U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–574PS 2005

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BUDGET

AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 9, 2005

Serial No. 109–7

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

DAVID FINGER Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members

JAMES HAGUE Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 9, 2005

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Statement by Representative Darlene Hooley, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 19

Witnesses:

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22

Biography .......................................................................................................... 28

Dr. Mark S. Wrighton, Chairman of the Committee on Audit and Oversight,

National Science Board; Chancellor, Washington University, St. Louis

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30

Biography .......................................................................................................... 35

Dr. Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37

Biography .......................................................................................................... 43

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 43

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation ...................... 58

Dr. Mark S. Wrighton, Chairman of the Committee on Audit and Oversight,

National Science Board; Chancellor, Washington University, St. Louis ......... 69

Dr. Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation .......... 71

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Dr. Arden Bement from Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, dated April

13, 2005 ................................................................................................................. 74

Letter of Response to Chairman Sherwood Boehlert from Dr. Arden Bement,

dated May 23, 2005 .............................................................................................. 76

Page

IV

National Science Board Members 2005 ................................................................. 81

(1)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BUDGET

AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Inglis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

National Science Foundation Budget

and Management Challenges

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, March 9, 2005, the Research Subcommittee of the Committee on

Science of the House of Representatives will hold a hearing to examine the fiscal

year 2006 (FY06) budget request for the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well

as longer-term budget and management challenges facing the Foundation.

2. Witnesses

Dr. Arden L. Bement is the Director of NSF. Prior to his appointment as NSF

Director, Dr. Bement was Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and before that he was Professor and Head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University.

Dr. Mark S. Wrighton is Chairman of the Audit and Oversight Committee of the

National Science Board and the Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis,

where he also serves as Professor of chemistry.

Dr. Christine C. Boesz is Inspector General of the NSF. Prior to joining NSF, she

served as Head of Regulatory Accountability at Aetna U.S. Healthcare, and before

that she held several government compliance and oversight positions within the Department of Health and Human Services.

3. Overarching Questions

• In developing the request, how were priorities determined across and within

various agency budget accounts, programs, objectives, and priorities? If NSF

were to receive additional funding in FY06 beyond the President’s request,

where should it be directed?

• What are the most important short-term and long-term budget and management challenges facing NSF, and how should they be addressed?

• What can NSF do to ensure that limited research and management resources

are allocated most effectively?

4. Brief Overview

• NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic research

conducted at U.S. colleges and universities. In addition, NSF is the principal

federal agency charged with supporting K–12 and undergraduate science,

math, and engineering education, and NSF fellowships and research

assistantship programs support many graduate and post-doctoral students.

• NSF funds basic research across nearly all disciplines of science and engineering. In many disciplines, such as mathematics, computer science, and the social sciences, NSF is the primary source of federal support for university researchers. Further, NSF supports research in emerging fields, such as computing and information technology since the 1960’s, and nanotechnology

today.

• The FY06 budget request for NSF is $5.61 billion, an increase of 2.4 percent,

or $132 million over the FY05 level. However, because NSF received a 3.1

percent ($180 million) cut in FY05, the overall request level for FY06 is approximately one percent below the FY04 level. In addition, the increase includes a proposed transfer of $48 million from the U.S. Coast guard for ice

4

1 NSF-funded major research facilities are constructed and operated by outside consortia.

2PART is described by the budget as a tool ‘‘developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal Government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed

at making the program more effective.’’

breaking expenses in support of Antarctic research, so the increase for NSF

in reality is about 1.5 percent. These flat budgets have forced NSF to make

difficult decisions on priorities among its many programs and placed increasing pressure on the agency to ensure that programmatic and management resources are allocated as efficiently as possible.

• The FY06 budget request recommends major cuts to the Education and

Human Resources (EHR) account. The request of $737 million for EHR is

$104 million, or 12 percent, below the FY05 level and $207 million, or 22 percent, below the FY04 level. The cuts are concentrated largely on elementary

and secondary education programs, and, to a lesser extent, undergraduate

programs. NSF has indicated that the reductions are part of a conscious policy to significantly pare its role in program implementation, allowing work in

this area to migrate to the Department of Education.

5. Background

About the National Science Foundation

NSF was created by Congress in 1950 ‘‘to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense.. . .’’ Roughly 200,000 people—including senior researchers, postdoctoral associates, graduate and undergraduate students, and K–12 teachers and students—are

involved in NSF activities each year. NSF funds approximately 10,000 awards annually through a highly respected competitive, merit-review process. In addition to providing grants to support research projects, NSF also funds the construction and operations for major research facilities1 (such as telescopes and ocean research vessels), supports all levels of science and engineering education, and funds programs

to increase the size and proficiency of the U.S. scientific and technological workforce.

Since its inception in 1950, NSF has supported 123 of America’s Nobel Prize winners, including about 50 percent of winners in Chemistry and Physics and about 60

percent of winners in Economics.

NSF is organized into directorates that support specific disciplines of science and

engineering research and education: Biological Sciences; Computer and Information

Science and Engineering; Geosciences; Engineering; Mathematics and Physical

Sciences; Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; and Education and Human Resources. In addition, a number of separate offices support various specific program

and management functions. (See Chart 1 for a diagram of NSF’s organizational

structure.)

By law, NSF leadership has two major components: a director, who oversees NSF

staff and management and is responsible for program administration, merit review,

planning, budget and day-to-day operations; and the 24-member National Science

Board that oversees and establishes policies for the Foundation. The Board members, who are Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed, are supported in part

by the work of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the NSF. The OIG recommends policies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in administering

NSF programs and operations. The OIG reports directly to the National Science

Board and to Congress.

NSF has continued to receive high marks from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for the quality of its management and the excellence of its programs.

For example, in the FY06 budget request, NSF was one of only seven agencies that

were awarded three green lights on the Executive Branch Management Scorecard.

In addition, eight NSF programs were examined using OMB’s Program Assessment

Rating Tool (PART),2 and all eight programs received ratings of ‘‘Effective’’ (the

highest rating). NSF was the only agency in the Federal Government to receive the

highest rating on every program that underwent a PART review.

The Merit Review Process

The merit review process is a critical element of NSF activities. No research is

performed at NSF by NSF employees; the Foundation’s role is to solicit, select, and

support the best projects proposed by the research and education communities. NSF

currently receives more than 40,000 proposals per year. NSF then uses a merit review process to determine which proposals receive funding. In this process, proposals are evaluated by a panel of independent reviewers consisting of scientists, enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

3 NSF selects the reviewers from among the national pool of experts in each field and their

evaluations are confidential. On average, about 50,000 experts give their time to serve on review

panels each year.

gineers and educators, who do not work at NSF or for the institution that employs

the proposing researchers.3 The reviewers assess the intellectual merit and quality

of the proposed activity, taking into consideration other factors such as the impact

of the work on enhancing scientific knowledge, providing educational opportunities

and societal benefits, and broadening participation by under-represented groups.

The reviewers’ recommendations are then passed on to NSF program officers for a

final decision on whether an award should be issued.

NSF Authorization

In 2002, Congress passed, and the President signed, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368). The Act authorized research and educations programs and appropriations for NSF from FY03 to FY07, and strengthened

management and oversight of the Foundation. The cornerstone funding recommendation in the Act placed the overall NSF budget on a five-year doubling

track, a goal that Congress and the President have fallen far short of (Table 1 includes the authorization levels set forth in P.L. 107–368).

6. Issues Facing NSF

In the current tight budget environment, NSF faces difficult challenges in determining priorities among its many programs that are deserving of increased funding.

For example, NSF must determine the right balance between:

— education and research activities;

— increasing grant size and duration and supporting more scientists;

— facilities construction and operations and research;

— K–12, undergraduate, and graduate education; and

— multi-investigator, interdisciplinary projects and single-investigator research

in core disciplines.

In addition to these difficult decisions regarding program priorities, budget constraints also force NSF to tackle difficult questions about allocating resources for

management tasks. Below are outlined several notable programmatic and management challenges facing NSF.

Decreasing Funding for Education Programs

The programs in the NSF EHR directorate are designed to support and improve

U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal).

Of the seven budget categories within the Education and Human Resources Directorate, four would receive major budget cuts in the FY06 request: Math and Science

Partnerships (down 24 percent), Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education

(down 23 percent), Undergraduate Education (down 12 percent), and Research,

Evaluation, and Communication (down 43 percent) (see Table 2). Most programs

within these accounts are planning reductions in the number of new awards in

2006, and two—Math and Science Partnerships and Research, Evaluation, and

Communication—will not make any new awards.

NSF has indicated that the reductions in elementary, secondary and undergraduate education are part of a conscious policy to significantly pare its role in program implementation, allowing these to migrate to the U.S. Department of Education. However, NSF’s education programs are unique in their capacity to develop

new and improved materials and assessments, create better teacher training techniques and move promising ideas from research to practice. An example of the different roles NSF and the Department of Education play can be seen in their Math

and Science Partnerships (MSP) programs. The Department of Education’s program

awards funds to states on a formula basis and focuses primarily on secondary-level

mathematics, while NSF’s program provides competitive, merit-reviewed grants to

universities and school districts to explore innovative ideas and improve math and

science proficiency for students of all grades. Some education policy experts have expressed concern that disinvesting in NSF K–12 education will deprive states, districts and schools of the tools and ideas they need to achieve the goals of proficiency

under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Decreasing Success Rates for Grant Proposals

The total funding for NSF has increased significantly (approximately 40 percent)

over the past six years, but the total number of proposals NSF receives has risen

6

4Fulfilling the Promise: A Report to Congress on the Budgetary and Programmatic Expansion

of the National Science Foundation (National Science Board, January 2004), page 6. 5The average NSF research award provides about $137,000 per year for three years.

6 A short ‘‘pre-proposal’’ is designed to allow NSF to quickly evaluate the general quality and

ideas within a potential proposal so that only people with a reasonably probability of success

have to go through the trouble of putting together a full proposal.

dramatically as well, from under 30,000 to over 44,000. This increase in proposals,

coupled with a recent concerted effort to increase the size and duration of NSF

grants, has led to a drop in ‘‘success rate’’—the percentage of proposals that receive

funding has declined from 33 percent in FY00 to an estimated 20 percent in FY05.

The National Science Board has estimated that each year NSF is unable to fund

1,500 to 2,000 research proposals (about $1.5 billion worth) that receive reviewer

ratings as good as those being funded.4

For FY06, NSF has set a goal of halting the decline in the success rate while

maintaining grant size and duration.5 Given this constraint, and the relatively flat

budget requested for FY06, NSF plans to try to reduce the number of proposals it

receives, in part by reducing the number of solicitations the agency issues, narrowing the areas covered in those solicitations, and requiring ‘‘pre-proposals’’ for

some programs.6

NSF’s efforts to reduce the number of proposals and increase the success rate are

motivated by three goals: to be able to fund more of the high quality proposals they

receive, to use researchers’ time more effectively (putting together proposals is very

time-consuming), and to reduce the administrative burden on NSF staff. However,

there is some concern that narrowing the pool of proposals has the potential to

lower the overall quality of the pool and hence the quality of the research NSF

funds. In addition, it is not clear whether this effort will conflict with NSF’s overall

goal of broadening participation in NSF programs.

Funding for Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction, Oversight, Operations, and Research

One of NSF’s core missions is to provide scientists and engineers with the tools

they need to perform research in a wide variety of fields. These tools range from

the desktop computers and tabletop laboratory equipment used by a single researcher to scanning electron microscopes, mass spectrometers, and small supercomputers shared by multiple departments on a university campus, to large national

(or international) facilities, such as radio telescopes and aircraft for environmental

and atmospheric sampling.

In the 1990’s, NSF created a special budget account for the largest facilities with

the greatest cost, complexity, and scientific impact. Known as Major Research

Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects, these proposals must go

through a special review and approval process—including merit review of the proposal quality, internal review by NSF scientific and financial staff, and final approval by the National Science Board—before they can be proposed to Congress for

funding. While Congress has historically had concerns about the transparency and

rigor of this process, it appears NSF has made significant progress recently in formalizing selection and oversight for MREFC projects (see below).

In the current budget situation, the key challenge will be determining how to appropriately balance the need to provide cutting-edge, large-scale research equipment

with the need to fund research. Due to the multi-year nature of MREFC construction projects, and their long lifetime of use (usually 10–30 years), each project start

is a serious commitment by NSF to provide construction, operations, maintenance,

and research funding for many years to come. While the FY06 budget request does

not propose any new MREFC starts, five MREFC projects are ongoing, five have

been completed in the past two years, and four more have been approved by the

National Science Board and are in the queue for future funding (Table 3). Setting

aside support for these projects is placing increasing budget pressure on core research activities, and NSF faces a difficult and growing challenge in balancing these

two needs.

Management and Oversight of the Construction and Operations of Large Research

Facilities

As noted above, Congress has historically had concerns about the transparency

and rigor of NSF’s processes for selecting and overseeing large research facilities.

For example, the relative priorities among projects—and the rationale supporting

those priorities—have not always been clear. Also, clear guidelines for development,

management, and oversight of large facilities, and responsibility within NSF for ensuring compliance with those guidelines—both key components of effective implementation—did not exist.

7

7 Currently, the support staff for the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects is only 1.5

full-time equivalents. 8The third ship is the Healy, a research vessel with ice-breaking capabilities that operates

mainly in the Arctic.

NSF is making progress in addressing these shortcomings, and four significant efforts to improve the situation are at various levels of implementation. First, NSF

is now required (per P.L. 107–368) to maintain a prioritized list of pending projects

that includes the criteria and rationale used in developing the rankings. Second, in

2003 NSF established the position of Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects

within the NSF Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management. Third is the development of a ‘‘Major Facilities Guide’’ to outline a process for NSF’s management

and oversight of proposal, construction, and operations of large facilities projects

and of a document describing the process for ‘‘Setting Priorities for Large Research

Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation.’’ Both of these documents have been drafted and are scheduled to be finalized by the NSF and the

National Science Board this summer. Fourth, NSF has hired a contractor to develop

an automated central cost-tracking system specifically to enable full cost accounting

for large facilities projects; the basic elements of this system are expected be in

place in September 2005, with the full system becoming operational in 2006.

These are all important steps that bear careful watching going forward. Of particular concern is how NSF will provide the Deputy Director for Large Facility

Projects with the resources and authorities needed to carry out his oversight responsibilities. Each large facility project has program management staff within the research directorate that spawned the project, but the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects is responsible for overseeing all of the projects. The completion of the

central cost-accounting system should certainly provide the Deputy’s office with a

valuable tool, but support staff will also be needed to help gather and maintain information on, and assess the scientific progress and financial performance of, large

facility projects.7 Finally, the role that the Deputy will play in certifying to the National Science Board projects’ readiness to begin construction and monitoring

projects’ progress is still to be finalized and implemented.

Workforce Planning

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified workforce planning as one

of the most serious management challenges facing NSF. The effectiveness of NSF’s

current workforce of 1,700 permanent staff, visiting personnel, and contract employees has been increasingly hampered by rapidly growing workloads and limited

space. For example, since 1999, the agency has seen a 40 percent increase in the

number of proposals received each year, including a 14 percent increase last year

alone. As a result, NSF estimates that program officers now spend 55 percent of

their time reviewing proposals, leaving less time for other duties such as award

oversight and program planning.

While the OIG reports that recent steps taken by NSF to lease additional office

space and add full-time employees has alleviated some of these pressures, a longerterm solution is still needed. NSF asserts that its comprehensive, multi-year project

reviewing internal business processes (known as the ‘‘Business Analysis’’), which is

scheduled for completion by the end of FY05, will provide a long-term plan for identifying and addressing workforce needs.

Ice-breaking Services for NSF Facilities at the South Pole

The NSF manages three year-round facilities in Antarctica, where research in

physics, astronomy, ocean science, climate science, marine and land ecosystems, and

other fields is performed. To access these facilities for resupply missions, NSF uses

two large ice breaking ships owned and operated by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

NSF reimburses the USCG for the incremental costs associated with this use. While

there are other needs for these ships (such as military preparedness, law enforcement, and USCG training), over the past three years, support of NSF science activities has accounted for roughly 90 percent of the ships’ time. Therefore, in the FY06

budget request, the Administration proposes shifting the base funding for the two

polar class ice breakers, as well as another ship,8 from the USCG to NSF.

Much of the information needed to evaluate the appropriateness of transferring

the responsibility and funding for the ice breakers from USCG to NSF remains elusive. In the short-term, the actual costs of operations and maintenance for these

ships has not been determined, and it is unclear if the transferred $48 million will

be sufficient. In the longer-term, Congress and the Administration must consider

how best to replace the current polar class ice-breaking ships, which are nearing

the end of their useful lives. It is not immediately clear which agencies should bear

8

9 NSF Office of the Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress (September 2004),

page 52.

the costs and be responsible for refurbishment or replacement of the existing ships.

NSF and USCG, along with the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are engaged in deliberations on these questions.

Post-Award Administration

For the third consecutive year, independent audits of NSF’s financial statements

have identified post-award monitoring of grantee institutions as a ‘‘reportable condition.’’ The OIG reports that effective post-award monitoring should ensure that:

‘‘awardees are complying with award terms and conditions and federal regulations;

adequate progress is being made toward achieving the objectives and milestones of

the program; and expenditures listed on NSF’s financial statements are accurate.’’ 9

In response, NSF has taken steps to address some of the post-award monitoring

issues identified through the independent audits, such as establishing a risk-based

program for identifying and tracking high-risk awardees. The Foundation has also

noted that the expensive nature of site visits associated with post-award monitoring,

coupled with limited administrative and personnel resources, have hindered its ability to address many of these issues. While noting that progress has occurred, and

recognizing budget limitations, the OIG has (1) emphasized that NSF’s measures

have been too narrowly focused on ‘‘high-risk awardees,’’ which constitute less than

0.1 percent of NSF’s award portfolio; and (2) recommended that NSF ‘‘apply more

cost-effective monitoring procedures such as desk reviews of reports from awardees

and computer-assisted screening to medium and low-risk awardees on a random

basis.’’

7. Witness Questions

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

Questions for Dr. Arden Bement

• In developing the request, how were priorities determined across budget accounts (research, education, facilities, and administration), within accounts

(i.e., K–12, undergraduate, and graduate education; research directorates and

divisions), and among related agency objectives and priorities (i.e., success

rate, grant size and duration; multi- and single-investigator research; facilities construction, operation, and research)? If NSF were to receive additional

funding in FY06 beyond the President’s request, where should it be directed?

• What are the most important short-term and long-term budget and management challenges facing NSF and how is the agency working to address them?

• The FY06 budget request includes a goal to halt this precipitous decline in

the success rate while maintaining recent gains NSF has made in expanding

the average size and duration of its grants. What strategies will NSF employ

to achieve this? How will NSF ensure that efforts to reduce the number of

proposals does not conflict with efforts to broaden participation in NSF programs? To what extent would a strategy of narrowing the pool of proposals

lower the overall quality of the pool and hence the quality of the research

NSF funds?

• As an increasing number of Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects transition out of the construction phase and into

operation, how will NSF balance the need to support core activities in its research accounts with the need to fully fund the operations and research costs

associated with new facilities?

• Within NSF’s Education and Human Resources (EHR) directorate, the Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication receives a proposed cut of

43 percent from the FY05 enacted level and will propose no new awards. Is

it NSF’s goal to provide funding for new awards in FY07 and beyond, or does

the fact that no new awards will be made in FY06 signal a planned phaseout of this division?

• What actions is NSF taking to address the management and performance

issues outlined in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) FY05 ‘‘Management

Challenges’’ letter, particularly those related to workforce planning, postaward administration, and large facilities projects?

9

Questions for Dr. Mark Wrighton

• If NSF were to receive additional funding in FY06 beyond the President’s request, where should it be directed?

• What are the most important short-term and long-term budget and management challenges facing NSF and how is the National Science Board (NSB)

working to address them? Please provide a summary of recent policy actions

that the Board has taken, and a summary of other current issues that are

under consideration.

• How is the NSB working with NSF to address the management and performance issues outlined in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) FY05 ‘‘Management Challenges’’ letter, particularly those related to workforce planning,

post-award administration, and large facilities projects?

Questions for Dr. Christine Boesz

• Please provide an overview of NSF Inspector General (IG) responsibilities and

activities, and a summary of recent IG actions and reports.

• What are the most important short-term and long-term budget and management challenges facing NSF, and what actions should NSF be taking to address those challenges? In particular, please discuss the issues related to

workforce planning, post-award administration, and large facilities planning.

10

11

12

13

14

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you for coming to this morning’s hearing on the National Science Foundation Budget and Management

Challenges, the first Research Subcommittee hearing of the 109th

Congress.

I want to extend a special welcome to my colleague, Ms. Hooley,

the Ranking Democrat on this committee. I am glad that the

Science Committee has a history of working in a bipartisan way.

It is a new thing for me, having been on Judiciary and Budget in

my previous time in Congress, so it is very refreshing to be here

at Science.

I spoke recently to a General Electric executive in the course of

a plant tour in Greenville, South Carolina. They have 2,600 employees and 1,000 of them are engineers in Greenville, South Carolina. We are very happy about that. And I asked him, ‘‘Could you

hire more?’’ He said, ‘‘We could take 300 right away. The core problem,’’ he said, ‘‘those are just not available.’’ I asked him, ‘‘Why

not?’’ He said, ‘‘It is the teachers.’’ He said, ‘‘You need inspiration

in order to teach people engineering and science.’’

Well, that is what we are here about today. And to celebrate the

work of NSF and to provide for its future.

He also told me that they are using the technology in their gas

turbines, technology that is unique in the whole world. GE depends

on their ability to innovate to be competitive. For most American

companies, innovation is their only edge. To continue to win in this

world of commerce, we must continue to create new and improved

technologies. If we want to lead the world in innovation, we must

train the Ph.D.s whose basic research fuels technological innovation for the decades to come.

Basic research is surely the lifeblood of innovation. It used to be

that our large companies did the basic research, companies like

Bell Labs, IBM, and Xerox. They were supplemented in their work

by the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, and

NSF. Now, market pressures and the need to return bottom-line

numbers by their shareholders have pushed the burden almost entirely to the Federal Government in basic research and increasingly

the NSF. Without NSF supporting basic research, our edge in

science will slip, and our innovation gap will grow.

That is why I am so concerned about the current NSF budget.

Although there is a slight increase for this year, it doesn’t make

up for last year’s cuts, and it is far below the promised level that

we had of doubling NSF’s budget over five years. In my previous

stint in Congress, as I mentioned, I was on the Budget Committee,

and I am quite concerned about our current budget deficit. I

learned during those years, though, that it takes two things to balance the budget, and amazingly, we did it between 1993 and 1998.

