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

91–690PS 2004

AN OVERVIEW OF THE

FEDERAL R&D BUDGET

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Serial No. 108–41

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

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

February 11, 2004

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Minority Ranking Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 24

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25

Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives .............. 26

Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 27

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 28

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 29

Witnesses:

Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Executive Office of the President

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32

Biography .......................................................................................................... 38

Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41

Biography .......................................................................................................... 46

Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 47

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49

Biography .......................................................................................................... 75

Mr. Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Department of Commerce

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 75

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 78

Biography .......................................................................................................... 82

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 83

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 84

Biography .......................................................................................................... 97

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 98

Page

IV

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Executive Office of the President ........................................................................ 120

Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., Acting Director, National Science Foundation .............. 143

Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security .......................................................................... 152

Mr. Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Department of Commerce ............................................................................................... 172

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy ..... 182

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Chairman Boehlert from the ACE, AAU, and NASULGC, dated

February 10, 2004 ................................................................................................ 192

Letter to Chairman Boehlert from Hyman Bass, dated February 9, 2004 ......... 193

Statement on behalf of the American Chemical Society, American Mathematical Society, American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society,

and Institute of the Electrical and Electronics Engineers ................................ 195

(1)

AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL R&D

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

An Overview of the

Federal R&D Budget

for Fiscal Year 2005

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004

11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, the House Science Committee will hold a

hearing to consider President Bush’s fiscal year 2005 (FY05) budget request for research and development (R&D). Five Administration witnesses will review the proposed budget in the context of the President’s overall priorities in science and technology. The Science Committee will hold a separate hearing on February 12th to

examine the budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA). Later this year, the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee will hold a hearing to review the R&D budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

2. Witnesses

Dr. John H. Marburger III is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP), the White House science office. Prior to joining OSTP, Dr. Marburger

served as President of the State University of New York at Stony Brook and as Director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Dr. Rita R. Colwell is the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Before joining the Foundation, Dr. Colwell served as President of the University of

Maryland Biotechnology Institute and Professor of Microbiology at the University of

Maryland. She was also a member of the National Science Board from 1984 to 1990.

Dr. Charles E. McQueary is the Under Secretary for Science and Technology

(S&T) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to joining the Department, Dr. McQueary served as President of General Dynamics Advanced Technology

systems, and as President and Vice President of business units for AT&T, Lucent

Technologies, and as a Director for AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Mr. Phillip J. Bond is the Under Secretary for Technology in the Department of

Commerce. Before joining the Department, Mr. Bond served as Director of Federal

Public Policy for the Hewlett-Packard Company, and previously served as Senior

Vice President for Government Affairs and Treasurer of the Information Technology

Industry Council.

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach is the Director of the Office of Science at the Department

of Energy (DOE). Prior to joining the Department, Dr. Orbach was Chancellor of the

University of California at Riverside.

3. Background

Overall Budget

On February 2, 2004, President Bush delivered his FY05 federal budget submission to Congress. The budget proposes $2.4 trillion in outlays (versus an estimated

$2.0 trillion in receipts), a 3.4 percent increase over FY04, and an estimated 19.9

percent of the $12 trillion U.S. gross domestic product. The overall budget request

focuses heavily on Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) activities, which receive seven and ten percent increases, respectively.

All other discretionary spending is held to 0.5 percent growth.

4

1 A complete federal R&D spending table is provided at the end of the charter.

Research and Development Budget

The President’s R&D budget proposes to spend $132 billion, an increase of $5.9

billion, or five percent, over FY04.1 Consistent with the overall federal budget, the

largest percentage R&D increases will go to DOD and DHS (7 and 15 percent, respectively), while all other agencies receive an average increase of 2.3 percent (Table

9). The R&D budget increases are almost entirely for development (eight percent),

while basic and applied research are almost flat-funded (0.6 and 0.5 percent increases, respectively).

Research Budget

The Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget—which differs from the R&D

budget in that it excludes funding for defense development, testing, and evaluation—often provides a more useful overall perspective on funding for agencies under

the Science Committee’s jurisdiction. Funding for FS&T in the FY05 budget declines

by 0.4 percent, to $60.4 billion. The FS&T budgets of the Department of Commerce

(DOC) and EPA are particularly affected, receiving 12 and 14 percent cuts, respectively.

Administration Highlights and Perspective

The Administration points out that, under the proposed budget, R&D overall and

the research budgets of some key agencies, such as the National Science Foundation

(NSF) would increase at a rate significantly greater than overall domestic discretionary spending. But basic and applied research as a whole would grow at about

the same rate as the rest of the discretionary budget.

The Administration also argues that the proposed R&D budget should be compared not just to the figures for FY04, but to previous years to get a true picture

of how R&D is faring. For example, the budget notes that in FY05, 13.5 percent of

all discretionary outlays will go to R&D, the highest share in 37 years. The budget

also emphasizes that non-defense R&D outlays are at their third highest level in

25 years. Similarly, the budget underscores that funding for total R&D and civilian

R&D have increased 44 and 26 percent since FY01, respectively.

In evaluating the budget using FY01 as a baseline, it should be noted that the

overall R&D increases are often not representative of trends for individual agencies

and scientific disciplines (and that the figures include development funding). For example, R&D at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and DHS accounts for over

two-thirds of the civilian R&D increases over the last four years, while trends at

other agencies range from modest increases to significant cuts.

The Administration also emphasizes that evaluations of how well agencies and

programs are managed is helping to determine the proposed budgets. Agencies are

evaluated by the Executive Branch Management Scorecard, which grades agencies

with green, yellow and red lights. Agencies under Science Committee jurisdiction

generally scored well on these evaluations, in particular NASA and NSF, which

were the only agencies among the 26 evaluated to receive more than one green light.

The Office of Management Budget selects a number of specific programs to review

each year using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Some R&D programs

at both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the EPA receive cuts in the FY05 proposal because of poor PART scores. NSF programs have scored well.

The budget also emphasizes the Administration’s growing concern over Congressional earmarks within R&D accounts. The budget notes that academic earmarks

have increased from just $296 million in 1996 to over $2 billion in 2003, and that

they now account for eight percent of all federal funding to colleges and universities.

4. Primary Issues

The following highlights flag those areas of greatest interest to the Science Committee:

Overall Funding Levels and Balance: The research community (often backed by

the Science Committee and the federal agencies themselves) has been calling for

substantial increases in R&D. For example, the Congress passed, and the President

signed, the NSF Authorization Act, which calls for doubling NSF’s budget over five

years. The proposed budget falls significantly short over those goals because overall

domestic discretionary spending is so tight. The increase for non-defense, non-homeland security R&D in the proposed budget is 2.3 percent. Further, research (basic

and applied) is essentially flat-funded while support for development is increased

eight percent (Table 9). Also, while the Committee will review the NASA budget request at a later date, the proposed increase for NASA (5.6 percent) may have an

5

2OMB and OSTP estimate agency funding levels for NNI activities, but the data are not entirely consistent from year to year and there are discrepancies arising from the fact that some

nanotechnology research may be difficult to identify or classify. 3The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

impact on the availability of R&D funds for other agencies—especially NSF and

EPA, which are both included in the same appropriations bill as NASA (VA-HUDIndependent Agencies Appropriations).

Physical Science Research: The FY05 budget request would continue the decadelong trend of flat-funding physical science research. For example, the budget requests $3.42 billion for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science—the

largest single source of funds for civilian physical science research—a decrease of

$68 million (two percent). Even if Congressional earmarks were excluded from the

FY04 baseline (as the Administration suggests is appropriate), the requested increase for the Office of Science would only amount to two percent. In constant dollars, physical science research is funded at about the same level as in 1993, while

biological research has more than doubled.

NSF Math and Science Partnership Program: The budget would eliminate the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program at NSF ($140 million enacted in

FY04). MSP, which funds partnerships between local school districts and institutions of higher education to improve K–12 math and science education, was established in the National Science Foundation Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368), following the

recommendation of the President. After highlighting MSP in the FY03 and FY04

budget requests for NSF, the Administration has proposed moving the program and

its funds to the Department of Education. Opponents of the move believe NSF is

better suited to run a competitive program that pairs universities with school districts. If moved, the NSF program would be merged with a Department of Education

program that focuses exclusively on mathematics for secondary school students, particularly those who are at risk of dropping out of high school because they lack basic

skills. Also, by law, the Department of Education program is distributed to states

by formula. As part of its proposal, the Administration wants Congress to amend

the law so that the Department could award funds competitively—as NSF already

does.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Overall, NIST receives a 14.5 percent decrease in the FY05 budget request, primarily due to elimination of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP has long been a contentious

program because it assists industrial research. The budget requests a 22 percent increase over the FY04 for NIST’s core laboratories, but some of that money is needed

to restore funding cut by Congress in FY04. NIST has not yet provided a final assessment of the impact of those cuts, but it has estimated that 50 to 100 scientists

and technical staff may be laid off during the current fiscal year, and work at all

labs will be reduced.

NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP): The FY05 budget requests

no increase for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which was cut 67

percent in the FY04 enacted budget. The dramatic reduction in MEP funding for

the current fiscal year likely will result the closure of a significant number of MEP

centers and satellite offices that provide assistance to small manufacturers to improve their competitive position.

5. Interagency Research Activities

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI): NNI, which involves ten federal

agencies, continues to be a high priority of both the Administration and the Science

Committee. The budget requests an estimated2 $982 million for NNI in FY05, an

increase of $21 million, or two percent, over the estimated FY04 level. Funding for

the five agencies3 authorized in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108–153) is up eight percent to $609 million, but remains significantly below the $809 million authorized for FY05 in the Act.

Networking and Information Technology R&D Initiative (NITRD): NITRD,

which has been in existence for many more years than NNI, did not receive an increase. The budget requests $2.0 billion for NITRD in FY05, a one percent decrease

from the FY04 enacted level.

Climate Change Research: The budget requests $2 billion for the interagency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), approximately the same as enacted in FY04.

6

4For FY05, NSF cyber security programs are authorized to be $128 million and NIST cyber security programs are authorized to be $61 million. 5 Nanoscale Science and Engineering is up 22 percent, Facilities is up 12 percent, and the ‘‘Individuals’’ category (programs focused on education and training) is up 11 percent. (All percentages compare the FY05 request with the FY04 enacted level.) The Information Technology Research program will be terminated in FY04, as scheduled.

A strategic plan for CCSP was released in July 2003, but it is unclear to what extent the budget request was guided by that strategic plan. The request for CCSP

includes $240 million for the interagency Climate Change Research Initiative

(CCRI), a 42 percent increase above the FY04 enacted level. CCRI is intended to

target critical scientific uncertainties and deliver results in three to five years. It

is unclear, however, how much of the increase for CCRI reflects reprogramming

from ongoing research activities in other programs.

Cyber Security R&D: Some increases are proposed for cyber security R&D pro- grams in FY05. The budget requests $76 million for cyber security R&D and education and training programs at NSF and $18.5 million for cyber security R&D at

NIST (up 48 percent). These are both significant increases but still well below the

levels authorized in the Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 107–

305).4 Within the DHS Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate, the FY05 budget requests $18 million for cyber security R&D, the same level as in FY04.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): NEHRP is

a multi-agency program administered by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NIST, and NSF. The President’s

overall FY05 request for NEHRP is $114.5 million, including $45.7, $46.5, $20.5,

and $1.8 million, respectively, for NSF, USGS, FEMA, and NIST. These amounts

are roughly flat compared to FY04 levels. The House passed a reauthorization bill

for NEHRP last year, which is pending in the Senate.

Budget tables for NNI, NITRD, and CCSP are provided in Appendix I.

6. Agency R&D Highlights

National Science Foundation (NSF)

The National Science Foundation is the primary source of federal funding for nonmedical basic research conducted at colleges and universities and serves as a catalyst for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education reform at all

levels.

The FY05 budget request for NSF is $5.75 billion, an increase of 3.0 percent, or $167 million over the FY04 level. This is $1.6 billion below the funding level in the

National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368). In the budget proposal, the largest percentage increases are for personnel and administrative

initiatives, as well as construction of major research facilities. The Research and Related Activities (RRA) account, which contains the funds for most of NSF research

grants programs, receives a 4.7 percent increase. However, actual spending on research programs would increase by only 2.8 percent because the Administration

transfers into the research account funds that would be used to close out a discontinued education program.

NSF continues to receive high marks from the Office of Management and Budget

for the quality of its management and for the excellence of its programs. As in the

FY04 budget request, NSF was awarded two green lights on the Executive Branch

Management Scorecard. Also, in the past year, four NSF programs were examined

using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): Nanoscale Science and Engineering, Information Technology Research, Facilities, and Individuals (programs directed toward math, science, and engineering education and training of students at

the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels). All received ratings of Effective (the

highest rating), and the three continuing programs received substantial budget increases.5

Issues/Questions Raised by the FY05 Request for NSF

Education and Human Resources (EHR): In addition to eliminating the MSP

program as discussed above, the FY05 budget request would cut other NSF education programs at the K–12 and undergraduate levels. For example, the Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program (known as

STEP or the Tech Talent program) established in the National Science Foundation

Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368) would receive $15 million in FY05, a decrease of $9.85 million (40 percent) from the FY04 enacted level of $24.85 million.

Tech Talent funds innovative programs at colleges and universities designed to increase the number of American undergraduates completing degrees in math,

7

science, and engineering. The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, which was re-authorized in the 2002 Act, would receive $4 million in FY05, a decrease of $3.95 million (50 percent) from the FY04 enacted level of $7.95 million. The program offers

scholarships to math and science majors at the junior and senior undergraduate

level, and stipends to math and science professionals, who are seeking to become

K–12 math and science teachers.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC): The FY05

budget request proposes $213.27 million for this account, 37 percent above the FY04

level. The request includes three continuing projects and three new starts: National

Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV),

and Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP). The budget does not provide the

rationale for starting these three projects from among those in the queue.

Organization and Management: Nearly half of the $167 million increase requested for NSF in FY05 is slated for the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account. The

FY05 budget requests $294 million for S&E, an increase of $75 million (34 percent)

over the FY04 enacted level of $219 million. Most of the proposed increase for

S&E—$47.1 million—would be used to buy or lease new computer and networking

equipment and services. The budget does not explain the reason for the large increase. The budget does not request significant new funds for personnel, although

staffing has not kept up with the increases in the number of grants being awarded,

and the Inspector General has raised concerns about NSF’s ability to manage grants

with its existing staff.

8

Homeland Security R&D

Homeland Security R&D at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

The budget requests $1.2 billion for R&D in DHS, a 15 percent increase over the

FY04 enacted level. The primary focus of the DHS effort would continue to be on

development ($750 million, or 62 percent of the total DHS R&D FY05 request), but

9

6 BioWatch is a system of sensors in various cities that is designed to rapidly detect trace

amounts of biological materials in the air so as to provide early warning of the release of a

bioagent. 7The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created DHS, requires the Transportation Security Administration to be maintained as a distinct entity through November 25, 2004. 8 At DHS, operational cyber security programs, such as national alerts about existing computer and network vulnerabilities and technical support for other federal agencies’ implementation of cyber security activities, are located in the National Cyber Security Division of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, for which roughly $79 million (level

funding) has been requested for FY05. 9 National laboratories available for use by the DHS S&T Directorate include the DOE laboratories, the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.

the budget does propose a significant increase in funding devoted to basic research

($153 million, up $106 million from FY04).

Although R&D is also funded in other directorates, the bulk of the department’s proposed R&D expenditures, about $1 billion, is requested for the DHS Science and

Technology (S&T) Directorate, an increase of $126 million (14 percent) over the

FY04 enacted level. Most of this increase is directed toward biological countermeasures activities, including an expansion of BioWatch6 coverage in high-threat

cities, piloting an integrated warning and assessment system for bioattacks, and

safety/compliance and security upgrades to the infrastructure of the Plum Island

Animal Disease Center.

The FY05 budget request proposes to commence consolidation of the department’s R&D programs into the S&T Directorate by transferring of $24 million worth of

R&D activities from the U.S. Coast Guard and from the Federal Air Marshal Service. Significant R&D programs would remain outside of the S&T Directorate, mainly

the $154 million R&D program in the Transportation Security Administration.7

S&T Directorate funding is split among various technical portfolio areas, such as

biological countermeasures, nuclear and radiological countermeasures, support of

conventional DHS missions (such as the Secret Service), and threat and vulnerability testing and assessment (TVTA); a complete list of portfolios and their funding is provided in Table 2. Cyber security R&D, an element of TVTA, would receive

$18 million (the same level as in FY04).8

Homeland Security R&D at Other Agencies

Approximately $2.4 billion is proposed for homeland security R&D programs in departments and agencies outside of DHS. The bulk of this funding, $1.7 billion (up

7.5 percent from FY04), is for biodefense programs at the NIH, such as basic research on infectious microbial agents, applied research on diagnostics, vaccines, and

therapies, and construction of bio-safety facilities. The remaining funds (approximately $700 million) go to a number of other agencies, such as: EPA for research

on detection of chemical and biological agents in the water supply (other homeland

security R&D activities at EPA are cut, so this item may be controversial); the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) for expanding the Nation’s laboratory capabilities for animal disease diagnosis and research; DOD for detection systems, protective gear, and vaccines for biological and chemical agents; and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration for research on detection and attribution of radiological and nuclear materials.

In its first year of existence, the DHS S&T Directorate has begun to build relationships with other agencies and some successful coordination of projects has occurred. For example, DHS and NSF provided joint funding for a cyber security test

bed, and DHS and NIST worked together on issuing standards for first responders’

equipment.

Issues/Questions Raised by the FY05 Request for DHS

Balance Between Internal and External Programs within the S&T Directorate: The Science Committee is interested in the balance between R&D conducted

within the Department and at national laboratories,9 and extramural R&D funded

through a competitive, merit-reviewed grant process. The balance is not discernible

in the FY05 budget request. The request for DHS S&T presents proposed funding

levels by technical topic, not by organizational unit or research performer. No information is provided about how these funds will be expended—whether through programs at the national laboratories, grants to industry and others through Homeland

Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), or through contracts for

prototype development.

