retirements in EPA's scientific ranks.
In addition to the testimony of the witnesses, a consortium of graduate students and faculty submitted testimony concerning proposed cut to the STAR Fellowship program. The consortium called for restoring STAR funding.
4.3(m)—Homeland Security: The Federal and Regional Response
June 10, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–76
Background
The hearing examined the federal and the National Capital area regional responses to the threat of terrorism. Topics included computer security, biodefense, regional coordination, public and private research and development, and first responder needs. The Subcommittee was especially interested in how the various agencies work with private entities and entrepreneurs to maximize both speed and efficiency in dealing with new terrorist threats.
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of Health; (2) Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology; (3) Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health; (4) Major Julie Pavlin, Chief, Department of Field Studies, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; (5) Mr. Edward J. McCallum, Director, Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, Department of Defense; and (6) Mr. Robert A. Malson, President, DC Hospital Association, and Chairman, Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments' Bioterrorism Task Force.
Page 440 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
Dr. Zerhouni discussed the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in biodefense and in coordinating medical response preparedness with public and private partners.
Much of NIH's biodefense work will fall under the authority of the new Department of Homeland Security, which will unify our defenses against human, animal, and plant diseases that could be used as terrorist weapons, as well as sponsor extramural research.
NIH biodefense research began long before the anthrax cases of fall 2001.
Collaboration with the private sector has never been more important as progress will depend on the ability to assemble multidisciplinary teams of scientists, cost-cutting initiatives, and public-private partnerships.
Dr. Bement testified on the recent activities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
NIST reacted almost immediately to the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax bioterrorism, coordinating responses with a number of federal agencies.
Besides NIST's traditional responsibilities for developing standards and guidelines to protect sensitive information in non-classified federal computer systems, post-9/11 laws have mandated NIST's assistance in the development of a national biometric identification system, which will be used to identify people entering the U.S. who are applying for visas.
Page 441 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
NIST is also preparing for the future of cyber security through its program in quantum computing.
Dr. Fauci discussed NIH's biodefense research efforts.
NIH's responsibility is not biowarfare (it is the military's); rather, it is biodefense, which is more complex because it is responsible for the protection of the entire civilian population.
Smallpox, anthrax, plague, botulism, tularemia, and hemorrhagic fevers are all threats for which NIH has to prepare.
Under the Department of Homeland Security, NIH would work closely with the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Centers for Disease Control, and its industrial partners.
In conjunction with CDC, the NIH has been working to develop and stockpile vaccines for smallpox, anthrax, and Ebola.
Major Pavlin discussed disease surveillance and response capabilities, particularly at the Department of Defense.
Surveillance is the fundamental building block in detecting biological threats, whether they are naturally occurring or deliberately introduced. Unfortunately, most surveillance systems are passive and rely on people to report outbreaks; they are not sufficiently sensitive or timely for this type of threat.
Page 442 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
A number of universities and agencies have developed systems, including the University of Pittsburgh, which created a real-time system for disease surveillance that monitors outpatient visits. This system was successfully deployed at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Recent increases in Dept. of Health and Human Services funding for improving public health capacity could be used to develop surveillance capabilities in regions that lack them.
There is no national surveillance system, although the CDC is working to enhance existing surveillance systems. State and local governments are the ones that determine relationships with local authorities and public health responders.
Mr. McCallum explained the activities of the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG).
Created in 1982, TSWG is tasked with conducting a national interagency R&D program for combating terrorism. It also influences long-term R&D requirements through the coordination of the basic science organizations.
Recently, TSWG formed bilateral R&D efforts with several key allies, including the UK, Canada, and Israel.
A number of agencies in TSWG, primarily non-medical ones, will be included in the Department of Homeland Security.
Page 443 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The business process of TSWG involves bringing together sponsors and experts from academia from the labs and Federal Government with users to ensure that the real requirements are analyzed.
Mr. Malson discussed the Washington, DC Hospital Association's (DCHA) Bioterrorism Task Force.
The focus is on developing a consensus approach that would promote inter-jurisdictional coordination while preserving the unique characteristics and operating procedures of each member jurisdiction.
In the wake of the anthrax attacks last fall, the DCHA established daily conference calls for all of the local hospitals in order to allow communication with researches and medical responders. At the same time, two committees were created: the Infectious Disease and Infection Control Committee and the Stress Response and Research Committee.