We went from a $300 billion deficit to a slight surplus. Now we are

in the $400 billion range, and we need to get to a slight surplus

again, we hope. But what I learned, though, is it takes two things.

It takes spending restraint, plus economic growth. Spending restraint alone is not enough. You have got to have economic growth.

So the key, I think, for us, is to figure out how to stop simple

spending and start thoughtful investing. And that is what we are

here to talk about today with NSF.

15

We have a need to train more scientists and engineers. We have

to continue the stream of exciting innovations that save lives and

improve our quality of life. Just as it would be shortsighted for a

company not to plan the next generation of products, it would be

irresponsible of us to neglect future research in basic science. It is

more important than ever, because it is the foundation of our innovation economy.

The NSF has been a key force for innovation, from the MRI to

bar code scanners to the creation of the Internet and the origins

of Google. The NSF has a track record of accountability and a focus

on excellence, and we have to seek continuous improvement. The

standard for us is higher because the work—the nature of the work

is harder for many of us to understand.

I will tell you that I wonder about the cuts in math and science

education and indications that some NSF activities may be migrating to the Department of Education. The NSF has a passion for excellence, while the Department of Education is arguably focused on

simple proficiency. Passion isn’t easily transferred. Are we investing enough in research? Are we simply spending on current needs?

If we continue down this path, will we be positioned in the global—

where will we be positioned in the global economy in 20 years? Will

the modifications to merit review ultimately reduce the quality of

submissions? Also, what are the appropriate costs for Coast Guard

icebreaking services, and are these activities best funded through

the NSF? These are challenging questions, and I am hopeful that

we can get some answers today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BOB INGLIS

I want to welcome everyone and thank you for coming to this morning’s hearing—

the first Research Subcommittee hearing of the 109th Congress. I want to extend

a special welcome to my esteemed colleague Congresswoman Hooley, who is the new

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. I am glad that the Science Committee works

in such a bipartisan way, and I look forward to working with Ms. Hooley.

I recently spoke to an executive for General Electric. When I asked him if he had

enough qualified engineers to fill his research jobs, he said ‘‘No.’’ He could hire 300

tomorrow if they were available. The core problem is teachers. There just aren’t

enough qualified and inspiring teachers to produce the scientists and engineers his

company needs.

He also told me about the technology that they are using in their gas turbines—

technology that is currently unique in the world. GE depends on their ability to innovate to be competitive. For most American companies, innovation is their only

edge. To continue to win in this world of commerce, we must continue to create new

and improved technologies. If we want to lead the world in innovation, we must

train the Ph.D.s whose basic research fuels technological innovation in decades to

come.

Basic research is the lifeblood of innovation. It used to be that our large companies did the basic research—companies like Bell Labs, IBM, and Xerox. They were

supplemented by the work of the DOE, DOD, and NSF. Now, market pressures and

shifting government priorities have pushed the burden almost entirely to the Federal Government, and, increasingly, NSF. Without NSF supporting basic research,

our edge in science will slip away and an innovation gap will grow.

That’s why I’m so concerned about the current NSF budget. Although there is a

slight increase this year, it doesn’t make up for last year’s cuts, and is still below

the FY04 level. It is also now far from the Congress’ promise to double the NSF

budget over five years. On my previous stint in Congress, I was on the Budget Committee and I was quite concerned about our budget deficit. I learned during those

years that getting it balanced requires spending restraint and economic growth.

We’ve got to stop spending and start investing. Investing in basic and applied

16

science research makes sense. If we invest wisely, we can find economic growth

through innovation.

We also have to train more scientists and engineers. We have to continue the

stream of exciting innovations that save lives and improve our quality of life. Just

as it would be short-sighted for a company to not plan the next generation of products, it would be irresponsible of us to neglect future research in basic science. It’s

more important than ever because it is the foundation of our innovation economy.

The NSF has been a key force for innovation, from the MRI to bar code scanners,

from the creation of the Internet to the origins of Google. The NSF has a track

record of accountability and a focus on excellence, and we have to seek continuous

improvement. The standard for us is higher because the nature of the work is harder for many to understand.

I wonder about the cuts in math and science education, and indications that some

NSF activities may be ‘‘migrating’’ to the Department of Education. The NSF has

a passion for excellence, while the Department of Education is arguably focused on

proficiency. Passion isn’t easily transferred. Are we investing enough in research?

Or are we simply spending on current needs? If we continue down this path, where

will we be positioned in the global economy in twenty years? Will the modifications

to merit review ultimately reduce the quality of submissions? Also, what are the appropriate costs for Coast Guard ice-breaking services, and are these activities best

funded through NSF? These are challenging questions, and I’m hopeful that we can

get some answers today.

Chairman INGLIS. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hooley, the

Ranking Minority Member on the Subcommittee, for an opening

statement.

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chair, thank you, and I am looking forward to

working with you. Welcome back to Congress.

I, too, served on the Budget Committee and know what you are

talking about. So I am looking forward to serving on this committee and working in a bipartisan way.

I want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you very much for taking your time to be here, and I look forward to working with you.

The thrust of this hearing is on the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Foundation, and more broadly, on policy issues that

affect the ability of the Foundation to carry out its historic role of

nurturing the research and education capabilities of the Nation in

all fields of science and engineering.

I must say at the onset that I am deeply concerned about the

overall level of the resources provided for our NSF in the President’s budget. The budget is clearly inadequate to meet the wideranging responsibilities of NSF. It was just a little over two years

ago that we said we wanted to double the budget over five years.

Congress asked the National Science Board to report back on how

the increased resources authorized by legislation would be used.

The Board subsequently responded and made the case that valuable as the budget doubling would be, it would still be inadequate

to allow NSF to satisfy all of the unmet needs in basic research

and education that would be required to sustain future U.S. leadership in science and technology. The Board set the desired target as

a four-fold increase in the budget over five years.

The budget request before us would leave an accumulative shortfall of $5.8 billion in meeting just the doubling goal, let alone

achieving the target suggested by the Science Board. I recognize

what our budget looks like, that we are in a deficit. And without

commenting on the priorities and events that led to our current fiscal situation, I believe it is time to answer the many calls for

strengthening federal support for research from such diverse

sources as former Presidential Science Advisor Alan Bromley, FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
17

eral Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Speaker of the

House Newt Gingerich, and the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security.

Increased funding for research is not a drain on the budget, but

rather it is a necessary investment to allow our country to succeed

in an increasingly competitive world. Withholding this investment,

even at a time of tight budgets, places us in real danger of losing

the competitive edge that we have enjoyed for so long. The President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology has called for

adjusting the federal R&D budget upward for the physical sciences

and engineering to bring them in collective parity with life sciences

over the four-year budget cycle.

I am disappointed that the current budget request for the main

agencies that support research in these fields, including NSF,

makes no forward progress toward achieving this goal. In addition

to the meager levels of the fiscal year 2006 NSF budget request,

I am also puzzled and concerned about the lack of priority it affords to science education activities. NSF K–12 education funding

level, under this request, would drop by over 50 percent relative to

fiscal year 2004. Not only is the Math and Science Partnership Program targeted for a close-out, but core programs are slashed that

support teacher professional development that develop improved

educational materials.

In the face of widespread concerns about the quality of science

and math in our schools, I am at a loss to imagine any reasonable

justification for these budget decisions. I would note that they seem

to be counter to the position that the National Science Board has

taken on K–12 programs, particularly on the value and importance

of the Math and Science Partnership Program. I believe NSF is

making a serious mistake in abandoning its long-time role in K–

12 science education. I suspect this is not a policy change that will

be viewed favorably by many Members of the Science Committee.

Adequate funding for basic research and education in science and

engineering is not a partisan issue. The benefits from this investment flow to our economy, to national security, and to the well

being of our citizens. We in Congress must take action that will

provide for a vigorous academic research enterprise for the Nation.

NSF is a key player in realizing this vision.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and

thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today,

and I look forward to our discussion.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DARLENE HOOLEY

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this

oversight hearing on the National Science Foundation. I want to congratulate you

as you begin your chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Research, and I look forward to working with you.

The thrust of this hearing is on the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Foundation, and more broadly, on policy issues that affect the ability of the Foundation

to carry out its historic role of nurturing the research and education capabilities of

the Nation in all fields of science and engineering.

I must say at the outset that I am deeply concerned about the overall level of resources proposed for NSF in the President’s budget. The budget is clearly inadequate to meet the wide ranging responsibilities of NSF. It was only a little over

two years ago that the Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation calling

for a five-year doubling of the NSF budget.

18

Congress asked the National Science Board to report back on how the increased

resources authorized by the legislation would be used by NSF. The Board subsequently responded, and made the case that, valuable as a budget doubling would

be, it would be inadequate to allow NSF to satisfy all of the unmet needs in basic

research and education that would be required to sustain future U.S. leadership in

science and technology. The Board set the desired target at a fourfold increase in

the budget over five years.

The budget request before us would leave a cumulative shortfall of $5.8 billion

in meeting the doubling goal—let alone achieving the target suggested by the

Science Board.

I recognize that we are facing a daunting budgetary outlook. Without commenting

on the priorities and events that led to the current fiscal situation, I believe it is

time to answer the many calls for strengthening federal support for research from

such diverse sources as former presidential science advisor Allen Bromley, Federal

Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich,

and the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security.

Increased funding for research is not a drain on the budget. But rather it is a

necessary investment to allow the Nation to succeed in an increasingly competitive

world.

Withholding this investment, even in a time of tight budgets, places us in real

danger of losing the competitive edge we have enjoyed for so long.

The President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology has called for adjusting the federal R&D budget upward for the physical sciences and engineering

to bring them collectively to parity with the life sciences over four budget cycles.

I am disappointed that the current budget requests for the main agencies that support research in these fields, including NSF, make no forward progress toward

achieving this goal.

In addition to the meager level of the FY 2006 NSF budget request, I am also

puzzled and concerned about the lack of priority it affords to science education activities. NSF’s K–12 education funding level under this request would drop by over

50 percent relative to fiscal year 2004.

Not only is the Math and Science Partnership program still targeted for close-out,

but core programs are slashed that support teacher professional development and

that develop improved educational materials.

In the face of widespread concerns about the quality of science and math education in our schools, I am at a loss to imagine any reasonable justification for these

budget decisions. I would note that they also seem to be counter to the position the

National Science Board has taken on K–12 programs, particularly on the value and

importance of the Math and Science Partnership program.

I believe NSF is making a serious mistake in abandoning its long-time role in K–

12 science education. I suspect this is not a policy change that will be viewed favorably by many Members of the Science Committee.

Adequate funding for basic research and education in science and engineering is

not a partisan issue. The benefits from this investment flow to our economy, to national security, and to the well being of our citizens. We in Congress must take action that will provide for a vigorous academic research enterprise for the Nation

and, thereby, will help fill the storehouse of basic knowledge that powers the future.

NSF is a key player in realizing this vision.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Hooley. Thank you for those

remarks.

And any additional opening statements will be welcomed by the

Committee and may be submitted by the Members for the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to thank our witnesses for agreeing

to appear before us today. The purpose of this hearing is to provide an opportunity

to discuss the National Science Foundation’s budget for FY 2006.

I am very excited about this hearing today because we will be discussing something that is very close to my heart, and that is National Science Foundation (NSF)

funding.

19

Three years ago, Congress sent the President a bill authorizing a doubling of

NSF’s program over five years. Despite signing that bill to glowing reviews, the

President has sent us four successive budgets that fall far short of reaching that

goal. This marks a fundamental breach of trust with our institutions of higher education and with our children, who depend on NSF to fund the best and brightest

to pursue the most promising scientific insights. The only thing more surprising is

the continued phase out of the K–12 Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) program

(down $20 million) and additional cuts to the K–12 activities in the education directorate. With funding levels down another 24 percent from last year, we are devastated our K–12 education programs.

With this budget, what messages are we sending to our children? The Nation

must take advantage of the human resource potential of all our people if we are

to succeed in the international economic competition of the 21st century. This will

require that reform efforts in science and math education be founded on educational

materials and practices that are derived from rigorous research and that seek to engage and cultivate the interest of all children.

For my entire Congressional career, I have worked to increase the participation

by minorities and women in science, mathematics and engineering programs and increased funding for institutions who actively recruit under-represented students for

these paths of study. It is time to take action to ensure the best possible education

for our children.

Hopefully, the witnesses today can discuss ways to protect the future of our children’s education. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member, I want to thank you for holding this

subcommittee hearing today.

I am pleased to have Dr. Mark Wrighton, Chancellor of Washington University,

which resides in my congressional district, testifying before us. ‘‘WashU’’ is a remarkable institution and I am blessed to represent many outstanding minds who

continually provide our nation with important scientific research.

Today’s discussion on the National Science Foundation (NSF) allows us to examine our research and development priorities. I am disheartened to find much of our

budget cuts are again in the area of education, specifically K–12 science education

programs. Many of us on this committee and in the larger U.S. House have noted

that our continuing global presence in science and technology is reliant upon a

strong student body, well-versed in science and math curricula. Furthermore, our

nation’s economic and security interests will be affected by the priorities we place

on invigorating our science and technology. I sincerely hope that we can recognize

the real value of science education when we make NSF’s budgetary decisions.

Dr. Wrighton, thank you for being here today. I look forward to hearing the testimony of all our witnesses. However, I want to apologize that I must leave the hearing early to attend a previously scheduled appointment.

Chairman INGLIS. At this point, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. Arden Bement is the Director of the National Science

Foundation and a former Director of NIST. Dr. Bement and I first

met at the R&D budget hearing two weeks ago, and I am encouraged by his vision for innovation and in keeping our economy

strong. Dr. Mark Wrighton is also with us, and I am going to defer

to my colleague, Mr. Carnahan, for an introduction.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to welcome hometown St. Louis here today in Dr. Mark Wrighton.

I am pleased to have you here before the Research Subcommittee. He is here in his capacity as Chairman of the Audit and

Oversight Committee of the National Science Board, but back

home, he is our Chancellor at the Washington University in St.

Louis and has been one of our fine local leaders. Not only do they

have a national reputation at Washington University, but he has

been really instrumental in developing a lot of our science and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

search technology and capability in the St. Louis region. So it is

great to have you here today.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan.

And our third witness is Dr. Christine Boesz, the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation and performs there this indispensable oversight work.

Thank you all for coming. We are looking forward to what you

have to say. We would ask, if you can, to limit your remarks to five

minutes, although we will be flexible with the time limits, as we

have already been this morning. Afterwards, Members of the Subcommittee will have five minutes each to ask their questions.

We will start with the testimony of Dr. Bement.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member

Hooley and Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with some context

for our fiscal year 2006 budget request. I welcome you to your new

positions on the Research Subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing the close and productive relationship that NSF has had

with the Congress over the past 55 years.

Let me get right to the questions in your invitation letter regarding the management challenges we face.

The first of them deals with priorities, how they are set both

within and across accounts, and among agency objectives. This is

an excellent starting point for gaining a perspective on NSF, because setting priorities is at the core of what we do every day.

The most important source of information for setting priorities

comes from the research communities themselves. In addition to

proposals, the broader research communities also provide continuous input in the form of advice from National Academy reports,

analyses by professional societies, and national and international

workshops and conferences.

Our directorate Advisory Committees and Committees of Visitors

provide top-to-bottom reviews of existing programs and help formalize research priorities within and across disciplines.

Ultimately, the priorities reflected in our budget request are refined through consultations with the Deputy Director, the Assistant

Directors, the National Science Board, and the Office of Science

and Technology Policy. Finally, they are negotiated with the Office

of Management and Budget in developing the President’s budget

request to Congress.

This year’s budget request highlights four broad priorities:

strengthening core disciplinary research, providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and world-class research facilities, broadening participation in the science and engineering workforce, and

sustaining organizational excellence in NSF management practices.

This last priority leads directly into the next question raised in

your invitation letter regarding our budget and management challenges.

Nearly three years ago, NSF initiated an independent business

analysis that has identified a number of important management

21

challenges in the areas of workforce requirements, information

technology, and business practices.

It may help to give you some examples of NSF’s workload.

In 1993, NSF had 1,205 full-time equivalent employees, and we

processed 29,000 proposals. In the intervening 12 years, our budget

has doubled, and the number of proposals we have processed grew

by more than 50 percent. But our FTEs have increased only by 5.7

percent. We have dealt with this increased workload by relying on

investments in technology. But the need for additional people becomes an overriding need at some point, and we have reached that

point.

Last year, more than 44,000 proposals submitted to NSF received approximately 250,000 reviews by outside experts. Yet, in

some programs the success rate is 10 percent or less. So one of our

management challenges we face is being clearer in our solicitations

so that researchers are not writing proposals that are unlikely to

get funded.

Large facilities are necessary to keep NSF at the frontier. Although our budget does not request any new starts for major research facilities, we will continue projects already underway.

While new starts receive a great deal of attention, very little is

paid to research facilities that are phased out at the end of their

useful life. Over the past five years, for example, we have phased

out four ocean research vessels, two aircraft, and two accelerators.

These decisions were based on the scientific value of these platforms, as well as their operation and maintenance costs. Indeed,

the operation and maintenance costs are a key factor in the decision-making process for approval of new research facilities.

When we set priorities, a number of programs in our Education

and Human Resources directorate were protected from reductions.

We are maintaining effective programs aimed at increasing the

participation of women and under-represented minorities in research fields. We are also maintaining programs to increase the

number of science and engineering baccalaureate degrees as well as

our prestigious fellowship support to the most talented U.S. graduate students.

After providing for high-priority areas, it is necessary to find offsets, and as you know, this is the most difficult part of priority setting. However, it is important that we focus not only on the numbers, but look at the broader policies as well.

For example, we are proposing a significant reduction in the Research, Evaluations, and Communication Division. This is not a

signal that we are no longer committed to evaluation. Rather, we

are committed to building evaluations into the projects we fund

rather than treating it as a separate activity. Already, we have

used this approach in major projects to great advantage, and we

expect to expand this design throughout EHR.

NSF faces many management challenges, including, but not certainly limited to, those identified by the Inspector General. We

have been steadily implementing the recommendations from the

business analysis and will continue to do so. NSF employees and

I take very seriously the need to earn and maintain the taxpayers’

trust and to preserve the agency’s reputation.

22

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this brief overview conveys to you

NSF’s commitment to advancing science and engineering in the national interest. I am very aware and appreciate the Committee’s

long-standing bipartisan support for NSF, and I would be happy to

respond to any questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Chairman Inglis, Ranking Member Hooley, and Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for this opportunity to discuss NSF’s FY 2006 budget Request. It is a

pleasure to appear before you today. For over fifty years, NSF has been charged

with being a strong steward of the scientific discovery and innovation that has been

crucial to increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national

security, and overall quality of life.

For many years, the United States economy has depended heavily on investments

in research and development—and with good reason. America’s sustained economic

prosperity is based on technological innovation made possible, in large part, by fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation and technology are the engines of the American economy, and advances in science and engineering provide

the fuel.

Investments in science and technology—both public and private—have driven economic growth and improved the quality of life in America for the last 200 years.

They have generated new knowledge and new industries, created new jobs, ensured

economic and national security, reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency,

provided better and safer transportation, improved medical care, and increased living standards for the American people.

Investments in research and development are among the highest-payback investments a nation can make. Over the past 50 years technological innovation has been

responsible for as much as half of the Nation’s growth in productivity.

Sustaining this innovation requires an understanding of the factors that contribute to it. The Council on Competitiveness, a consortium of industry, university,

and labor leaders, has developed quantitative measures of national competitiveness:

the number of R&D personnel in the available workforce; total R&D investment; the

percentage of R&D funded by private industry; the percentage of R&D performed

by the university sector; spending on higher education; the strength of intellectual

property protection, openness to international competition; and per capita gross domestic product. A similar set of indicators has been developed by the World Bank

Group, and voluminous data have been compiled by NSF. The important point underscored by these indicators is that, for America to remain a prosperous and secure

country, it must maintain its technological leadership in the world.

Perhaps the Council on Competitiveness’ 2004 National Innovation Initiative re- port captured it best by simply stating, ‘‘Innovation has always been the way people

solved the great challenges facing society.’’

Often the connection between an area of research, or even a particular scientific

discovery, and an innovation may be far from obvious. Fundamental research in

physics, mathematics and high-flux magnets supported by NSF led to the development of today’s Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology. Today, MRIs are

used widely to detect cancer and internal tissue damage. Fundamental research on

extremophiles, or microorganisms living in extreme environments, led to the polymerase chain reaction, a procedure essential to modern biotechnology, as well as one

that allows us to use DNA for forensic evidence. Continuing progress in basic

science and engineering research promises more discoveries as well as further improvements in living standards and economic performance.

And still, science and engineering is becoming an ever-larger portion of our nation’s productivity. In the early 1950s, Jacob Bronowski wrote, ‘‘The world today is

powered by science.’’ I would take this premise one step farther, ‘‘No science; no economic growth.’’ Our current level of scientific and technological productivity is what

keeps us ahead of our global competitors as the playing field continues to become

more level.

NSF has helped advance America’s basic science and engineering enterprise for

over fifty years. Despite its small size, NSF has an extraordinary impact on scientific and engineering knowledge and capacity. While NSF represents only four

percent of the total federal budget for research and development, it accounts for fifty

percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions. In fact, NSF is

the only federal agency that supports all fields of science and engineering research

and the educational programs that sustain them across generations. NSF’s proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

grams reach over 2,000 institutions across the Nation, and they involve roughly

200,000 researchers, teachers, and students.

NSF specifically targets its investments in fundamental research at the frontiers

of science and engineering. Here, advances push the boundaries of innovation,

progress and productivity.

Compared to other commodities, knowledge generated from basic science investments is unique, long lasting and self-leveraging. Knowledge can be shared, stored

and distributed easily, and it does not diminish by use. Incremental advances in

knowledge are synergistic over time. NSF is proud to have built the foundation for

this knowledge base through decades of peer-reviewed, merit-based research.

Management Perspectives on the FY 2006 Budget Request

Before I get into the details of our FY 2006 request, let me first address the questions you have raised in your invitation letter so that you can see how we plan to

meet the challenges we face. The first item deals with priorities—how they are set

both across and within accounts and among agency objectives. This is an excellent

starting point for gaining a perspective on NSF, because setting priorities is at the

core of what we do every day.

The most important source of information for setting priorities comes from the research communities themselves. The research proposals that we receive help identify the leading edge of research and areas ripe for greater investment. The broader

research communities also provide continuous input in the form of advice and analyses from myriad National Academy reports, analyses by professional societies, and

national and international workshops and conferences. Our Committees of Visitors

provide top-to-bottom reviews of existing programs and help formalize research priorities within and across disciplines. Ultimately the priorities reflected in our budget request are refined through consultations with the Deputy Director, the Assistant

Directors, the National Science Board, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Finally, they are negotiated with the Office of Management and Budget in developing the President’s budget request to Congress.