Transitioning Technology from Development to Operations: The DHS S&T

Directorate has responsibility for the full range of R&D, from basic research through

10

prototype demonstrations. In order for the directorate to devote resources to all elements of the R&D process, successful technologies will have to be passed off to operational units within DHS or elsewhere. It is not clear, however, that the Directorate

has a process in place to effect such transitions.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

NIST’s Laboratory Programs

The FY05 budget requests $422 million for a wide range of research conducted

at NIST laboratories in Gaithersburg, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado. The request

is $85 million (22 percent) above the FY04 enacted level of $337 million. This request is less of a jump than it initially appears. Congress cut the NIST laboratory

programs by $22 million in FY04, so some of the increase is needed simply to restore NIST to its former level. Another $25.7 million of the increase is for one-time

expenses at the new Advanced Measurement Laboratory (see below). Another NIST

has not provided a final assessment of the impacts of the FY04 appropriation, but

it has estimated that 50 to 100 scientists and technical staff may be laid off, and

work at all labs will be reduced.

11

Cyber Security

The FY05 budget requests $18.5 million for cyber security R&D at NIST, an increase of $6 million (48 percent) over the FY04 enacted level. With the additional

funding, NIST would work with industry and government agencies to accelerate the

development of more secure computer and communications infrastructure, and expand and develop stronger cryptographic standards for hand-held wireless technology.

Advanced Measurement Laboratory Equipment

The Advanced Measurement Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland is scheduled

for completion this year. The requested increase for NIST’s laboratory programs includes $25.5 million (non-recurring) to outfit the Advanced Measurement Laboratory

with state-of-the-art metrology equipment required to maximize the usefulness of

this facility. The ability of NIST to perform other research proposed for FY05, including that which would be funded by the President’s requested $12 million increase for nanomanufacturing and nanometrology, will depend on the timely outfitting of this laboratory.

Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP)

Both ATP and MEP are largely extramural (outside of the laboratories) grant programs administered by NIST. The goal of ATP is to provide grants in to ‘‘bridge the

gap between the research laboratory and the marketplace’’ through grants to the

private sector. ATP seeks to fund development of pre-competitive, emerging, and

high-risk technologies that promise significant benefit. MEP funds state and regional centers that help small U.S. manufacturers adopt advanced manufacturing

technologies, techniques, and best business practices.

The President’s FY05 budget proposes to eliminate ATP. (The FY04 enacted level

for ATP is $179 million.) Unlike previous proposals to eliminate ATP, this budget

provides no money for close-out costs, which include funds for completing multi-year

awards made in previous years and continuing funding for internal NIST laboratory

work related to ATP proposals.

The request for MEP is $39 million, equal to the FY04 enacted level, which represents a 67 percent cut from the FY03 enacted level of $106 million. The dramatic

reduction in MEP funding enacted for FY04 is expected to lead to the closure of a

significant number of regional MEP centers. There are currently 60 MEP centers

and 300 satellite offices.

Issues/Questions Raised by the FY05 Request for NIST

Impact of FY04 Enacted Budget on NIST’s Core Laboratory Programs: NIST

has not resolved how to implement the significant funding reductions for its core

laboratory programs that were included in the FY04 enacted budget, including possible lay-offs and program reductions. It is not clear how these reductions will affect

NIST’s ability to undertake the new initiatives proposed in the FY05 budget request.

Impact of Proposed Elimination of ATP: The FY05 budget request proposes to

eliminate ATP, but provides no funds to close out obligations incurred through

multi-year ATP awards granted during the current fiscal year. These costs could be

as high as $30 million. Moreover, ATP is expected to fund an estimated $13 million

worth of R&D conducted at the NIST laboratories in FY04.

Impact of Scaling Back MEP: It is unclear how the MEP program would function

at the levels proposed by the Administration. The Administration has already proposed to re-compete all centers, but it is unclear what criteria will be used, how

many centers will be continued or created, or how they will be organized.

12

13

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The FY05 budget requests $3.4 billion for NOAA, a decrease of $308 million (8.3

percent) compared to the FY04 enacted level of $3.7 billion. NOAA’s FY04 budget

includes approximately $540 million worth of Congressional earmarks. If earmarks

are removed from the FY04 baseline, then the President’s budget could be construed

as proposing an additional $230 million for NOAA in FY05.

National Weather Service

The FY05 budget requests $837 million for the National Weather Service (NWS),

an increase of $12 million (1.5 percent). The request reflects the transfer of two programs from the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) to NWS—the

Space Environment Center ($7.5 million request) and the U.S. Weather Research

Program ($6.6 million request). NOAA’s request for the Space Environment Center

is an increase of $2.2 million over the FY04 enacted level of $5.3 million. The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held a hearing last year on

the activities of the Center (which predicts the effects of solar storms) that helped

establish the value of the Center to the Nation.

Climate Change Research

The FY05 budget request includes a $13.5 million increase in climate change research and observations at NOAA. Most of the increase is to support the President’s

Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), which focuses on priority areas, such

as ocean observations ($11 million), aerosol research ($7 million), and carbon cycle

research ($6.5 million).

Satellite Acquisition

The FY05 budget requests $898 million for satellite programs at NOAA. This request is a $71 million (8.6 percent) increase over the FY04 enacted level of $827

million. The increase is for procurement, acquisition, and construction of the next

generation of weather satellites, and is in line with the long-term budget plans for

these satellite systems. Polar weather satellites are vital for three- to seven-day

weather forecasts, tracking of severe weather such as hurricanes, and for climate

observations. In September 2003, the last of the current generation of polar satellites was severely damaged in an accident during construction. Unless this satellite can be repaired or replaced, there will be gap in polar weather satellite coverage of at least 21 months (the time until the next generation polar satellite is

scheduled to be launched). A report assessing whether the satellite can be repaired

and the costs associated with that repair is scheduled to be released in April.

Issues/Questions Raised by the FY05 Request for NOAA

Weather Satellite Coverage Gap: The Committee is concerned that the costs of

repairing or replacing the satellite that was damaged during construction last year

is not included in the FY05 request. If the satellite cannot be repaired and funding

levels for the next generation is not increased significantly, there will be a gap in

polar satellite coverage at the end of this decade. The current projection for the cost

of the next generation polar satellite system has risen from $6.5 billion to $7.4 billion, without taking into account the recent accident. The Committee has asked the

General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the costs and risks associated with

NOAA’s satellite program.

Organization of Research at NOAA: In the legislative reports accompanying the

FY04 Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bills in the House and Senate, NOAA

was asked to examine its research enterprise and deliver a report on (1) the costs

and benefits of dissolving Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and

distributing its activities among the other program offices, and (2) a plan for consolidating its laboratories. NOAA quickly assembled a subcommittee of its Science Advisory Board to examine the issue. The subcommittee provided its observations and

recommendations to NOAA in January 2004. It appears that based on this review

process, NOAA moved programs from OAR to NWS in the FY05 request. The Committee is concerned that NOAA is beginning to implement major structural changes

to its research enterprise without fully examining the ramifications or consulting

with the authorizing committees.

14

10 Unlike the Administration’s Federal Science and Technology Funding Table 5–3 on page 61

of Analytical Perspectives, these figures include the $140 million rescission from the Clean Coal

Technology Account.

Department of Energy (DOE)

The FY05 request for civilian R&D at DOE—$5.0 billion—represents a decrease

of four percent from FY04 enacted levels.10 The Administration’s top funding priorities for energy and science programs are hydrogen R&D, fusion, nanotechnology,

and the programs of the Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution.

15

Office of Science

The FY05 budget requests $3.43 billion for the Office of Science, a decrease of $68

million (two percent) from the FY04 enacted level. The Administration describes

this as a two percent increase, if one excludes Congressional earmarks from the

FY04 baseline. The budget is far below the $.1 billion level authorized in H.R. 6,

the Energy Policy Act of 2003, which the House passed last year.

The budget request includes funds to begin planning and construction of several

major new facilities, such as the Linac Coherent Light Source, a Protein Production

and Tags Facility, and the U. S. share of the International Fusion Experimental Reactor (ITER).

The budget requests $264 million for fusion research, an increase of $1.6 million

(0.6 percent) from the FY04 enacted level of $263 million, but that increase is not

large enough to accommodate U.S. participation in ITER in FY05 without cutting

other existing parts of the fusion program.

The FY05 budget request proposes significant decreases in funding for Biological

and Environmental Research (BER)—$502 million requested, a decrease of $140

million (22 percent) from the FY04 enacted level of $641 million. Much of the reduction in BER reflects elimination of earmarks or projects that have been completed.

The budget also cuts the Science Laboratories Infrastructure account nearly in

half—$29 million requested, a decrease of $25 million (46 percent) from the FY04

enacted level of $54 million.

Applied Energy Programs

The budget continues the trend of cutting most energy efficiency and renewable

programs to fund hydrogen research and weatherization. Excluding the hydrogen/

FreedomCAR activities, efficiency and renewable R&D for FY05 is $656 million, a

cut of ten percent ($72 million) from the FY04 enacted level of $727 million.

In fossil energy, the budget increases coal programs by $108 million (60 percent),

primarily to fund the FutureGen project, which would build a new coal plant to experiment with the sequestration of carbon dioxide. These increases come at the expense of the stationary fuel cell program (Distributed Generation), cut by $49 million (68 percent), to $23 million; as well as other coal programs. The budget proposes to rescind the funds for several Clean Coal projects that never got off the

ground and to close the Clean Coal Technology account, moving most of the money

to the base Fossil R&D program. This follows what the appropriators have been

doing piecemeal for several years.

Oil and gas programs are also cut: oil technology by 57 percent (¥$20 million,

to $15 million) and gas technology by 39 percent (¥$17 million, to $26 million).

These two programs were among the few rated ineffective by OMB using its Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART).

The new Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution receives a $10 million

increase (13 percent, to $91 million), half of which is for R&D programs, and half

of which is for program direction for personnel increases. Despite the increased resources, some elements of the Office were cut. Electricity storage R&D, vital to

emerging technologies such as wind, fuel cells, and solar-generated electricity, is cut

by $5 million (56 percent, to $4 million). (The sister program in EERE—Distributed

Energy—cited by witnesses at a September 2003 Energy Subcommittee briefing as

being crucial for reliability—is cut by 13 percent (to $53 million) ).

In the nuclear area, large increases for Idaho facilities management (up $33 million, 43 percent) come at the expense of nuclear energy R&D, which receives a 26

percent cut (¥$34 million, to $96 million) in the budget.

Issues/Questions Raised by the FY05 Request for DOE

Physical Science Research: Funding for the physical sciences has remained essentially flat for at least a decade. The proposed cuts to the Office of Science—the

single largest source of federal funds for civilian physical science R&D—continue the

pattern even though the Administration had signaled that physical science and engineering research activities would be given additional consideration during the

FY05 budget cycle.

Twenty-year Facilities Plan: The Office of Science recently released a 20-year

plan for the acquisition and construction of experimental facilities for the physical

sciences. That plan was based on the budget numbers contained in H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. While the budget proposes to move forward with several of

these facilities, including ITER, the Protein Production and Tag Facility and Linac

Coherent Light Facility, the budget request for DOE’s Office of Science declines in

the face of these increasing future facility commitments, raising questions about the

ability to meet these long-term goals without reducing existing programs.

16

Third-Party Financing for Science Infrastructure: The cuts to DOE’s Science

infrastructure funding run counter to complaints from the scientific community

about deteriorating facilities throughout DOE’s complex of laboratories. The Administration says that its current plan is to have new facilities built and owned by private entities, with DOE as the tenant. This approach can increase the cost to the

government over the life of the building (even though it reduces up-front costs).

Third party financing can also create incentives that can distort the activities of

government programs to meet the needs of building owners.

Hydrogen R&D: The budget requests a significant increase for R&D on infrastructure for hydrogen as a fuel for transportation, to be offset by cuts in energy efficiency R&D, the area of research that likely has the most rapid payoff in terms of

reducing our dependence on imported energy. The recently released National Academies of Science (NAS) study, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, emphasizes that hydrogen R&D efforts need to be approached in a systems analysis framework to ‘‘integrate them with other DOE energy efforts.’’ The report also notes that fuel cell technology necessary for transportation is at least a decade away, and the budget sends conflicting signals, cutting

funding for stationary fuel cells and increasing funding for transportation fuel cells

and basic research. This report raises additional questions regarding the coordination and execution of this long-term effort.

FutureGen: The budget makes a $237 million commitment to the controversial

FutureGen project, which would build a new coal power plant to demonstrate the

sequestration of carbon dioxide in geological formations. The Department’s plans for

the project include cutting-edge equipment throughout the facility, which will both

raise the cost and increase the chances of failure. Further, the Administration’s proposed legislative language would remove taxpayer protections, such as cost sharing,

from the project requirements.

17

7. Witnesses Questions

Witnesses have been asked to:

1. Review the R&D budget request in the context of the Administration’s overall priorities in science and technology.

2. Describe the mechanisms that the Administration uses to determine priorities across scientific disciplines.

3. Describe the mechanisms the Administration uses to coordinate its scientific

research and technical development activities with other federal agencies.

18

APPENDIX I: Budget Charts for Selected Interagency Programs

19

20

21

22

Chairman BOEHLERT. The hearing will come to order. I want to

welcome everyone here this morning to our first meeting of 2004.

And in this capacity, I want to welcome Mr. Gordon of Tennessee

as the Ranking Member of the Committee. Mr. Gordon, welcome to

your new position.

Despite the House schedule, we will still have our second hearing

of the year tomorrow. As you know, we are not in session tomorrow, but we will have the hearing with Administrator O’Keefe and

Dr. Marburger.

Both hearings concern what will be the issue of the year in Congress: the federal budget. I just came from the House Republican

conference meeting on the budget, and I can assure you that this

will be an interesting and difficult year. I think my views on the

proposed R&D budget for fiscal year 2005 are already pretty well

known. On the one hand, I understand that the Administration’s

goal was to protect science in a very austere budget environment,

and I appreciate that, and I want to work with them on that. But

on the other hand, we are not doing well enough.

Now I say this is not a good budget for science, but we still don’t

know whether it is the best budget we can get. That is going to depend much more on the overall macro decisions that Congress

makes on the budget than on anything else. It is far too early to

tell how things will work out. All I know is that I will be doing everything I can to see that science prospers. It is one of the best investments we can make in our economy for the future.

In particular, I would like to see a larger increase for the National Science Foundation and an increase for the Department of

Energy’s Office of Science. The House is on record as supporting far

greater increases for those agencies, and I know that the Administration will do more for them in a less constrained environment. I

also want to see the Math and Science Partnership Program remain at the National Science Foundation, where it unquestionably

belongs, and where it is likely to do the most good.

And I will be putting a great deal of energy into backing the substantial increases the President has proposed for the Laboratories

at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. We have to

reverse the bad decisions on NIST that this Congress ratified on

the omnibus spending bill and move forward. I would like to see

the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program, both programs that I helped to create, be part of

that moving forward.

And of course, we will continue to work with the Science and

Technology Directorate of Homeland Security, which this committee created, to make sure that they continue the steady

progress that they have made since coming into being under the

fine leadership of Chuck McQueary.

But not everything will be determined by what I like. For example, I would like Rita Colwell to stay on longer as NSF Director,

but we know that today will be her final hearing before us in her

current position. I thank her for her years of service, and I know

we will continue to seek her counsel as she returns to the University of Maryland and also takes on new challenges.

And just let me read a small portion of the Committee’s Charter

for this hearing, because I think it speaks so well to the stewardVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

ship of Dr. Colwell. ‘‘NSF continues to receive high marks from the

Office of Management and Budget for the quality of its management and for the excellence of its program. As part of the fiscal

year 2004 budget request, NSF was awarded two green lights on

the Executive Branch Management Scorecard. Also, in the past

year, four NSF programs were examined using the Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART as we call it. All received ratings of

Effective, which is the highest rating, and the three continuing programs received substantial budget increases.’’

I would like to pause at this moment and ask all of you to join

me and thank Dr. Colwell for her outstanding public service.

To show you the great lengths she will go to in her service, just

about a year ago at this time, we were at the South Pole together

to observe the construction of a new research facility at the bottom

of the Earth. And it was a meaningful experience for me, and I

hope for you, Dr. Colwell.

I also want to welcome Arden Bement back to the National

Science Foundation where he used to serve on the National Science

Board. We want Arden back at NIST as soon as possible, but we

know that NSF will be in good hands under his leadership. One article in the Trade Press yesterday pointed out that Arden is lowkey. In this case, that is a synonym for ‘‘quietly effective.’’ He needs

no bombast to demonstrate his leadership.

So today, we mark some significant changes in the agencies we

oversee. I hope that one of those changes will turn out to be that

this hearing marks the beginning of taking positive steps toward

more adequate funding for science. Thank you.

Mr. Gordon.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here this morning for our first hearing of 2004. Despite the House schedule, we will still have our second hearing of the year tomorrow

with Administrator O’Keefe and Dr. Marburger. Both hearings concern what will be

the issue of the year in Congress, the federal budget. I just came from the House

Republican Conference meeting on the budget, and I can assure you that this will

be an interesting and difficult budget year.

I think my views on the proposed R&D budget for fiscal 2005 are already pretty

well known. On the one hand, I understand that the Administration’s goal was to

protect science in a very austere budget environment, and I appreciate that. On the

other hand, it’s impossible to seriously view this as a good budget for science. Now,

I say that this is not a good budget for science, but we still don’t know whether

it’s the best budget we can get. That’s going to depend much more on the overall

‘‘macro’’ decisions the Congress makes on the budget than on anything else. It’s far

too early to tell how things will work out. All I know is that I will be doing everything I can to see that science prospers.

In particular, I’d like to see a larger increase for the National Science Foundation

(NSF) and an increase for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The House

is on record as supporting far greater increases for those agencies, and I know that

the Administration would do more for them in a less constrained environment.

I also want to see the Math and Science Partnership program remain at NSF,

where it unquestionably belongs and where it is likely to do the most good.

And I will put a great deal of energy into backing the substantial increase the

President has proposed for the laboratories at the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST). We have to reverse the bad decisions on NIST that this

Congress ratified in the Omnibus Spending bill and move forward. I’d like to see

the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program—

both programs I helped create—be part of that moving forward.