The need for regional coordination cannot be overstated when planning for bioterrorism. In the National Capital Region, it is especially challenging because of the abundance of federal, State, and local agencies—all with defined jurisdictions and all within close proximity of each other. Also, healthcare first responders are primarily in the private sector and traditionally have not been included in emergency planning activities.
4.3(n)—Research Priorities for Aquatic Invasive Species
June 20, 2002
Page 444 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Hearing Volume No. 107–72
Background
The hearing examined research priorities to support the National Invasive Species Act (NISA). NISA establishes a federal program to control the spread of aquatic nuisance species and the brown tree snake. The hearing examined gaps in our understanding of how invasive species are introduced and spread, and what research is required to enable state and federal officials to better manage aquatic invasive species.
The hearing explored several questions, including:
What research is needed to assess the relative risk of different invasion pathways?
What types of monitoring (for example, ecological surveys and pathway surveys) would support early detection of, and rapid response to, the introduction of an invasive species?
What research is required to enable more accurate characterization of the likelihood of a species invading once it is introduced?
What research is required to support the development of standards for ballast water and ''whole ship'' treatment?
What research programs should we pursue to develop new technologies to control the introduction of invasive species by ships entering or moving about U.S. waters?
Page 445 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The witnesses included: Panel 1: The Honorable Robert A. Underwood, Member of Congress. Panel 2: (1) Dr. David Lodge, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame; (2) Dr. L. David Smith, Assistant Professor of Biological Science, Smith College; (3) Dr. Gregory Ruiz, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; (4) Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute; and (5) Ms. Maurya Falkner, Staff Environmental Scientist, Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands Commission and Program Manager, Ballast Water Management and Control Program.
Summary of Hearing
Delegate Underwood testified on the significant environmental and economic damage caused on Guam by the non-native brown tree snake. The snake was accidentally introduced following WWII and is responsible for the extinction of 10 to 13 native bird species, two of three bat species and half of the 12 native lizard species. Controlling the spread of the snake, and preventing it from interfering with high voltage wires and electrical transformers, has had very high costs for Guam. Del. Underwood noted that the bulk of research monies have been directed at prevention, basic biological research, trapping and barrier technologies, while he would like to see the passage of legislation that would include research focusing on actively reducing snake populations.
Dr. Lodge outlined the universal process of species invasions, the current invasive species research portfolio and the ideal invasive species research portfolio.
The current research portfolio does not dedicate enough resources to prevention.
Page 446 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Research should focus on distinguishing which possible invasive species pose the greatest threat to ecosystems and on pathway analysis.
Dr. Smith testified that shipping is the primary vector for aquatic invasions, however, prevention efforts should also focus on other invasive pathways.
Other pathways include fisheries, the pet aquarium industry, research and educational organizations and restoration projects. Basic research is needed to understand how these pathways operate.
Findings from pathway studies should be incorporated into Invasive Species Management Plans and industry management practices.
Dr. Ruiz identified gaps in current knowledge of marine and aquatic ecosystem invasions and emphasized the importance of tracking invasion patterns.
Strategies to prevent new invasions can be directed at key transfer mechanisms or vectors.
Field measurement is necessary to measure the relationship between the number of organisms released by a vector and the rate of invasion.
Ms. Cangelosi addressed what she believes needs to be included in a federal research program to prevent the introduction of additional aquatic invasive species.
Page 447 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
While ballast water exchange is currently required under the National Invasive Species Act (NISA), an interim, biologically-based standard of treatment is needed until R&D can identify a final ''whole-ship'' standard.
An integrated shore-based and shipboard approach between the EPA and Coast Guard would afford economic and ecological research efficiencies and assure that methods developed would be environmentally sound.
Ms. Faulkner testified that:
Development of new technologies for ballast water treatment has been hindered by the fact that alternatives to ballast water exchange have not been encouraged, an interim and final treatment standard has not been identified, and research funding is inadequate.
A test program for treatment technologies also needs to focus on developing verification and certification programs, which can only exist when standards are identified.
4.3(o)—Environmental Contributors to Breast Cancer: What Does the Science Say?
June 22, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–74
Background
Page 448 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The hearing examined what is known about environmental factors that may cause breast cancer and how these factors may be linked to the unusually high rate of breast cancer observed in Port Jefferson, New York and surrounding communities.