This year’s budget request has four priority areas:

• Strengthening core disciplinary research;

• Providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and world-class research facilities;

• Broadening participation in the science and engineering workforce; and

• Sustaining organizational excellence in NSF management practices.

This last priority leads directly into the next question raised in your invitation

letter regarding our short and long-term budget and management challenges. Nearly three years ago NSF initiated an independent business analysis that has identified a number of important management challenges in the areas of workforce requirements, information technology, and business practices.

It may help to give you some examples of NSF’s workload. In 1993 NSF had 1,205

full-time equivalent (FTE) employees and we processed 29,000 proposals. In the intervening 12 years, our budget has doubled and the number of proposals we process

grew by more than 50 percent. But our FTEs have increased by only 5.7 percent.

To put it another way, 15,000 more proposals were being managed with 69 additional people. We have managed this increased workload by relying on investments

in technology and other efficiency gains, but the need for additional people becomes

an overriding need at some point, and we have reached that point.

Last year the more than 44,000 proposals submitted to NSF received approximately 250,000 reviews by outside experts. Yet in some programs the success rate

is 10 percent or less. So one of the management challenges we face is better calibration of our solicitations so that the research community spends less time writing

proposals that are not likely to get funded. We expect this to result in fewer noncompetitive proposals and a more productive use of resources.

Another challenge we face is maintaining a healthy and vibrant science and engineering workforce. To do so means encouraging students from all backgrounds to

enter into science and engineering careers. We are protecting effective programs at

NSF aimed at increasing the participation of women and under-represented minorities in research fields, as well as programs to increase the number of science, engineering and technology baccalaureate degrees, and our prestigious fellowship support for the most talented U.S. graduate students.

An area that has received a great deal of attention in recent years is our support

of large research facilities. Our budget does not request any new starts for major

research facilities, but we will continue construction and operation of projects underway. While new starts receive a great deal of attention, very little is paid to reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

search facilities that are phased out at the end of their useful life. Over the past

five years, for example, we have phased out or de-commissioned four ocean research

vessels, two aircraft, and two accelerators. These decisions were based on the scientific value of these platforms as well as their operation and maintenance costs.

Indeed, the operation and maintenance costs are a key factor in the decision-making

process for approving new research facilities.

One of the most conspicuous aspects of our budget request is the change in funding for the Education and Human Resources Directorate. As I mentioned earlier,

when we set priorities, we protected a number of programs in EHR from significant

reductions. After providing for high-priority areas, it is necessary to find offsets. As

you know, this is the part of the priority setting that is most difficult. However, it

is important that we focus not only on the numbers, but look at the broader policies

as well.

For example, although we are proposing a significant reduction in the Research,

Evaluations and Communication division, this is not a signal that we are no longer

committed to evaluation. Rather, we are committed to building evaluations into the

projects we fund, rather than treating it as a separate activity. Already we have

used this approach in major projects to great advantage and we expect to expand

this design throughout EHR.

NSF faces management challenges from a number of directions including, but certainly not limited to, those identified by the Inspector General. Earlier I mentioned

our business analysis. We undertook this as a proactive measure to help identify

workforce issues, business practices, and information technology needs that we are,

and will be, confronting in the future. We have been steadily implementing recommendations as they come forth and will continue to do so. In the year that I have

been at NSF I have been extremely impressed by the professionalism and dedication

that I have encountered. NSF employees, and I, take very seriously the need to earn

and maintain the taxpayers’ trust and preserve the agency’s reputation. A complete

list of agency actions in response to the management challenges is included in NSF’s

FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, and would be pleased to include

a copy for the record.

FY 2006 Budget Request

Mr. Chairman, the Foundation’s FY 2006 budget Request reflects the Administration’s confidence in our continuing with this mission. In light of the tight fiscal climate, NSF fared relatively well. For the coming fiscal year, NSF requests $5.6 billion, an increase of $132 million, or 2.4 percent, over last year’s appropriated levels.

At a time when many agencies are looking at budget cuts, an increase in our

budget underscores the Administration’s support of NSF’s science and engineering

programs, and reflects the agency’s excellent management and program results.

With the wealth of benefits that investments in science and engineering bring to

the Nation, perhaps none is more powerful than the capability to respond quickly

and effectively to challenges of all kinds. NSF’s programs reach over 2,000 institutions across the Nation, and they involve researchers, teachers, and students in all

fields of science and engineering and at all levels of education. They also keep us

abreast of scientific advances throughout the world. This breadth of activity in and

of itself creates a vital national resource, as it provides the Nation with a constantly

invigorated base of knowledge, talent, and technology. For example, in areas ranging from terrorism threats to natural disasters, NSF’s ongoing support of research

in areas such as advanced information technologies, sensors, and earthquake engineering ensures a broad base of expertise and equipment that allows the science

and engineering community to respond quickly in times of need and in partnership

with scientists and engineers from other countries.

Four funding priorities centering this year’s request are designed to address current national challenges and strengthen NSF’s core research investments. They include: (1) Strengthening core disciplinary research; (2) Providing broadly accessible

cyberinfrastructure and world-class research facilities; (3) Broadening participation

in the science and engineering workforce; and (4) Sustaining organizational excellence in NSF management practices.

This year’s investments will strengthen the core disciplines that empower every

step of the process from discovery at the frontier to the development of products,

processes, and technologies that fuel the economy. At the same time, NSF’s investments will enable increasing connections and cross-fertilization among disciplines.

NSF’s focus on a clear set of priorities will help the Nation meet new challenges

and take advantage of promising opportunities, while at the same time spurring the

growth and prosperity needed to secure the Nation’s long-term fiscal balance. The

FY 2006 budget will emphasize investments that address established interagency

research priorities, meet critical needs identified by the science and engineering

25

community, and advance the fundamental knowledge that strengthens the Nation’s

base of innovation and progress. NSF will respond to these challenges by supporting

the best people, ideas, and tools in the science and engineering enterprise, and by

employing the best practices in organizational excellence.

Research and Related Activities Account

For FY 2006, total funding for NSF’s Research and Related Activities account increases by $113 million—nearly three percent—to $4.33 billion. This increase largely reflects NSF efforts to strengthen fundamental research in the core scientific disciplines as well as promote emerging areas of research. The FY 2006 portfolio balances research in established disciplines with research in emerging areas of opportunity and cross-disciplinary projects. The most fertile opportunities sometimes lie

in novel approaches or a collaborative mix of disciplines.

Maintaining a strong and robust core is critical during such a budget climate as

certain segments of the academic community rely heavily on NSF funding. In many

scientific disciplines, NSF is a major source of federal funding to academic institutions, including mathematics (77 percent), computer sciences (86 percent), the social

sciences (49 percent), the environmental sciences (50 percent), engineering (45 percent) and the physical sciences (39 percent).

Research, however, is only part of the NSF equation. Training the Nation’s next

generation of scientists and engineers is another key component of NSF’s mission,

and critical for maintaining economic prosperity and global competitiveness. Here,

we are finding ways to leverage our resources. For example, as we strengthen our

core disciplinary research programs, we will continue to encourage the types of partnerships between researchers and students that provide hands-on experience while

ensuring that future generations gain the skills, knowledge and insight that come

from working at the frontier of discovery.

Providing Broadly Accessible Cyberinfrastructure and World-Class Research Facilities

Twenty-first century researchers and the students who will bring new skills into

the workforce rely on cutting-edge tools. In FY 2006, NSF is placing a high priority

on investments in cyberinfrastructure and in unique, widely shared research equipment and facilities.

An infrastructure of power grids, telephone systems, roads, bridges and rail lines

buttressed this nation’s industrial economy and allowed it to prosper. However,

cyberinfrastructure—a networked system of distributed computer information and

communication technology—is the lynchpin of today’s knowledge-based economy. In

FY 2006, NSF cyberinfrastructure investments total $509 million, an increase of $36

million (7.6 percent) over the FY 2005 level.

Modeling, simulation, visualization, data storage and communication are rapidly

transforming all areas of research and education. NSF investments in

cyberinfrastructure support a wide mix of projects and encourage participation from

broad segments of the research community that rely on such technology as they

tackle increasingly complex scientific questions. Thanks to cyberinfrastructure and

information systems, today’s scientific tool kit includes distributed systems of hardware, software, databases and expertise that can be accessed in person or remotely.

In fact, programs such as Teragrid, a multi-year effort to create the world’s largest

distributed infrastructure for open scientific research, are specifically designed to

transcend geographic boundaries and accelerate virtual collaborations.

NSF is also increasing funding for the Major Research Equipment and Facilities

Construction by $76 million or 44 percent, in FY 2006 for a total of $250 million.

There are no new starts, but we will continue to fund ongoing projects. Work will

proceed on five major facilities that will serve a spectrum of the science and engineering community. These include world-class astronomy, physics, and geosciences

observatories identified as the highest priorities for advancing science and engineering.

• The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), in Chile, is a model of international collaboration. It will be the world’s largest, most sensitive radio telescope.

• The EarthScope facility is a multi-purpose array of instruments and observatories that will greatly expand the observational capabilities of the Earth

Sciences and permit us to advance our understanding of the structure, evolution and dynamics of the North American continent.

• Ice Cube, the world’s first high-energy neutrino observatory, will be located

under the ice at the South Pole.

26

• RSVP, the Rare Symmetry Violating Processes Project, will enable cutting

edge physics experiments to study fundamental properties of nature. Studies

will probe questions ranging from the origins of our physical world to the nature of dark matter.

• SODV, the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel, is a state-of-the-art ship that will

be a cornerstone of a new international scientific ocean-drilling program.

Ocean core sediment and rock collected by the vessel will help investigators

probe changes in the earth’s oceans and climate, and explore the planet’s geological history.

Additionally, In FY 2006, NSF will assume the responsibility, from the U.S. Coast

Guard, for funding the costs of ice-breakers that support scientific research in polar

regions; $48 million was transferred for those purposes.

Broadening Participation

To feed our knowledge-based economy, the Nation needs to capitalize on all of its

available talent to produce a workforce of skilled technologists, scientists and engineers. That means developing the largely untapped potential of those under-represented in the science and engineering workforce—minorities, women and persons

with disabilities. It also means supporting science education and training in all regions of the country—not just at large universities or in a handful of states.

To achieve these goals, the FY 2006 Request maintains a total investment of almost $400 million. Funding will be targeted to programs with a proven track record

of progress in these areas. Included in this is $8 million in additional support from

the research directorates that will supplement the Education and Human Resources

Account to help achieve our goal of broadening science and engineering participation. Working closely with the directorates offers a dual benefit of providing educational opportunities and hands-on research experience to prepare students for the

21st century workforce.

NSF will invest $396.5 million in a range of programs with proven track records.

Several highly successful programs for broadening participation—the Louis Stokes

Alliances for Minority Participation, the Alliances for Graduate Education and the

Professoriate, the Centers for Research Excellence in Science and Technology

(CREST), Robert Noyce Scholarship program, STEM Talent Expansion Program and

EPSCoR—just to name a few, are secured in this request. Each of these serve as

models for integrating educational and research resources to improve recruitment

and retention in science and engineering to all sectors of our diverse population.

Sustaining Organizational Excellence in NSF Management Practices

NSF directly supports over 210,000 scientists, educators and students and processes over 40,000 proposals a year. Balancing the needs of a growing, increasingly

complex portfolio with new requirements for e-business practices, security, accountability, and award oversight presents a challenge. NSF sets high standards for its

business practices and strives to create an agile, innovative organization through

state-of-the-art business conduct and continual review. In order to meet these management goals, NSF will be increasing funding for activities that advance organizational excellence by $46 million, to a total of $336 million. In addition to critically

needed upgrades to our information technology infrastructure, this increase will

allow for the recruitment of 25 full-time employees—23 for NSF and one each for

the National Science Board and the Office of the Inspector General—which will improve our ability to manage our increasingly complex portfolio.

Expanding our e-government systems and the implementing of our ongoing business analysis recommendations are high priorities for FY 2006.

Over the past two years, as part of the Administrations Program Assessment Rating Tool, NSF has worked with OMB to rate eight of our investment categories. All

of these areas have received the highest rating of Effective. As such, NSF programs

fall within the top 15 percent of 600 government programs evaluated to date.

Crosscutting Activities

Beyond our budget priorities lie dozens of programs and initiatives that cut across

NSF directorates and enrich the overall science and research enterprise. NSF sets

priorities based on a continual dialogue and exchange of ideas with the research

community, NSF management and staff and the National Science Board. Programs

are initiated based on several criteria: intellectual merit, broader impacts of the research, balance across disciplines and synergy with research in other agencies. The

Committee of Visitors process ensures a continuous evaluation of our merit review

process and feedback on how NSF programs are performing. In FY 2006, NSF will

emphasize four crosscutting areas.

27

Crosscutting areas of emerging opportunity: Over several years, NSF has funded

exceptionally promising interdisciplinary efforts aimed at advancing our knowledge,

addressing national needs, and probing the grand challenges of science. The FY

2006 request maintains or increases FY 2005 levels of funding for the following priority areas: $84 million for Biocomplexity in the Environment, $243 million for

Nanoscale Science and Engineering, $89 million for the Mathematical Sciences Priority Area and $39 million for Human and Social Dynamics.

International Collaborations: Science and engineering research are increasingly

global endeavors. International partnerships are critical to the United States in

maintaining a competitive edge, capitalizing on global opportunities, and addressing

global problems. The Office of International Science and Engineering’s recent move

to the director’s office, and the budget request reflects this important trend. The FY

2006 budget provides $35 million for NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering.

The recent Indian Ocean Tsunami disaster represents the finest in international

cooperation—and clearly demonstrates an international desire to develop scientific

methods for natural disaster prediction and ways to reduce losses when such catastrophic events do inevitably occur. A network of more than 128 sensors—which

NSF has a 20-year investment in—recorded shock waves from the recent earthquake as they traveled around the Earth. This network is the primary international

source of data for earthquake location and tsunami warning and its data forged the

critical core of the early knowledge of this event. Within days of the disaster NSF

research teams deployed to the region to gather critical data before it was lost to

nature and reconstruction. Their work will help scientists and engineers better understand the warning signs of natural disasters, the design of safer coastal structures, the development of early warning and response systems, and effective steps

for disaster recovery.

Interagency Initiatives: NSF will continue to play a lead role in interagency collaborations to address national needs and take advantage of economic growth opportunities. In FY 2006, NSF investments in the National Nanotechnology Initiative increase by $6 million over FY 2005 levels to total $344 million. NSF participation

in the Networking Information Technology Research and Development initiative will

increase to $803 million—$8 million over the FY 2005 level. The NSF contribution

to the Climate Change Science Program decreases slightly to $197 million.

Homeland Security Activities: The FY 2006 Request includes a $2 million increase

for government-wide efforts in homeland security research and development. This

$344 million investment will strengthen NSF’s commitment to cyber security by

supporting innovations to secure today’s computer and networking systems, embed

cyber security into future systems and preparing tomorrow’s workforce with stateof-the-art security skills.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, I’ve only touched upon the variety and richness of the NSF portfolio. NSF research and education efforts contribute greatly to the Nation’s innovation economy and help keep America at the forefront of science and engineering. At

the same time, NSF supported researchers produce leading edge discoveries that

serve society and spark the public’s curiosity and interest. Extraordinary discoveries

coming from dozens of NSF programs and initiatives are enriching the entire

science and engineering enterprise, and making education fun, exciting and achievement-oriented. In fact, just this month, two of the most widely-read and e-mailed

stories from the national press were the discoveries of NSF-supported researchers.

In one, scientists using new bio-bar-code technology created a detection method

for a protein implicated in Alzheimer’s disease. It’s the first test designed for use

in living patients and holds promise for diagnosing Alzheimer’s at an early stage.

In the second development, scientists generated an entirely new classification system for the brains of birds based on recent studies showing that birds are much

closer in cognitive ability to mammals than previously thought. The new scheme

will affect thousands of scientists, and help merge research efforts on both birds and

mammal. These two examples, fresh off the press, illustrate NSF’s motto ‘‘Where

Discoveries Begin.’’

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I hope that this brief overview

conveys to you the extent of NSF’s commitment to advancing science and technology

in the national interest. I am very appreciative of the Subcommittee’s long-standing

bipartisan support for NSF. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues

in continuing the close and productive relationship that NSF has had with Congress

over the past 55 years.

I would be happy to respond to any questions that you have.

28

BIOGRAPHY FOR ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since February 22, 2004.

He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where

he had been director since Dec. 7, 2001. Prior to his appointment as NIST director,

Bement served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering

and Head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held

appointments at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials

Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was Director of the Midwest

Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent Management

of the Electrical Power Grid.

Bement served as a member of the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to

1995. The board guides NSF activities and also serves as a policy advisory body to

the President and Congress. As NSF director, Bement will now serve as an ex officio

member of the NSB.

He also chaired the Commission for Engineering and Technical Studies and the

National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council; was a member

of the Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization

and Technology Advisory Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department

of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory.

Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice President of Technical Resources and of Science and Technology for TRW Inc. (1980–1992); Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (1979–1980); Director, Office of

Materials Science, DARPA (1976–1979); Professor of Nuclear Materials, MIT (1970–

1976); Manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965–1970); and Senior Research Associate, General Electric Co. (1954–1965).

He has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp. and was

a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp.

(a division of ALCOA).

Bement holds an Engineer of Metallurgy degree from the Colorado School of

Mines, a Master’s degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Idaho,

a doctorate degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, an

honorary doctorate degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an

honorary doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. He is

a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Bement.

Dr. Wrighton.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK S. WRIGHTON, CHAIRMAN, AUDIT

AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Dr. WRIGHTON. Chairman Inglis, Congresswoman Hooley, and

Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the chance to be here

this morning. I am Mark Wrighton, Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis. My testimony today is in my capacity, however, as a member of the National Science Board and chair of the

Audit and Oversight Committee.

As Chairman of the National Science Board, Dr. Warren Washington regrets that he is unable to be here to give this testimony.

However, he did ask me to say that on behalf of the entire Board

and the widespread and diverse research and education communities that we serve, that he thanks the House for its long-term

commitment to a broad portfolio of investments in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology research and education.

The Congress established the National Science Board in 1950

and gave it two key responsibilities: number one, to oversee the activities of and establish policies for the National Science Foundation; and number two, to serve as an independent national science

29

policy body to render advice to the President and to Congress on

policy issues related to science and engineering research and education.

During our recent Board retreat in February, Board members reaffirmed their strong commitment to fulfilling these responsibilities. Board members, including the NSF Director, also discussed

the important role of the Board in establishing a vision in setting

priorities for the Foundation. Approving the annual NSF budget is

one way for the Board to contribute to the setting of priorities.

I would like to provide some general comments regarding the

NSF fiscal year 2006 budget and then briefly update you on the

National Science Board activities over the last year and discuss

some of the priorities for the coming year. The written testimony

that has been provided provides more detail on the following

points.

First, on the 2006 budget, the Board has reviewed and approved

the NSF 2006 budget request that was submitted to the OMB in

September of 2004, and, broadly, we support the President’s budget

request.

Given the overall cut to non-defense domestic discretionary

spending, the Board appreciates that the President’s budget request recognizes the importance of returning NSF to positive

growth. We are also certain that the Members of this subcommittee

fully understand the unique and long-term value of NSF programs

to important national priorities; these being to ensure the future

economic health of our nation, maintain the United States’ pre-eminence in discovery and innovation, and provide valuable contributions to homeland security efforts.

The Board fully supports the fiscal year 2006 NSF budget focus

on the four funding priorities that Dr. Bement has indicated. These

address the current national challenges as well as making NSF’s

core portfolio of research investment stronger. We recognize that a

budget request of $5.6 billion, representing a 2.4 percent increase

over NSF’s fiscal year 2005 budget, is a significant investment in

NSF programs in these difficult times. However, we, and others,

have noted that this request remains below the level of the 2004

NSF operating budget.

Should additional funds beyond the Administration’s request be

made available to NSF in 2006, the National Science Board recommends the following: that we support a strong and growing role

for the NSF in the Nation’s investment in science and engineering

education. There is no greater—no more valuable investment than

in preparing young men and women to enter careers in science and

engineering. We should also address the backlog of Board-approved

and prioritized Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction projects, the so-called MREFC projects. Further, we should

provide support for addressing the financial burden the Foundation

will encounter related to the transfer of the icebreaker-ships from

the Coast Guard to the National Science Foundation, in terms of

financial responsibility.

Let me give you a brief overview of some of the NSB activities

during the past year.

We have developed and implemented a process for the annual

Board re-prioritization of all approved but not yet funded MREFC

30

projects. We have provisionally approved the report Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National

Science Foundation. We are also seeking comments from hundreds

of individuals and organizations that would be expected to use

these facilities. We expect Board approval and full implementation

of the revised process by the fall of 2005.

The Board examined our policies and positions relevant to the

NAPA report recommendations concerning the Board’s implementation of the Sunshine Act, the use of IPA and rotator-type employees, the appointment and reporting process of the NSF Inspector

General, and the role of the Board in oversight and in setting policies for the National Science Foundation.

There are a number of other important activities that the Board

engages in. We are currently examining issues raised by the fiscal

year 2004 financial statement audit and the NSF Office of Inspector General on NSF procedures for post-award administration of

grants and contracts. The Board feels strongly that the reportable

conditions surrounding post-award grant monitoring must be dealt

with by NSF management in a timely manner. It is my understanding that NSF management has developed a draft corrective

action plan and is currently discussing it with the Inspector General. I would expect that both the IG and the NSF management

will provide the Board’s Audit and Oversight Committee an update

at our meeting later this month.

While much can and will be done to address these issues in 2005,

the Board is also cognizant that to fully implement the auditor recommendations for corrective action—with which the Board concurs—that an appropriate level of future funding must be provided

to support the administrative effort within the Foundation.

We appreciate very much the budget extended to the National

Science Board, approximately $4 million. In the coming year, the

Board will expand its ongoing examinations of its role and responsibilities as it implements the new protocol for the process by

which MREFC proposals are developed, prioritized, and funded;

NSF policies for long-lived data collections, policies regarding the

identification, development, and funding of transformative research; and policies to ensure an adequate and diverse science and

engineering workforce for the future.

Let me thank this committee for its role in enhancing the investment that will bring great strength to America in the future. There

is no better investment that you can place than in science and engineering education and research.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wrighton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK S. WRIGHTON

Chairman Inglis, Congresswoman Hooley and Members of the Subcommittee, I

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. I am Mark Wrighton, Chancellor,

Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri. My testimony today is in my capacity

as Member of the National Science Board and Chairman of its Committee on Audit

and Oversight.