And, of course, we will continue to work with the Science and Technology Directorate of Homeland Security, which this committee created, to make sure they conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

tinue the steady progress they’ve made since coming into being under the fine leadership of Chuck McQueary.

But not everything will be determined by what I’d like. For example, I’d like Rita

Colwell to stay on longer as NSF director, but we know that today will be her final

hearing before us in her current position. I thank her for her years of service, and

I know we will continue to seek her counsel as she returns to the University of

Maryland and also takes on new challenges. And I want to welcome Arden Bement

back to the National Science Foundation, where he used to serve on the National

Science Board. We want Arden back at NIST as soon as possible, but we know that

NSF will be in good hands under his leadership. One article in the trade press yesterday pointed out that Arden is ‘‘low key.’’ In this case, that’s a synonym for ‘‘quietly effective.’’ He needs know bombast to demonstrate his leadership.

So today we mark some significant changes in the agencies we oversee. I hope

that one of those changes will turn out to be that this hearing marks the beginning

of taking positive steps toward more adequately funding our agencies.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join Chairman Boehlert in welcoming our panel to this

morning’s hearing.

I am also going to be as blunt as the Chairman has been in also

expressing my disappointment in the proposed science budget. I am

also distressed about the lack of foresight that the Administration

has shown in putting together this R&D budget. It is simply inadequate in light of the challenges that we are facing.

The evidence is growing every day that our nation is moving into

a very difficult period of economic challenges. I don’t think that

anyone on this dais, on the witness panel, or even this room fully

understands the dynamics of the economic forces that are operating

in the world today.

We do know, however, that the international competition is intensifying. And we know that job security is increasingly shaky as

more jobs, including many high-tech jobs, are being outsourced to

other countries. Many of our economic competitors are training

enormous numbers of scientists and engineers, which only complicates their existing advantages in wage scales—or complements

their existing advantages in their wage scales.

We need to respond aggressively to these challenges by staying

in the forefront of technology and by providing our young people

and our older workers with the best education and training that we

can. And I am afraid that the budget before us today does not secure that future.

Dr. Marburger will tell us today that his budget proposes to

spend more on R&D than any budget in history. And that is technically true, but the biggest part of his R&D increase is for weapons development, which does very little for the broader economy.

A better measure of R&D funding is the so-called ‘‘Federal S&T

Budget,’’ which includes civilian R&D and defense R&D, but not

weapons development. And on page 61 of the Administration’s own

budget document under the Federal Science and Technology budget, it shows a decrease of 0.4 percent in proposed R&D funding. In

other words, if this budget were enacted, the fiscal year 2005 Federal S&T budget would actually decline from 2004 levels. That is

simply the wrong direction. The Federal R&D spending, as a percentage of GDP, would be at historic lows.

I would simply suggest that we can and must do better as a Nation than adopting a declining budget for Federal S&T.

25

Let me mention one specific area that I think this budget falls

woefully short: dealing with the loss of manufacturing jobs in this

country. After the President unveiled his manufacturing initiative

last month, I expected this budget would contain some thoughtful

new initiatives in this area. But unfortunately, I was wrong.

The Manufacturing Extension Program, probably the most effective federal program at providing immediate aid to U.S. manufacturers, is slashed severely. The ATP is eliminated and the technology transfer programs at NASA and DOE are cut. These are not

wise proposals at a time when the U.S. manufacturers are in a crisis.

Mr. Chairman, we all understand that fiscal restraint is a necessity. However, it is more important now than ever that the United

States remain the world’s leader in innovation. This country must

invest in the future and do everything possible to ensure that

America does not lose its place as the leader in international innovation and R&D.

And in closing, Mr. Chairman, if I could simply relate a meeting

that happened in my office the other day. Some folks came in, and

like many, they were very concerned about jobs being outsourced

to the rest of the world. And they said, ‘‘Well, how do we slow down

technology so that this outsourcing won’t happen any longer?’’ And

I said, you know, ‘‘We don’t do that by slowing it down; we have

to speed it up. We have to increase our investment in R&D and research so that we are a generation or two generations ahead of

them. That is how we stop jobs from going overseas is by speeding

up, not slowing down.’’

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

I want to join Chairman Boehlert in welcoming our panel to this morning’s hearing.

I am going to be as blunt as the Chairman has been today in expressing my disappointment in the proposed science budget. I am also distressed about the lack of

foresight that the Administration has shown in putting together this R&D budget.

It is simply inadequate in light of the challenges that we are facing.

The evidence is growing every day that our nation is moving into a very difficult

period of economic challenges. I don’t think that anyone on this dais, on the witness

panel, or even in this room fully understands the dynamics of the economic forces

that are operating in today’s world.

We do know, however, that international competition is intensifying. And we

know that job security is increasingly shaky as more jobs, including many high-tech

jobs, are being out-sourced to other countries. Many of our economic competitors are

training enormous numbers of scientists and engineers, which only complements

their existing advantages in wage scales.

We need to respond aggressively to these challenges by staying on the forefront

of technology and by providing our young people and our workers with the best education and training that we can. I am afraid that the budget before us today does

not secure that future.

Dr. Marburger will tell us today that this budget proposes to spend more on R&D

than any budget in history. That is technically true, but the biggest part of this

R&D increase is for weapons development, which does very little for the broader

economy. A better measure of R&D funding is the so-called ‘‘Federal S&T Budget,’’

which includes civilian R&D and defense R&D, but not weapons development. On

page 61 of the ‘‘Analytical Perspectives’’ document from this year’s budget, the Administration’s own budget document actually shows a decrease of 0.4 percent in proposed R&D funding. In other words, if this budget were enacted, the FY 2005 ‘‘FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

eral S&T Budget’’ would actually decline from the 2004 levels. And Federal R&D

spending, as a percentage of GDP, would be at historically low levels.

I would simply suggest that we can and must do better as a nation than adopting

a declining budget for Federal S&T.

Let me mention one specific area where I think this budget falls woefully short—

dealing with the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. After the President’s

unveiled his manufacturing initiative last month, I expected that this budget would

contain some thoughtful new initiatives in this area. Instead, we get more of the

same old rhetoric.

The Manufacturing Extension Program—probably the most effective federal program in providing immediate help to U.S. manufacturers—is slashed severely. The

Advanced Technology Program is eliminated and technology transfer programs at

NASA and DOE are cut. These are not wise proposals when at a time when U.S.

manufacturing is in crisis.

Mr. Chairman, we all understand that fiscal restraint is a necessity. However, it

is more important now than ever that the United States remain the world’s leader

in innovation. This country must invest in its future and do everything possible to

ensure that America does not lose its place as the leader in global innovation and

R&D.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

So it will be clear to everyone, based upon my remarks, I am not

advocating that we add to the deficit, I am—and that is very Republican of me, I suppose, but I am suggesting that some of the priorities need to be addressed so that we get the funding that we

need for the important programs we are going to be discussing

today. And I would point out to one and all that the ten years of

unprecedented growth in our economy in the ’90’s into the new century, quarter after quarter, year after year of growth was largely

driven by the investment this Nation made in technology. It is an

information and technological age, and we have to continue that.

That is how we best prepare ourselves to address the challenges

from all points of the globe.

With that, without objection, all Members have leave to submit

their record—statements into the record at this juncture.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH

I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing before the Committee today to

help us review the President’s FY05 budget request for R&D. I also want to welcome Mr. Hall to our side of the room and extend my best to his replacement Mr.

Gordon. I look forward to working with both of you in your new capacities.

I’d also like to welcome Dr. Rita Colwell, take this opportunity to thank her for

her exceptional service as Director of the National Science Foundation, and wish her

success in her new rolls in the private sector and as a distinguished professor at

the University of Maryland. Rita has successfully guided NSF through a period of

significant change and expansion. Since I became Chairman of the Research Subcommittee, she and I have worked closely and cordially to ensure that NSF remains

the gem federal research agencies.

The overall R&D budget request before us today is, in short, a continuation of

what we have seen in the last two or three years. The top-line increase is about

five percent, with the largest portion of those increases going toward defense and

homeland security. The non-defense, non-homeland security R&D budget increase is

just over two percent—disappointing, yet not unexpected, and still higher than overall non-defense discretionary spending.

I want to preface my remarks this morning with some thoughts on the larger

budget picture, as our ability to address our priorities in the R&D budget will be

substantially dictated by the budget situation at a macro level.

We are facing a massive and ever-increasing debt, and a record deficit of $535

billion for the next fiscal year. To be fair, some of this plunge into deficits has been

the result of events largely beyond our control—primarily the general downturn in

the economy that began in March of 2000, coupled with the substantial impact of

the 9/11 attacks on defense spending and general revenues. Still, spending on nonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

security discretionary items has been out of control, rising at more than three times

the rate of inflation over each of the last three years.

As we begin the legislative year and sort through the budget, there will be a great

deal of discussion on how to address these problems. There is, I think for the first

time in years, a clear sense that the spending binge of the last few years has resulted in a spending hangover. To that end, many members, including myself, will

be pushing for a freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security funding, and even

in these areas, any increases need to be balanced with reductions in other areas.

I will continue to support increases for leading R&D agencies such as NSF. Significant new investment in NSF—a true model of government efficiency—is quite

important to our long-term economic and national security, and I will work to see

that NSF’s budget more closely reflects the guidance set forth in my reauthorization

legislation of 2002.

Funding increases that would allow NSF to meet its goals could be accomplished

by reducing increases in other areas such as NASA, NIH, and elsewhere. First and

foremost, I believe, should be stopping the reckless practice of earmarking our R&D

funds. As noted in the President’s budget, academic earmarking continues to break

records, skyrocketing from just $296 million in 1996 to over $2 billion today. This

increase—$1.7 billion—is more than the current shortfall between the NSF budget

request and the authorized level for FY 2005. We need to make a better effort to

spend those funds on only the best investigator-driven competitive research.

Another area that demands critical evaluation is our space program. We must remember that if NASA funding increases by $12.6 billion over the next five years

for substantial new long-term efforts in space exploration as the President has proposed, it will come at the expense of other priorities.

I’d also like to express my serious concerns about the President’s proposal to

eliminate the promising Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program at NSF. I

have the pen that the President used to sign this new initiative into law just 14

months ago. The program intends to create real and lasting reforms in math and

science education. I think this is critical to producing a technologically literate and

innovate workforce of tomorrow, and it should be continued in the National Science

Foundation. I feel so strongly about the importance of math and science education

that I will be introducing legislation to establish a national recognition award program for companies and associations that do exceptional work to promote math and

science in our K–12 schools. The administration’s budget does not even attempt to

provide a rationale for the elimination of MSP. If there are aspects of the program

that are troubling, they should be addressed, and I am willing to work to see that

is done. However, in the meantime, let us not jeopardize the success of this program.

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today, and I look forward

to a productive discussion.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

The President’s FY 2005 budget request reflects several pressing national priorities, including the continuing war on terrorism, facilitating economic stimulus, and

maintaining fiscal responsibility. The Congress will have many difficult choices to

make in order to balance these priorities, control the deficit and implement our considerable domestic spending commitments.

In making these choices, we must not overlook the fact that scientific research

and development underpins all of these priorities. Scientific research and development forms the foundation of increased innovation, economic vitality and national

security. Scientific research is an investment that promises, and has historically delivered, significant returns on that investment.

For the past several years, research and development funding for defense, weapons development, biomedical sciences, and national security has increased while

other areas of federal research and development, especially basic research in the

physical sciences, has remained flat or declined. The President’s FY 2005 request

of $132 billion for research and development continues this trend.

Basic science research and education are essential to advances in medicine, military applications and continued economic prosperity, including the development of

cancer therapies, GPS- or laser-guided missiles, and the Internet. As a nation, we

cannot afford to starve basic science research and education.

I want to particularly emphasize three science research and development programs that deserve Congress’ utmost attention: the National Science Foundation,

28

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The FY 2005 request of $422 million for NIST’s labs is an $85 million (22 percent)

increase over the levels enacted in FY 2004. But, it is important to note that NIST’s

FY 2004 enacted budget was $22 million below the FY 2003 appropriation, primarily due to significant cuts in NIST’s core laboratory account. I believe that the

FY 2005 request for NIST’s labs should be considered the absolute minimum required for NIST to carry out its critical research activities. Much of the technology

we use every day can be tied to research done by scientists at NIST. For example,

work at NIST’s labs supports our nation’s efforts to improve cyber security, building

safety, and voting technology—three areas where this committee recently recognized

the high-quality work that NIST performs by expanding NIST’s authorizations for

these topics. For our nation to remain competitive in a high-tech world, we must

support these research programs that will provide the foundation for future scientific advances.

I am very concerned about the FY 2005 request for the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP) program. The FY 2004 appropriation cut the funding for MEP

by more than 65 percent. My constituents have expressed dismay that the FY 2005

request did not seek to restore this cut, and I fear that the FY 2005 request, if funded at this level, will continue to cripple this unique program’s ability to promote innovation among small- and medium-size manufacturers as they adapt to the

globalized economy.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the only federal agency dedicated solely

to supporting basic scientific research and math and science education. NSF represents four percent of the total federal R&D budget, yet it accounts for 45 percent

of non-life science basic research at U.S. academic universities. In 2002, Congress

passed the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368)

and made a commitment to double NSF funding over five years. The FY 2005 budget request for NSF is $5.75 billion. Although this is an increase of three percent,

it falls $1.6 billion below the authorized funding level necessary to complete our

doubling commitment.

NSF is the primary federal supporter of science and math education; it underwrites the development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. In the FY

2005 budget request, many of the education programs at the K–12 and undergraduate level will be cut. The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program will

be eliminated from NSF and merged with a Department of Education program that

focuses only on mathematics for secondary school students. These budget choices seriously undercut our efforts to improve math and science education and to ensure

that America has an educated workforce capable of competing in the global economy.

The Department of Energy, Office of Science funds 40 percent of our nation’s

physical science research. Research in these areas has led to new economic and

medical advancements including new energy sources, cell phones, and laser surgery.

In constant dollars, physical science research funding has remained at 1993 levels

while biological research has more than doubled in that same time. We must bring

funding for the physical sciences into balance with that of the life sciences. The FY

2005 budget request of $3.43 billion for the Office of Science—a decrease of two percent from the FY 2004 enacted level—does not achieve that goal.

FY 2005 will be a tough budget year. Significant sacrifices and compromises in

spending must be made. We must not, however, sacrifice the research and education

which future generations will need to ensure their economic prosperity and domestic

security.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee

to discuss the President’s FY05 Budget for Research and Development. Today’s

hearing serves as an opportunity for oversight of certain departmental programs. As

you are aware, a number of trends spotted in last year’s budget submission are seen

again in the FY05 budget, including reversal of the trend toward parity in defense

and non-defense R&D, the marginal increase in the National Science Foundation

budget, and targeting of cooperative government-industry programs for cuts.

There are a number of new initiatives that build upon the current direction in

scientific research, as well as a number of previous initiatives that have been introduced in a new format.

29

The Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy Research and Development program

impacts my congressional district because the coal industry is of great importance

to the economy and livelihood of my constituents in Southern Illinois. As you may

know, this area is rich in high-sulfur coal. The shifting of production to low-sulfur

coal has cost many of my constituents high-paying jobs. I welcomed the inclusion

of $237 million for the FutureGen clean coal power plant project. Further developing

the technology to burn coal as cleanly as possible is a great national investment and

it will benefit the economy of Southern Illinois. I have led the effort to locate

FutureGen in Illinois, including leading a bipartisan effort in the House to secure

funding for the project. I also hosted a roundtable discussion regarding FutureGen

and what it means for Illinois with Governor Blagojevich, U.S. Senators Durbin and

Fitzgerald, and U.S. Congressman John Shimkus. Dr. C. Lowell Miller, Director of

the Office of Coal Fuels and Industrial Systems at the Department of Energy, made

a presentation on the specifics of the project. Implementing the coal research program, which includes the clean coal technology program and FutureGen, is significant to my district, and I look forward to learning more about planned spending in

this area.

I am displeased to see the Advanced Technology Program was eliminated and the

Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) was significantly cut in the President’s

budget. The Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center (IMEC) has worked with 362

small and mid-sized manufacturers. These companies reported that they expected

to achieve $165 in benefits for every dollar they invested in IMEC services. In all,

these manufacturers reported more than $346 million in sales, cost savings, and

productivity. The FY05 budget will leave the MEP Centers struggling to survive

rather than focused on what they do best: helping businesses increase competitiveness, efficiency and productivity- exactly what our economy needs to get back on

track.

Finally, I am also displeased to see that most accounts under Renewable Energy

Resources remain flat, decreased, or were eliminated. Non-fossil energy sources including ethanol, solar power, and wind energy are extremely important initiatives

and I believe we should dedicate more resources toward these programs.

I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their testimony.

[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 explore issues affecting the entire Research and Development (R&D) budget.

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.

Two 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 three 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 18 percent

cut to the education and human resources budget account from an administration

that has claimed education of our youth as one of its rhetorical hallmarks.

There must be a balance between research in the biomedical sciences and research in the physical sciences and engineering. There must also be policies for

achieving balance between the dissemination of research results with national security needs.

All of this is imperative so that the policies and programs meet the future human

infrastructure needs of the Nation in science and engineering.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And we will go right to our distinguished

panel of outstanding witnesses, friends to all and resources to all:

Dr. John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and affectionately referred to as the Science Advisor

to the President; Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of the National

Science Foundation; Dr. Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary for

Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security. And

Dr. McQueary, we take great pride in this committee in adding to

30

the proposal from the Administration. We detected a void, and we

filled that void by creating your operation. And I think you are

serving admirably, and we look for great things from you. An old

friend, long-standing, Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, and Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office

of Science, Department of Energy. And it surprises none of you to

know that you are in friendly territory.

With that, we will start with Dr. Marburger. You are up, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Dr. MARBURGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to be here to discuss the President’s 2005 budget for R&D this

year with the Committee, but before I do, I would like to add my

praises to yours for Rita Colwell’s many years of service to American science, years that are not yet over. I have been aware of Dr.

Colwell’s plans for some time, and they are very exciting. I leave

it to her to elaborate on them, but I am sorry that she is leaving.

She is leaving an agency that has expanded greatly in size and in

the level of excellence under her leadership, and I look forward to

seeing her products in the future and helping to make careers like

her’s possible for other scientists throughout the Nation. So thanks,

Rita.