The New York Department of Health has mapped cancer rates across the state and discovered higher than expected rates of breast cancer in seven ZIP codes west of the township of Brookhaven, New York, an area that encompasses Coram, Port Jefferson Station, Setauket, Miller Place, Mount Sinai, Port Jefferson, and Sound Beach. Researchers involved in developing the state cancer map have noted that the population in the affected area does not appear to have unusual genetic characteristics that could account for the high breast cancer rates, suggesting instead that environmental factors may play a significant role. The Department of Health is investigating the feasibility of conducting a full environmental study of the area. In the past, however, state officials, backed by some experts, have resisted in-depth studies of cancer clusters, arguing that they have limited scientific value because relatively little is known about the connection between exposure to environmental toxins and subsequent incidences of cancer.
In the meantime, the School of Medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook has established the Long Island Cancer Center to conduct scientific research into Long Island's high incidence of cancer. The Center is developing a clinical database of breast and prostate cancer patients from the Long Island region that will allow researchers to characterize the nature and possible causes of these cancers.
The hearing consisted of two panels of witnesses. The first panel included: (1) Dr. John Kovach, Director, Long Island Cancer Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook; (2) Dr. Roger Grimson, Principal Research Scientist, Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook; (3) Mr. Peter Levine, President and CEO, Correlogic Systems, Inc.; and (4) Dr. Nancy Kim, Director, Division of Environmental Health Assessment, New York Department of Health. The Second Panel included: (1) Ms. Gail Frankel, Field Coordinator and Advocate, National Breast Cancer Coalition; (2) Ms. Elsa Ford, President, Brentwood/Bay Shore Breast Cancer Coalition; and (3) Ms. Lorraine Pace, a breast cancer educator and Founder of the Breast Cancer Mapping Project.
Page 449 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Summary of Hearing
The first three witnesses on the first panel, two researchers from the Long Island Cancer Center and the director of the New York State Health Dept. Division of Environmental Assessment delivered essentially the same testimony: there is higher incidence of breast cancer on Long Island compared with the average for both New York State and for the Nation; environmental factors are suspect but there is no evidence to point to any particular causative agent; a full environmental survey may be warranted but is not likely to yield answers; instead, all three witnesses spoke of the need to create a comprehensive longitudinal database—like the Framingham heart study—to track a representative population over an extended period of time; all three panelists testified that the success of activists in raising awareness is helpful because it increases the likelihood of finding willing participants—including healthy subjects—for a long-term study, should one be established.
Mr. Levine spoke of his company's proprietary technology to analyze the protein composition of blood serum and, through pattern recognition algorithms, identify correlations with the presence of cancer. He recently published data indicating a very high success rate in diagnosing ovarian cancer. His company has embarked on a similar effort to identify markers for breast cancer.
The panel was asked whether the Federal Government should be funding cancer mapping projects. Drs. Kovach and Grimson answered that cancer maps are useful but remapping of the Long Island region would not add any new information—there is no data on exposure to environmental toxins, for example. U.S. breast cancer rates are extraordinarily high—3 or 4 times the rates typical of most countries (only Canada and a few of the Northern European countries have breast cancer rates as high as those found in the U.S.); hot spots or clusters where rates are 20–50 percent higher than the national average may not be as significant when overlaid on the much larger disparity between the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Page 450 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The panel asked what federal resources were needed to address the problem. Mr. Levine said the biggest problem was getting healthy woman—who are needed as a control group—to participate in long-term medical studies. Drs. Kovach and Grimson reiterated the need for a population-based database and suggested that this ought to be a nationwide effort; they both referred to the national medical and genetic database that has been created in Iceland as a model.
The panel of three breast cancer survivors and activists related their own experiences in dealing with the disease and the path that led them to activism.
Once the second panel's testimony was delivered, the hearing was opened to comments from the audience. Several audience members related their own stories about their personal experience with breast cancer and their involvement in public education about the issue.
4.3(p)—Workforce Training in a Time of Technological Change
June 24, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–78
Background
The purpose of the hearing was to examine ways in which workers' skill requirements have changed as a result of technological innovations in the workforce, and to assess various training programs aimed at providing workers with the requisite skills for success in today's high-tech work environment.
Page 451 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The Subcommittee heard from: (1) The Honorable Bruce Mehlman, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; (2) Ms. Cindy Ballard, Directory of Policy, Strategic Initiatives, Michigan Economic Development Corporation; (3) Mr. Tim N. Clark, Director, Center for Manufacturing Improvement, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center-Northeast, Saginaw Valley State University; and (4) Mr. Robert Worthington, Sr., President, Globe Fire Sprinkler Corporation.