The Chairman of the National Science Board, Dr. Warren Washington, regrets

that he is unable to provide this testimony to you today. However, he did ask me

to say that—on behalf of the Board and the widespread and diverse research and

education communities that we all serve—he thanks the House for its long-term

31

commitment to a broad portfolio of investments in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology research and education.

The Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and gave it dual

responsibilities:

• oversee the activities of, and establish the policies for, the National Science

Foundation (the Foundation, NSF); and

• serve as an independent national science policy body to render advice to the

President and the Congress on policy issues related to science and engineering research and education.

During our recent Retreat, Board Members reaffirmed their strong commitment

to fulfilling these responsibilities. Board Members, including the NSF Director, also

discussed the important role of the Board in establishing a vision and setting priorities for the Foundation. Approving the annual NSF budget is one way for the Board

to set priorities.

I would like to provide some general comments regarding the NSF FY 2006 budget request, then update you on National Science Board activities over the last year

and some of our priorities for the coming year.

FY 2006 NSF BUDGET REQUEST

The National Science Board has reviewed and approved NSF’s FY 2006 budget

request that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in September 2004, and we generally support the President’s budget request before you

today. Given the overall cut to non-defense domestic discretionary spending, the

Board respects and appreciates that the President’s budget request recognizes the

importance of returning NSF to positive growth. We are cognizant of the current

federal fiscal constraints that our nation faces and that there are many worthy competing interests for a limited resource. However, we are also certain that the members of this House Authorization Subcommittee fully understand the unique and

long-term value of NSF programs in science and engineering research and education

to ensuring the future economic health of our nation, maintaining U.S. preeminence

in discovery and innovation, and providing valuable contributions to homeland security efforts.

The Board fully supports the FY 2006 NSF budget focus on the four funding priorities that address current national challenges as well as strengthening the core portfolio’s of NSF’s research investment. We also recognize that a budget request of

$5.605 billion, representing a 2.4 percent increase over NSF’s FY 2005 budget, is

a significant investment in NSF programs in a time of National fiscal austerity.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Board to note that this request remains below

the level of the 2004 NSF operating budget.

Should additional funds, beyond the Administration’s request, be made available

to NSF in FY 2006, the National Science Board would recommend support for a

strong and growing role for the NSF in the Nation’s investment in science and engineering (S&E) education, addressing the backlog of Board approved and prioritized

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects, and addressing the financial burden to the Foundation related to the transfer of financial

responsibility for ice-breaker ships from the Coast Guard to the NSF.

Adequate preparation of future participants in the U.S. workforce, at all levels of

education, will require increasing mathematics and science understanding and skills

if the U.S. is to sustain global preeminence in S&T. The Board has underscored its

concern about the poor performance of U.S. citizens in essential knowledge and skill

areas in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, in comparison with other high technology countries. It is impossible to conclude that

growth in our National capabilities can occur without continual enhancement of the

skills of our workforce. We have relied too heavily on attracting international students and professionals to meet our workforce needs, and, as a result, we need to

do a better job of preparing U.S. students for joining the S&E workforce. Other nations are competing with the U.S. for the best international students and most accomplished S&E professionals. We must recognize the critical challenge our Nation

now faces in sustaining a U.S. science and technology (S&T) workforce that will be

competitive over the long-term in an increasingly global and competitive S&T environment.

The Board fully supports the proposed FY 2006 funding for MREFC projects, and

appreciates the significant increase in funding for this budget category. Members of

the House Authorization Subcommittee are aware of the exciting opportunities at

the frontiers of knowledge that we are unable to pursue without the cutting edge

facilities that are funded under this account. While funding for ongoing MREFC

projects is the highest priority for the Board, the lack of any new project starts in

32

FY 2006 will increase the concern of the science community that the U.S. is losing

its ability to sustain cutting edge S&E research. Should additional funding for

MREFC projects be available, the Board recommends, in priority order, support for

Ocean Observatories and the Alaska Regional Research Vessel.

The third area for which the Board would recommend any additional NSF funding

be allocated is appropriate support for the costs that NSF will incur with the transfer of financial responsibility for ice-breaking activities previously supported by U.S.

Coast Guard. The Administration’s FY 2006 NSF budget request allocated $43 million. The Board is very concerned that the true costs to NSF for these new responsibilities will be greatly more that $43 million and will, therefore, drain resources

from NSF research and related activities. We understand that a new NSF-Coast

Guard Joint Working Group is discussing various options for dealing with this issue.

In addition, we understand that the National Academies Polar Research Board is

studying this issue and expects to provide an interim report in September 2005.

When these two groups have completed their discussions and assessments, we urge

Congress to factor their conclusions into any final budget decisions and provide adequate funding to fully support this new NSF responsibility.

Again, the NSB supports the integrated portfolio of investments in S&E research

and education represented in the NSF FY 2006 budget proposal. It thoughtfully

blends support for the core disciplines with encouragement for interdisciplinary initiatives, brings together people from diverse and complementary backgrounds, provides infrastructure for research and STEM education, and strengthens the NSF’s

management of the enterprise.

Further, in this time of National emergency, this budget for NSF continues to foster S&T that enhances our homeland security. NSF activities in this area include

Critical Infrastructure Protection, Research to Combat Bioterrorism, Cybercorps/

Scholarships for Service, Counterterrorism, and Physical/Information Technology

Security. Of course, by enabling future discovery and innovation, NSF supports our

nation’s long-term prosperity and economy security.

OVERVIEW OF NSB ACTIVITIES DURING THE LAST YEAR

During the last calendar year, even while going through a continuing evolution

in terms of its operation, the Board has accomplished a great deal in terms of our

mission to provide oversight and policy direction to the Foundation.

I would like to briefly highlight some of these accomplishments, but will not attempt to discuss them all here.

In terms of providing oversight for the Foundation, the Board has:

• reviewed and endorsed the Office of Inspector General Semi-annual Reports

to Congress, and approved NSF management responses;

• approved the NSF FY 2006 budget request for transmittal to OMB;

• reviewed the Foundation’s report on its merit review system;

• provided review and decisions on nine major awards or proposal funding requests;

• developed and implemented a Board process for re-prioritization of all Board

approved, but not yet funded, MREFC projects; and

• provisionally approved the report Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation (NSB/CPP–04–20).

The Board and Foundation are implementing the principles of the revised process

described in this provisionally approved document for the FY 2006 budget. At the

same time, the Board Office has implemented an extensive outreach effort to invite

comments from nearly 400 individuals and organizations that would be expected to

have particular interest in large facilities. We expect final revisions based on this

additional review and input, Board approval of all revised procedures and policies,

and full implementation of the revised process in the Fall, 2005.

With respect to providing policy direction to the Foundation, the Board has:

• approved a report on Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering

Faculty (NSB 04–41) that addresses the need to increase the diversity of this

component of the S&E workforce to more nearly reflect the diversity of the

student body it serves, and

• approved elimination of agency requirements for cost sharing, beginning this

year (2005), while retaining the one percent statutory cost-sharing requirement.

In terms of advice to the President and the Congress, the Board has:

33

• published and distributed widely Science and Engineering Indicators 2004,

the 16th volume of this statutory, biennial series and initiated the Science

and Engineering Indicators 2006 report;

• published a policy statement accompanying Indicators 2004, An Emerging

and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force (NSB 04–

07), which draws attention to the disturbing long-term trends in U.S. education and the globalization of S&T that, if ignored, may result in a loss of

U.S. leadership in innovation and high technology;

• approved the draft report on Long Lived Data Collections: Enabling Research

and Education in the 21st Century (NSB/CPP–04–21);

• reported to the Congress on Delegation of Authority in accordance with Section 14 of the NSF Act of 2002;

• responded to four specific IPA-related questions that NSB’s Executive Officer

received from the House Appropriations Subcommittee for VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies;

• published and disseminated Fulfilling the Promise: A Report to Congress on

the Budgetary and Programmatic Expansion of the National Science Foundation (NSB–03–151);

• provided testimony to congressional hearings;

• interacted with Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and OMB on

NSF and S&E issues;

• provided briefings and presentations to the Congress and other policy organizations concerning the Board’s reports and statements; and

• responded to specific questions and inquiries from Senators and Representatives.

In an effort to facilitate more openness of Board meetings in accord with the Sunshine Act, we expanded our practices for:

• providing public notice of all our meetings in press releases, the Federal Register, and the NSB website;

• treating teleconferences of committees as open meetings;

• providing much more information to the public in a more timely manner regarding meeting discussions and decisions; and

• encouraging public comment during the development of Board publications.

Also, this past year the Board:

• examined our policies and positions relevant to the recommendations of the

National Academy of Public Administration report concerning the Board’s implementation of the Sunshine Act, the use of Intergovernmental Personnel

Act (IPA) employees and other rotators at NSF, the oversight of the NSF Inspector General, and the role of the National Science Board in oversight and

setting policies for NSF;

• began implementing recommendations of the Office of Inspector General to

continue enhancing our procedures and policies related to compliance with

the Sunshine Act; and

• significantly increased and improved our direct outreach and communication

with OMB, OSTP, Congress, other federal agencies, various interest groups

and the outside S&E research and education community.

To that end, the Board Office is contracting to develop monitoring and evaluation

tools, to expand outreach, and measure the impacts of NSB statements, resolutions

and reports; and to redesign the NSB website for greater accessibility and utility

to the public.

• One thematic area of significant accomplishment was transformative or ‘‘high

risk’’ research where the Board organized a Workshop on Identifying, Reviewing, and Funding Transformative Research and established within the Committee on Programs and Plans a Task Force on Transformative Research.

• Another thematic area of accomplishment this year was long-lived data collections where the NSB established within the Committee on Programs and

Plans a Task Force on Long-Lived Data Collections; and prepared a draft report, Long-Lived Date Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the

21st Century (NSB/CPP–04–21).

• The year 2004 also saw the Board’s examination of NSF issues related to

broadening participation in S&E; as well as efforts toward obtaining industry

34

perspectives on workforce issues. The Board has also continued its recognition

of outstanding science, engineering and science education accomplishments

through the Vannevar Bush Award, Alan T. Waterman Award, and Public

Service Awards.

FY 2006 NSB BUDGET

The Administration’s FY 2006 Budget Request of $4.0 million for the NSB will

be adequate to support Board operations and activities during FY 2006. The request

seeks resources to carry out the Board’s statutory authority and to strengthen its

oversight responsibilities for the Foundation. We expect that the Foundation will

continue to provide accounting, logistical and other necessary resources in support

of the NSB and its missions, including expert senior S&E staff serving as a cadre

of executive secretaries to Board committees and task forces.

At the urging of Congress, in FY 2003 the Board began examining options for augmenting its professional staffing levels. At its May 2003 meeting, the Board decided

to begin a process to assess the feasibility of recruiting for positions that would

broaden its policy support, provide additional legal advice, and enhance the Board’s

capabilities in advanced information technology. The Board Office has continued to

implement the staff enhancement plan, adding four positions this fiscal year for support staff, including information technology staff, science assistants, national

awards assistant, and filling the vacancy for an editor/writer. The Board Office will

be recruiting two senior professionals to provide policy and legal support to the

Board this year. The Board is very pleased with the progress of the staff enhancement process.

The NSB Office staff provides the independent resources and capabilities for coordinating and implementing S&E policy analyses and development. It also provides

operational support essential for the Board to fulfill its mission. By statute, the

Board is authorized five professional positions and other clerical staff as necessary.

In consultation with the Congress, the Board has defined these professional positions as NSB senior S&E policy staff, and the clerical and technical positions as

NSB staff that support Board operations and related activities. The full impact of

increasing the number of professional positions closer to the statutory level is expected to occur in FY 2005, emphasizing a broadening of professional skills to support the Board.

In addition to the NSB Office’s essential and independent resources and capabilities, external advisory and other services are especially critical to support production of NSB reports, and supplement the NSB staff’s general research and administration services to the Board. These external services provide the Board and its Office with the flexibility to respond independently, accurately and quickly to requests

from Congress and the President, and to address issues raised by the Board itself.

In FY 2006, the Board will expand its ongoing examinations of its role and responsibilities regarding the NSF’s MREFC programs as it finalizes the development

and implementation of a new protocol for the process by which major research

equipment and facilities proposals are developed, prioritized, and funded; NSF policies for Long-lived Data Collections; NSF policies regarding the identification, development and funding of transformative ‘‘high risk’’ research; and policies to ensure

an adequate and diverse S&E workforce for the future. These special activities are,

of course, in addition to NSB’s normal oversight of the Foundation.

For example, through the Board’s Audit and Oversight Committee, which I chair,

we are currently examining issues raised by the FY 2004 Financial Statement Audit

and the NSF Office of Inspector General on NSF procedures for post-award administration of grants and contracts. The Board feels strongly that the reportable conditions surrounding post-award grant monitoring must be dealt with by NSF Management in a timely manner. NSF has assured the Board that corrective actions will

be taken. It is my understanding that NSF Management has developed a draft corrective action plan and is currently discussing it with the IG. NSF has been requested to provide updates to the Board on progress in addressing this issue. I

would expect that both the IG and NSF Management will provide the Board’s A&O

Committee with an update at our March meeting. While much can and will be done

to address these issue in FY 2005, the Board is also cognizant that to fully implement the auditor recommendations for corrective action, with which the Board concurs, appropriate level of future funding must be provided.

At the request of Congress, and consistent with Board discussions during our recent Retreat, the Board will undertake the development and establish a new vision

for the Foundation for the 21st Century. This visionary document will also include

overarching goals with both long- and short-term priorities that take into account

federal fiscal realities. We expect to work closely with the NSF Director and finalize

this effort by the end of 2005.

35

At the request of Congress, the Board will also conduct an examination of the

NSF Merit Review System and report our initial findings before the end of this fiscal year.

The Board will continue to review and approve NSF’s actions for creating major

NSF programs and funding large projects. Special attention will be paid to impacts

of budget constraints on the S&T workforce, broadening participation in higher education, national S&T infrastructure, and the size and duration of NSF grants.

Effective communications and interactions with our constituencies contribute to

the Board’s work of identifying priority S&T policy issues, and developing policy advice and recommendations to the President and Congress. To this end, the Board

will increase communication and outreach with the university, industry and the

broader S&E research and education community, Congress, Federal S&T agencies,

and the public. These activities will support U.S. global leadership in discovery and

innovation based on a continually expanding and evolving S&T enterprise in this

country, and will insure a principal role for NSF programs in providing a critical

foundation for S&E research and education.

With our eight new Board Members, new openness, and new modes of operations,

the Board has much to do in 2005. However the most daunting challenge we face

is making the tough choices and prioritizing NSF programs and projects in the face

of constrained federal budgets and a growing competition for those funds.

CLOSING REMARKS

This is a difficult time for federal budgets for S&E research and education and

the institutions and individuals in the nonprofit and public sectors that rely on federal support. For over 50 years the Federal Government has sustained a continual,

visionary investment in the U.S. research and education enterprise in the expectation that such investment would redound to the benefit of all Americans. That federal effort has expanded the horizon of scientific discovery and engineering achievements far and wide, leading to the realization of enormous benefits to our nation

and, indeed, all of humanity.

In recognition of the federal fiscal realities our nation faces, the National Science

Board pledges that we will be a force for causing the NSF to set priorities, to make

hard programmatic budget decisions and, as a result, to obtain the most benefits

from the funds provided. However, even in a time of budget constraints, as a nation

we cannot ignore our growing dependence as a society on innovation for economic

prosperity and the ever-improving quality of life Americans have come to expect.

The federal compact in research and education with the nonprofit sectors is an essential pillar of our nation’s global dominance in S&T.

We know what works—we have a very long history of success to draw on. We

know the expanding frontiers of knowledge offer enormous opportunities for research and innovation. We also know that the education of all our citizens in the

fundamentals of math, science and engineering must be addressed if the U.S. is to

remain eminent in S&T when we enter the 22nd century. As other nations ramp

up their investment in the infrastructure for S&E research and innovation, we cannot be complacent. The federal investment in the Nation’s S&T is a necessity for

the Nation’s future prosperity and security. The U.S. must sustain its advantages

through continued wise, adequate federal support for our S&E enterprise.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARK S. WRIGHTON

CHEMISTRY

B.S., Florida State University, 1969

Ph.D., California Institute of Technology, 1972

Mark Stephen Wrighton was born in Jacksonville, Florida, and attended the California Institute of Technology, where he was awarded the Ph.D. degree in Chemistry in 1972. Following graduation, he joined the chemistry faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), became a Full Professor in 1977, was named

the Frederick G. Keyes Professor of Chemistry in 1981, headed the Department of

Chemistry from 1987 to 1990, was named the Ciba-Geigy Professor of Chemistry in

1989, and served as provost of MIT from 1990 to 1995. He was elected the 14th

Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis in 1995 and also serves as professor of chemistry. Wrighton’s research interests include transition metal catalysis,

photochemistry, surface chemistry, molecular electronics, and photoprocesses at

electrodes. He has authored or co-authored more than 300 articles in professional

and scholarly journals, and he holds 14 patents.

36

Wrighton serves on the Board of Directors of the Consortium on Financing Higher

Education, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Cabot Corporation, Helix

Technology Corporation, Ionics, Inc., and A.G. Edwards, Inc. He is also a trustee of

the Missouri Botanical Garden and the St. Louis Science Center. Wrighton has

served on numerous editorial advisory boards, councils, committees, and study

groups for scientific organizations, including the National Science Foundation.

Among Wrighton’s many awards are the Herbert Newby McCoy Award in 1972

and the California Institute of Technology Distinguished Alumni Award in 1992.

The American Chemical Society honored him in 1981 with the Pure Chemistry

Award and in 1988 with the Award in Inorganic Chemistry. In 1983 he received the

E.O. Lawrence Award from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Gregory and

Freda Halpern Award in Photochemistry from the New York Academy of Sciences;

the same year, he was named a MacArthur Fellow. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement

of Science, and the American Philosophical Society. He is a member of the American

Chemical Society, Sigma Xi, and the Electrochemical Society. Wrighton was appointed to the National Science Board in 2000. He chairs the Board’s Audit and

Oversight Committee.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Wrighton.

Dr. Boesz.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTINE C. BOESZ, INSPECTOR

GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BOESZ. Good morning, Chairman Inglis, Congresswoman

Hooley, and distinguished Members of this subcommittee.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am

Christine Boesz, sometimes called Tina, and I am the Inspector

General of the National Science Foundation.

The National Science Foundation, or NSF, is an innovative agency dedicated to maintaining American leadership across the frontiers of scientific and engineering research and education. As the

scientific enterprise changes and research evolves, new challenges

inevitably arise.

Consequently, my office has worked closely with the National

Science Board and NSF management to identify and begin to address issues that are important to the success of NSF achieving its

goals.

As Inspector General, I enjoy a unique perspective. My office is

responsible for promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in

administering NSF’s programs; for detecting and preventing fraud,

waste, and abuse within NSF or by individuals that submit proposals to or receive funding from NSF; and for identifying and

helping to resolve cases of research misconduct. We also engage in

outreach activities in an effort to build partnerships within NSF,

with other federal agencies, with NSF awardees, and with the scientific, engineering, and educational communities.

In addition to individual audit and investigation reports, the two

primary methods for communicating with the Congress, the National Science Board, and NSF management are through our semiannual reports and annual management challenges letters.

Today, I want to highlight two of the most important short-term

and long-term management challenges facing NSF: the strategic

management of NSF resources and improved financial performance.

First, the strategic management of NSF administrative resources, especially human capital, is an ongoing and pressing issue.

In 2002, NSF launched a multi-year business analysis effort to adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

dress this challenge, yet NSF still struggles with the development

of a workforce plan.

While NSF’s workload has rapidly increased over the past few

years, the agency has not identified the amount of staffing and

other administrative resources needed to address this growing disparity. NSF’s critical staffing shortage is evident in NSF’s management and oversight of its large facility portfolio. It is also apparent

by the lack of resources that have been assigned to carry out many

of NSF’s general post-award monitoring responsibilities.

This brings me to the second challenge: improved financial performance through better post-award administration. For four consecutive years, auditors have found that NSF’s monitoring of grantee institutions has significant weaknesses. Specifically, NSF’s current program is not comprehensive enough for it to be effective in

identifying and resolving issues. An effective monitoring program

would ensure that awardees are complying with federal requirements, are making adequate progress towards achieving research

objectives, and are charging allowable costs.

Further, an audit by my office recently found that many research

reports, which are used to monitor progress, are submitted significantly late or not at all. While NSF has taken steps over the past

three years to improve its post-award administration, progress is

slow and much remains to be done.

I realize that resources are needed for NSF to fully address its

challenges. While new resources would be highly desirable, I believe that realignment of certain management priorities would ease

some of the current burden. Just as the scientific enterprise has

changed over the past few decades, NSF must address its changing

administrative challenges by reassessing how it conducts its business. In an environment of increased accountability and stewardship of limited federal funds, effective award administration is essential.

In closing, I want to point out that in my recent semi-annual report to the Congress for the 6-month period ending September 30,

my office reported on numerous audit and investigative activities,

resulting in over $30 million in questioned costs and $500,000 in

investigative recoveries. My written testimony highlights samples

of both audit and investigative matters.

I look forward to working with the National Science Foundation

management, the National Science Board, and you as together we

address the challenges facing the National Science Foundation, a

unique and innovative agency.

Again, thank you for your invitation to participate in this hearing, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may

have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Boesz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE C. BOESZ

Chairman Inglis, Ranking Member Hooley, and distinguished Members of the

Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. As you

know, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is an innovative agency dedicated to

maintaining American leadership in discovery and the development of new technologies across the frontiers of scientific and engineering research and education. As

the scientific enterprise changes and research evolves, new challenges arise. Consequently, my office has worked closely with the National Science Board and NSF

38

1Memorandum from Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, to

Warren Washington, Chairman, National Science Board, and Arden Bement, Acting Director,

National Science Foundation (Oct. 15, 2004) (on file with NSF OIG). 2Memorandum from Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, to

Warren Washington, Chairman, National Science Board, and Rita R. Colwell, Director, National

Science Foundation (Oct. 17, 2003) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/managementchallenges2004.pdf. 3OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT OF THE GEMINI PROJECT, Report No. 01–2–001 (Dec. 15, 2000); OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF FUNDING FOR MAJOR RESEARCH

EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, Report No. 02–2–007 (May 1, 2002) (both on file with NSF OIG).

management to identify and begin to address issues that are important to the success of NSF achieving its goals.