The President’s fiscal year 2005 budget request commits 13.5

percent of the total discretionary outlays to research and development, which is the highest level in 37 years. Not since 1968, during

the Apollo program, have we seen an investment of this magnitude

in federally funded R&D. Of that amount, the budget commits fully

5.7 percent of total discretionary outlays to non-defense R&D,

which is the third highest level in 25 years.

Under this proposed budget, the total R&D investment over the

four years of this Administration would be increased by 44 percent

to a record $132 billion in 2005, compared to $91 billion in 2001.

This substantial investment is reaping benefits in American scientific and technological leadership. We are a stronger Nation—

more formidable in defense, more productive in labor—and we are

more effective and healthier individuals because of our willingness

to invest in basic and applied research and technical development.

President Bush understands that science is the basis for innovation

and innovation is the basis for a secure Nation and a strong economy.

President Bush is also determined to control the deficit and reduce it as the economy continues to grow, while ensuring that our

national security needs are met. Funding the Nation’s expanding

security needs while limiting non-security budget growth to less

than 0.5 percent will lead to smaller increases for other categories,

including some R&D programs. This situation increases the need

for careful planning, prioritization, and implementation of our research and development programs. The President’s R&D budget for

this year targets opportunities and needs in a balanced and disciplined way, and my colleagues and I welcome your support, and

need it, to realize the benefits for America implicit in this proposal.

31

I don’t have too much time this morning. I have many colleagues

that can fill in gaps, so I will only say a few details about the agencies and provide an overview.

Of this $132 billion R&D budget, it is true that programs in the

Department of Defense account for about half, and programs administered by the National Institutes of Health account for nearly

half of the remainder. These agencies are not represented on today’s panel, but with d of the R&D budget, they obviously have a

large impact on the Nation’s science and technology activities. I

mention them here, because they do participate in the interagency

coordination for which my office is responsible, and their contributions are essential for a balanced and effective R&D effort.

Here are the increases that are proposed in this budget—the

changes in this R&D budget for the largest agencies. The Department of Defense is up seven percent from the 2004 enacted level.

Health and Human Services is up four percent, of which $28.6 billion goes to NIH, which is an increase of 2.6 percent. NASA’s budget will increase 5.6 percent to $16.2 billion. NSF’s budget will increase three percent to $5.75 billion. The portion of the Department

of Energy Office of Science budget not impacted by congressional

earmarks is increased by 3.3 percent. All of these increases substantially exceed the average domestic discretionary budget increase of 0.5 percent for non-security related activities.

Mr. Chairman, this reference to earmarks in the Department of

Energy’s Science budget points to an issue that is highlighted once

again in the narrative of the President’s budget request. In 2003,

earmarks accounted for eight percent of all federal research funding to colleges and universities. The existence of congressionally directed expenditures in appropriations language poses difficult problems for agencies that are attempting to improve their planning

and management of research programs. It tends to disrupt interagency coordination, and it reduces the ability of agencies to direct

their funds to the most productive projects.

Unplanned transfers in response to congressional direction obscure the budget picture this year not only for DOE, but for the Department of Defense, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the

U.S. Department of Agriculture. In each case, the enacted 2004

budgets entail transfers out of agency priorities into other programs. Congress certainly has the right to establish its priorities,

but the earmark subset of those priorities creates holes in productive programs in these agencies that the President’s budget seeks

to fill. The President’s commitment to this Administration’s science

and technology priorities is measured by the increments to those

budgets, omitting the congressionally directed programs. And by

this measure, in each of the cases I have mentioned, apparent reductions are shown actually to be increases in the agencies’ own

priority areas. For example, just one example, the President’s budget adds three percent to the agency’s priority aeronautics research

programs in NASA, but other programs received a number of earmarks in fiscal year 2004 that lead to an apparent decrease of 11

percent in the fiscal year 2005 proposal.

I wanted to bring this to your attention, Mr. Chairman, because

this Administration is committed to establishing priorities and

32

standards and following through on them. I appreciate this committee’s historical support of good planning and peer-reviewed,

merit-based award of science funding, and I look forward to working with you to make sure that that continues in the future.

There are priorities in this budget, and they are familiar to this

committee. The National Nanotechnology Initiative is up two percent overall, and up 9.3 percent in non-defense agencies. The National Information Technology R&D program, which is a mature,

multi-billion dollar program, is down by about one percent overall.

It is up slightly in non-defense agencies. Both of these priority programs have increased substantially in this Administration. The

President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, a small initiative, is increased by 43 percent. Physical sciences and engineering funding

is strengthened through increases by 20 percent in nanotechnology

and 12 percent in cyberinfrastructure in the National Science

Foundation, and other targeted increases in budgets in the Department of Energy, NIST, and other agencies.

The large increases in the Department of Defense R&D add significantly to the engineering sector. Homeland Security R&D,

among all agencies, is increased to about $3.6 billion, with emphasis on bioterrorism, food, and agriculture security, and countering

chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and other catastrophic

threats.

Much more detail is contained in my written testimony and in

the other materials available from the agencies. Here, I only wanted to convey the outlines of this strongly priorities-driven budget.

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I believe the President’s

2005 budget proposal does maintain science and technology R&D

at world leadership levels. Thank you again for your strong historical support of the President’s R&D goals, and I will be pleased to

answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN H. MARBURGER III

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to meet with you

today to discuss the President’s federal research and development budget for fiscal

year 2005.

I have appreciated the close and productive relationship with this committee and

look forward to working with you again this year as we make important choices to

optimize federal R&D investment. Your continued support of our country’s research

and engineering enterprise is yet another reason why the U.S. Government continues to lead the world in research and development.

The President said in his State of the Union address that ‘‘Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people,’’ which includes not only winning

the war on terrorism, but also securing the homeland. The President’s budget focuses on these important priorities and builds on the economic recovery now underway. The Administration is also determined, however, to control the deficit and reduce it as the economy continues to grow, while ensuring that our national security

needs are met. Funding the Nation’s expanding national and homeland security

needs while limiting other budget growth to less than 0.5 percent will lead to smaller increases for other categories, including some R&D programs.

In my testimony today, I would like to place the President’s R&D request in the

context of strong support for science and technology in this Administration. With

the President’s FY 2005 budget, total R&D investment during the first term will be

increased by 44 percent, to a record $132 billion in 2005, compared to $91 billion

in FY 2001. That equates to increases of nearly ten percent each year. This Administration understands that science and technology are major drivers of economic

growth and important for securing the homeland and winning the war on terrorism.

The President’s budget, as in years past, continues to emphasize improved manageVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

ment and performance to maintain excellence and sustain our national leadership

in science and technology.

In my prepared statement I will review the broad goals of the President’s budget

and provide an overview of the request for federal research priorities that cut across

multiple agencies and research disciplines.

THE PRESIDENT’S FY 2005 R&D BUDGET

The President’s FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5 percent of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. Not since 1968 during the

Apollo program have we seen an investment in research and development of this

magnitude. Of this amount, the budget commits 5.7 percent of total discretionary

outlays to non-defense R&D, the third highest level in 25 years.

The programs in the federal R&D budget continue to build upon exciting areas

of scientific discovery from hydrogen energy and nanotechnology to the basic processes of living organisms, the fundamental properties of matter, and a new vision

of sustained space exploration. Not all programs can or should receive equal priority, and this budget reflects priority choices consistent with recommendations

from numerous expert sources. In particular, this budget responds to recommendations by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and

others about needs in physical science and engineering.

The budget also reflects an extensive process of consultation among the federal

agencies, OMB, and OSTP, to understand thoroughly the agency programs and priorities, interagency collaborations, and directions for the future. The National

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) continues to provide a valuable mechanism

to facilitate this interagency coordination. This process resulted in guidance to agencies issued by OSTP and OMB last June, concerning their program planning, evaluation, and budget preparation, and culminating in the budget you see before you

today.

An important component of this budget is an increase in education and workforce

development, which are essential components of all federal R&D activities and continue to be high priorities for the Administration. As President Bush has stated,

‘‘America’s growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms

the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers

need new skills.’’

As in previous years this R&D budget highlights the importance of collaborations

among multiple federal agencies working together on broad themes. I will describe

high-priority R&D initiatives for FY 2005 in five categories: a cluster of programs

fostering innovation, which includes the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Networking and Information Technology, and manufacturing; the hydrogen fuel initiative; space exploration; physical sciences and engineering; and homeland security.

AGENCY BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

Each agency has an opportunity to describe its own programs. In this testimony

I will concentrate on priority programs that cut across agency boundaries. Here I

will only give a quick overview of science agency budgets proposed for FY 2005.

Department of Defense (DOD):

The Defense Department’s FY 2005 R&D budget is almost $70 billion. This funding helps ensure that our military forces have the tools to protect themselves and

our nation and helps the Nation avoid technological surprise by our adversaries in

the future. It provides support for the entire spectrum of R&D, including the longerterm Science and Technology programs, totaling $10.5 billion for basic and applied

research and concept and prototype development, through development of systems

and test and evaluation of systems. Development programs include: ballistic missile

defense; the Joint Strike Fighter; the next generation destroyer; the Army Future

Combat System; and chemical and biological defense systems and technology; to

name just a few. A total of $5.2 billion is provided for basic and applied research,

which, for the Department of Defense, promotes the thinking and experimentation

that will form the basis for future generations of systems and capabilities that help

deter adversaries from attack or, when deterrence fails, allows us to defeat the

attacker. This level is $225 million, or five percent, more than FY 2001. And when

you subtract earmarks out, the 2005 request for basic and applied research funding

actually increases by about $370 million over the appropriated FY 2004 level.

National Institutes of Health (NIH):

Building on the research momentum generated by the fulfillment of the President’s commitment to complete the five-year doubling of the NIH budget, the FY

2005 budget provides $28.6 billion for NIH, an increase of $729 million or 2.7 percent over 2004. Since 2001, the NIH budget has grown by $8.2 billion or 40 percent.

34

The budget’s strong investment in new NIH grants illustrates the Administration’s

continued commitment to research. The budget includes 10,393 new grants, 258

more than last year and equal to the highest level ever awarded.

As NIH ushers in the next century of biomedical research, it is beginning to transform our medical research capabilities, such as improving access to state-of-the-art

instrumentation and biomedical technologies; developing of specialized animal and

non-animal research models; and emphasizing ‘‘smart’’ network connected technologies, computer-aided drug design, gene and molecular therapy development, and

bioengineering approaches to decrease health care costs. In addition, the NIH budget continues to support biodefense research by providing $1.74 billion to accelerate

clinical trials, target the development of new therapeutic and vaccine products for

agents of bioterrorism, and establish Regional Centers of Excellence in Biodefense

and Emerging Infectious Diseases.

National Science Foundation (NSF):

The 2005 budget provides $5.75 billion for NSF, a three percent increase over the

2004 enacted level. Since 2001 the NSF budget has increased by 30 percent. The budget provides over $1 billion for NSF programs that emphasize the mathematical and physical sciences, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. These programs have increased by 31 percent since 2001.

NSF participates strongly in this Administration’s cross agency priority programs

in information- and nano-technology, climate science, and education. This budget

provides $761 million for NSF’s part in the National Information Technology R&D initiative, focusing on long-term computer science research and applications; $210

million for climate change science; and $305 million for NSF’s lead role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a 20 percent increase from the 2004 level.

Science and math education is strongly supported in this budget, with funds for

5,500 graduate research fellowships and traineeships, an increase of 1,800 since

2001. Annual stipends in these programs have increased to a projected $30,000,

compared with $18,000 in 2001.

Science infrastructure funding is provided to initiate construction for the National

Ecological Observation Network (NEON), the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel, and

a set of experiments in fundamental physics called ‘‘Rare Symmetry Violating Processes’’ (RSVP).

Department of Energy (DOE):

The 2005 budget provides $8.9 billion for R&D at DOE, a $1.1 billion (or 14 percent) increase since 2001.

DOE has the lion’s share of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to accelerate

the worldwide availability and affordability of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.

This Initiative is proposed at $228 million—a threefold increase over 2001. For the

first time it will include basic research investments in the DOE Office of Science

focused on understanding and controlling the chemical and physical interactions of

hydrogen with materials.

DOE will also continue its efforts to reduce the cost of renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass at $375 million, a five percent increase over current funding. The budget provides a three percent increase for

nuclear energy R&D, including $34 million for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy

Systems Initiative to develop next-generation nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies that are sustainable, proliferation-resistant, and economical.

Electricity transmission and distribution reliability R&D activities are funded at

$91 million, a 12 percent increase over 2004. These funds include $45 million for

high temperature superconductivity, $6 million for the new Gridworks program to

support research that will enable power lines to carry more power and better control

the flow of electricity to prevent blackouts, and $5 million for the Gridwise program

to improve the communications and control system for the electricity grid. This budget provides $3.4 billion for the Office of Science, including funding to ensure its continuing leadership in physical science research and its unique research

in genomics, climate change, and supercomputing. The fifth and final nanoscience

research center will begin construction as part of the Office’s $211 million investment in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 57 percent more than four years

ago.

Department of Commerce:

The 2005 budget provides over $1 billion for R&D at the Department of Commerce.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ‘‘core’’ programs receive

$482 million for research and physical improvements at NIST’s measurement and

standards laboratories. This supports equipment for the Advanced Measurement

35

Laboratory and overdue renovations of facilities. These ‘‘core’’ R&D programs are exceptionally high-leverage activities that foster commercialization of new technologies

through the development of measurement tools and methods, and the establishment

of industrial standards. In an era of global commerce, strong national standards

help to protect the interests of U.S. production by reducing artificial technical barriers to trade. The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, whose role is to strengthen manufacturing innovation, is funded at $30 million, 50 percent over 2001. I

would urge that Congress strongly support these key ‘‘competitiveness’’ R&D activities. Last month’s Congressional reduction of $22 million in these programs goes in

the wrong direction.

The 2005 budget again proposes to terminate the Advanced Technology Program

(ATP). The Administration believes firmly that other NIST research and development programs are both necessary and more effective in supporting the fundamental scientific understanding and technological needs of U.S.-based businesses,

American workers, and the domestic economy.

For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 2005

budget provides $350 million for ongoing research on climate, weather, air quality,

and ocean processes, 11 percent more than 2001. This funding level includes $19

million for NOAA to expand climate observing capabilities in support of the Administration’s recently released Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Strategic

Plan.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):

The President has committed the United States to a sustainable, affordable program of human and robotic exploration of the solar system and beyond, including

a human return to the Moon that will ultimately enable future human exploration

of Mars and other destinations. This vision not only sets a course to the planets,

but also focuses technology development applicable to society on Earth.

To support this and other NASA missions, the budget requests $16.2 billion in FY

2005 and $87 billion over five years, an increase of $1 billion over the FY 2004 fiveyear plan. NASA will reallocate $11 billion within this five-year amount toward new

exploration activities. Robotic trailblazers to the Moon will begin in 2008, followed

by a human return to the Moon no later than 2020. The pace of exploration will

be driven by available resources, technology readiness, and our ongoing experience.

The budget continues the growth in space science with a request for $4.1 billion

in FY 2005, an increase of $1.5 billion, or over 50 percent, since 2001. This budget

supports the next generation of space observatories that will be used to better understand the origin, structure, and evolution of the universe. The budget also initiates new exploration missions to Mars.

The 2005 budget supports a variety of key research and technology initiatives to

enable the space exploration vision. These initiatives include refocusing U.S. research on the International Space Station to emphasize understanding and countering the impact of long-duration space flight on human physiology. In addition,

the agency will pursue optical communications for increased data rates throughout

the solar system, space nuclear power to enable high-power science instruments, advanced in-space propulsion technologies, and systems that enable robots and humans to work together in space.

Although exploration will become NASA’s primary focus, the agency will not forsake its important work in improving the Nation’s aviation system, in education, in

Earth science, and in fundamental space science.

Department of Transportation (DOT):

The budget provides $659 million for science at DOT, an increase of $53 million

(nine percent) over 2004, distributed as follows:

The Federal Highway Administration receives $429 million to support research,

technology and education to improve the quality and safety of the Nation’s highway

transportation infrastructure with initiatives such as increasing the quality and longevity of roadways, identifying safety improvements and promoting congestion mitigation efforts.

The Federal Aviation Administration receives $117 million to continue critical

safety and capacity research with initiatives such as the Joint Planning and Development Office’s planning and development of the next generation air transportation

system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration receives $103 million for

R&D in crash worthiness, crash avoidance, and data analysis to help reduce highway fatalities and injuries.

36

Department of Homeland Security (DHS):

Research and development funding within DHS continues to be a priority with

$1.2 billion in FY 2005, an increase of 15 percent over FY 2004 enacted. R&D is

focused on countering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and other catastrophic threats.

In 2005, the Administration will launch a biosurveillance initiative that includes

$274 million for integrated monitoring of human health, food, agriculture and the

environment. This plan includes $118 million for the expansion of the BioWatch program and $11 million to enable the Department of Homeland Security to integrate

widely collected biosurveillance data in real-time.

The budget includes $60 million to continue research and development of countermeasures to protect commercial aircraft against man portable air defense systems

(MANPADS).

The President’s budget also funds the Homeland Security Scholars and Fellows

Program that provides scholarships to students pursuing scientific studies in homeland security, and the Homeland Security Centers of Excellence (HS–Centers) program, a coordinated university-based system to enhance the Nation’s homeland security.

PRIORITY INITIATIVES

The 2005 budget highlights high priority inter-agency initiatives described briefly

below. These initiatives are coordinated through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) for which my office has responsibility for day-to-day operations. The Council prepares research and development strategies that cross agency

boundaries to form a consolidated and coordinated investment package.

Innovation—The FY 2005 budget calls for research and development investments

to promote technological innovation in high-priority areas including nanotechnology,

information technology and manufacturing; the creation of incentives for increased

private sector R&D funding; and stronger intellectual property protections. These

investments will stimulate innovation and enhance U.S. competitiveness.

• Nanotechnology. The President’s budget includes $1 billion in funding to increase understanding, and develop applications based upon, the unique properties of matter at the nanoscale—that is, at the level of clusters of atoms

and molecules. Funding for nanotechnology R&D has more than doubled since

2001.