Summary of Hearing
Secretary Mehlman testified that unlike previous eras in which economic strength was measured in terms of natural resource abundance and manufacturing robustness, today's economy hinges on technological innovation and the ability to train and retain a highly skilled workforce. Specifically, he noted that the field of Information Technology (IT) is a substantial component of the Nation's economy (while accounting for only seven percent of businesses in the U.S. economy it generated 28 percent of economic growth between 1996 and 2000), but at the same time poses serious challenges in the realm of worker training.
IT is a dynamic field of rapid change, creating challenges for workers and employers alike.
Worker training is not always economical or even possible for small and midsize companies that cannot afford the high cost and/or the requisite time away from profit-generating work for training programs.
Specific skill requirements change rapidly casting doubt on the long-term benefit to employers, and employees, of worker-training programs.
Page 452 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Ms. Ballard commented to the Committee on the workforce challenges facing the State of Michigan. She noted:
The study released by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Workforce and Career-Development: Building Upon Key Michigan Strengths, found that a shortage of skilled workers posed a long-term threat to the State's economic competitiveness.
The primary focus of the State in addressing its skilled-worker shortage situation should be the recruitment and retention of a highly-skilled workforce which is plagued by both a low birth rate and limited migration from other states.
Michigan Works Agencies, the Michigan Department of Career Development, and the State's community colleges have been successful in implementing programs (such as M–TEC) that provide the technical training vital to Michigan's workforce.
Surveys of high school students reflect a belief among them that computer-related professions offer the greatest opportunity, but also show a lack of desire among students to enter those fields.
Increased involvement by the Federal Government via scholarships, grants, etc., could prove highly effective in attracting the Nation's youth to high-tech fields.
The challenges faced by employers in creating and maintaining a well-trained workforce were addressed by Mr. Clark:
Page 453 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The workforce training problem for employers is two-fold: the initial recruitment of employees, and the ongoing task of ensuring current workers posses the skills they require to properly perform their job functions.
For small companies, specifically, the two biggest issues are the time and monetary costs of training programs.
Receiving funding from the Federal Government via NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the State Government via the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center (MMTC) works to provide training resources to Michigan's manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees. (Mr. Clark described a few such programs to the Committee.)
As President of Globe Fire Sprinkler, Mr. Worthington provided the Committee with an assessment of worker-training challenges from an employer's perspective. He noted:
Recruitment of highly skilled workers is easier for employers during periods of limited economic growth and more difficult when the economy is performing well.
The greatest problem he generally faces is a lack of basic reading, writing, and math skills in his employees.
A lack of sufficient remedy to the worker-training issue could severely limit the ability of Michigan, or the United States as a whole, to remain competitive in this age of technological innovation.
Page 454 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
As more and more manufacturing jobs are of the Computerized Numeric Control (C.N.C.) type, basic skills in computers and mathematics are becoming essential.
Proximity of education centers and tuition costs pose the greatest barrier to workforce training.
Tax incentives to small and medium sized companies for worker training would greatly help in addressing the lack of skilled workers.
4.3(q)—Satellite Data Management at NOAA
July 24, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–80
Background
The hearing examined satellite data management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA, through its line office, the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), procures and operates the Nation's environmental monitoring satellites, which provide raw data and processed data products to the National Weather Service and the Department of Defense for weather forecasting and prediction. NESDIS is also primarily responsible for the long-term archiving and managing of environmental satellite data from all NOAA satellites and for many of the research satellites flown by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) for use by researchers and others.
Page 455 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
The hearing focused on three major concerns: (1) NESDIS is not delivering all the weather satellite data products requested by the National Weather Service and the Department of Defense in a timely manner; (2) NESDIS is having great difficulty in maintaining, archiving, and distributing satellite data and data products for researchers primarily because of the tremendous increase in both the volume of data produced by currently deployed satellites and the demand for archived data during the past few years; and (3) NOAA is in the final planning stages for the new National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), which will cost $6.5 billion and produce hundreds of times more data and subsequent information than today's satellites. The $6.5 billion NPOESS budget plan does not include funding or specific upgrades of NESDIS' satellite data management capabilities either for producing products used in real-time weather operations or for long-term archiving of data for retrieval by researchers.