As Inspector General, I enjoy a unique perspective on NSF activities and the research and education enterprise in general. My office is responsible for promoting

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in administering NSF’s programs; detecting

and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse within NSF or by individuals that submit

proposals to or receive funding from NSF; and identifying and helping to resolve

cases of research misconduct. My office also engages in outreach activities in an effort to build partnerships within the agency, other federal agencies, NSF awardees,

and the scientific, engineering, and education communities. These partnerships assist us in resolving audit and investigation matters effectively and promoting education on research misconduct and award administration issues. In addition to reports on individual audits and investigations, the two primary methods for formally

communicating with the National Science Board, NSF management, and the Congress are through our Semiannual Reports and annual management challenges letters.

Management Challenges

This past October, my office conducted its annual assessment of the most serious

management and performance challenges facing NSF.1 My office compiled a list of

eleven management challenges based on our audit work, general knowledge of the

agency’s operations, and the evaluative reports of others, such as the Government

Accountability Office and NSF’s various advisory committees, contractors, and staff.

These challenges, which are essentially unchanged from our previous assessment,2

fall into five general categories: 1) strategic management of agency resources, 2) improved financial performance, 3) expanded electronic government, 4) budget and

performance integration, and 5) program-specific challenges.

I believe that the two most important challenges are related to the first two of

these general categories, which encompass both the short-term and long-term needs

of NSF. The strategic management of NSF resources is an ongoing and pressing

issue. NSF needs to devote more resources and attention to making business and

process improvements, while at the same time, planning for its future workforce

needs. Although advances in technology have enhanced the workforce’s productivity,

NSF’s rapidly increasing workload has forced the agency to become increasingly dependent on temporary staff (e.g., rotators and visiting scientists) and contractors to

handle the additional work. NSF’s efforts in the past to justify an increase in staff

have been impeded by the lack of a comprehensive workforce plan that identifies

workforce gaps and outlines specific actions for addressing them. Without such a

plan, NSF cannot determine whether it has the appropriate number of people or the

types of competencies necessary to accomplish its strategic goals. In 2002, NSF

launched a multi-year business analysis effort to address this challenge. To date,

NSF has made few decisions regarding implementation of a workforce plan. Without

such a plan, NSF is unable to assess the number and skill-level of rotators and

other personnel needed to carry out its work. Of particular concern is the need for

resources to oversee NSF’s large facility projects and carry out effective post-award

monitoring.

Throughout my five years as Inspector General of NSF, my office has increased

its audit attention on matters related to NSF’s management and oversight of its

large facility project portfolio, which includes projects ranging from tens of millions

to hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2000 and 2002, my office issued reports critical

of NSF’s management of large infrastructure projects and made recommendations

for addressing this important piece of NSF’s research portfolio.3 These recommendations urged NSF to establish formal guidance for the programmatic and financial

management of large facilities, including full-cost tracking. An important aspect of

NSF’s plan to address these recommendations is the establishment of a Large Facility Project (LFP) Office with responsibility for managing and overseeing large facility projects. We reviewed the progress this Office is making in issuing project manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

4OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, SURVEY OF LARGE FACIL- ITY PROJECTS MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT DIVISION, Report No. 05–6–002 (Dec. 29, 2004)

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/LFP¥Report.pdf 5KPMG Auditor’s Report, Fiscal Year 2004 National Science Foundation Financial Statement

Audit (Nov. 12, 2004) (page III–45 of NSF’s 2004 Accountability Report found at http://

www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf0501/new¥pdf/nsf0501.pdf); KPMG Auditor’s Report, Fiscal Year

2003 National Science Foundation Financial Statement Audit (Nov. 17, 2003) (page III–43 of

NSF’s 2003 Accountability Report found at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf0410/new¥pdf/

nsf0410final.pdf); KPMG Auditor’s Report, Fiscal Year 2002 National Science Foundation Financial Statement Audit (Jan. 29, 2003) (page III–39 of NSF’s 2002 Accountability Report found

at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03023/pdf/nsf03023final.pdf); KPMG Auditor’s Report,

Fiscal Year 2001 National Science Foundation Financial Statement Audit (Jan. 18, 2002) (page

71 of NSF’s 2001 Accountability Report found at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02097/

nsf02097.pdf). 6OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF PROJECT REPORTING FOR NSF AWARDS, Report No. 05–2–006 (Dec. 13, 2004) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/05-2-

006Final.pdf.

agement guidance and providing oversight of current projects.4 The Office’s progress

has been slow and constrained by workload and staffing issues. Currently the LFP

Office has 2.5 full-time-equivalent employees responsible for overseeing 13 projects,

each of which is estimated to receive an average of $100–$400 million in total Major

Research Equipment and Facilities Construction appropriation funding. While the

LFP Office may have some access to other NSF staff to support its activities, I believe that dedicated resources, specific to the Office’s oversight responsibilities, are

essential. In addition to resources, however, and perhaps more importantly, the LFP

Office needs organizational authority to independently oversee the management and

construction of these projects, and a high-level champion to ensure that authority.

I believe Dr. Arden Bement, as NSF Director, intends to be this champion. Further,

the Office needs a more structured management approach that includes a formal

mission statement, specific goals and measures, and a realistic staffing plan.

Finally, over the past five years, we have focused increasing audit efforts on addressing NSF’s challenge to effectively administer and oversee all of its approximately 30,000 active grants and cooperative agreements once they have been awarded. Since 2002, four consecutive independent audits of NSF’s financial statements

have cited weaknesses in the agency’s post-award monitoring of grantee institutions

as a significant deficiency.5 Specifically, the auditors found that (1) NSF’s current

risk model for focusing its monitoring efforts does not adequately capture all highrisk awardees; (2) NSF’s award-monitoring program does not address procedures for

both baseline and advanced monitoring depending on the financial risk of the

award; and (3) procedures for conducting on-site award monitoring at awardee institutions are not adequate for the performance of an effective on-site review. In addition, in the FY 2004 audit, the independent auditor identified a second reportable

condition: contract monitoring. The auditors found that NSF does not adequately review public vouchers submitted by contractors receiving advance payments to ensure that the reported expenditures are proper and allowable under the contract.

Without adequately performing such procedures, misstatements and unauthorized

expenditures may go undetected.

A recent audit by my office further highlights the need for increased post-award

monitoring.6 My auditors found, over a five-year period, that approximately 47 percent of the 151,000 annual and final project reports required by the terms and conditions of NSF’s grants and cooperative agreements were either submitted late or

not at all. Of the 43,000 final project reports, eight percent were never submitted,

and 53 percent were submitted, on average, five months late. Of the 108,000 annual

progress reports, 42 percent were never submitted. This is due in part because of

a lack of emphasis placed on the importance of these reports, as evidenced by a lack

of policies and infrastructure that facilitate the staff’s ability to adequately address

this key facet of award administration. Moreover, in 74 of 571 occurrences over the

past five years, NSF provided additional funding, contrary to its own policy, to principal investigators who had not submitted final project reports for prior awards.

An effective post-award monitoring program should ensure that: awardees are

complying with award terms and conditions and federal regulations; adequate

progress is being made toward achieving the objectives and milestones of the funded

research project; and awardee expenditures listed on NSF’s financial statements

represent costs that are accurate and allowable. While NSF has taken some steps

over the past three years toward establishing a risk-based program for post-award

monitoring of its grants, more needs to be done. NSF must broaden its approach

40

7 In FY 2004, NSF identified only 42 of its approximately 30,000 awards as ‘‘high risk’’ and

did not include some awards that were known to be high risk. For FY 2005, NSF has revised

its risk assessment model and has identified 252 awards as ‘‘high risk.’’ While the revised model

captures a greater number of risky awards, it still identifies less than one percent of NSF

awards as ‘‘high risk.’’ 8 NSF contracted with a consultant to assess NSF’s post-award monitoring processes. The results of this assessment, issued in March 2004, indicated that while NSF made commendable

efforts to develop policies and procedures, it still faces a number of challenges to achieve effective administration. Further, using other grant making agencies as a benchmark, the consultant

identified gaps in NSF’s post-award administration. IBM, Post-Award Monitoring Assessment

(March 2004). NSF has not developed an action plan to address the reported opportunities for

improvement. 9OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO

THE CONGRESS (September 2004) http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/oigsept2004/oig2004sept.pdf

to award monitoring to go beyond the relatively few high-risk awardees,7 develop

more effective award oversight guidance, and increase the coordination between program and financial officers. We have recently received and are currently reviewing

an action plan from NSF that proposes to address these additional award-monitoring activities.

All of these challenges reflect areas of fundamental program risk that continue

to pose barriers to NSF’s accomplishment of its responsibilities. They will therefore

require ongoing attention from NSF management over the long-term. While NSF

recognizes these challenges, progress has been slow and much remains to be done

in order for NSF to become a more successful organization and better serve the research and education communities, which so heavily rely on it. In addition, NSF has

results from its own consulting study of post-award monitoring, which includes specific recommended actions.8 Although NSF now recognizes that both post-award and

contract monitoring activities are necessary, the next step is for NSF to more aggressively implement concrete actions that will mitigate my concerns. I am particularly concerned over NSF’s response to the independent auditors finding of a reportable condition in the area of contract monitoring. NSF’s corrective action plan suggests that my office, rather than NSF staff, be responsible for the periodic testing

of contract vouchers recommended by the auditors. Voucher examination is a basic

accounting function that resides with management. As such, it would be inappropriate for my office to take on this management function in light of our statutory

independence.

I realize that resources are needed for NSF to fully address these challenges.

However, I also believe that realignment of NSF’s management priorities should

ease the resource burden. The nature of the scientific research enterprise has

changed over the past few decades. Consequently, the programmatic and management challenges facing NSF have changed. NSF’s assessment of needed resources

should address its changing administrative challenges.

Investigative and Audit Activities

In our most recent Semiannual Report to the Congress for the six-month period

ending September 30, 2004, my office reported on numerous audit and investigative

activities.9 During that time period, my office issued one interim and 10 final audit reports that contained over $30 million in questioned costs, and made recommendations that would improve grants management controls and oversight processes at

both NSF and its awardee institutions. We closed 38 civil/criminal cases and 51 administrative cases and our investigations recovered $522,387. Three cases were referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution and 15 administrative

cases were forwarded to NSF management for action during this period. The following is a sample of investigations and audits that were reported in our most recent Semiannual Report.

Investigations

My office investigates allegations of wrongdoing involving organizations or individuals that receive awards from, conduct business with, or work for, NSF. In investigating these allegations we assess their seriousness and recommend proportionate

action. When possible, we work in partnership with agencies and awardee institutions to resolve these issues. Where appropriate, the results of these investigations

are referred to the Department of Justice or other prosecutorial authorities for

criminal prosecution or civil litigation, or to NSF management for administrative

resolution.

For example, as we reported in our most recent Semiannual Report, the owner

of a company that received Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards from

NSF and other federal agencies pleaded guilty to mail fraud and tax evasion as a

result of our investigative efforts. The owner sent a progress report to NSF for his

41

10Generally, technical support costs can be charged to federal grants as direct costs only for

particular services provided for particular grants; otherwise such costs constitute administrative

support services costs that are included in the university’s indirect cost rate. 11OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH, Report. No. 04–2–007 (Sept. 30, 2004) http:/

/www.nsf.gov/oig/IAI-GCR.pdf

SBIR award that included research previously conducted by his company under an

Air Force SBIR award. He also used federal SBIR funds to pay for personal expenses, such as repairs and improvements to his home, thereby evading over

$93,000 in income tax on his personal tax return for 1999. The total loss of federal

funds related to the subject’s fraudulent scheme is estimated at $1.4 million. Based

on the guilty plea and our recommendation, NSF recovered $120,000 of its funds

that it withheld from the NSF grant pending the outcome of our investigation. We

also recommended that NSF exclude through debarment the owner and his company

from receiving funds from any federal agency.

One of the more unique areas of investigation for my office is in the realm of research misconduct, specifically falsification of data, fabrication of results, and plagiarism. Research misconduct strikes at the core of NSF’s mission, and is a special

concern for my office. Although there is a strong sense of integrity within the scientific and engineering research communities, my office often receives allegations

that result in misconduct findings. For example, after receiving an allegation that

a postdoctoral scientist fabricated and falsified data in a published research paper,

my office concluded that the researcher knowingly and intentionally fabricated data

in multiple analyses to make it appear that replicate experiments had been completed when in fact only a single analysis had been performed. The scientist’s actions ultimately led to the retraction of the entire publication in which the fabricated and falsified data appeared. We recommended that NSF make a finding of

research misconduct against the subject and prohibit him from receiving federal

funds, otherwise known as debarment, for two years.

In addition, my office recommended to NSF that it take action to protect federal

interests by debarring a researcher for two years for his fabricating the existence

of and citations for two manuscripts referenced in his two NSF awards. An investigation by the researcher’s university determined that he provided false biographical information as part of his NSF proposals. The researcher cited two manuscripts

as ‘‘submitted to’’ two prominent journals, and also referenced a ‘‘submitted’’ manuscript within the text of the proposal for his NSF award. However, our investigation

revealed that those manuscripts did not exist. The investigation also identified a

pattern of misrepresentation by the researcher that extended over a 10-month period.

While the majority of our investigations involve individual actions, some involve

entire organizations. For example, my office received a complaint that a university

was charging a five percent surcharge to NSF awards for technical support salaries.

We initiated an investigation and worked with the university to review technical

support charges to NSF awards. Although we found no evidence of fraud, the university restored $364,539 to NSF for technical support expenses that were erroneously charged to its NSF awards.10 As a result of our investigation, the university

changed its policies and procedures to ensure that technical support is charged appropriately to federal awards. The university also identified $518,993 of technical

support charges that had been wrongfully charged to awards from 12 other federal

agencies. We notified the other federal agencies of this issue and obtained a commitment from the university to work with each of them to resolve these overcharges.

Audits

Our audit activities have two primary thrusts that often complement each other.

We conduct financial audits of NSF’s awards and awardee institutions to determine

whether costs claimed by awardees are allowable, reasonable, and were incurred for

the benefit of NSF’s award. These audits also seek to identify weaknesses in awardee’s controls in accounting for and in administering their NSF awards to ensure that

NSF funds are spent properly. In addition, we conduct internal audits, which are

reviews of selected NSF programs and operations that provide policy-makers and

management with an independent appraisal of whether desired results and objectives are achieved efficiently, economically, and in accordance with prescribed laws,

regulations, policies, and procedures.

Recent examples of both these types of audits include an audit of a foreign treaty

organization that, since 1996, has received $16.4 million in NSF awards for global

change research.11 The audit found that NSF, on behalf of the United States, is

funding a disproportionate share of the organization’s total costs. The U.S. contribuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

12OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF UNITED STATES- MEXICO FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE, Report. No. 05–2–005 (Dec. 8, 2004) http://www.nsf.gov/

oig/USMFS05.pdf 13OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF RAYTHEON

POLAR SERVICES COMPANY’S INDIRECT COSTS CLAIMED FOR FISCAL YEARS 2000 TO 2002, Report.

No. 04–1–010 (Sept. 30, 2004) (on file with NSF OIG). 14Specifically, the contractor claimed indirect costs as direct costs of the contract, including

$8.6 million related to home and corporate office costs, $5.7 million related to facilities costs,

$3.4 million related to human resources costs, $2.7 million related to financial management

costs, and over $700,000 related to sign-on bonus costs. 15OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AUDIT OF NSF’S MATH

AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, Report. No. 04–2–003 (May 14, 2004) http://

www.nsf.gov/oig/mspprogram.pdf

tion, which was initially expected to comprise 25 percent of the organization’s total

funds, actually represents 87 percent of its income from 1996 to 2003. This occurred

because 18 other member countries did not provide research and operational contributions in the amounts originally committed. As a result, the foreign organization

has average annual expenditures of only $2.6 million or 82 percent less than expected, thereby impeding its ability to achieve its research goals. Additionally, the

organization has not properly monitored its 14 research subawards valued at $10.3

million. This resulted in serious problems with two subawards that cannot adequately support their $1.1 million of claimed costs. Given the lack of financial support by other member countries, we recommended that NSF work with the foreign

organization’s governing bodies to promote and oversee fundraising activities; re-assess the organization’s mission, goals, and staffing levels if additional funding is not

obtained; and ensure that the organization establishes written subaward management policies and procedures. Finally, we recommended that NSF cease providing

additional research awards to the organization until it has developed and implemented written monitoring procedures to ensure its subawardees are properly accounting for and managing NSF grant funds. NSF has agreed with the OIG recommendations and is implementing actions to address them.

My office also recently completed another audit of a foreign organization identifying similar award administration issues.12 This audit found that NSF, along with

three other federal agencies, did not establish adequate grant agreements requiring

the foreign organization to comply with statutory funding requirements as a condition for receiving U.S. monies for the organization’s research endowment fund. Consequently, the organization did not provide 45 percent of its required matching contribution ($5 million) or implement adequate financial controls to account for and

administer almost $11 million in U.S. funds. We recommended that as the largest

U.S. contributor, NSF bring these concerns to the attention of the President’s Office

of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in order to facilitate a coordinated U.S. effort to secure corrective actions on the part of the foreign organization. While NSF

responded favorably to the audit report, it does not agree that it should take a leading role in coordinating corrective actions for the entire U.S. Government. Nevertheless, NSF does generally agree to implement the remaining audit recommendations

to secure improved financial controls over its own contributions to the foreign organization. It is my opinion that NSF should take the lead to bring these matters to

OSTP in order to coordinate the U.S. interests in obtaining the needed corrective

actions from the foreign organization.

As another example, at NSF’s request, my office contracted with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to perform a financial audit of NSF’s Antarctic Support

Services Contractor.13 This contractor is NSF’s largest, providing logistics and support services estimated at approximately $1.1 billion over ten years. In September

2004, DCAA staff reported on the interim results of the first phase of this audit.

Of the $363 million total costs claimed by the Contractor for the three-year period

ending December 31, 2002, the auditors questioned $29.2 million because the Contractor improperly billed indirect costs to the contract.14 The auditors also questioned $6.7 million because the Contractor claimed indirect costs that exceeded the

limitations specified in the contract agreement. The remaining phases of the Antarctic Services Contract audit will include a review of the Contractor’s internal controls for administering, monitoring, and accounting for the NSF contract funds and

a review of the direct costs and remaining indirect costs charged to the contract

through December 31, 2004.

As a final example, my office conducted an internal, or performance audit of the

Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program.15 In FYs 2002 and 2003, NSF

awarded a total of $436.6 million for 35 comprehensive and targeted awards under

this program. The audit objective was to determine the effectiveness of a sample of

MSP projects’ evaluation methods and measures to assess the impact of the interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
43

vention strategies on student achievement. This audit reviewed nine partnership

projects funded in FY 2002 and found that five had effective evaluation plans designed to evaluate, define, and measure the impact of the intervention strategies,

activities and outcomes on student achievement in math and science. While the remaining four projects did not address all the elements for an effective evaluation

process, with appropriate guidance and monitoring NSF could ensure that each

partnership had an effective evaluation process.

Through these audits, and others like them, my office is able to make recommendations to NSF management aimed at correcting specific problems found

with programs and awards. For example, as a result of the audit of the MSP program, NSF convened a workshop of subject matter experts to prepare an evaluation

statement for current and future MSP projects. The results of these audits and others help to inform our assessment of the most critical challenges facing NSF, and

help my office focus its future audit efforts.

Chairman Inglis, this concludes my written statement. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you. I would be happy to answer any additional questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have, or to elaborate on any of the issues that I have addressed today.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHRISTINE C. BOESZ

Christine C. Boesz assumed the duties as Inspector General of the National

Science Foundation (NSF) in January 2000, reporting to the National Science Board

and the Congress. As head of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), she recommends

policies for promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness of NSF programs and

operations. She leads efforts to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, improving the integrity of NSF programs and operations and investigating allegations of

misconduct in science. Dr. Boesz participates in leadership activities of the Inspector

General community by serving on the Executive Council, the Inspection and Evaluation Committee, and by chairing the Misconduct in Research Working Group for the

federal IG community, responsible for setting standards and training for investigations into research misconduct allegations.

Prior to this position, Dr. Boesz served as Head of Regulatory Accountability, at

Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. While there she had broad responsibilities for establishing and maintaining a compliance program for the managed care Medicare program. She also served as senior policy analyst on federal legislative and regulatory

activities. From 1995 to 1998, she served as Vice President of Government Programs

at New York Life, developing and operating Medicare and Medicaid managed care

programs in ten states. She oversaw product development, pricing, marketing, and

compliance with government contracting requirements. She also developed legislative policy for the company.

Prior to 1995, Dr. Boesz held several Federal Government compliance and oversight positions over an 18-year period with the Department of Health and Human

Services. In her last position she served as Director of Operations and Oversight for

the Medicare managed care program, responsible for awarding and overseeing contract compliance. Earlier in her federal career she was instrumental in developing

the regulatory framework for health maintenance organizations (HMO), in operating

the HMO loan fund, and in building a compliance staff for managed care oversight.

Dr. Boesz is a Past President of the National Association of Managed Care Regulators, a member of the American Statistical Association, and the American Public

Health Association. Over her career she has received numerous awards, including

the Lifetime Service Award from Managed Care Regulators, and has been recognized as a Distinguished Alumna from Douglass College, Rutgers University.

Dr. Boesz received her B.A. in mathematics from Douglass College (1966) and a

M.S. in statistics from Rutgers University (1967). Her Doctorate in Public Health

(health policy) was awarded by the University of Michigan School of Public Health

(1997) where she was a Pew Fellow.

DISCUSSION

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Boesz.

I am happy to see that we have been joined by the Chairman of

the Full Committee, Mr. Boehlert, and I would be happy to recognize him.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Short and sweet.

44

I am here because of my interest in the subject matter being discussed. And as Dr. Bement knows, we are sort of cheerleaders, unabashed cheerleaders for NSF, and we will continue in that role.

But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I am here to welcome you

to this first hearing as Chairman of this subcommittee, and I want

to wish you well, and I know you will do well, and we will be as

cooperative as we can, because we have got important work.

Thank you very much.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At this point, we are going to move to the first round of questions, and the Chairman recognizes himself.

Dr. Bement, I hear some tension here between the objectives of

NSF, and we all have tensions. We have got to keep them in balance, I suppose. But the tension between the funding of post-graduate education and projects there as opposed to the K–12 effort.

And it occurs to me that if we were inspiring kids in K–12 with

great teachers and, like this fellow at General Electric pointed out

to me, that is what it takes is somebody who really knows their

subject matter and somebody who loves to teach it and somebody

who is really excellent at it. Talk to me about the tension between

doing that at NSF and the exciting things that we could be developing and getting quickly to market. I am inviting you to talk

about that tension, I suppose.