• Networking and Information Technology. Since 2001, funding for networking

and information technology R&D has increased by 14 percent to over $2 billion, and the R&D funded by this effort has laid the foundation for many of

the technological innovations that have driven this sector forward. The President’s FY 2005 budget sustains this significant investment.

• Manufacturing Technology. The President’s budget requests increased funding

for a number of programs that strengthen manufacturing innovation, including those within the National Science Foundation’s Design, Manufacture and

Industrial Innovation Division—up 27 percent since 2001 to $66 million—and

the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)—up 50 percent since 2001 to $30 million.

The FY 2005 budget sustains funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at the 2004 level and proposes to implement reforms to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of the program.

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative—The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI), announced in the

President’s 2003 State of the Union address, seeks to help industry develop practical

and cost-effective approaches using hydrogen to power automobiles. HFI focuses on

technologies for the production, storage, and delivery of hydrogen, and on the enhancement of fuel cells that promise unusually efficient and clean sources of power.

The 2005 budget for HFI is $228 million, 43 percent larger than the amount just

enacted for FY 2004.

The 2005 budget expands fundamental research related to hydrogen fuel technology within the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. Basic research is

necessary for improved technologies for hydrogen production, storage, and conversion.

HFI supports research on hydrogen production from renewable energy, coal, nuclear energy, and biomass, safe and effective hydrogen storage systems, and affordable hydrogen fuel cells for consumer automobiles. The Initiative has spurred increased hydrogen technology development efforts among private-sector, state, and

international stakeholders.

37

Physical Sciences and Engineering—Research in the physical sciences and engineering is an essential component of space exploration, nanotechnology, networking

and information technologies, biomedical applications, and defense technologies. The

President’s 2005 budget strengthens the Nation’s investment in the physical

sciences and engineering by making significant investments in these, and other, priority areas.

• National Science Foundation (NSF). The President’s budget provides $1.1 billion for the Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and proposes significant increases for the priority areas of nanotechnology (up 20 percent to $305 million) and cyberinfrastructure (up 12 percent to $399 million).

• Department of Energy (DOE). The budget provides $3.4 billion for DOE’s Office of Science, a $52 million decrease from FY 2004 enacted. Excluding Congressionally directed projects for 2004 that are not proposed for 2005, the Office of Science budget would increase by $88 million (+2.6 percent). The budget includes increases in priority areas such as nanotechnology (up four percent to $211 million), targeted hydrogen and fuel cell research (+$21 million),

national scientific user facility operations (+$46 million), and initial funding

for the development of an x-ray laser light source that will open entirely new

realms of discovery in materials, chemistry, and biology.

• Department of Commerce (DOC). The President’s budget includes $53 million

in nanometrology research at NIST.

Homeland Security—Research and development (R&D) funding for homeland security continues to be a priority with an estimated $3.6 billion in FY 2005, tripling

the resources dedicated in FY 2002, the first budget following the terrorist attacks

of September 11, 2001. Research and development is focused on countering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and other catastrophic threats. Priority areas

include:

• $2.5 billion over three years for Project BioShield, an initiative that encourages the development and procurement of next-generation medical countermeasures against WMD agents.

• $568 million to improve food and agriculture defense through R&D in the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services

and the Department of Homeland Security.

• $23 million for R&D in EPA for enhanced methods for detecting biological

and chemical agents intentionally introduced in drinking water and waste

water systems and methods for safe disposal of waste materials resulting

from cleanups.

• $340 million in the Department of Defense, for R&D to address terrorist and

other unconventional threats. Systems and technologies under development to

address defense against chemical or biological agents include: improved detectors of chemical and biological threats; troop protective gear for use under

chemical and biological attack that is both more effective and more comfortable; and vaccines to protect against biological agents.

MANAGING THE FEDERAL RESEARCH BUDGET

R&D is critically important for keeping our nation economically competitive, and

it will help solve the challenges we face in health, defense, energy, and the environment. As a result, and consistent with the Government Performance and Results

Act, every federal R&D dollar must be invested as effectively as possible.

As directed by the President’s Management Agenda, the R&D Investment Criteria

were first applied in 2001 to selected R&D programs at DOE. Through the lessons

learned from that DOE pilot program, the criteria were subsequently broadened in

scope to cover other types of R&D programs at DOE and other agencies. To accommodate the wide range of R&D activities, a new framework was developed for the

criteria to address three fundamental aspects of R&D:

• Relevance—Programs must be able to articulate why they are important, relevant, and appropriate for federal investment;

• Quality—Programs must justify how funds will be allocated to ensure quality;

and

• Performance—Programs must be able to monitor and document how well the

investments are performing.

In addition, R&D projects and programs relevant to industry are expected to meet

criteria to determine the appropriateness of the public investment, enable compariVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
38

sons of proposed and demonstrated benefits, and provide meaningful decision points

for completing or transitioning the activity to the private sector.

OSTP and OMB are continuing to assess the strengths and weaknesses of R&D

programs across the Federal Government in order to identify and apply good R&D

management practices throughout the government.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I believe this is a good budget for

science and technology. This Administration is committed to strong science and

technology as a foundation for national security and economic strength. I would be

pleased to respond to questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN H. MARBURGER III

John H. Marburger III, Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, was born on Staten Island, N.Y., grew up in Maryland near Washington, D.C., and attended Princeton University (B.A., Physics 1962)

and Stanford University (Ph.D., Applied Physics 1967). Before his appointment in

the Executive Office of the President, he served as Director of Brookhaven National

Laboratory from 1998, and as the third President of the State University of New

York at Stony Brook (1980–1994). He came to Long Island in 1980 from the University of Southern California where he had been a Professor of Physics and Electrical

Engineering, serving as Physics Department Chairman and Dean of the College of

Letters, Arts and Sciences in the 1970’s. In the fall of 1994 he returned to the faculty at Stony Brook, teaching and doing research in optical science as a University

Professor. Three years later he became President of Brookhaven Science Associates,

a partnership between the university and Battelle Memorial Institute that competed

for and won the contract to operate Brookhaven National Laboratory.

While at the University of Southern California, Marburger contributed to the rapidly growing field of nonlinear optics, a subject created by the invention of the laser

in 1960. He developed theory for various laser phenomena and was a co-founder of

the University of Southern California’s Center for Laser Studies. His teaching activities included ‘‘Frontiers of Electronics,’’ a series of educational programs on CBS

television.

Marburger’s presidency at Stony Brook coincided with the opening and growth of

University Hospital and the development of the biological sciences as a major

strength of the university. During the 1980’s federally sponsored scientific research

at Stony Brook grew to exceed that of any other public university in the northeastern United States.

During his presidency, Marburger served on numerous boards and committees, including chairmanship of the governor’s commission on the Shoreham Nuclear Power

facility, and chairmanship of the 80 campus ‘‘Universities Research Association’’

which operates Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago. He served as

a trustee of Princeton University and many other organizations. He also chaired the

highly successful 1991/92 Long Island United Way campaign.

As a public spirited scientist-administrator, Marburger has served local, State and

Federal Governments in a variety of capacities. He is credited with bringing an

open, reasoned approach to contentious issues where science intersects with the

needs and concerns of society. His strong leadership of Brookhaven National Laboratory following a series of environmental and management crises is widely acknowledged to have won back the confidence and support of the community while

preserving the Laboratory’s record of outstanding science.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Marburger. And

I want to thank you publicly, not just because you are a New Yorker, but for your invaluable service. And it is refreshing to see you,

as the Science Advisor to the President, in the deliberations when

OMB makes some of the difficult decisions it makes. And so I want

to thank you for what you have done.

Dr. Colwell.

STATEMENT OF DR. RITA R. COLWELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. COLWELL. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Gordon,

Members of the Committee, I am very pleased to appear before you

39

today. It has been an honor to serve as the NSF Director, and especially to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and with this committee.

I will assume the Chairmanship of Canon USA Life Sciences subsidiary to develop genomic diagnostics, and I will also serve as distinguished University of Maryland professor and jointly at the

Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health to focus on global infectious diseases, safe water, and human health. So I am going

to be pretty busy once I leave NSF.

Let me speak now to the National Science Foundation’s commitment to the science and engineering enterprise. It comes from a

very strong conviction that knowledge is the most powerful force

for progress. NSF works hard to open new frontiers in research and

education, and we keep our eye on the biggest prize, which is economic and social prosperity, and very importantly, security benefiting all citizens.

The most powerful mechanism for keeping our nation prosperous

and secure is keeping it at the forefront of learning and discovery.

That is NSF’s business, to advance fundamental research in science

and engineering, to educate and train scientists and engineers, and

to provide the tools to accomplish both of these objectives.

So first, the big picture. This year, the National Science Foundation is requesting $5.745 billion. That is an increase of $167 million, or three percent more than last year. In spite of the significant challenges that are facing our nation in security, defense, and

the economy, NSF is, relatively speaking, doing well. An increase

of three percent when many agencies are looking at budget cuts is,

I think, a vote of confidence in the Foundation’s working toward

two of the Nation’s goals.

NSF has been growing surely and steadily. Our investments this

year will continue us on the right path. We are grateful for the

leadership and the vision of this committee, and we believe that

will help keep us moving in the right direction.

Now, having said that, in a year of very tight budgets, we had

to set priorities. We had to make informed, but very tough choices.

And that is never an easy job, and it is particularly difficult when

the opportunities to make productive investments are as plentiful

as they are today in research and education. The largest dollar increase is in the Research and Related Activities account: $201 million, that is five percent above the fiscal year 2004 level. The largest decrease is in the budget for the Education and Human Resources directorate, with the major share of the decrease due to the

consolidation of the Math and Science Partnership with the Department of Education.

Nevertheless, we are increasing investments in people, science

and engineering students, researchers, as well as public understanding and diversity participation in science and engineering

throughout all of the directorates as part of our strategy for horizontal and vertical integration of all of our programs.

I am going to begin with our investment in organizational excellence. This is NSF’s single greatest need for the coming year. In

fiscal year 2005, we are requesting an increased investment of $76

million to ensure that we continue to make the productive investments wisely and efficiently and to perform even better in the fuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
40

ture and to remain the best managed agency in the entire Federal

Government.

A number of considerations have elevated the organizational excellence portfolio in our budget. Let me point out that, for 20 years,

NSF’s staffing has remained level as the total budget and the

workload increased significantly. And the work has become more

complex. This investment will streamline and update NSF operations and management by allowing us to address the mounting

workplace pressure, and it will allow us to add new skills to the

workforce, and it will improve the quality and responsiveness for

our customers.

Today’s science and engineering challenges are more complex. Increasingly, they involve multi-investigation research as well as a

strong emphasis on interdisciplinary research. So increasing award

size and duration across the board remains one of NSF’s top longterm priorities. We will make some additional progress in fiscal

year 2005 with an increase in the average annual award. This will

bring the total increase from $90,000 to $142,000 since 1998, an increase of 58 percent.

Our ability to attract the Nation’s best talent has been facilitated

by increasing the level of graduate stipends. This has gone from a

base of $15,000 in 1999 to $30,000 today, and I thank you, all of

you, for your support in achieving that goal. In fiscal year 2005, we

will increase the number of fellowships from 5,000 to 5,500 for the

NSF flagship Graduate Education programs, which, I might add,

require U.S. citizenship.

NSF’s five focused priority areas are also slated to receive more than $537 million in 2005. As the lead agency in the Administration’s National Nanotechnology Initiative, support for Nanoscale

Science and Engineering will increase by 20 percent to $305 million. Support for Biocomplexity in the Environment and the Mathematical Sciences will continue at the 2004 levels.

The Human and Social Dynamics priority area will provide $23

million to investigate the impacts of change on our lives and on the

stability of our institutions, with a special emphasis on the way

people make decisions and how they take risks. The budget includes $20 million to start NSF’s Workforce for the 21st Century

priority. This is critical, because it focuses on U.S. citizens and

broadening participation.

Researchers need access to cutting-edge tools to tackle today’s

complex and radically different research. The fiscal year 2005 investment in tools is $1.5 billion. It is an increase of $104 million.

It continues an accelerated program to revitalize and to upgrade

the Nation’s aging research infrastructure through investments in

cutting-edge tools of every kind. Nearly $400 million of that investment in tools will support the expansion of a state-of-the-art

cyberinfrastructure, and I know this is something, Mr. Chairman,

you believe in very strongly.

So, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks by emphasizing, once

again, how carefully and diligently we work together at NSF to

identify clear priorities in a time of very tight budgets, and we

made tough choices. We are confident that the NSF’s fiscal year

2005 investments will have long-term benefits for the entire science

and engineering community and will contribute to the security and

41

the prosperity for our nation. And that is precisely why I have no

doubt that NSF’s budget merits the attention and the support that

your NSF Authorization Act gave us.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions that

you may have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Colwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RITA R. COLWELL

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, Members of the Committee, I am

pleased to appear before you today. For more than fifty years, the National Science

Foundation (NSF) has been a strong steward of America’s science and engineering

enterprise. Although NSF represents roughly three percent of the total federal budget for research and development, it accounts for one-fifth of all federal support for

basic academic research and 40 percent of support for basic research at academic

institutions, outside of the life sciences. Despite its small size, NSF has an extraordinary impact on scientific and engineering knowledge and capacity.

During NSF’s five decades of leadership, ground-breaking advances in knowledge

have helped reshape society and enabled the United States to become the most productive nation in history. The returns on NSF’s strategic investments in science, engineering, and mathematics research and education have been enormous. Much of

the sustained economic prosperity America has enjoyed over the past decade is the

result of technological innovation—innovation made possible, in large part, by NSF

support for fundamental research and education.

In our 21st century world, knowledge is the currency of everyday life, and at the

National Science Foundation we are in the knowledge business. Our investments

are aimed at the frontiers of science and engineering, where advances in fundamental knowledge drive innovation, progress, and productivity.

Our commitment to the science and engineering enterprise comes from an abiding

belief that knowledge is a powerful force for progress. As we work to open new frontiers in research and education, we have our eye on the main prize—economic and

social prosperity that can improve the quality of life for all.

The surest way to keep our nation prosperous and secure is to keep it at the forefront of learning and discovery. That is NSF’s business—to educate and train scientists and engineers, advance fundamental research and engineering, and provide

the tools to accomplish both. The NSF FY 2005 budget request aims to do that, and

I am pleased to present it to you today.

I’ll begin with the big picture. This year the National Science Foundation is requesting $5.745 billion dollars. That’s an increase of $167 million, or three percent

more than in the FY 2004 enacted level.

In light of the significant challenges that face the Nation—in security, defense,

and the economy—NSF has, relatively speaking, fared well. We are pleased to be

able to anticipate an increase of three percent when many agencies are looking at

budget cuts. This is certainly a vote of confidence in the National Science Foundation’s stewardship of these very important components of the Nation’s goals. Let me

put the three percent increase in context.

NSF has been growing—surely and steadily. Our investments this year will continue us on the right path, and with the leadership and vision of this committee,

the NSF Authorization Act will keep us moving in the right direction in the years

to come.

Nonetheless, in a year of very tight budgets, we have had to set priorities and

make informed choices in a sea of opportunity and constraint. That is never an easy

job, but it is particularly difficult when opportunities to make productive investments are as plentiful as they are today in research and education.

The NSF FY 2005 Budget Request addresses these opportunities and challenges

through an integrated portfolio of investments in People, Ideas, Tools, and Organizational Excellence. The NSF budget identifies what we see as NSF’s most pressing

needs during the coming year:

• Strengthen NSF management to maximize effectiveness and performance. The

FY 2005 Request assigns highest priority to strengthening management of

the investment process and operations. The budget request includes an increase of over $20 million to strengthen the NSF workforce and additional investments of over $50 million to enhance information technology infrastructure, promote leading-edge approaches to e-Government, and ensure adequate

safety and security for all of NSF’s information technology and physical resources. It’s a sizable increase, especially in a constrained environment, but

42

it’s really the minimum needed to keep pace with our growing workload and

expanding responsibilities.

• Improve the productivity of researchers and expand opportunities for students.

Boosting the overall productivity of the Nation’s science and engineering enterprise requires increasing average award size and duration. The recent survey of NSF-funded principal investigators provides convincing evidence that

an increase in award size will allow researchers to draw more students into

the research process, and increasing award duration will foster a more stable

and productive environment for learning and discovery. The level proposed for

FY 2005 represents a 58 percent increase over the past seven years in average annual award size.

• Strengthen the Nation’s performance with world-class instruments and facilities. In an era of fast-paced discovery and technological change, researchers

need access to cutting-edge tools to pursue increasingly complex avenues of

research. NSF investments not only provide these tools, but also develop and

creatively design the tools critical to 21st Century research and education.

Consistent with the recent recommendations of the National Science Board,

investment in infrastructure of all types (Tools) rises to $1.47 billion, representing 26 percent of the FY 2005 Budget Request.

Targeted investments under each of NSF’s four strategic goals will promote these

objectives and advance the progress of science and engineering.

NSF Strategic Goals: People, Ideas, Tools and Organizational Excellence

The National Science Foundation supports discovery, learning and innovation at

the frontiers of science and engineering, where risks and rewards are high, and

where benefits to society are most promising. NSF encourages increased and effective collaboration across disciplines and promotes partnerships among academe, industry and government to ensure that new knowledge moves rapidly and smoothly

throughout the public and private sectors.

NSF’s investment strategy establishes a clear path of progress for achieving four

complementary strategic goals: People, Ideas, Tools and Organizational Excellence.

‘‘People, Ideas and Tools’’ is simple shorthand for a sophisticated system that integrates education, research, and cutting-edge infrastructure to create world-class discovery, learning and innovation in science and engineering. Organizational Excellence (OE)—a new NSF strategic goal on a par with the other three—integrates

what NSF accomplishes through People, Ideas and Tools with business practices

that ensure efficient operations, productive investments and real returns to the

American people.

People. The rapid transformations that new knowledge and technology continuously trigger in our contemporary world make investments in people and learning

a continuing focus for NSF. In our knowledge-based economy and society, we need

not only scientists and engineers, but also a national workforce with strong skills

in science, engineering and mathematics. Yet many of today’s students leave secondary school without these skills. Fewer young Americans choose to pursue careers

in science and engineering at the university level. Of those that do, fewer than half

graduate with science or engineering degrees. The FY 2005 Request provides $1.065

billion for programs that will address these challenges.