Witnesses Included: (1) Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA, Department of Commerce; (2) Ms. Linda D. Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, General Accounting Office; and (3) Dr. Mark Abbott, Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, and Chair, Committee on Earth Studies, National Research Council.
Summary of Hearing
Admiral Lautenbacher agreed with the assessment and concerns by Members of the Committee that there were significant problems with satellite data management that needed to be addressed.
Page 456 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
NOAA has asked Congress for budget increases in several satellite data management areas. However, Congress has not provided the modest increases, which has hampered attempts to deal with current problems.
NPOESS is critical to the National Weather Service and the Department of Defense for weather prediction. This new satellite system will save the government money by having two satellites in orbit rather than the current four.
NOAA is working hard to ensure that satellite data from NPOESS can be used starting on the first day of operation.
Ms. Koontz stated that her written testimony discusses the current NOAA polar satellite system, plans for the new system, and the key challenges that are faced by the four satellite data processing centers in managing the vast amounts of data that are going to be generated by the new system.
The new polar satellite system will produce about ten times the data as the current system. The data processing centers must increase computing power, upgrade communication systems, and increase data storage capacity.
The data centers cannot plan too far in the future because of the unforeseeable likely rapid changes in technology.
The data centers had different opinions of what was specifically needed to plan for NPOESS. They had not yet examined how each center uses the data, or identified opportunities to leverage the expertise of the various centers.
Page 457 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
More should be done to better coordinate the activities of the centers to prepare for the NPOESS.
Dr. Abbott discussed the importance of satellite data to climate change research, and that it was critical for the NPOESS data to be managed in a way that fulfilled the needs of researchers.
NPOESS will have more capable instruments and stable Earth orbits, which will provide a significant opportunity to advance climate research. However, data products that are useful for weather prediction (operational needs), generally do not meet the needs of climate researchers.
NOAA must appreciate and understand the differences and be willing to work with the research community to ensure the maximum use of NPOESS for climate research.
NOAA must provide new services and functions that go beyond its current capabilities. And it must develop these new capabilities against the backdrop of significant increases in data volume.
Interactions between NOAA and the climate research community up to this point have indicated that NOAA does not recognize the scope of the problem aside from the technical issues of storage, network bandwith, and computational requirements.
4.3(r)—H.R. 5395, Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, and H.R. 5396, National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2002. (Joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science; and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, Committee on Resources.)
Page 458 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
November 14, 2002
Hearing Volume No. 107–81
Background
The purpose of the joint hearing was to receive testimony on H.R. 5395, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, introduced by Representative Vernon Ehlers, and H.R. 5396, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2002, introduced by Representative Wayne Gilchrest.
Witnesses included: Panel 1: (1) Mr. Steve Williams, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (2) Mr. Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force; (3) Captain Michael W. Brown, Chief Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, U.S. Coast Guard; and (4) Dr. Gregory M. Ruiz, Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Panel 2 witnesses included: (1) Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, Policy Director for Wildlife Management, National Wildlife Federation; (2) Ms. Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst, Northeast-Midwest Institute; (3) Dr. Roger Mann, Professor, Virginia Institute for Marine Science; and (4) Dr. Phyllis Windle, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Summary of Hearing
Mr. Williams began by stating that the introduction of invasive species has had a significant impact on our environment and that the Department of Interior supported the overall direction of the two bills.
Page 459 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Mr. Williams had some general comments about both pieces of legislation. He pointed out that the Fish and Wildlife Service was concerned over some of the proposed deadlines in H.R. 5396 and also wanted to work with the Congressional staff on what he sees as regulatory gaps between the Lacey Act and some of the provisions of the proposed legislation. Mr. Williams reported that the Department of Interior was encouraged to see some emphasis on aquatic pathways other than ballast water contamination. He added that education and outreach continue to be critical elements in invasive species control efforts. He also testified in support of the research provisions of H.R. 5395, noting that efforts to deal with invasive species must be informed by research.
Mr. Keeney believes the two bills address gaps in the existing programs. He added that there is a need to develop an early detection and response mechanism and a need to systematically assess eradication technologies. Mr. Keeney was pleased that the bills did include education and research elements.
Mr. Keeney stated that some provisions of the bills, like those relating to ballast water technology development, are duplicative and overlap each other. He also agreed with Mr. Williams' testimony that the chronology for some of the activities in the legislation are inconsistent and that the 36 deadlines identified may prove problematic in their current form.