Dr. BEMENT. Okay. Thank you.

First of all, let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, there is no tension.

Our reach to K–12 pervades NSF. It is part of every program that

we have. It is one of our criteria in terms of broader impacts. We

encourage all of our scientists to extend themselves to K–12. We

have a formal program called GK-12, which we are investing $50

million for it to enlist 1,000 graduate students and upper-level undergraduate students to work at the schools at the interface between universities and K–12 programs. And that is turning out to

be exceptionally exciting and effective.

In addition, in all of our cooperative agreements with our centers

programs, as a requirement, they are expected to engage in K–12

education to bring that excitement and show why science is fun

and to try and encourage younger minds to enter into the STEM

fields. So rather than just focusing on a couple programs in our

EHR budget line, I would advise you to look at the broader perspective and what we do across the board in that area.

Chairman INGLIS. But are you comfortable with essentially

transferring some of that money to the Department of Education

that is the effect of what has happened?

Dr. BEMENT. I think it is a matter of leadership. We have invested now over 10 years in these types of programs. They started

out as Rural Systemic Initiatives and Urban Systemic Initiatives,

and we have had extraordinary results. And then we tacked on to

that the MSP program. It changed. It morphed into a new program. So we have 10 years of experience of what works. And if you

ever look at the Appalachian project, which started as a Rural Systemic Initiative and it is now an MSP program, the amount of

achievement they have made in the last 10 years is remarkable.

The same thing in El Paso, Texas, which is largely—well, almost

45

87 percent Hispanic, and they are now one of the top performing

school districts in the State of Texas.

So those lessons learned and those best practices need to be

propagated across all of the school districts in the country. And the

place where the resources exist and where the mission exists is

within the Department of Education. So we have been working

very closely with them to develop peer-reviewed projects to carry

on that mission within the Department of Education. They have

committed to putting more resources into math and science education. And the President now has established a President-level advisory board on education science—or education research, which I

serve on, as a matter of fact.

So through this partnership between NSF and the Department

of Education, I can assure you we are going to try and transfer the

passion.

Chairman INGLIS. Great.

Dr. Boesz raised some crucial objectives. What is your response,

Dr. Bement, to those—the two objectives that she laid out?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, let me say, first of all, we welcome management challenges. No, I am quite serious about that. We not only

feel we are an exemplary agency, but other people tell us so. On

the other hand, we know that there is room for improvement, and

management challenges challenge us to continuously improve. So

we pay attention to those challenges.

Just quoting from her statement, she has credited progress, and

on the two areas that she cited, we made significant progress. And

since the full answer to your question is very involved and very

complex, I would like to give you that statement for the record, if

I may, on the progress that we have made.

Chairman INGLIS. Certainly.

Dr. BEMENT. Having said that, she also pointed out that progress

isn’t as rapid as she wants. She has indicated that it is resource

paced. That is a basis for a significant increase in our S&E account

in our fiscal year 2006 budget, because we need additional personnel. But in addition to that, we need the electronic business systems that will improve the productivity of our practices that will

free up additional personnel to pay more attention to some of those

challenges. So they all work together.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Bement.

My time has expired.

Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to follow up on some educational questions, and then

I am going to go to the icebreaker, because I have a lot of questions

about that.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Ms. HOOLEY. You know, I am concerned as I look at this budget,

and the policy behind the change in the treatment of math and

science programs that have been targeted for extinction. And I

know that they are going to—some of that is going to the Department of Education. You have built a lot of good relationships, K–

12, and you have got a lot of expertise that have helped you out

in that K–12 program. I am trying to understand why you wouldn’t

continue that, and the thing that the Department of Education, I

46

think, does well is dissemination and replication of best practices.

But it seems to me that you have an equal role there. So help me

understand what is going on and why that is targeted for extinction.

Dr. BEMENT. I think the true picture is that this is the second

year in which the draw-down on the program has occurred——

Ms. HOOLEY. Right.

Dr. BEMENT.—and when I say drawdown, it only means that we

are not providing any new grants, but we are sustaining the grants

that we currently have. And in those programs, we will continue

to pursue further improvement.

A lot of the activities under Math and Science Partnership deal

with teacher development course and curriculum development and

evaluation, for the most part; thus, they are not entirely research.

And there is a lot of research that still needs to be done in math

and science education so that as we transition or phase that part

of the program over to the Department of Education, we are generating new programs. I mentioned the GK–12 program, but there

are other programs within our overall portfolio that tend to be

more consistent with our research mission that we will continue to

focus on. In particular, the portfolio of programs that have been

highly successful in broadening participation is an area where we

are investing upwards to $400 million just out of the EHR directorate this year. And we have kept those programs at about the enacted level from last year’s appropriation, because we feel they

need to be sustained.

But in addition to those programs within EHR, we are also integrating programs within the science directorates. And if we count

those activities, that adds about another $200 million to that general focus area of broadening participation. So the total investment

is about $600 million. We feel that is where we really need to put

our attention for the next decade, because with the declining interest in science and engineering among graduating seniors, it is not

enough just to stimulate interest in math and science in K–12. We

need to do that as well as we can. And I mentioned some programs

that do that. But we also have to pay attention to replacing the

current scientists and engineers who are going to be retiring over

the next 10 years. And right now, we are going to fall short of that

goal unless we broaden participation.

Ms. HOOLEY. But it seems to me we are going to fall short of that

goal if we don’t generate enough interest in grade school and high

school.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, your point is well taken.

Ms. HOOLEY. And when we look at—right now, I know throughout this country, we have a shortage of math and science teachers.

And I mean, if you don’t get kids interested early on, you are never

going to have enough math and science people to fulfill the needs

of this country.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, Congresswoman; I agree. I think my main

point is that the few districts we can touch, and we have improved

over the last 10 years, is only a very minute fraction of the total

school districts in the country. We have to build those programs in

the Department of Education, and we have to touch all of the

school districts if we are going to make the kind of impact that you

47

are calling attention to. And that is what we are dedicated to

doing.

Ms. HOOLEY. Let me switch gears really quickly and talk a little

bit about—I mean, if you look at this budget, so much of the budget

really is an accounting change, because of taking over the icebreakers for the Coast Guard. So you are really looking at a 0.3

percent increase as opposed to a 2.7 percent increase. Tell me at

what level of the Administration was the decision made to give

NSF the responsibility to assume more of the icebreaker operation

and maintenance for 2006. Tell me, who made that decision? Is

that high level, lower level?

Dr. BEMENT. No, that was a high-level decision made within the

White House, and the reason for that decision was that in the new

mission that the Coast Guard has at Homeland Security, supporting science was not going to be sustained by the Department

of Homeland Security. So there was a concern that if the current

icebreakers were decommissioned because the Department would

not support their operation and maintenance, then our polar programs, especially in Antarctica, are at risk. So the decision was

made to transfer responsibility for the operation and maintenance

to the National Science Foundation to assure that there will be

continuity of support over time to maintain our polar programs.

Ms. HOOLEY. How much money is in the budget for that? What—

do you—is that 48—what did you put in the budget for that?

Dr. BEMENT. The transfer was $48 million.

Ms. HOOLEY. Is that going to be enough? I mean, there is some indication the Coast Guard thinks it runs somewhere between $70

million and $75 million.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we are working closely with the Coast Guard

to try and determine the structure of that estimate and to determine whether $48 million is enough. We have an interagency working group now focused on looking at all of the options of minimizing the cost of icebreaker operations. And at the present time,

I don’t really have an answer to your question, but we will have

an answer some time this summer.

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you have to use the Coast Guard icebreakers,

or can you use a foreign company to do that? Or can you lease for

foreign icebreakers? Is that viable?

Dr. BEMENT. I think it is viable. Our Office of General Counsel

has looked into statutory obligation, and their review indicates that

there is no statutory restriction in our using other than Coast

Guard icebreaker services, whether they are commercial or other

nations’. We derived part of our guidance from the Presidential

Memorandum Number 6646 on U.S. Antarctic Policy and Programs, and that goes way back. It was dated February 5, 1982

when the Coast Guard was in the Department of Transportation.

And that provided the Department of Defense and Coast Guard a

continuing role in Antarctic logistics to ensure that the United

States has the necessary flexibility and operational reach in the

area, which goes beyond research or science and engineering.

On the other hand, that directive also pointed out that every effort should be made to manage the United States Antarctic Program in a manner that maximizes cost effectiveness. And then it

goes on to say that it authorizes the NSF to use commercial supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
48

port when it is determined to be cost effective and not detrimental

to the national——

Ms. HOOLEY. Does OMB agree with you?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, this is just a finding that has just come to my

attention within the last day or two. We have not yet had a chance

to discuss this with OMB.

Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. I have used more than my time. Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Hooley.

At this point, I would be happy to recognize Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to ask the question, given the structure to today’s process back in the office. I do appreciate it.

I would like to address this question to Dr. Bement, Director.

As you know, I represent the University of Illinois, which is the

home of the Beckman Center, among others, and we are very proud

of that. And so this question, at least revolves in part, around that

reality.

In the fiscal year 2006 budget request you have stated that providing cyberinfrastructure is one of your top priorities. Supercomputing is, as we all know, a key element of robust

cyberinfrastructure, and NSF supports those key national centers

that provide supercomputing facilities and expertise, including the

National Center for Supercomputing Applications in my hometown.

The budget request indicates that approximately, and this is a

quote, $19 million will be provided for selective cyberinfrastructure

enhancements in the fiscal year 2006. How much of this upgrade

funding will go to hardware for supercomputing centers? And how

and when will you decide what upgrades are needed and when? I

know that sounds like a bit scripted question, but——

Dr. BEMENT. No, no. It is a good question. I might point out parenthetically that Champaign is very close to Bement, Illinois.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is, indeed. That is one of the finest country operas in the United States, so in case you ever have time to visit

Champaign, see the supercomputer, and you are into country

music, come over with me to the Bement Bowl, and we will have

a good time.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Total investment in cyberinfrastructure for 2006 is at $509 million, which is a substantial increase over our 2005 enacted level.

And a good part of that is in high-end computing, and not just in

architecture, but also in software tools and also in networking as

well as interface tools. So we are looking at it as a total system.

We continue to support the supercomputing centers, including

the ones in San Diego, Illinois, and Pittsburgh. And we have made

investments to upgrade their facilities to the latest capabilities that

are commercially available. In addition to that, we are trying to

further integrate them into our Teragrid, which provides a broad

network for very high bandwidth computing and data streaming

within the science community. They were just—I just recently authorized an advisory committee that links all of these operations

together to further leverage their capabilities and find new ways to

serve the scientific community as part of our shared infrastructure

in cyber tools.

49

So I think our program is well balanced, in my opinion. I think

we are paying attention to at least the near-term needs of the scientific community within our budget flexibility, and we are looking

at all of the elements, including higher-end language and new algorithm development that will be required to use super-high-end

computing.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me just underscore the significances of

NSF to our specific facility, what an outstanding job you do, what

a good cooperative relationship there is nationwide. And without

sounding provincial, I think anyone who understands the area

would understand that ours is among the finest, if not the finest,

facility in the country, and its impact nationwide is something that

not only we are very proud of, but the country is—relies in large

or small part on in terms of the whole matrix. And so we are very

grateful and hope that you will put us higher on your radar screen

in terms of future, not only allocations, but prioritization.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. We will.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you are also welcome to join us, not only at

the Bement Bowl and at the Beckman Center, but on April 5, 2005

when we celebrate the national championship at the University of

Illinois. And we will make it a three-fer, and you will be one of our

guests as we introduce the national champions.

Dr. BEMENT. I would love to see that game. Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the other

Chairman now taking the seat there for holding this hearing. And

I will make sure I don’t go too much over time, although I see my

time hasn’t started, which is good.

Oh, there you go. I know what a tough man the Chairman is

here, so I will be careful.

I have a rather unique perspective. I have a mechanical engineering degree, and we actually have the head of a company that

I had applied for a job at—back 20 years ago, and I chided him jokingly on how he crushed my hopes as a young mechanical engineer

by not offering me a job at that time. And I have since moved on,

but one thing I did between here and there was I was a political

science graduate student. I got my Ph.D. in political science. And

Dr. Bement, I am happy to say that I did apply for an NSF grant,

and I did receive the NSF grant, so you know, you are in a—from

that perspective, you are in a much better position than the witnesses that I have talked to before.

Okay. I am—because of my background, both as an engineer—

well, from being an engineer of science and math education, I know

how important it is in K–12 and higher education and also the—

to tell you the truth, I didn’t know until I went to grad school in

political science that social sciences were funded, also, with NSF

grants.

One thing that—I am echoing some of Ms. Hooley’s concerns, I

have seen, through my experiences, a real lack of connection between higher education and K–12. I always felt that more could be

done with university research and the faculty at universities to

help with science and math education in the K–12 level. And I

think NSF is in a unique position to help to make that connection.

So I just—you know, I just want to say I would like to see NSF

50

doing more of that, and I encourage, you know, more of that, because I think it could be extremely helpful, especially in science

and math.

But what I wanted to ask Dr. Bement about is the research

grants for NSF, the funding has been increased for—the proposed

increase for research project support is 0.3 percent, but it also, I

see, the budget says that, you know, for fiscal year 2006, you want

to increase the success rate while maintaining grant size and duration, which the only way to accomplish that would be to somehow

discourage proposals from coming in. And so I was just wondering

what the plan is there. Of course, I would like to see much more

funding for these grants, but specifically to that question, you

know, how is it possible to do both of those things, increase

success——

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Mr. LIPINSKI.—and maintain the same level of funding while you

are, you know, flat-lined in growth?

Dr. BEMENT. There are many practical ways of doing that. One

is we have both solicited and unsolicited proposals. The one thing

we really want to encourage is more unsolicited proposals, because

many of those are closer to the frontier, and many of them support

newer, untenured faculty as well as minority faculty coming into

the academic workplace.

The success rate of some of our solicited proposals has been very

low, too low, in some cases, as low as 10 percent. Part of that is

because we weren’t focused enough in our solicitation. Part of it is

we did not indicate to the community initially what the likely success rate would be, so we are going to correct that. And hopefully,

that will reduce the proposal volume for a small amount of funding.

Secondly, we are going to limit our solicitations to only those key

programs that are essential to our major priorities within the

Foundation. So that will reduce the number of solicitations. And

that should, also, automatically help increase our success rate. In

some cases, in awards that we are making under solicitations, instead of giving all of the awards in one year, we are extending it

over two years. So we are stretching our resources for each solicitation.

And then finally, we are taking a hard look at our centers programs, and this is an area that we are engaged with the Board,

the Board will be working with us on this, because it has had

Board interest, to look at the balance between multi-investigator

awards as centers versus individual and small group awards

through our unsolicited proposals.

For centers that are reaching end of life where they are no longer

working at the frontier or they are not meeting the criteria that we

expect, we will be phasing those out and moving those resources

back to the frontier to help support more individual and small

group awards.

And that is just a few examples of a large number of initiatives

we are taking. But we feel that by refocusing, by working more

closely with the community so that their expectations are not overblown, we will be able to, even within our given resources, turn

around our decline in success rate. It is not going to go up dramatically without new resources, but at least we will halt the erosion.

51

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. The gentleman could have mentioned that he

has got his Ph.D. from a great school, my alma mater, from college.

So——

Mr. LIPINSKI. You know, that is terrible that I didn’t mention

Duke.

Chairman INGLIS. There we go. There we go.

Now that Dr. Lipinski has fixed that, we are going to go down

to Mr. Sodrel to find out whether Indiana is in the NCAA. Are you

doing all right?

Mr. SODREL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are—the reason he says

that, I use—in the 9th District in the bulletin, so I have to stick

up for IU.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, you pointed out in your opening statement that R&D

used to be—perform basic research by Bell Labs, by IBM, Xerox,

and a lot of the large corporations, and less of that is being done

today.

And forgive me, but I am a new Committee Member, so this may

sound like an elementary question, but I would like to know if,

when we develop technology with public tax dollars, how do we

then transfer that to the private sector? In other words, who maintains the intellectual property rights to technologies that are developed with taxpayer-funded research? And Dr. Bement, would you

be best to answer that?

Dr. BEMENT. I think there are two or three components of the

question.

First of all, an investment in the National Science Foundation research tends to support graduate students who do the research, so

there is the education component at the higher level within the

universities. That graduate talent then goes into industry and

transfers the knowledge into industry, so that is a direct technology

transfer. And part of that intellectual property is with the individual.

As far as intellectual property that deals with patents and copyrights, those rights remain with the university, and it is the obligation of the university to see that those rights are broadly applied

through licensing in the private sector. And I think, by and large,

they do that quite well. Many universities are not looking for revenue. They are looking for applying those resources back into further research in order to refine those new technologies. So it really

can work as a close partnership between the private sector and the

academic sector.

But I am only making a point that I think public sector resources

are being used very wisely and very effectively in supporting the

private sector in their research objectives.

Mr. SODREL. I just wanted to understand how the relationship

worked. And how—what do we do to ensure that the benefit that

we derive from the research and development is not immediately

exported to some of our world competitors?

Dr. BEMENT. I would think that is a two-way street. I don’t think

we have very much of a role in trying to either regulate or keep

track of that, but there are any number of articles that deal with

that. I would like to point out that a lot of the research is being

52

done by international students. And some of those students remain,

and some of them go back to their home countries, so there is technology transfer happening both ways all around the world. And

most of the large corporations that I know of bring in top talent,

and they use them as hunter-gatherer technologists. Their role is

to go around the world and scoop up anything they can get, bring

it back home, add their own intellectual property, and then get an

edge in the marketplace. So it is a worldwide game at the present

time.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you. I just wanted to understand how the

system worked, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you.

Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since everybody is talking about basketball, I don’t know if the

Colorado School of Mines is going to be in the NCAA tournament,

but I think anybody who graduated from there is all right by me.

And Dr. Bement, I want to just change the course just a minute,

and I apologize. Many of us have other meetings, but I think every

Member of this committee takes the work of the National Science

Foundation, particularly your work, very seriously. And we only

wish that budget constraints weren’t what they are. And so we are

going to ask you to do more with less, and we apologize for that

in advance.

I want to bring your attention, though, to an issue that I have

a great concern about, and that is we have, over the last several

years, essentially given you more, NSF, latitude in how they deal

with agricultural research. And there is one area that I just want

to call your attention to, and I am not going to try and ask you

to take a position on this, but at least to have you consider this.

And that is, within that smear of agricultural research, I hope that

you will at least pay some attention to a growing concern that we

have, and that is that the potential of viruses, we know this is happening now, where they literally leap from ducks to pigs to us. And

there are a number of interesting research projects underway

around the country, and I will be a bit parochial, in my District,

in particular, and I would just encourage you to, you know, at least

reflect on the fact that you do have that latitude, and we hope that

you will use that wisely.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Congressman Gutknecht.

Let me respond in this way.

We have now a robust program in plant genomics and also a

grant program in microbial genomics, which we carry on in close

cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, and that cooperation is to assure that there is not an excessive overlap and that

those programs are mutually reinforcing.

In the area of bacterial and viral diseases, we do have a program

in the ecology of infectious disease and also in prion diseases that

we are also carrying out jointly with the National Institutes of

Health and also the Department of Agriculture. So that—first of

all, we are paying attention to these major national issues and

problems. And secondly, we are trying to leverage our programs

with other agencies, through interagency cooperation.

53

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I only have a second left, but just let me tell

you that I would be more than happy to work with you and your

office on all of those, because I do have a particular and a keen interest in those particular areas.

So thank you very much, Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. And we welcome that.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. We now have time for a second round of questions and then I would recognize Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you. Unfortunately, I have to say none of

the Oregon teams are in the finals this year.

I have really just one question. Dr. Wrighton, in his testimony,

indicated that NSF management has developed a draft corrective

action plan in coordination with the IG’s Office, which will be presented to the National Science Board. Dr. Bement and Dr. Boesz,

is this the case, and when will this plan be available?

Dr. BEMENT. First of all, it is the case. We have been negotiating

with our auditor, KPMG, on some of the issues that they have

brought out in their audit a year ago. We feel we have a corrective

action plan that satisfies most of the issues that we raised with

them, but we haven’t gotten complete closure. But we do plan to

bring our progress before the National Science Board and the Audit

and Oversight Committee, which Dr. Wrighton chairs, at the coming March meeting, which is later this month.

Ms. HOOLEY. You need to turn on your microphone.

Dr. BOESZ. I can add that my office received this corrective action

plan about two or three weeks ago, and we are——

Ms. HOOLEY. Okay.

Dr. BOESZ.—actively in the progress of reviewing it right now.

We do contract as part of the audit function with KPMG, and so

they are also a part of this process. And we do expect to have this

resolved by the time of the Board meeting at the end of this month.

Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. Thank you.

Just for all of you, I think. I am concerned about the cost of the

Coast Guard icebreakers and what that will do to your budget. And

I guess I am offering that if there is anything we can do to help

with that particular issue, we want to make sure that the money

is spent as wisely as possible and that this isn’t something that

ends up breaking your back.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you very much. These icebreakers are nearing their end of life.

Ms. HOOLEY. Right. I understand that, which——

Dr. BEMENT. And the maintenance, as it gets closer to end of life,

keeps going up each year. And if it gets beyond the resources we

have set aside, then, of course, it has an impact on our logistics

support and our research support in the polar programs. And I am

charging myself to guard against that as much as I can, and that

is going to mean that we are going to have to engage very cooperatively with the Coast Guard to determine what options will minimize icebreaker costs going forward. And that is what we are engaged in at the present time.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.

54

Chairman INGLIS. I will, at this point, recognize myself for another round of questions.

And I want to follow up on Ms. Hooley’s question just then, Dr.

Bement.

I am concerned, as well, about the transfer, particularly if the $48 million turns into a negotiation for a $75 million transfer to

operate what had been a $48 million program. How can we help?

Dr. BEMENT. I should call on Dr. Erb to qualify my answer. Part of that—most of that $75 million is for complete refurbishment. It

is not for ongoing, recurring operation and maintenance.

Chairman INGLIS. Okay.

Dr. BEMENT. Whether we do that in one year or whether we do

that in two years is something we really need to understand, but

let me call on Dr. Erb to amplify that.

Dr. ERB. Mr. Chairman, I am Karl Erb, Director of the Office of

Polar Programs at NSF.

We have been told by the Coast Guard in discussions last fall that they estimate a need of between $70 and $75 million a year

for each of the next four or five years to keep the ships operational

until they can go into what they call a service life extension program, which I believe they estimate as a $600 million activity. So

we are talking with them now to see what our options are to, as

Dr. Bement said, meet those requirements within our ability of the

funds we have. And it is just much too early for me to predict how

that is going to come out.