To capture the young talent so vital for the next generation of discovery, we will

increase the number of fellowships from 5,000 to 5,500 for NSF’s flagship graduate

education programs: the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships

(IGERT), Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF), and Graduate Teaching Fellows in

K–12 Education (GK–12).

Ideas. New knowledge is the lifeblood of the science and engineering enterprise.

Investments in Ideas are aimed at the frontiers of science and engineering. They

build the intellectual capital and fundamental knowledge that drive technological

innovation, spur economic growth and increase national security. They also seek answers to the most fundamental questions about the origin and nature of the universe, the planet and humankind. Investments totaling $2.85 billion in FY 2005 will

support the best new ideas generated by the science and engineering community.

Increasing grant size and duration is a fundamental, long-term investment priority for NSF. Larger research grants of longer duration will boost the overall productivity of researchers by freeing them to take more risks and focus on more complex research goals with longer time horizons. More flexible timetables will also provide researchers with opportunities to provide expanded education and research experiences to students. Investments in FY 2005 bring NSF average annual research

grant award size to approximately $142,000, an increase of $3,000 over FY 2004—

43

a 58 percent increase since 1998. Average annual award duration will continue at

approximately 3.0 years.

Tools. The FY 2005 request for Tools totals $1.47 billion, an increase of $104 million over the FY 2004 Estimate. The increase continues an accelerated program to

revitalize and upgrade the Nation’s aging infrastructure through broadly distributed

investments in instruments and tools. Progress in research and education frequently

depends upon the development and use of tools that expand experimental and observational limits. Researchers need access to cutting-edge tools to tackle today’s complex and radically different avenues of research, and students who are not trained

in their use are at a disadvantage in today’s technology-intensive workplace.

Organizational Excellence (OE). With activities that involve over 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students and with over 40,000 proposals to process

each year, NSF relies on efficient operations and state-of-the-art business practices

to provide quality services and responsible monitoring and stewardship of the agency’s investments. NSF’s Request includes $363.05 million to support Organizational

Excellence (OE). This represents an increase in the share of the total NSF budget

for OE from five percent in FY 2004 to six percent in FY 2005.

A number of considerations have elevated the Organizational Excellence portfolio

in NSF’s FY 2005 Request. For twenty years NSF staffing has remained level as

the total budget and workload increased significantly, and the work has become

more complex. Proposals increasingly involve large, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary projects and require sophisticated monitoring and evaluation. NSF is

also committed to maintaining its traditional high standards for stewardship, innovation and customer service. Key priorities for FY 2005 include award monitoring

and oversight, human capital management and IT system improvements necessary

for leadership in e-Government, security upgrades and world-class customer service.

It is central to NSF’s mission to provide effective stewardship of public funds, to

realize maximum benefits at minimum cost and to ensure public trust in the quality

of the process. The FY 2005 investment in Organizational Excellence will streamline

and update NSF operations and management by enhancing cutting edge business

processes and tools. It will also fund the addition of 25 new permanent employees

to address mounting workplace pressure, add new skills to the workforce and improve the quality and responsiveness of customer service.

Of course, People, Ideas, Tools, and Organizational Excellence work together to

give us the best returns in discovery, learning and innovation.

Priority Areas

Before providing a few highlights of the budget, let me stress that the prioritysetting process at NSF results from continual consultation with the research community. New programs are added or enhanced only after seeking the combined expertise and experience of the science and engineering community, NSF management

and staff, and the National Science Board.

Programs are initiated or enlarged based on considerations of their intellectual

merit, broader impacts of the research, the importance to science and engineering,

balance across fields and disciplines, and synergy with research in other agencies

and nations. NSF coordinates its research with our sister research agencies both informally—by program officers being actively informed of other agencies’ programs—

and formally, through interagency agreements that spell out the various agency

roles in research activities. Moreover, through our Committee of Visitors process

there is continuous evaluation and feedback of information about how NSF programs are performing.

Producing the finest scientists and engineers in the world and encouraging new

ideas to strengthen U.S. leadership across the frontiers of discovery are NSF’s principal goals. NSF puts its money where it counts—94 percent of our budget goes directly to the research and education that keep our knowledge base strong, our economy humming and the benefits to society flowing.

Our nation’s science and engineering workforce is the most productive in the

world. To keep it that way, we have to attract more of the most promising students

to graduate-level studies in science and engineering.

Since our founding in 1950, NSF has supported 39,000 fellows. We will increase

Fellowships from 5,000 to 5,500 for NSF’s prestigious graduate education programs:

the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT), Graduate

Research Fellowships (GRF), and Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education

(GK–12).

Our ability to attract the Nation’s best talent has been facilitated by increasing

the level of graduate stipends from a base of $15,000 in 1999 to $30,000 in FY 2004.

Stipend levels will remain at the $30,000 level in FY 2005.

44

Today’s science and engineering challenges are more complex. Increasingly, they

involve multi-investigator research, as well as a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary research. So, increasing award size and duration-across the board-remains one

of NSF’s top long-term priorities. We will make additional progress in FY 2005 with

an increase of $3,000 in average annual award. That brings the total increase to

58 percent since 1998.

Opportunities to advance knowledge have never been greater than they are today.

NSF invests in emerging areas of research that hold exceptional potential to

strengthen U.S. world leadership in areas of global economic and social importance.

This year, we are requesting funding for five priority areas with very promising research horizons: biocomplexity, nanoscale science and engineering, mathematical

sciences, human and social dynamics, and the 21st century workforce.

Biocomplexity in the Environment explores the complex interactions among organisms and their environments at all scales, and through space and time. This fundamental research on the links between ecology, diversity, the evolution of biological

systems, and many other factors will help us better understand and, in time, predict

environmental change. In FY 2005, Biocomplexity in the Environment will emphasize research on aquatic systems.

The Human and Social Dynamics priority area will explore a wide range of topics.

These include individual decision-making and risk, the dynamics of human behavior, and global agents of change—from democratization, to globalization, to war.

Support will also be provided for methodological capabilities in spatial social science

and for instrumentation and data resources infrastructure.

Mathematics is the language of science, and is a powerful tool of discovery. The

Mathematical Sciences priority areas will focus on fundamental research in the

mathematical and statistical sciences, interdisciplinary research connecting math

with other fields of science and engineering, and targeted investments in training.

NSF’s investment in Nanoscale Science and Engineering targets the fundamental

research that underlies nanotechnology—which very likely will be the next ‘‘transformational’’ technology.

Investments in this priority area will emphasize research on nanoscale structures

and phenomena, and quantum control. NSF is the lead agency for the governmentwide National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). NSF is requesting $305 million, an

increase of nearly $52 million or 20 percent. This is by far NSF’s largest priority

area investment.

To operate in an increasingly complex world, we have to produce a general workforce that is scientifically and technologically capable, and a science and engineering

workforce that is world class by any measure.

The FY 2005 request provides $20 million to initiate the Workforce for the 21st

Century priority area. This investment will support innovations to integrate NSF’s

investments in education at all levels, from K–12 through postdoctoral, as well as

attract more U.S. students to science and engineering fields and broaden participation.

Budget Highlights

Every year it becomes more difficult to choose only a few NSF activities to highlight in the budget presentation. But they are all genuinely significant, and I want

to make brief comments about each.

In FY 2005, NSF will make significant investments in our diverse Centers Programs. Centers bring people, ideas, and tools together on scales that are large

enough to have a significant impact on important science and engineering challenges. They provide opportunities to integrate research and education, and to pursue innovative and risky research. An important goal beyond research results is developing leadership in the vision, strategy, and management of the research and

education enterprise. The total investment for NSF’s Centers Programs is $457 million, an increase of $44 million in FY 2005. Here are some highlights of the Centers.

• $30 million will initiate a new cohort of six Science and Technology Centers.

A key feature of these centers is the development of partnerships linking industry, government, and the educational community to improve the transfer

of research results, and provide students a full set of boundary-crossing opportunities.

• $20.0 million will continue support for multidisciplinary, multi-institutional

Science of Learning Centers. These centers are intended to advance understanding of learning through research on the learning process, the context of

learning, and learning technologies. The Centers will strengthen the connections between science of learning research and educational and workforce development.

45

• The budget request provides for two new nanotechnology centers; two or three

centers that advance fundamental knowledge about Environmental Social and

Behavioral Science; three Information Technology Centers, and additional

funding for the NSF Long-Term Ecological Research network. An additional

$6 million will fund a number of mathematical and physical science centers,

including: Chemistry Centers, Materials Centers, Mathematical Sciences Research Institutes, and Physics Frontiers Centers.

Today, discoveries emerge from around the world. It is essential that American

scientists and engineers have opportunities to engage with the world’s top researchers, to lead major international collaborations, and to have access to the best research facilities throughout the world and across all the frontiers of science and engineering. The FY 2005 budget to carry out these activities through NSF’s Office

of International Science and Engineering is $34 million, an increase of $6 million,

or 21 percent over the FY 2004 estimate. Finally, NSF will initiate an Innovation Fund at $5 million. The Fund provides

an opportunity for the Foundation to respond quickly to rapidly emerging activities

at the frontiers of learning and discovery.

Tools—Opening Up New Vistas

Researchers need access to cutting-edge tools to tackle today’s complex and radically different research tasks. If students are not trained in their use, they will be

at a disadvantage in today’s technology-intensive workplace. The FY 2005 investment in Tools totals one and a half billion dollars, an increase of $104 million. This

continues an accelerated program to revitalize and upgrade the Nation’s aging research infrastructure through investments in cutting-edge tools of every kind. Nearly $400 million of the FY 2005 investment supports the expansion of stateof-the-art cyberinfrastructure. Our new information and communication technologies

have transformed the way we do science and engineering. Providing access to moderate-cost computation, storage, analysis, visualization and communication for every

researcher will make that work more productive and broaden research perspectives

throughout the science and engineering community.

In FY 2005, there are three continuing and three new projects funded by the pro- posed $213 million investment in Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction.

NEON, the National Ecological Observatory Network, is a continental scale research instrument with geographically distributed infrastructure, linked by state-ofthe-art networking and communications technology. NEON will facilitate studies

that can help us address major environmental challenges and improve our ability

to predict environmental change. Funding for NEON planning activities is included

in the FY 2004 estimate.

The Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel is a state-of-the-art drill ship that will be

used by the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), an international collaboration. Cores of sediment and rock collected from the ocean floor will enhance studies

of the geologic processes that modify our planet. Investigators will explore the history of those changes in oceans and climate, and the extent and depth of the planet’s biosphere.

The Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP) includes two highly sensitive experiments to study fundamental symmetries of nature. RSVP will search for the

particles or processes that explain the predominance of matter that makes up the

observable universe. It will focus on questions ranging from the origins of our physical world to the nature of dark matter.

NSF plans to invest in major research equipment and facilities construction

projects over the next several years. We expect to start funding for two additional

projects; Ocean Observatories and an Alaska Regional Research Vessel in FY 2006.

In making these critical investments, NSF continues to put a very strong emphasis on effective and efficient management. We are proud of our track record.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, the budget highlights I’ve just presented don’t even begin to portray the variety and richness of the NSF portfolio. We support research programs

to enhance homeland security. This includes the Ecology of Infectious Diseases program, jointly funded with NIH, and the Microbial Genome Sequencing program,

jointly funded with the Department of Agriculture. NSF participates on the National Interagency Genome Sequencing Coordinating Committee, where our programs have attracted a great deal of interest from the intelligence community, and

have been touted as the best. The Critical Infrastructure Protection program, and

cyber security research and education round out our important contributions to enhancing homeland security.

46

Additionally, as part of the Administration’s Climate Change Research Initiative,

NSF supports research to reduce uncertainty related to climate variability and

change, with the objective of facilitating decision making and informing the policy

process.

Let me conclude my remarks by emphasizing once again how carefully and diligently we worked together at NSF to identify clear priorities in a time of tight budgets. We are confident that NSF’s FY 2005 investments will have long-term benefits

for the entire science and engineering community, and contribute to security and

prosperity for all. That is precisely why I have no doubts that NSF’s budget merits

the attention and support that your NSF Authorization Act gave us.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 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 ask not only for your support for our FY 2005 budget request, but also want

you to know how much I appreciate the long-standing bipartisan support of the committee for NSF. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to include a copy of NSF’s budget summary as part of my testimony, and would be happy to answer any questions that

you have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RITA ROSSI COLWELL

Dr. Rita R. Colwell became the 11th Director of the National Science Foundation

on August 4, 1998. Since taking office, Dr. Colwell has spearheaded the agency’s

emphases in K–12 science and mathematics education, graduate science and engineering education/training and the increased participation of women and minorities

in science and engineering.

Her policy approach has enabled the agency to strengthen its core activities, as

well as establish major initiatives, including Nanotechnology, Biocomplexity, Information Technology, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and the 21st Century

Workforce. In her capacity as NSF Director, she serves as Co-chair of the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council.

Before coming to NSF, Dr. Colwell was President of the University of Maryland

Biotechnology Institute, 1991–1998, and she remains Professor of Microbiology and

Biotechnology (on leave) at the University Maryland. She was also a member of the

National Science Board (NSF’s governing body) from 1984 to 1990.

Dr. Colwell has held many advisory positions in the U.S. Government, non-profit

science policy organizations, and private foundations, as well as in the international

scientific research community. She is a nationally respected scientist and educator,

and has authored or co-authored 16 books and more than 600 scientific publications.

She produced the award-winning film, Invisible Seas, and has served on editorial

boards of numerous scientific journals.

She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Medal of Distinction from

Columbia University, the Gold Medal of Charles University, Prague, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Alumna Summa Laude Dignata from the

University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Colwell has also been awarded 35 honorary degrees from institutions of higher

education, including her Alma Mater, Purdue University. Dr. Colwell is an honorary

member of the microbiological societies of the UK, France, Israel, Bangladesh, and

the U.S. and has held several honorary professorships, including the University of

Queensland, Australia. A geological site in Antarctica, Colwell Massif, has been

named in recognition of her work in the polar regions.

Dr. Colwell has previously served as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the

American Academy of Microbiology and also as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society for Microbiology, the

Sigma Xi National Science Honorary Society, and the International Union of Microbiological Societies. Dr. Colwell is a member of the American Academy of Arts and

Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the National Academy of

Sciences.

Born in Beverly, Massachusetts, Dr. Colwell holds a B.S. in Bacteriology and an

M.S. in Genetics, from Purdue University, and a Ph.D. in Oceanography from the

University of Washington.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Colwell. Thank

you for highlighting some of the positives.

Dr. McQueary.

47

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES E. McQUEARY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY

Dr. MCQUEARY. Chairman Boehlert, Members of the

Committee——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Turn on your mike.

Dr. MCQUEARY. There we go. It looked green, but it was not on.

Pardon me.

Chairman Boehlert and Congressman Gordon and distinguished

Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here with you

today to discuss the research and development activities of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the very

generous remarks you made about me personally, as well as the

men and women that I am fortunate enough to lead in the Science

and Technology Directorate. I greatly appreciate that.

I also want to recognize and thank my colleagues from the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the

Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation for

the essential role their organizations have in advancing this Nation’s scientific knowledge and for the strong support they have

provided to us as we have stood up the Science and Technology Directorate.

The Nation’s advantage in science and technology is key to securing the homeland. The most important mission for the Science and

Technology Directorate is to allow the dedicated men and women

who protect and secure our homeland to perform their jobs more

effectively and efficiently. These men and women I view as my customers and the customers of the Science and Technology Directorate.

When I first reported to you about our activities last year, we

had just begun our work. The Science and Technology Directorate

has accomplished much since its inception last March, and I would

like to give you a few highlights.

We have deployed monitoring systems that operate continuously

to detect biological pathogens in approximately 30 U.S. cities. We

have also set up testbeds to provide accurate radiation and nuclear

warnings at air and marine cargo ports in cooperation with the

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We have established

the first series of inter-operability guidelines for the Nation’s wireless emergency communications network. In another effort, we

have greatly reduced the time it takes to develop national standards for technologies to protect the homeland, and our new standards for radiation detection equipment will help put needed technologies into the hands of first responders quickly. And the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency has started extensive research for our next generation of biological and chemical and

radiological and nuclear detectors. We have awarded the first

round of 100 Homeland Security Fellowships and Scholarships to

help build the U.S. leadership in science and technology. We have

also established the first university-based Homeland Security Centers of Excellence to address both the targets and means of terrorism. And finally, we have become active contributors in numerous interagency Working Groups.

48

In accomplishing this, we have doubled the staff of this Directorate with some of the country’s best and most dedicated people.

We started this Directorate last March with 87 people, and 53 of

those are actually in a laboratory in Manhattan in our Environmental Measurements Lab, so we had a very small staff to begin.

Today, we have more than 210 people.

However, the threats to our homeland are diverse and remain

daunting. We must constantly monitor current and emerging

threats and assess our vulnerabilities to them, and we must develop new and improved capabilities to counter them and respond

to and recover from potential attack.

The Science and Technology Directorate has prioritized its research and development efforts based on the directives, recommendations, and suggestions from many sources, including the

Homeland Security Act of 2002, President Bush’s National Strategies and nine Homeland Security Presidential Directives, the report from the National Academies of Sciences on Making the Nation Safer, and reports from the Gilmore, Bremer, and Hart-Rudman Committees.

Identifying and integrating the information contained in these

sources has not been a small task, but the result, coupled with the

expert evaluation and judgment by our Science and Technology scientific staff, is the basis for determining the R&D needed to meet

our mission.

We recognize that many organizations, such as those represented

here today, are contributing to the Homeland Security Science and

Technology base. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress

recognized this as well and directed that the Under Secretary of

Science and Technology coordinate the Federal Government’s civilian efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to current and

emerging threats.

We take this responsibility very seriously.

We began this coordination process by evaluating and producing

a report on the Department of Homeland Security R&D activities

underway that were not under the direct cognizance of the Science

and Technology Directorate. Where appropriate, Science and Technology will absorb these R&D functions.