Finally, Mr. Keeney identified some of NOAA's concerns with the ballast water management and treatment requirements. He stated that voluntary guidelines with regional standards are burdensome to the shipping industry without a nationwide, mandatory standard.
Page 460 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Captain Brown began his testimony by supporting the reauthorization and amendment of the existing invasive species legislation, but expressed concerns similar to those of the Department of Interior and NOAA, specifically with regard to guidelines. He stated that the Coast Guard, with lead responsibility for protecting the marine environment, supports establishing a mandatory ballast water management regime.
Captain Brown added that the Coast Guard is currently working on trying to set up a scientifically supportable set of standards for ballast water discharge and wants to facilitate development of the testing and evaluation of experimental treatment programs. However, during the question and answer period he could not give a definitive time line of when the Coast Guard would actually implement the standards. He also noted that each of these efforts is being undertaken while working to have consistency with an international regulatory approach.
Dr. Ruiz began his testimony by outlining the difficulty in developing management strategies without more complete information about invasion ecology. He stated that there are gaps in the scientific data on dose-response relationships and that the gaps limit the predictive capability for both intentional and unintentional introductions. Dr. Ruiz emphasized the need for research to measure changes in species transfer and invasion patterns to understand and predict the most serious threats for invasive introductions, both intentional and unintentional.
Dr. Ruiz advocates two measures for addressing these problems. He sees the need for the development of an early detection system that would include a list of 'target' species that have the potential for causing the most harm. What he believes would be more important, however, would be establishing a framework, consistent among geographical regions, which evaluates and approves intentional introductions.
Page 461 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Dr. Chavarria expressed National Wildlife Federation's support for the legislation and cited the organization's recent position statement on non-native species, which called for additional Federal and State legislation requiring the treatment of ballast water in ships entering the Great Lakes. She indicated that the proposed legislation will close some loopholes the NWF has identified in the existing regulations.
Dr. Chavarria continues to advocate prevention as the most environmentally sound and cost-effective management approach and sees rapid response contingency strategies, contained in the legislation, to be key in this effort. Dr. Chavarria's concerns with this legislation are that the Congress appropriate adequate funds and that programs to control non-native species be implemented in such a manner so that they are not harmful to natural ecosystems.
Ms. Cangelosi believes the most important part of the introduced legislation is the regulation of pathways through ballast water regulation. She thinks that an interim mandatory standard is important for establishing an effective final standard. Ms. Cangelosi addressed two concerns over using a 95 percent inactivation or removal of different species. The first concern is that 95 percent is not an effective measure, but she argued that this is more effective than the current ballast water exchange program and therefore suitable for an interim measure. Her second defense of the interim standard addressed the concern that a percent efficiency would be harder to enforce than a standard concentration or size cut-off. Ms. Cangelosi indicated that those concerns are valid and could be addressed during the interim period while still requiring a more enforceable size-based standard for purposes of regulation rather than statute.
Page 462 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Ms. Cangelosi pointed out that the use of interim and final standards with enforceable deadlines is similar to the methods used to implement air and water pollution control standards. She indicated the strength of this regulation is the establishment of a final standard based on best available technology based on periodic review that is economically achievable.
Dr. Mann testified about his experience as a federally-funded researcher and commented on the proposed modifications to ballast water management. He believes that the ultimate approach to ballast water final standards is not to establish percentage reductions, but to focus on developing technologies in the private sector that would be effective at eliminating invasive species from the ballast water. Dr. Mann also provided two suggestions for the proposed legislation: size ranges should be included for definitions of phytoplankton and algae and interim standards should be considered in reduction of absolute numbers of organisms within given size ranges.
Dr. Windle testified that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is encouraged to see this legislation for coordinating Federal and State responses to invasive species and supports the legislation's expanded authority. Dr. Windle indicated that Interagency National Management Plan and other efforts by federal agencies are important, but that this legislation adds the necessary authority for enforcement that the concerned agencies need. She also cited GAO documentation and Union observations that certain federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard, have not responded to concerns in a timely manner.
Dr. Windle provided some additional thoughts on how the legislation could be enhanced. The UCS believes that eventually all introduced species will need to be screened and support this trend, believing that few exceptions should be made. Dr. Windle also supports replacing ballast water exchange with ballast water treatment as quickly as possible. Finally, the Union supports ongoing independent peer review analysis of government-funded research protocols and contracts.
Page 463 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 6 Of 9
Next Hearing Segment(7)