Chairman INGLIS. Well, I hope as it goes along that you will let

us know how we might be helpful.

Dr. ERB. Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Chairman INGLIS. And I appreciate your input here.

Dr. Wrighton, I wonder if—as the one who has involvement at

the Board, what question have we not asked here today that we

should be asking about the direction of NSF and what do you wish

we had been asking?

Dr. WRIGHTON. I think you have shown great interest, and great

questions have come forward already. I think, speaking for the

Board, we see a great opportunity for the best to become better.

And America’s investment in science and engineering education

and research has been strong.

But I think one of the issues that we face looking ahead is how

competitive will we be in the world, considering essentially level

funding? While I think we can do more with less, as was suggested,

and all of us are anxious to improve efficiency, I think we need to

be cognizant that the developing world, India and China in particular, are developing investments in science and engineering that

are destined to be very competitive in the future.

So for us to sustain our preeminence in important areas of

science and technology, I believe that we are going to have to make

an even greater investment in finding not only the best science and

engineering to support, but the highest impact science and engineering. And we, at the Board, are certainly interested in enhancing budgets. I think everybody acknowledges that probably no level

of support for the Foundation would be adequate to support all of

the great ideas that the investigators could come forward with. But

55

I think we need to keep our eye on those areas of special importance and setting the priorities for the investments will be very important. But overall, I think our competitiveness, as a Nation, will

hinge on ramping up our investment in science and engineering in

ways that allow us to remain preeminent. These investments are

a source of innovation for America, and I think nothing will be

more important than securing our economic well being.

Chairman INGLIS. Yes, and as we come to a close here, I just

want to underscore that and point out that, you know, if we enter

into free trade policies that basically mean that we are challenged

on the manufacturing aspects and particularly where labor is a

major input, then the answer is that we are the innovators, that

we can stay ahead of the competition by innovation. Well, that

means that we are looking to you all to help us innovate. And you

are, of course, looking to us to get the appropriate resource level

to be able to carry that out, because if we are going to stay, as you

put in your testimony, preeminent in discovery and innovation,

then you have got to spend money on it. And you have got to spend

it wisely, as Dr. Boesz points out. And you have got to spend it

with vision and creativity.

Thank you very much to our panel for being here today. Dr.

Bement, Dr. Wrighton, and Dr. Boesz, we appreciate your time

here this morning.

And if there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional statements from Members and for answers to any follow-up

questions submitted that the Subcommittee may ask of the panelists. Without objection, that is ordered.

And the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(57)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

58

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Questions submitted by Chairman Bob Inglis

Award Oversight and Management

Q1. Staffing shortages at the National Science Foundation (NSF) have impeded

NSF’s ability to conduct post-award management and to manage its portfolio of

large facilities projects. Assuming the Foundation were provided adequate resources to address these staffing requirements, how many additional full-timeequivalents does NSF need to assign to each of these two areas?

A1. At any given time, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is managing an active portfolio of approximately 35,000 awards to over 2,000 institutions. Effective

oversight is accomplished through the combined efforts of NSF’s program, financial,

and administrative staff. This oversight is not confined to one part of an award life

cycle but follows a continuum from solicitation through the close out of the program

activity.

NSF has identified certain factors that indicate a high potential for award and

funding risk. To address this, NSF has, over the last several years, developed a program of on-site, post-award monitoring and oversight. A key element of the program

is a dynamic multi-level risk assessment framework comprised of objective and subjective factors applied to the overall award universe; these may be technical, financial, or administrative. This risk framework helps guide decision making insofar as

how best to deploy staff resources for more targeted oversight. Non-facility awards

are addressed through the Post-Award Monitoring and Business Assistance Program Site Visit Review Guide led by the Division of Institution and Award Support,

a division created to put additional focus on this issue. Large facilities are subject

to a Total System Business Review.

As part of competitive sourcing initiative, NSF has identified a number of activities that support overall monitoring as suitable for contract assistance. Given that,

and based on the to-date implementation of the monitoring program, the 23 FTEs

requested in FY 2006 will be used to grow NSF’s risk-based oversight efforts in a

responsible, reasonable manner. This assumes that other resource demands remain

constant. Note that because NSF’s award monitoring and oversight is an agencywide effort that involves program staff within the directorates as well as various administrative staff, the requested FTEs are to be allocated throughout the agency.

Post-award Monitoring

Q2. Post-award management is critical both to allow NSF program managers to be

aware of the scientific results of NSF-funded research and to ensure that government funds are spent appropriately.

What changes is NSF making to its post-award monitoring processes in response

to the recommendations of the Inspector General and the IBM reports on this

topic?

A2. IBM’s Post-Award Monitoring Assessment Report was prepared at NSF’s request as a review and gap analysis of the Foundation’s monitoring procedures and

practices. Overall, IBM noted that NSF has a sound program of post-award monitoring but made several recommendations. In response, NSF management agreed to

initiate a series of information exchanges with Office of Inspector General (OIG)

Audit Staff and KPMG, the external auditor for the NSF Financial Statement Audit.

Components of the NSF corrective action plan are below:

• NSF management has improved the FY 2005 risk assessment model and will

evaluate it annually for potential improvements.

• NSF is proceeding with a plan to conduct advanced monitoring, which refers

to targeted business system reviews carried out at institutions that manage

high risk awards as determined through risk assessments (see answer below).

Advanced monitoring supplements baseline monitoring done for all NSF

awards.

• NSF is proceeding with a plan to conduct baseline monitoring. Baseline monitoring is carried out in a systemic and automated fashion for all awards; this

is supplemented by standardized staff processes and specialized reviews. As

an enhancement to baseline monitoring, NSF is contracting out for focused

59

reviews of Federal Cash Transaction Report data that will be drawn from a

statistically valid sample of the medium and low risk universe.

• NSF is focusing on opportunities for improvement for advanced monitoring as

identified in the IBM report and underscored by the independent auditors as

being most significant. This includes addressing site visit duration, program

participation, pre-visit communication, awardee feedback, follow-up and issue

resolution, program and OIG input into site visit plans, communication and

collaboration between NSF and OIG staff, dissemination of the annual monitoring plan, systems automation, post-award monitoring staffing, NSF cost to

perform post-award monitoring, awardee cost to participate in post-award

monitoring, contracting out certain post-award monitoring activities, cross

training opportunities, formal post-award monitoring training, report writing,

documentation, a database to maintain results, and dissemination of overall

findings and lessons learned.

• NSF has increased the overall resources deployed for post-award monitoring

and will continue these increases until management deems them to be sufficient.

Q3. Dr. Boesz testified that NSF provides extra scrutiny to high-risk projects. How

do you define high-risk and what extra monitoring procedures do you follow for

these projects? Have these procedures been effective? What protocols are in place

to oversee lower- and medium-risk awards?

A3. All NSF awards are assessed annually for financial and administrative risk

using objective criteria such as type of awardee organization, dollar amount of

award, whether NSF is cognizant for federal oversight, whether the awardee is a

new federal awardee, complexity of the award instrument, cost sharing, sub-awards,

participant support, and equipment. High-risk awards are identified via a set of

weighted objective factors applied to the award universe. Examples of such factors

include dollar amounts of the award, sub-awards, and cost sharing. These factors

are assigned point values, and the resulting point value, once all factors are accounted for and totaled, determine the classification of the award as low, medium

or high risk. Objective criteria applied for the FY 2005 Risk Assessment model identified 252 awards made to 167 institutions as high risk.

After the objective assessment, high risk awards are further reviewed using subjective factors. These include programmatic, administrative, financial, and/or OIG

concerns. Of the 167 institutions previously identified as high risk, 52 were eliminated because they were subject to Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management site visits or OIG-conducted audits in the last four years, are currently on the

OIG audit plan, are subject to total business systems reviews, or had OIG-conducted

audit reports issued within the last four years. Also eliminated were 49 organizations whose high risk awards were due to expire.

Finally, of the 66 remaining institutions, NSF considered the total risk points assigned to an organization as well as its type. For example, organizations managing

multiple high risk awards had higher risk points assigned. After applying both objective and subjective criteria as outlined in the Risk Assessment model, NSF selected 24 to 30 institutions for post-award monitoring site visits in FY 2005. This

includes tribal colleges, school districts, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions.

NSF has communicated this plan to NSF management and program staff as well

as OIG. NSF will continue to assess its awards annually and will coordinate with

programmatic, administrative, and financial staff as well as with OIG to ensure that

high risk awards are closely monitored.

The monitoring procedures that NSF follows for high risk projects are contained

in the Post-Award Monitoring and Business Assistance Program Site Visit Review

Guide. The guide contains roles and responsibilities, pre-site visit activities and procedures, on-site review modules that can be tailored for each visit, post site visit

activities, worksheet appendices, and correspondence appendices. On-site review

modules include both core and targeted sections:

• Core modules (included in all site visit reviews) include general management,

accounting and financial system review, and Federal Cash Transaction Report

(FCTR) reconciliation.

• Targeted modules (used by site visit teams based on risk factors identified

during the risk assessment) include time and effort records for personnel,

fringe benefits, travel, consultants, cost sharing, participant support costs, indirect costs, procurement, sub-award and sub-recipient monitoring, and property and equipment.

60

The Post-Award Monitoring and Business Assistance Program Site Visit Reviews

conducted by NSF over the last several years continue to mature as part of NSF’s

comprehensive program. Issues have been identified during these visits and follow

up is conducted. For institutions that have had the benefit of this business assistance visit, indications are that procedures have been effective.

For lower and medium risk awards, NSF’s baseline monitoring adheres to the Single Audit Act implemented by OMB Circular A–133. Audits performed by private

CPA firms contain attestations on internal controls, compliance with federal regulations, and the schedule of federal financial assistance. In addition, OMB has designated cognizant federal agencies that have responsibility for overseeing institutions to ensure that the awardee financial systems and internal controls comply

with federal requirements.

Baseline monitoring is conducted in a systemic and automated fashion for all

awards including those that are lower- and medium-risk. This is supplemented by

standardized staff processes and specialized reviews. As an enhancement to baseline

monitoring, NSF is contracting out for focused reviews of FCTR data that will be

drawn from a statistically valid sample of the medium and low risk universe.

Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects

Q4. What are the responsibilities of the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects?

How does he fit into NSF’s process for selection and oversight of Major Research

Equipment and Facilities Construction projects? What human and technology

resources does he have? What authorities does he have?

A4. The Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects serves as the principal advisor

on facility construction and project management to the Director of the Office of

Budget, Finance, and Award Management (BFA), also known as the Chief Financial

Officer. The Deputy is the day-to-day point of contact with senior agency officials,

NSF program managers, and awardee managers on project management and oversight matters relating to NSF’s large facility projects. The Deputy Director’s responsibilities include:

• Advising the BFA Director on problem areas and opportunities, and recommending courses of action; identifying errors in judgment and/or time that

could have serious effects on cost or schedule;

• Providing assistance to NSF program managers in planning, budgeting, constructing, and operating large facility projects—activities that extend from

pre-conceptual design through engineering criteria, site selection, construction, and/or acquisition, operations, and decommissioning;

• Directing the development, initiation, and implementation of NSF policies,

guidelines, and procedures for large facility projects;

• Representing NSF in meetings with other federal agencies, OMB, Congress,

and other oversight or investigative bodies on all matters involving the business operations oversight aspects of large facility projects;

• Conducting independent cost, schedule, and management reviews of large facility projects; and,

• Managing the annual validation reviews for large facility projects for inclusion in the fiscal budget process.

The Deputy Director serves on all Project Advisory Teams (PAT), the NSF advisory group assembled by each program officer managing a large facility project. The

PAT is composed of representatives from BFA, the Office of the General Counsel,

program managers with experience and expertise in large projects, the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, and the Office of International Science and Engineering.

Through their expertise in grants management, contracts, legal, legislative, and

international aspects of project management, the PATs provide facility program

managers with advice on a regular basis.

NSF is currently re-evaluating this position to ensure that it has the right mix

of responsibilities and authority to provide maximum benefit to the Foundation. The

authority of the position is described above. The NSF Director fully supports this

position and has charged the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects with the

authority to act in his name with respect to NSF’s portfolio of large projects. The

Director has specifically delegated to the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects

the authority to convene and conduct external reviews of any large facility projects

when professional judgment indicates there is reason to do so.

The process of selecting facility projects to be funded in the Major Research

Equipment and Facility Construction (MREFC) account begins with the NSF proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:44 Jun 15, 2005 Jkt 099574 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES05\030905\99574 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
61

gram manager and the cognizant Division Director and Assistant Director recommending the project to the MREFC Panel. The MREFC Panel, chaired by the NSF

Deputy Director and composed of NSF senior management including the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects as a member ex-officio, reviews and recommends

which projects are sent forward for final approval to the NSF Director and then to

the National Science Board.

Presently, 1.5 FTEs report directly to the Deputy Director for Large Facility

Projects. In addition, as a line manager within BFA, the Deputy Director can call

on the resources of the entire BFA staff. Examples include: The Division of Contracts and Complex Agreements manages the award and administration of cooperative agreements for MREFC projects; the Policy Office is responsible for implementing and issuing proposal, award, and acquisition policy for NSF programs; the

Division of Financial Management oversees financial policy and financial management of NSF; and the Budget Division coordinates development of NSF’s annual

budget to OMB and Congress. All divisions participate in activities related to management of large facility projects; the Deputy Director relies on their expertise in

providing the best advice and guidance to NSF program officers in planning, budgeting, constructing, and operating large facility projects. NSF expects to fill two additional positions in the near future. The Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects

requires no extraordinary technical resources.

NSF Business Analysis

Q5. NSF has contracted out for a multi-year, multi-million dollar Business Analysis

of NSF workforce and procedures. What is the status of this project?

A5. In FY 2002, NSF initiated a comprehensive, multi-year Business Analysis, the

outcomes of which are informing Organizational Excellence investments now and for

the foreseeable future. The Business Analysis:

• Documented each of the agency’s core Business Processes and defined its contribution to the NSF mission.

• Defined process effectiveness and efficiency improvements that leverage past

experience, capitalize on best practices in the public and private sectors, and

respond to emerging mission-related trends.

• Is developing future-looking Business Process scenarios and criteria for suc- cess.

• Defined a Human Capital Management Plan to provide next-generation

human capital capabilities. The Plan identifies future-looking workforce competencies and describes human capital strategies and approaches to support

the Business Process scenarios and to capitalize on opportunities afforded by

Technology and Tools innovations.

• Is defining an Integrated Technology and Tools Plan (business infrastructure

tools, knowledge bases, and technologies) that describes an overall integrated

technical and information architecture for future systems and capabilities in

support of the agency’s Business Processes.

The outcome of NSF’s Business Analysis will be a management and investment

strategy focused on quality, efficiency, agility, and flexibility and was designed to

realize the agency’s Human Capital, Business Processes, and Technology and Tools

goals.

Major products from the Business Analysis were delivered at the end of FY 2003,

including a complete baseline documentation of the agency’s core business processes,

a first version of an agency-wide human capital management plan, and a first

iteration of an enterprise architecture. This work underscores two fundamental

challenges facing NSF as it becomes a fully integrated organization capable of working both within and across intellectual organizational boundaries: (1) maintaining

the highest levels of quality in merit review and the award process, and (2) maintaining flexibility while promoting appropriate agency-wide standards.

During FY 2004, the Business Analysis effort addressed these challenges in a variety of ways. The Analysis identified alternative, more efficient methods for conducting the proposal review process that maintain the integrity of the process.

Q6. What does NSF hope to gain from the results? Have any recommendations been

made to date? If so, what were they and what changes has NSF undertaken in

response?

A6. Based on Business Analysis findings, the Foundation will develop more formal

procedures for managing the technical risk of awards and assessing the contribution

of NSF-funded projects to the advancement of science and engineering. Currently,

62

a series of opportunities for process improvement in both of the key business processes identified above are under review by agency management. Implementation is

expected to begin this fiscal year.

NSF also capitalized on Business Analysis work (e.g., an employee workload survey and analysis) to effectively implement alternative human capital management

approaches to increase the use and effectiveness of the workforce. In 2004, as a result of Business Analysis findings, NSF laid the groundwork for conversion from a

task-based to a competency-based human resource management system and consolidated several hundred existing job titles into 40 job families. These changes directly

link workforce planning, recruitment, development, and performance management

activities to agency business strategy, and simplify and streamline these activities

for NSF management and staff. The electronic jacket human capital pilot project

identified a set of useful guidelines for change management at NSF that are being

employed to facilitate the planning and introduction of new technologies and business process improvements.

The Administrative Functions Study, currently under way, is designed to address

the impact of rapidly changing work processes, shifts in workload, and advances in

technology on the Foundation’s ability to efficiently perform its administrative duties. The study is examining the distribution of administrative functions among staff

in the S&E Directorates and will recommend strategies to better align those functions in support of the NSF mission. The study will evaluate existing NSF staffing

models; identify new or modified staffing models; define competencies for positions

in the new models; and propose high level migration strategies to assist Divisions

and Directorates/Offices in transitioning, as appropriate, to any chosen model. Ultimately, the result is alternative career paths and new learning maps and training

plans for NSF staff who wish to manage opportunities for future career development. Also likely is that this study, in conjunction with other business analysis

work, will recommend the realignment of some administrative functions within or

among Divisions/Directorates/Offices.

The Business Analysis also provided a framework for integrating NSF’s information technology (IT) systems across the agency and establishing agency-wide standards for IT security, functionality, and application development. Recent focus has

been on the development of Baseline and Target Architectures, the Information

Technology Implementation Plan, and The NSF Technology Governance Framework.

The baseline architecture includes a complete inventory of NSF’s major and nonmajor systems; identification of business processes, sub-processes, applications, technology, and data deployed at NSF; identification of major areas of short and longterm improvements and recommendations; and an analysis of business processes

and services to identify redundancies and opportunities to introduce efficiencies.

The Target Technology Architecture, developed in 2004, focused on establishing

the precepts of a service-oriented enterprise architecture (SOEA); provides a vision

of NSF’s future architecture; links together organizational goals, lines of business

(BRM), Service/Capabilities (SRM), systems and technologies (TRM), data and people; and currently provides guidance for technology capital investments and several

infrastructure initiatives including NSF’s Portal, Directory Services and Identity

Management.

The Integrated IT Implementation Plan provides the links between the baseline

and the target architecture and is described in terms of 10 major IT projects. The

IT Implementation Plan is currently being used to guide implementation decisions

and sequencing of programs (e.g., the acquisition and implementation of expanded

grants management capabilities via the Strategic Information Management and the

NSF Identity Management and Directory Services system) and includes the constructs necessary to establish NSF’s technology roadmap for the next five to seven

years; essentially, the IT Implementation Plan includes the tools to ‘‘operationalize’’

NSF’s Enterprise Architecture.

Prioritizing New Personnel Hires

Q7. In the past two years, NSF has requested and received slots for 50 new employees. What are your priorities for the categories of new personnel you have hired

to date and plan to hire in the near future, and how did you determine those

priorities?

A7. NSF’s priorities for new personnel are in the two categories below:

Science and Engineering Staff—Science and engineering researchers and educators with extensive, relevant professional experience oversee assigned areas of the

NSF portfolio. Their primary responsibilities are: a) to manage science and engineering programmatic resources within the context of NSF’s Strategic Plan by developing forward-looking solicitations using a quality merit review process to identify

63

the most promising projects; and b) to implement comprehensive award management and oversight procedures to ensure that the agency’s investments contribute

optimally to the Nation’s scientific and engineering leadership. Duties also include

representing NSF in the global science and engineering community, participating in

program development and evaluation activities, coordinating with other organizations and stakeholder groups, and ensuring diverse participation in review and

funding procedures.

Business, Operations, and Information Staff—Business, operations, and information professionals create and support state-of-the-art business processes and procedures within the agency. They provide contemporary administrative leadership and

support within NSF as well as the broader stakeholder community of grantee organizations, principal investigators, and reviewers. Additionally, they analyze and contribute to the development of agency policy, provide essential project management

capabilities, and perform an array of administrative functions. These professionals

uphold the agency’s robust merit review, award, and financial management processes, monitor grants and cooperative agreements, implement and oversee the evolution of the enterprise architecture, recruit and train agency staff, and ensure the

ongoing health and security of agency assets and resources, financial systems, and

internal controls. Like science and engineering professionals who cross traditional

disciplinary boundaries, the agency’s business, operations, and information professionals provide both breadth of expertise across all business processes and procedures and depth in key existing and emerging technical, legal, and administrative

areas.

Q8. What role is the Business Analysis report playing in your decisions?

A8. The NSF Business Analysis played a key role in determining these staffing priorities. In FY 2002, NSF initiated a comprehensive, multi-year Business Analysis

study, the outcomes of which are informing Organizational Excellence investments

for the foreseeable future. This study is a key element of NSF’s Administration and

Management strategy, a concurrent analysis of human capital, business practices,

and technology, which is now part of the Organizational Excellence strategic goal.

The Business Analysis identified Workload of Science and Engineering and Business, Operations, and Information Staff as a strategic area to be addressed by NSF.

An increase in the volume and complexity of proposals impacts the effectiveness of

Program Directors and other Science and Engineering staff. NSF proposal workload

increased by 48 percent from 2000 to 2004; the volume of interdisciplinary proposals

requiring cross-directorate coordination (e.g., nanotechnology, biocomplexity in the

environment, and cyberinfrastructure) increased by more than 50 percent over a

three-year period. In addition, the agency-wide effort to improve the effectiveness

of management and oversight of NSF awards increases workload demand on both

Science and Engineering and Business, Operations, and Information staff across the

Foundation.

In hiring new staff to address these pressing and immediate needs, NSF continues

to emphasize the recruitment and training of staff who are adept at crossing boundaries between disciplines, traditionally stove-piped career fields, and organizations.

These individuals will both create and respond to emerging scientific and business

opportunities. New staff members are contributing to the attainment of NSF’s organizational excellence goal, enabling quality merit review, award management, and

operations for an increasing number of proposals and increasingly complex projects.

Math and Science Partnership

Q9. In May 2004, the Office of the Inspector General completed its audit of the Math

and Science Partnership (MSP) Program at NSF. Among the findings, the audit

determined that the contract for evaluation of the overall program had not been

released and it appeared that milestones, target dates and deliverables for completing the evaluation were absent or still under development. The audit also

found that some of the individual MSP projects did not have the systems in

place to effectively evaluate their progress in improving teaching and learning.

What is the status of both the overall program evaluation and the evaluation

of individual projects?