We are now initiating the effort needed to coordinate Homeland

Security research and development across the entire United States

Government. Discussions are ongoing with federal departments

and agencies as well as with the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Homeland

Security Council to ensure that the strongest possible links are

made and the best possible coordination occurs.

At this time, I would like to briefly describe our fiscal year 2005

plans. We have an overall budget request of $1.04 billion, which is

an increase of $126.5 million, or a 13.9 percent increase over the

fiscal year 2004 levels. With these funds, Science and Technology

will continue to make progress in securing the homeland. For example, under President Bush’s new Biosurveillance Initiative,

which accounts for most of the increase in funding, additional capability will be implemented quickly in the top-threat urban areas to

provide more than twice the current capability.

49

Also during fiscal year 2005, we expect to continue our annual

awarding of scholarships and fellowships, and we will continue

with our University Centers of Excellence, each focusing on a different aspect of terrorism. We will wrap up our work on the

Counter-MANPADS, or the Man-Portable Air Defense Shoulderfired missiles, to improve technologies to protect commercial aircraft. We will award contracts in 2005 for integrating commercial

prototype equipment on selected commercial aircraft and conduct

tests and evaluations, including live-fire range tests.

With less than a full year completed, the scientists and engineers

in the Science and Technology Directorate have accomplished more

than I could have expected, and I am proud to have shared with

you some of those success stories we have today, and I have appended a more comprehensive summary of those accomplishments

for the record. And yet, we also recognize there is much to do, and

we will be working just as hard in fiscal year 2005. I look forward

to working with you in the Science Committee, with my colleagues

here today and private industry to continue this work and improve

our ability to protect the homeland.

This concludes my prepared statement.

[The prepared statement of Dr. McQueary follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. MCQUEARY

Opening Statement

Good morning. Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Gordon, and distinguished

Members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be with you today to discuss the research and development activities of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science

and Technology Directorate.

I also want to recognize and thank my colleagues from the Office of Science and

Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and

the National Science Foundation for the essential role their organizations have in

advancing this nation’s scientific knowledge—and for the strong support they have

provided to us as we have stood up the Science and Technology Directorate.

The Nation’s advantage in science and technology is key to securing the homeland. The most important mission for the Science and Technology Directorate is to

allow the dedicated men and women who protect and secure our homeland to perform their jobs more effectively and efficiently—these men and women are my customers.

When I first reported to you about our activities last year, we had just begun our

work. The Science and Technology Directorate has accomplished much since its inception last March. I’d like to give you some highlights:

• We have deployed monitoring systems that operate continuously to detect biological pathogens in approximately 30 U.S. cities.

• We have also set up testbeds to provide accurate radiation and nuclear warnings at air and marine cargo ports in cooperation with the Port Authority of

New York and New Jersey.

• We have established the first series of inter-operability guidelines for the Nation’s wireless emergency communications network.

• In another effort, we have greatly reduced the time it takes to develop national standards for technologies to protect the homeland—our new standards

for radiation detection equipment will help put needed technologies into the

hands of first responders—quickly.

• And HSARPA—our Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency—

has started extensive research for next generation biological/chemical, and radiological/nuclear detectors.

• We have awarded the first round of 100 Homeland Security Fellowships and

Scholarships to help build U.S. leadership in science and technology.

• We have also established the first university-based Homeland Security Centers of Excellence to address both the targets and means of terrorism.

50

• And we have become active contributors in numerous interagency working

groups.

In accomplishing this, we have doubled the staff of this Directorate with some of

this country’s brightest and most dedicated people. We started this Directorate last

March with 87 people. Today we have more than 210.

However, the threats to our homeland remain diverse and daunting. We must

constantly monitor current and emerging threats and assess our vulnerabilities to

them. And we must develop new and improved capabilities to counter them—and

respond to and recover from a potential attack.

Prioritization

The Science and Technology Directorate has prioritized its research and development efforts based on the directives, recommendations and suggestions from many

sources, including:

• Homeland Security Act of 2002;

• President Bush’s National Strategies and nine Homeland Security Presidential Directives;

• The report from the National Academies of Sciences on Making the Nation

Safer, and

• Reports from the Gilmore, Bremer and Hart-Rudman Committees.

Identifying and integrating the information contained in these sources has not

been a small task. But the result—coupled with expert evaluation and judgment by

our scientific staff—is the basis for determining the R&D needed to meet our mission.

Consolidation and Coordination

We recognize that many organizations, such as those represented here today, are

contributing to the homeland security science and technology base. In the Homeland

Security Act of 2002, Congress recognized this as well, and directed the Under Secretary of Science and Technology to coordinate the Federal Government’s civilian efforts to identify and develop countermeasures to current and emerging threats.

We take this responsibility very seriously.

We began this coordination process by evaluating and producing a report on DHS

R&D activities underway that were not under the direct cognizance of the Science

and Technology Directorate. Where appropriate, S&T will absorb these R&D functions.

We are now initiating the effort needed to coordinate homeland security research

and development across the entire United States Government. Discussions are ongoing with Federal Departments and Agencies, as well as the Office of Management

and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Homeland Security

Council to ensure that the strongest possible links are made and the best possible

coordination occurs.

Budget Request

At this time I would like to briefly describe our FY 2005 plans. We have an overall budget request of $1.039.3 billion—which is an increase of $126.5 million or 13.9

percent over the FY 2004 levels.

With these funds, Science and Technology will continue to make progress in securing the homeland. For example,

• under President Bush’s new Biosurveillance Initiative, which accounts for

most of the increase in funding, additional capability will be implemented

quickly in the top threat urban areas to provide more than twice the current

capability.

• Also during FY 2005, we expect to continue our annual awarding of Scholarships and Fellowships. And we will continue with our University Centers of

Excellence, each focusing on a different aspect of terrorism.

• We will ramp up our work in Counter-MANPADS to improve technologies to

protect commercial aircraft from the threat of MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems. We will award contracts in FY 2005 for integrating commercial prototype equipment on selected commercial aircraft and conducting test and evaluation, including live fire range tests.

Conclusion

With less than a full year completed, the scientists and engineers in the Science

and Technology Directorate have accomplished more than I could have expected. I

51

am proud to have shared with you today some of those success stories. We have appended a more comprehensive summary of accomplishments to date for the record.

And yet, we also recognize that there is much to do, and we will be working just

as hard in FY 2005.

I look forward to working with you on the Science Committee—and with my colleagues here today and private industry to continue this work and improve our ability to protect our homeland and way of life.

This concludes my prepared statement. With the Committee’s permission, I request my formal statement be submitted for the record. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gordon and Members of the Committee, I thank you for your attention and

will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Introduction

Good morning. Chairman Boehlert, Congressman Gordon, and distinguished

Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be with you today to discuss the research and development activities of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science

and Technology Directorate. I also want to recognize and thank my colleagues from

the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation for the essential role their

organizations have in advancing this nation’s scientific knowledge and for the strong

support they have provided to us as we have stood up the Science and Technology

Directorate.

The Nation’s advantage in science and technology is key to securing the homeland. The most important mission for the Science and Technology Directorate is to

develop and deploy cutting-edge technologies and new capabilities so that the dedicated men and women who serve to protect and secure our homeland can perform

their jobs more effectively and efficiently - these men and women are my customers.

When I last reported to you about our activities, we had just begun our work. It

is now less than a year later.

Since its inception less than a year ago, the Science and Technology Directorate

has:

1) deployed continuously operating biological pathogen detection systems to approximately 30 United States cities;

2) set up testbeds for radiation and nuclear warnings at air and marine cargo

ports in cooperation with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,

3) established the first series of inter-operability guidelines for the Nation’s

wireless emergency communications network;

4) established the first national standards guidelines for radiation detection

equipment;

5) awarded the first Homeland Security Fellowships and Scholarships;

6) established the first Homeland Security University Center of Excellence,

7) transferred the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from the Department of

Agriculture to the Science and Technology Directorate;

8) engaged private industry in bringing innovative and effective solutions to

homeland security problems through the Technical Support Working Group

and issuance of HSARPA’s first two Broad Agency Announcements and a

Small Business Innovative Research Program solicitation;

9) initiated a development and demonstration program to assess the technical

and economic viability of adapting military countermeasures to the threat of

man portable anti-aircraft missiles for commercial aircraft;

10) collaborated with and assisted other components of the Department to enhance their abilities to meet their missions and become active contributors

in interagency working groups—all while staffing this Directorate with

some of this country’s brightest and most dedicated people.

I continue to be energized by and proud of the scientists, managers, and support

staff in the Science and Technology Directorate. We have accomplished a great deal

in a short amount of time and are positioning the Directorate to make continuing

contributions to the homeland security mission of the Department.

However, the threats to our homeland remain diverse and daunting. We must

constantly monitor current and emerging threats and assess our vulnerabilities to

them, develop new and improved capabilities to counter them, and mitigate the effects of terrorist attacks should they occur. The Science and Technology Directorate

must also enhance the conventional missions of the Department to protect and provide assistance to civilians in response to natural disasters, law enforcement needs,

and other activities such as maritime search and rescue.

52

Prioritization

The Science and Technology Directorate has prioritized its research and development (R&D) efforts based on the directives, recommendations and suggestions from

many sources, including:

• Homeland Security Act of 2002;

• The FY 2004 Congressional Appropriations for the Department of Homeland

Security;

• President Bush’s National Strategy for Homeland Security, the National

Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets,

the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the National

Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and the National Security Strategy;

• President Bush’s nine Homeland Security Presidential Directives;

• Office of Management and Budget’s 2003 Report on Combating Terrorism;

• Current threat assessments as understood by the Intelligence Community;

• Requirements identified by other Department components;

• Expert understanding of enemy capabilities that exist today or that can be

expected to appear in the future; and

• The report from the National Academies of Sciences on ‘‘Making the Nation

Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism,’’ and the

reports from the Gilmore, Bremer and Hart-Rudman Committees.

Identifying and integrating the information contained in these sources has not

been a small task, but the result, coupled with expert evaluation and judgment by

our scientific staff, is the basis for determining the research and development (R&D)

needed to meet our mission requirements.

Consolidation and Coordination

The Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate recognizes that many organizations, such as those represented here today, are contributing to the science and technology base needed to enhance the Nation’s capabilities

to thwart terrorist acts and to fully support the conventional missions of the operational components of the Department. Congress recognized the importance of the

research and development being conducted by numerous federal departments and

agencies, and in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, directed the Under Secretary

of Science and Technology to coordinate the Federal Government’s civilian efforts

to identify and develop countermeasures to current and emerging threats.

We take this responsibility very seriously.

We have begun this coordination process by evaluating and producing a report on

the research, development, testing, and evaluation work that was being conducted

within the Department of Homeland Security but was not already under the direct

cognizance of the Science and Technology Directorate. Where it is appropriate, the

Science and Technology Directorate will absorb these R&D functions. In other cases,

the Science and Technology Directorate will provide appropriate input, guidance,

and oversight of these R&D programs.

We are now initiating the effort needed to coordinate homeland security research

and development across the entire United States Government. It will come as no

surprise to the Members of this committee that good, solid, effective research and

development relevant to homeland security is being conducted by the Departments

of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, Health and Human Services,

State, and Veteran’s Affairs; within the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies; and by members of the Intelligence Community.

Several interagency working groups already exist that are addressing issues important to homeland security. The Science and Technology Directorate has been,

and continues to be, an active participant in these working groups, and in most

cases has taken a leadership role. These fora foster an active exchange of information and assist each participating agency in identifying related needs and requirements, conducting research and development of mutual benefit, and avoiding duplication of effort.

We also continue to have discussions at multiple levels of management with Federal Departments and Agencies, as well as with the Office of Management and

Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Homeland Security

Council. These discussions ensure that the strongest possible links are made and

the best possible coordination occurs between our Department and those who are

conducting sector-specific research. By the autumn of 2004, all Department of

Homeland Security research and development programs will be consolidated and all

53

United States Government research and development relevant to fulfilling the Department’s mission will have been identified and coordinated as appropriate. It is

important to note that this identification and relevant coordination does not imply

the Department of Homeland Security should have the responsibility and authority

for these programs within other federal agencies; it does recognize that science and

technology advances can have many applications, including homeland security.

Definition of Research and Development (R&D)

The Science and Technology Directorate is both a generator and a consumer of

scientific and technological advances resulting from basic and applied research and

development. We also have a responsibility for testing and evaluating capabilities

to ensure that their deployment results in improved operational systems. Standards

are needed to assist first responders and operational components of the Department

in evaluating, procuring, and deploying new capabilities. This is a broad range of

responsibility and one we take seriously. The Department has defined R&D activities as follows:

Activities associated with R&D efforts include the development of a new or improved capability to the point where it is appropriate for operational use, including test and evaluation. R&D activities include the analytic application of scientific and engineering principles in support of operational capabilities, concept

exploration, systems development, proof of principle demonstration and pilot deployments, standards development, and product improvement including application and integration of technologies. For mission (non-management) systems, resources associated with developing technology to provide new capabilities (including systems engineering, research, development, testing and prototyping)

are covered under the R&D category.

This definition encompasses all of the research, development, test, and evaluation

(RDT&E) efforts of the Science and Technology Directorate.

Science and Technology Directorate Organization

Because our Department is relatively new, I’d like to describe the way we are

structured. We have four key offices in the Science & Technology Directorate, each

of which has an important role in implementing the Directorate’s RDT&E activities.

Individuals with strong credentials have been appointed to head each office and we

continue to strategically add highly skilled technical, professional and support staff.

These offices are: Plans, Programs and Budgets; Research and Development; Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency; and Systems Engineering and

Development. In addition, we have created the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations and Incident Management to offer scientific advice and support.

Crosscutting the four key offices, the Science and Technology Directorate is implementing its activities through focused portfolios that address biological, chemical,

high explosives, radiological and nuclear, and cyber threats; support the research

and development needs of the operational units of the Department; support the development of standards; develop an enduring R&D capability for homeland security;

and receive valuable input from private industry and academia as well as national

and federal laboratories. I will talk about the offices first and then about the portfolios.

Office of Plans, Programs and Budgets

The Office of Plans, Programs and Budgets operates under the supervision of Dr.

Penrose Albright. He has organized this office into the portfolios I just mentioned,

each of which is focused on a particular discipline or activity; taken together, these

portfolios span the Directorate’s mission space. As I will cover the portfolios in detail later in this testimony, I will limit myself here to a summary explanation. The

staff of each portfolio is charged with being expert in their particular area; with understanding the activities and capabilities extant in federal agencies and across the

broad research and development community; and with developing a strategic plan

for their particular portfolio, to include near-, mid-, and long-range research and development activities. In addition, we have staff that is charged with understanding

the threat from a technical perspective, with integrating the various portfolios into

a coherent overall plan, and with developing the corresponding budget and monitoring its financial execution.

Finally, the Office of Plans, Programs and Budget is responsible for executing the

Directorate’s implementation responsibilities for the SAFETY (Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies) Act.

54

Office of Research and Development

We are fortunate to have Dr. Maureen McCarthy as our Director of Science and

Technology’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). Dr. McCarthy has served

as Chief Scientist for the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy (DOE) and was previously DOE’s senior representative to the Homeland Security Transition Planning Office. She will lead the office as it strives to provide the Nation with an enduring capability in research, development, demonstration, testing and evaluation of technologies to protect the homeland. This office also

plans to provide stewardship to the scientific community and to preserve and broaden the leadership of the United States in science and technology.

Activities within ORD address the resources that can be brought to bear to better

secure the homeland through the participation of universities, national laboratories,

federal laboratories and research centers. Directors have been appointed to lead efforts in each of these areas and staff is being added rapidly.

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

Dr. David Bolka joined us in September 2003 as director of the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as HSARPA. Dr. Bolka made significant contributions in advancing technical and scientific projects in his prior work

with Lucent Technologies and Bell Laboratories, following a notable career in the

United States Navy.

HSARPA is the external research-funding arm of the Science and Technology Directorate. It has at its disposal the full range of contracting vehicles and the authority under the Homeland Security Act to engage businesses, federally funded research and development centers, universities and other government partners in an

effort to gather and develop viable concepts for advanced technologies to protect the

homeland.

HSARPA’s mission, as stated in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is to support

basic and applied homeland security research to promote revolutionary changes in

technologies that would promote homeland security; advance the development, testing and evaluation, and deployment of homeland security technologies; and accelerate the prototyping and deployment of technologies that would address homeland

security vulnerabilities. Its customers are state and local first responders, and federal agencies that are allied with homeland security such as the United States

Coast Guard, United States Secret Service, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and others.

About 60 percent of the Science and Technology Directorate’s appropriation in FY

2004 will be executed directly through the private sector with HSARPA managing

about half of that. At least five to ten percent of HSARPA’s funds are dedicated for

revolutionary, long-range research for breakthrough technologies and systems.

Office of Systems Engineering and Development

Mr. John Kubricky joined us in early October 2003 as our Director of the Office

of Systems Engineering and Development (SE&D). He is tasked with leading the

implementation and transition of large-scale or pilot systems to the field through

a rapid, efficient and disciplined approach to project management. Mr. Kubricky

previously served as Advanced Program Development Manager for Northrop Grumman and has held senior positions with California Microwave and Westinghouse Defense.

One of the Science and Technology Directorate’s challenges is to evaluate a wide

spectrum of military and commercial technologies so rapid, effective and affordable

solutions can be transitioned to the Department’s customers that include first responders and federal agencies. In some cases, military technologies could be candidates for commercialization, but rigorous systems engineering processes need to

be applied to ensure a successful transition. SE&D’s role is to identify and then, in

a disciplined manner, retire[TSPU1] risks associated with such technologies to

ready them for deployment to the field. In doing so, the office must view each technology through the prism of affordability, performance and supportability—all critical to end-users.

SE&D must weigh considerations such as the urgency for a solution, consequences

of the threat, safety of the product, and life cycle support as new products are introduced. Products must be user friendly, have a minimum of false alarms, require little or no training and consistently provide accurate results. SE&D will demonstrate

and test solutions before they are released to the field, and will validate that those

solutions meet user expectations.

55

Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations and Incident Management

We created the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations and Incident

Management to serve as the Science and Technology Directorate’s technical support

for crisis operations. The office provides scientific advice and support to the Office

of the Secretary of Homeland Security in assessing and responding to threats

against the homeland. This office’s activities are primarily focused on the biological,

chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats.