A9. On May 18, 2004, NSF released a Request for Proposals (DACS–040017) for the

Program Evaluation of the Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP–PE). In

September 2004 COSMOS Corporation, in partnership with Vanderbilt University,

George Mason University and The McKenzie Group, was awarded the overall program evaluation contract. The contract specified the milestones, target dates, and

64

deliverables necessary to accomplish the evaluation process at the program level.

COSMOS has begun its work, which is ongoing.

The overall program evaluation (MSP–PE) contract awarded in September 2004

is but one aspect of a much larger and more comprehensive package of MSP data

collection and evaluation. The MSP–PE builds on and uses: (a) the existing MSP

Management Information System (MSP–MIS), previously awarded by contract to

Westat; and (b) the extensive quantitative and qualitative data collected and reported by each funded Partnership project since the project’s initial funding. The

MSP–MIS is a critical component of the overall MSP evaluation package, in that

it brings consistency to the overall MSP data effort through the collection across all

funded Partnerships of common quantitative and qualitative data, including student

achievement data and teacher data. The MSP–MIS is the primary data source for

the MSP–PE and, because of that function, its role in an overall MSP evaluation

is at least as important as that of the program evaluation contract.

For individual projects, the status of their evaluations is one of ongoing strengthening. Since the first awards were made at the end of FY 2002, the MSP has been

incrementally increasing its oversight of project evaluation through the use of additional external review of evaluation plans and evaluator credentials, as well as

through the ongoing critical site visits required of all Comprehensive MSP projects.

The OIG Audit of the MSP program focused on a small sample of Partnership

projects funded in the first competition. The Audit Report acknowledged (p.3) that

NSF had been, in later solicitations, more explicit in articulating requirements

about quantitative measurements and independent evaluators. Consonant with the

nature of a Research and Development effort, all aspects of MSP evaluation have

been continually strengthened since the program began.

Retention of Science and Engineers Majors

Q10. Surveys of college freshmen show a high level of interest in science and engineering (S&E) fields, with approximately 25–30 percent of students intending

to major in these areas. However, during the course of their undergraduate

years, many students move out of S&E and into other majors or out of college.

What is NSF doing to improve the retention of S&E majors, and how will these

efforts be maintained in light of level or declining budgets?

A10. Many programs at NSF are aimed to improve the retention of undergraduate

S&E majors. NSF supports many collaborative alliances between different types of

institutions that are designed to provide a seamless transition for undergraduate

students as they move through their initial years as majors in S&E fields. These

programs and alliances are active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and

three U.S. territories; at approximately 900 different universities; and with over

20,000 undergraduate students involved (FY 2004 data). Efforts will be made to continue the thrust of these programs and alliances in light of tight budgets and competing priorities.

One of these programs is the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Talent Expansion Program (STEP), which has a goal of increasing the

number of students graduating with associate and baccalaureate degrees in STEM

fields. Projects supported by STEP use a variety of creative approaches to attract

and retain students in S&E fields. As an example of this program’s impact, estimates are that the nineteen projects supported by STEP in FY 2004 will, by the

end of the grant period, graduate 1,640 additional STEM majors annually beyond

those graduated in FY 2003.

NSF undergraduate scholarship programs, such as the Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics Scholarship (CSEMS) program (funded by H1–B visa

fees), the Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS) program, and the

Robert Noyce Scholarship program, help to retain science and engineering students

who otherwise would not stay in college due to financial difficulties. The projects

that supply student scholarships also provide mentoring and other academic and

student-support programming that helps to retain students.

NSF programs that address the quality of undergraduate education also potentially have an impact on the retention of undergraduate students in S&E fields. The

Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program supports development of new S&E learning materials and tools and creative teaching methods and

strategies that increase student learning. These new materials and approaches will

engage a broader group of students, increase their academic success, and enhance

retention of students. Similarly, the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program provides grants to strengthen the education of students in technologically oriented associate degree programs.

65

Questions submitted by Representative Darlene Hooley

Graduate Fellowships and Traineeships

Q1. NSF has increased the size of stipends for graduate fellowships and traineeships

to $30,000 per year.

What has been the effect on numbers of applications for fellowships and

traineeships as a result of increasing stipends, and in particular, the effect on

the number of applications from individuals from under-represented groups?

A1. The total number of applications for the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF)

has consistently increased in recent years. The number of applications from women

and minorities has also increased, although in differing proportions. Between 2002

and 2004, applications from women rose by 35 percent and from under-represented

minorities by 27 percent. However, it is important to note that as a percentage of

the total applicant pool, women and minorities decreased slightly during the same

period. (The program is able to report numbers representing only those who identified themselves as members of under-represented groups).

The overall GRF offer acceptance rate (percentage of students who accept the

GRF award) has increased with the increase in stipend levels.

While an overall increase in applications accompanied the improvement in the absolute amount of stipends, other factors may account for the increase. This includes

economic factors and the relative size of the NSF stipends as compared to other fellowships.

Q2. On what basis do you determine the proportion of funding for the fellowship program versus the traineeships programs? How do the goals of these two types of

graduate support programs differ?

A2. The goals of the NSF fellowship program and the two traineeship programs are

complementary. They seek to attract high quality domestic students to study in the

science and engineering fields and to broaden and strengthen their preparation for

career success.

Within the Division of Graduate Education, budgets for the traineeship and fellowship programs are fairly close, reflecting the importance of both approaches to

furthering NSF’s goals in the preparation of future scientists and engineers. In

2005, the NSF budget is $96.53 million for the Graduate Research Fellowships

(GRF) program and $118.86 million for two traineeship programs ($68.97 million for

the Integrative Graduate Education and Traineeship (IGERT) and $49.89 million for

the Graduate Teaching Fellows in GK–12 Education (GK–12); both of these programs make awards to institutions, not directly to individuals).

Fellowships are awarded to individuals directly and they are portable. Students

submit applications to NSF for awards to support their masters and Ph.D. graduate

study. Over 9,000 applications are submitted annually to the GRF program; approximately 950 new awards are made each fiscal year.

For fellowships, panels of experts review applications. Selected students may take

the award to an appropriate institution of the student’s choice. If the student is

studying in the U.S., the award is given to the institution annually and consists of

a $30,000 stipend for the student and $10,500 for the cost of education that remains

with the institution. If studying abroad, the award is provided directly to the student.

Traineeships are awarded in clusters as part of a grant to an institution. The institution selects students to participate as trainees. Both IGERT and GK–12 provide

the same amount as the GRF program for stipends and cost of education allowance.

The GK–12 program emphasizes communication skills and prepares graduates to

share their scientific expertise with a wide audience and for a variety of scientific

careers. IGERT traineeships prepare graduate students to be the scientists and engineers of the future, prepared for careers of the 21st century.

66

Q3. Does NSF have a goal for the proportion of fellowships and traineeships relative

to graduate research assistantships, which are funded under individual research

grants?

A3. The National Science Board has addressed the issue of distribution of support

for graduate students on a number of occasions. The 2003 NSB report The Science

and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential includes conclusions

drawn by a 1996 NSB Task Force on Graduate and Postdoctoral Education (1996).

Specifically, the Task Force reported that, ‘‘. . .despite extensive study, we find inadequate data to compel a recommendation of a major shift in funding mode among

fellowship, research assistantships, teaching assistantships, and traineeships for

supporting graduate education in science and engineering’’ (National Science Board,

The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential, p. 25, 2003).

The proportion of fellowships and traineeships relative to graduate research

assistantships is determined to a major degree by the number and size of research

grants. Changes in the budget for NSF’s Research and Related Activities account

are accompanied by similar changes in the number of research assistantships supported because they are important features of those grants. University applicants

for research grant funding often include graduate student funding in their proposals.

Research assistantships are not restricted to U.S. citizens and have no specific stipend requirement; by contrast, fellowships and traineeships are restricted to U.S.

citizens or permanent residents and require a specific stipend plus an amount budgeted for tuition and fees. NSF supports (indirectly) almost five times as many students with research assistantships as fellowships and traineeships. Because fellowships and traineeships are typically not given for the full duration of a graduate student’s doctoral education, recipients of fellowships and traineeships often work as

research assistants at some point during their doctoral studies.

High-End Computing and Cyberinfrastructure

Q4. How have the findings and recommendations of the interagency High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force influenced your fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget

decisions, and how does high-end computing, particularly making leading edge

supercomputers available to the research community, fit into your

cyberinfrastructure plans?

A4. High-end computing (HEC) is one essential component in the national

cyberinfrastructure. HEC systems and services are critical to discovery, learning,

and innovation in many science and engineering domains. Consequently, NSF remains firmly committed to making HEC resources and services available to the open

science community. Recognizing that research challenges in different science and engineering domains are best served by different HEC systems, the agency pursues

an architectural diversity strategy for HEC. For example, leading-edge HEC systems configured with high input/output bandwidth and moderate interconnect

latencies meet the data-intensive computational challenges inherent in many biological and biomedical fields. The needs of the climate modeling and cosmology/astrophysics communities are best met with tightly-coupled leading edge HEC architectures configured with high interconnect bandwidths.

Since the HEC needs of the national science and engineering communities are diverse, NSF currently supports a range of HEC systems and related services provided via a number of provider organizations, including the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, the

Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Purdue University, the San Diego Supercomputing Center, and the Texas Advanced Computing Center. Some of the resources

provided by a number of these organizations have been integrated into the NSFfunded Extensible Terascale Facility (ETF). ETF uses advanced technology to provide a unified user environment in which researchers and educators can easily access a variety of cyberinfrastructure architectures and services, including HEC, that

are furnished by spatially distributed providers. Other cyberinfrastructure resources, including some HEC resources, are provided by these organizations outside

of ETF—these resources remain accessible through the traditional access mechanisms with which researchers and educators have become familiar.

The High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force (HECRTF) report ‘‘A Federal

Plan for High-End Computing’’ describes alternative approaches and planning strategies for three HEC components: HEC Research and Development, HEC Resources,

and Procurement. Some of the approaches and planning strategies discussed are

more directly relevant to NSF’s cyberinfrastructure plans than others. However

67

since HEC is a key element of cyberinfrastructure, all are likely to have some bearing on NSF’s future cyberinfrastructure activities.

The agency recognizes that effective interagency coordination and collaboration is

essential to progress in HEC. NSF continues to work closely with its sister agencies

on HEC issues. Most notably, NSF staff are working with colleagues at the Department of Energy (DOE). The two agencies are partners in the ETF (DOE is providing

resources to the open science community via NSF’s ETF platform), and are collaborating in the investigation of the leadership-class Cray Red Storm HEC system currently being deployed at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center by NSF, and at

Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) by DOE. The architectures of these systems are

slightly different due to the classified nature of the work to be done on the SNLdeployed system, but many features are identical. As another example, NSF staff

remain fully engaged in collaborations with DARPA in that agency’s High Productivity Computing Systems program.

Cyberinfrastructure

Q5. Have you developed, or are you developing, an NSF-wide plan to first identify

and then to meet the cyberinfrastructure needs of the scientific and engineering

research communities? What are the roles and responsibilities of the Computer

and Information Science and Engineering Directorate and the other scientific directorates in developing the plan, budgeting for it, and implementing it?

A5. In March 2005, NSF established the Cyberinfrastructure Initial Implementation Working Group (CIIWG) consisting of representatives from all research and

education directorates and offices, and including the Director of the Division of

Shared Cyberinfrastructure (SCI) from the Computer and Information Science and

Engineering (CISE) Directorate. The CIIWG is charged to identify roles and goals

for NSF’s cyberinfrastructure investments, and to recommend management structures and strategies needed to support integrative and long-term planning that will

lead to the development of an NSF-wide Cyberinfrastructure Plan.

In preparing these recommendations, the CIIWG is to ensure the involvement of

NSF program staff from all offices and directorates, to receive input from science

and engineering research and education communities, and to frame the recommendations to build on past and current investments. The CIIWG will also provide insight into the current context of NSF efforts with respect to the activities of

others, including research and education communities, other agencies, commercial

enterprises, and international activities.

Recommendations from the CIIWG will be used to develop the NSF management

structure that will carry out long-term planning and management of NSF’s

cyberinfrastructure investments. The CIIWG report will be reviewed and considered

for implementation by a newly established Cyberinfrastructure Council (CI Council).

This council consists of the Assistant Directors heading each research and education

directorate and office. Dr. Bement chairs the group. The CI Council will establish

policy, principles, and priorities for the NSF-wide cyberinfrastructure investments

and approve the integrated NSF cyberinfrastructure plan that will be established

and implemented through the NSF-wide integrated management structure. The

NSF plan will include investments through research and education directorates, offices, and the SCI Division in CISE. This management structure will be in place

early in the summer of 2005.

National Nanotechnology Initiative

Q6. The Nanoscale Science and Engineering priority area received an increase of 32

percent for FY 2005 and seeks a two percent increase for FY 2006. However, the

breakout of funding for the initiative by research directorate shows a 40 percent

decrease in funding in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate

from FY 2004 to FY 2005 to a level of only $1.56 million. The FY 2006 request

is frozen at that level.

Explain why research related to the societal implications of nanotechnology appears to be de-emphasized within NSF’s nanotechnology research program.

A6. In FY 2006, funding for the Nanoscale Science and Engineering priority area

declines, consistent with the planned phase-out of the priority area. At the same

time, funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) activities increases

by about two percent. The NNI funding request for FY 2006 has been re-organized

based on Program Component Areas (PCAs) to align it with the NNI Strategic Plan

published in December 2004. The PCA component on Ethical, Legal, and other Social Implications (ELSI) will be funded through several directorates. SBE is funding

68

societal implications at an increasing level, with $5.5 million estimated for FY 2004,

$7.4 million estimated in FY 2005, and $7.5 million requested for FY 2006.

The SBE Directorate’s funding for ELSI includes a specific program solicitation

that has remained at $1.56 million from FY 2004 through FY 2006. However, additional funds for societal implications of nanotechnology are funded through core programs in SBE. These are expected to increase in FY 2006 in competition with other

core proposals. SBE spent about $2.59 million for nanoscale science, engineering,

and technology projects in FY 2004.

The FY 2006 NSF request for societal dimensions of nanotechnology includes not

only the ELSI program component area but also includes environmental, health and

safety (EHS) and educational components. FY 2006 funding for the societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a whole will increase to a total of $60 million.

69

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mark S. Wrighton, Chairman of the Committee on Audit and Oversight, National Science Board; Chancellor, Washington University, St. Louis

Question submitted by Chairman Bob Inglis

Q1. How does the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects fit into the National

Science Board’s processes for selection and oversight of Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction projects?

A1. The National Science Board feels strongly that the Deputy Director for Large

Facilities Projects (LFP), Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management must

have significant oversight and coordination responsibility for the construction and

financial management aspects of all LFPs. The Board has previously discussed this

issue with the National Science Foundation Director, Dr. Arden Bement, who has

confirmed to the Board that the LFP Deputy Director position does have oversight

authority for construction related and financial management of LFPs. The Board is

currently completing a report on its own oversight responsibilities with respect to

major research facilities, which will be implemented this fall. This report with include all the steps on how the Board approves and monitors these projects as they

go through their life cycle, and the role of the Deputy Director for LFPs in that process.

Questions submitted by Representative Darlene Hooley

Q1. The National Science Foundation (NSF) budget request funds only close out

costs for the Math and Science Partnership Program. This action is exactly

counter to the recommendation of the National Science Board (NSB) in NSB–

04–42, which was issued following the initial proposal to end the program in

the FY 2005 budget proposal. Has the position of the Board changed from that

expressed in its statement from last year, and if not, does the Board intend to

press for continuation of the Math and Science Partnership Program?

A1. The National Science Board reaffirms its previous statement (NSB–04–42), and

continues to support the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program at NSF as

essential to the development of stronger linkages between K–12 and undergraduate

education, and for the advancement of knowledge on what is effective in STEM education. NSF has long-term experience in such large-scale experiments in K–12 education in STEM fields through its Systemic Initiatives.

Q2. In general, what is the current position of the NSB on NSF’s role in K–12 math

and science education and does the Board support a policy change that would

lead to the de-emphasis, or abandonment, by NSF of instructional materials development and teacher training and professional development activities?

A2. The NSB has stated its support for high quality teacher training for K–12

STEM teachers, improvements in instructional materials development, and professional development in its reports, Failing Our Children (1998) (NSB–98–154) and

Preparing Our Children (1999) (NSB–99–31) and reaffirmed them in the Board’s recent report, The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential

(2003) (NSB–03–69) as critical to world leading capabilities in STEM fields for our

future workforce.

Q3. The FY 2006 budget request makes a substantial cut (-43 percent) in the education research component of the Research, Evaluation and Communication division in the Education and Human Resources Directorate. In its December 2003

report to Congress, ‘‘Fulfilling the Promise,’’ the National Science Board stated

that a ‘‘particularly urgent need’’ included support for research that enhances

understanding of learning and teaching at the K–12 and undergraduate level.

Explain how this budget decision squares with the Board’s statement of priorities.

A3. The NSB policy positions on K–12 and undergraduate education in the 2003 report to Congress are consistently affirmed by the Board in its policy studies on education and the workforce. In its written testimony to this Subcommittee on Research, the Board states: ‘‘We. . .know that the education of all our citizens in the

fundamentals of math, science and engineering must be addressed if the U.S. is to

remain eminent in S&T when we enter the 22nd century.’’ Though the budget request of $5.605 billion is a 2.4 percent increase over the FY 2005 budget, it is nevertheless below the level of the 2004 NSF operating budget. Should the subcommittee

70

determine that additional funds, beyond the Administration’s request, can be made

available to NSF in FY 2006, the Board recommends among its top priorities support for a strong and growing role for NSF in the Nation’s investment in science

and engineering education. The most recent NSB study on the K–16 system, Preparing Our Children (1999) (NSB–99–31), states: ‘‘The Board believes that stakeholders must develop a much-needed consensus on a common core of mathematics

and science knowledge and skills to be embedded consistently in classroom teaching

and learning’’ and recommends, ‘‘Overall, the investment should increase—by the

Federal Government, private foundations, and other sponsors—in research on

schooling, education systems more generally, and teaching and learning of mathematics and science in particular. To focus and deepen the knowledge base, an interagency Education Research Initiative, led by NSF and the Department of Education,

should be implemented. It should be distinguishable as a joint venture within the

agencies’ respective research missions, and cooperatively funded.’’ The more recent

Board report, The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential

(2003) (NSB–03–69) reaffirms ‘‘the necessity of a strong curriculum in mathematics,

science, engineering and technology from the earliest grades to build the knowledge

needed by citizens and members of the workforce’’ and recommends that, ‘‘To improve effectiveness of precollege teaching, stakeholders must collaborate

to. . .support research on learning that better informs K–12 mathematics and

science curricula and pedagogy development.’’ The Math and Science Partnership

Program and other education research programs at NSF are designed to address

these objectives. NSF will focus the remaining resources on priorities for education

research; however, there is no question that reduced funding for research will likely

reduce the advances in knowledge that would otherwise be possible with higher levels of support. The Board expects to issue a formal letter to Congress on this issue

at its May 2005 meeting.

Q4. Under the Administration’s funding projects for NSF, which are for flat or declining budgets, what factors will the NSB consider in determining the appropriate balance between support for research projects versus support for major research facilities and other research infrastructure? In general, is there a target

level for the proportion of the budget devoted to research infrastructure versus

research project support?

A4. In view of the increasing importance of infrastructure to performing cutting

edge science and engineering, maintaining excellence in federally funded research

requires a higher level of funding for infrastructure support. For that reason, the

Board recommended in its recent report, Science and Engineering Infrastructure for

the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation (2003) (NSB–02–190),

‘‘Increase the share of the NSF budget devoted to S&E infrastructure in order to

provide individual investigators and groups of investigators with the tools they need

to work at the frontier’’ and argues with respect to the NSF budget for ‘‘a share closer to the higher end of the historic range (22–27 percent).’’ However, the Board has

further argued that the higher infrastructure investment should be addressed

through growth of the NSF budget, rather than reducing research project support.

At the request of Congress, and consistent with Board discussions during our recent retreat, the Board will undertake the development and establishment of a new

vision for NSF for the 21st century. This visionary document will also include overarching goals with both long- and short-term priorities, and address the balances

between research projects and facilities support, that take into account federal fiscal

realities. We expect to work closely with the NSF Director and finalize this effort

by the end of 2005.

71

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation

Question submitted by Representative Darlene Hooley

Q1. Your testimony included the statement that ‘‘realignment of certain management

priorities would ease some of the burden’’ in the absence of having all the resources otherwise needed by NSF to address its post-award administration challenges. What are some examples of realignment that you had in mind?

A1. The business of the National Science Foundation (NSF) is funding basic research and educational initiatives in science, mathematics, and engineering. Over

the years NSF management has focused on pre-award activities, improving the application process and streamlining review activities. NSF has invested in high-quality electronic communications and processing systems that are the backbone of its

operations. However, NSF has not applied the same rigor to developing a robust

post-award monitoring process. NSF has relied heavily on the goodwill of its institutional partners for the day-to-day monitoring of NSF grants. While this strategy has

merit, it is not enough to safeguard the billions of tax dollars that NSF invests in

research and education.

NSF has put in place an Award Monitoring and Business Assistance Program,

with limited coverage of its award portfolio. By focusing on high-risk awards, the

effort is too narrow and the effect is limited. NSF could broaden the scope of its

monitoring activities by implementing cost-effective monitoring procedures such as

desk reviews of reports from awardees and computer assisted screening of A–133

audits.

It is my judgment that NSF needs a minimum of five qualified individuals dedicated to post-award administration. An annual budget of approximately $1 million

would be needed to support these individuals for salaries, benefits, normal office requirements, travel, and contractor services to assist in the monitoring function.

These five individuals would coordinate the myriad functions that constitute postward administration. They would draw on other NSF program and financial personnel as needed to carry out their monitoring functions.

Current management priorities include a Business Analysis study that is costing

NSF approximately $12 million dollars. This project started in FY 2002 and yet

NSF is still deciding on what and how to implement improvements in the work

force. This effort at strategic planning has actually become an obstacle to taking urgently needed actions. Therefore, my first suggestion is to reallocate resources from

this effort to pay for contract services, travel and other necessary monetary expenses associated with post-award administration.

In addition, because of efficiencies gained by moving payroll functions to the Department of Interior, four full-time equivalent positions could be used for post-award

administration. Another full-time equivalent position could become available by realignment of the existing financial personnel responsible for indirect rate negotiation and audit resolution.

NSF has repeatedly stated that it has a shortage of personnel. An alternative approach would be to re-program $1 million from science, engineering, and education

projects to establish this unit. The benefits gained would be cost-effective in that

fewer dollars would be misspent by awardees.

(73)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94