Portfolio Details

The Science and Technology Directorate has organized its efforts into 11 budget

categories; these are further divided into portfolios that span the set of product lines

of the Directorate.

Four portfolios address specific terrorist threats:

• Biological Countermeasures

• Chemical Countermeasures

• High Explosive Countermeasures

• Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures.

Four portfolios crosscut these threats:

• Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment—this portfolio includes our

support to the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, including our critical infrastructure protection and cyber security activities.

• Standards

• Emerging Threats

• Rapid Prototyping

We also have portfolios that support the operational units of the Department (Border and Transportation Security; Emergency Preparedness and Response, United

States Coast Guard and United States Secret Service) in both their homeland security and conventional missions.

Our University and Fellowship Programs portfolio addresses the need to build an

enduring science and technology capability and support United States leadership in

science and technology.

Our most recent portfolio, Counter-MANPADS, is seeking to improve technologies

to protect commercial aircraft from the threat of MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems

(MANPADS).

In addition, the Science and Technology Directorate is responsible for the management of one of the United States Government’s E–Gov Initiatives, the SAFECOM

Program. There are tens of thousands of state and local public safety agencies, and

100 federal law enforcement agencies that depend on inter-operable wireless communications. The SAFECOM (Wireless Public SAFEty Inter-operable COMmunications) program is the umbrella initiative to coordinate all federal, State, local, and

tribal users to achieve national wireless communications inter-operability. The

placement of SAFECOM in the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and

Technology Directorate allows it full access to the scientific expertise and resources

needed to help our nation achieve true public safety wireless communications interoperability.

At this time I would like to briefly describe some of our accomplishments to date

and our FY 2005 plans. As can be seen in the following chart, we have an overall

FY 2005 budget request of $1.0393 billion, which is an increase of $126.5 million

(13.9 percent) over the FY 2004 levels. The request includes $35 million for construction of facilities. In addition, the increase includes President Bush’s request for

an additional $65 million dollars to enhance and expand the BioWatch Program.

56

Biological Countermeasures

Biological threats can take many forms and be distributed in many ways. Aerosolized anthrax, smallpox, foot and mouth disease, and bulk food contamination are

among the threats that can have high consequences for humans and agriculture.

Our Biological Countermeasures portfolio uses the Nation’s science base to prevent,

protect, respond to and recover from bioterrorism events. This portfolio provides the

science and technology needed to reduce the probability and potential consequences

of a biological attack on this nation’s civilian population, its infrastructure, and its

agricultural system. Portfolio managers and scientists are developing and implementing an integrated systems approach with a wide range of activities, including

vulnerability and risk analyses to identify the need for vaccines, therapeutics, and

diagnostics; development and implementation of early detection and warning systems to characterize an attack and permit early prophylaxis and decontamination

activities; and development of a national bioforensics analysis capability to support

attribution of biological agent use.

In FY 2003 and 2004, the Biological Countermeasures portfolio:

• Deployed BioWatch to approximately 30 cities across the Nation. BioWatch

consists of air samplers that detect the release of biothreat pathogens, such

as anthrax, in a manner timely enough to allow for effective treatment of the

exposed population. In addition, with additional funds provided by Congress

in FY 2004, we were able to integrate environmental monitoring data with

biosurveillance to provide early attack alerts and assessments. The environmental monitoring activities include not only BioWatch, which provides continuous monitoring of most of our major metropolitan areas, but also targeted

monitoring that is temporarily deployed for special national needs, such as a

Homeland Security Elevated Threat Level. While serving the primary function of mitigating attacks, both BioWatch and environmental monitoring systems also play a significant deterrent role, since terrorists are less likely to

attack when they know that defensive systems prevent them from attaining

their goals.

• Established the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center,

which provides scientific support for intelligence activities, prioritizes biothreats, and conducts bioforensic analyses for attribution and hence deterrence.

57

In FY 2005, we will build upon our past work and continue to deploy and improve

wide area monitoring systems for urban areas. Under President Bush’s new Biosurveillance Initiative, which accounts for most of the FY 2005 increase in funding,

additional capability will be implemented quickly in the top threat urban areas—

more than twice the current capability. We will be working on decontamination

technologies and standards for facilities and outdoor areas, and a National Academy

of Sciences study characterizing contamination risks will be completed in FY 2005.

At a smaller scale, we will define requirements for expanded technology in detectto-warn scenarios relevant to facilities monitoring. At the same time, we will be

building our capabilities in the National Biodefense Analysis and Counterterrorism

Center (NBACC) and at Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC). At the

NBACC, we are focusing first on bioforensics and development of a biodefense

knowledge center; for agro-bioterrorism, we are prioritizing countermeasures to foreign animal diseases. We are requesting additional funding in FY 2005 for Plum Island to improve the facilities and security of this important research and development site.

Chemical Countermeasures

The National Research Council Report, Making the Nation Safer, points out that

‘‘chemicals continue to be the weapon of choice for terrorist attacks.’’ The large volumes of toxic industrial chemical and materials along with the potential for chemical warfare agents and emerging threat agents constitute a broad range of threats

that may be applied to virtually any civilian target.

Our Chemical Countermeasures portfolio provides the science and technology

needed to reduce the probability and potential consequences of a chemical attack on

this nation’s civilian population. The portfolio places high priority on characterizing

and reducing the vulnerability posed by the large volumes of toxic industrial materials in use, storage or transport within the Nation. The research and development

activities include prioritization of efforts among the many possible chemical threats

and targets, and development of new detection and forensic technologies and integrated protective systems for high-value facilities such as airports and subways.

These activities are informed by end-user input and simulated exercises.

Over the past year, our Chemical portfolio completed Project PROTECT—Program

for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical/Biological Terrorism—a program conducted in collaboration with the Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Authority (WMATA). PROTECT, an operational chemical agent detection and response capability, significantly decreases response time, which in the

event of an attack will save human lives. PROTECT is deployed in 13 Metro stations and is operated by the WMATA.

In FY 2005, our focus will be on protecting facilities from chemical attacks and

controlling the industrial chemicals that may be used for such attacks. Our scientists, working with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP), will complete a detailed end-to-end study of three reference scenarios,

to culminate in recommendations for top-level architectures, identification of key

gaps, and a ‘‘report card’’ showing present, mid-term (three-year), and long-term

(five-plus year) capabilities. We will qualify candidate off-the-shelf sensors for demonstration in an application to facilities protection. We will address response and

recovery, too. Working with the user community, we will develop first-generation

playbooks for responding to the three reference scenarios and develop technical requirements for personal protection equipment.

High Explosives Countermeasures

The High Explosives Countermeasures portfolio addresses the threat that terrorists will use explosives in attacks on buildings, critical infrastructure, and the civilian population of the United States. The Science and Technology Directorate’s portfolio is closely coordinated with the activities ongoing in the Transportation Security

Administration to ensure that R&D activities are complementary, not duplicative.

R&D priorities in this portfolio have focused on the detection of vehicle bombs and

suicide bombers, and on providing the science and technology needed to significantly

increase the probability of preventing an explosives attack on buildings, infrastructure and people.

This portfolio in FY 2005 will develop and field equipment, technologies and procedures to interdict suicide bombers and car and truck bombs before they can reach

their intended targets while minimizing the impact on the American way of life. We

will complete testing and evaluation of known procedures and commercial off-theshelf devices applicable to indoor or outdoor interdiction of suicide bombers, and develop a training package for local law enforcement, including recommended equipment and procedures. In addition, we will support the development of new devices

58

to interdict suicide bombers and study the feasibility of using existing detectors to

identify explosives in trucks. Finally, we will analyze the costs and benefits of hardening aircraft cargo containers, cargo bays, and overhead bin storage compartments

to better withstand the effects of an explosion.

Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures

Potential radiological and nuclear threats range from the deliberate dispersal of

small amounts of radioactive material to the detonation of an improvised or stolen

nuclear weapon to an attack on our nuclear power industry. Our Radiological and

Nuclear Countermeasures portfolio provides the science and technology needed to

reduce both the probability and the potential consequences of a radiological or nuclear attack on this nation’s civilian population or our nuclear power facilities.

In FY 2003, our Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures portfolio formally assumed (on August 19, 2003) management of the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey radiation detection testbed. The test bed was previously managed by the

United States Department of Energy. Following the transfer, we have broadened the

project scope beyond just testing and evaluating individual pieces of technology to

a systems approach, including response protocols and operational concepts. As part

of the Science and Technology Directorate’s effort, radiation detection sensors will

be deployed and operated by federal, State, and local inspectors and police at land,

maritime and aviation venues. By judging the efficacy of deployed systems over

time, we will be able to inform future decisions on detection technology R&D investment, deployment of urban monitoring systems, configurations best able to enhance

security, and viable ways to defend against a radioactive dispersal device or an improvised nuclear device.

For FY 2005, we plan to leverage our previous technology and capability successes

and place a high priority on providing the end-user community with the most appropriate and effective detection and interdiction technologies available to prohibit the

importation or transportation and subsequent detonation of a radiological or nuclear

device within U.S. borders. Specifically, we will do the following:

• Integrate at least five federal, State, and local sites into an operational detection system architecture to detect radiological and nuclear threats;

• Establish a test and evaluation capability, and test and evaluate 90 percent

of the FY 2005 prototype technologies developed in the portfolio’s programs;

• Demonstrate two advanced characterization technologies for crisis response;

• Demonstrate a prototype for automatic radiological imaging analysis that enhances current imaging systems at one pilot site.

Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment

Our Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment (TVTA) portfolio is one of

our largest portfolios, and includes our scientific and technical support to the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate. TVTA includes

our R&D activities in Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. Activities in this portfolio are designed to help evaluate extensive amounts of diverse

threat information; detect and document terrorist intent; couple threat information

with knowledge of complex, interdependent critical infrastructure vulnerabilities;

and enable analysts to draw timely insights and distribute warnings from the information. This portfolio provides the science and technology needed to develop methods and tools to test and assess threats and vulnerabilities to protect critical infrastructure and enhance information exchange; this portfolio also includes a Biometrics Program and a Cyber Security Program.

In FY 2004, TVTA:

• Developed and installed an operational component, the Threat-Vulnerability

Mapper (TVM), as part of the Threat and Vulnerability Integration System

for the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. The

TVM provides counterterrorism analysts with a simple, straightforward way

not only to depict the geographic distribution of threats across the United

States, but also to search the underlying databases for information on the

possible actors, agents, potential severity of attacks, and extent of the

vulnerabilities to and effects of such attacks.

• Co-funded the Cyber Defense Technology Experimental Research (‘‘DETER’’)

Network with the National Science Foundation, a $5.45 million, three-year research project to create an experimental infrastructure network to support development and demonstration of next-generation information security technologies for cyber defense. This is a multi-university project led by the University of California at Berkeley.

59

• Developed a Decision Support System focused on prioritizing investment, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery strategies related to Critical Infrastructure Protection. The initial proof-of-concept began in August 2003 and a

case study is being conducted in February 2004. The prototype model will include representation of all 14 critical infrastructure sectors/assets and their

interdependencies.

• Developed advanced algorithms for speeding the creation of DNA signatures

for biological pathogen detection through the Advanced Scientific Computing

Research and Development program. These discoveries will result in cheaper,

faster and more reliable bio-detectors for homeland security.

In FY 2005, TVTA will provide the science and technology capabilities and enduring partnerships needed to develop methods and tools to test and assess threats and

vulnerabilities to protect critical infrastructure and enhance information exchange.

The Threat-Vulnerability Mapper is only one component of a large Threat and Vulnerability Information System that we will continue to build, drawing upon advances in the information and computer sciences as well as innovative analytic techniques. Our objective is to continually improve an analyst’s capability to answer

threat-related questions. The Science and Technology Directorate will contribute to

the capability to produce high-quality net assessments and assessments of weapons

of mass destruction. We will develop advanced computing algorithms in support of

improved aerosol dispersion models, blast effects calculations, neutron interrogation

models, bioinformatics, and scalable information extraction; improved algorithms

make more accurate information available faster. We will continue to provide, in collaboration with other relevant organizations, the science and technology and associated standards needed in the development of biometrics for precise identification of

individuals and develop instrumentation to aid authorized officials in detecting individuals with potentially hostile intent. In the cyber security area, the DETER Network testbed will be up and running, and we will competitively fund several lowcost, high-impact solutions to specific cyber security problems.

Standards

Ensuring that standards are created and adopted is critically important for homeland security. We need consistent and verifiable measures of effectiveness in terms

of basic functionality, appropriateness and adequacy for the task, inter-operability,

efficiency, and sustainability. Standards will improve the quality and usefulness of

homeland security systems and technologies. Our Standards portfolio cuts across all

aspects of the Science and Technology Directorate’s mission and all threats to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and inter-operability of the systems and technologies

developed, as envisioned in the Homeland Security Act.

Our Standards portfolio continues to actively engage the federal, State, and local

first responders to ensure that developed standards are effective in detection, prevention, response, management, and attribution. This portfolio also conducts the essential activities in order to meet the requirement of the SAFETY (Support AntiTerrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies) Act in developing certification standards for technologies related to homeland security.

In FY 2004, our Standards portfolio:

• Created initial standards guidelines, with formal standards nearing completion, for radiation pagers, hand-held radiation dosimetry instruments, radioisotope identifiers and radiation portal monitors. These standards were developed under the auspices of the American National Standards Institute’s Accredited American Standards Committee on Radiation Instrumentation.

• Published guidelines for inter-operable communications gear. Common grant

guidance has been developed and incorporated in the public safety wireless

inter-operability grant programs of both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security;

• Launched the SAFETY Act process for evaluating anti-terrorism technologies

for potential liability limits.

In FY 2005, the Standards portfolio will continue to work on many fronts and

with many partners to establish needed standards for technologies (including equipment), processes, and systems. We will especially focus on two major milestones.

First, we will establish technical standards and test and evaluation protocols for decontamination technologies and analysis across the ranges of weapons of mass destruction. Second, we will publish a ‘‘Consumer’s Report’’ on radiation and bio-agent

detection devices for federal, State, and local users.

60

Emerging Threats

It is truly the threats we do not yet know that are often the most terrifying. Our

Emerging Threats portfolio addresses the dynamic nature of terrorist threats, as

science and technology advancements enable new agents of harm and new ways to

employ them. This portfolio places high priority on developing the capability to use

innovative, crosscutting, out-of-the-box approaches for anticipating and responding

to new and emerging threats. Successful identification of emerging threats will permit capabilities to be developed to thwart these emerging threats before they are

used.

Relevant R&D is underway at other agencies and organizations; thus, partnerships in this area hold great potential for synergistic focus on homeland security.

Work is being done and will continue to be pursued in partnership with the Departments of Energy, Defense, Justice, and Agriculture, the intelligence community, and

the National Institutes of Health.

In FY 2003 and 2004, our scientists in the Emerging Threats portfolio established

informal partnerships with the intelligence community and with the United States

Secret Service in order to leverage ongoing activities in support of over-the-horizon

assessment.

In FY 2005, we will leverage the activities started during FY 2004, and continue

to focus on developing the capability to use innovative, crosscutting, out-of-the-box

approaches for anticipating and responding to new and emerging threats and to develop revolutionary technologies to combat them.

Rapid Prototyping

By accelerating the time needed to develop and commercialize relevant technologies, the Science and Technology Directorate will ensure that operational endusers will be better able to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce the Nation’s vulnerability, and minimize the damage and assist in recovery if attacks occur. Our Rapid

Prototyping portfolio advances the Directorate’s mission to conduct, stimulate and

enable research, development, test, evaluation and timely transition of homeland security capabilities to federal, State and local operational end-users.

In FY 2003 and FY 2004, the Rapid Prototyping portfolio provided funding of $30

million each year through HSARPA to the interagency Technical Support Working

Group (TSWG) to solicit ideas, concepts and technologies for 50 requirement areas

of interest to both the Department and TWSG; initial contracts have been made and

HSARPA will provide the programmatic monitoring of those efforts for the Science

and Technology Directorate. This portfolio also provided support through HSARPA

for a joint port and coastal surveillance prototype testbed with the United States

Coast Guard, designated ‘‘HAWKEYE.’’ Funding has been made available to support

the creation of a Technology Clearinghouse as required in the Homeland Security

Act of 2002.

In FY 2005, this program will continue to provide a mechanism for accelerated

development of technologies relevant to homeland security in a process driven by

technology developers. Through rapid prototyping and commercialization, these

technologies will be made available to operational end-users as quickly as possible,

thus increasing their capability to secure the homeland.

Support to Department of Homeland Security Components

As I have mentioned, the operational components of the Department are my customers. The Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate

supports the missions of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

(IAIP) Directorate, Border and Transportation Security (BTS), Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R), United States Coast Guard (USCG), and United States

Secret Service (USSS). Our TVTA portfolio supports the mission of the IAIP Directorate as previously indicated. This portfolio places high priorities on high-risk,

high-reward research and development relevant to homeland security that might

not otherwise be conducted in support of the missions of BTS, EP&R, USCG, and

the USSS.

In FY 2003 and FY 2004, we continued to support the conventional missions of

these operational components. Ongoing activities within BTS, USCG and USSS

focus on preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons (particularly weapons of mass

destruction) from entering the United States, on detecting and preventing cyber attacks, supporting maritime transportation, safety and economy (Port and Channel

navigation, Search and Rescue, and Aquatic Nuisance Species Remediation), and on

preventing attacks on United States Secret Service protectees and high-visibility

venues.

61

Support to Border and Transportation Security

The Science and Technology Directorate supports all elements of BTS enforcement

and facilitation processes through identifying operational requirements, developing

mission capabilities-based technological needs and implementing a strategic plan.

We are providing systems engineering support to various BTS programs including

US VISIT and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

The Science and Technology Directorate’s support to the BTS Directorate is accomplished by implementing a capabilities-based technology planning process. The

capabilities-based approach establishes the scope of effort and framework for a technology plan. Through a series of user conferences and technology opportunity conferences, requirements are developed and prioritized for new and improved capabilities. Operational personnel identify capabilities and technology personnel identify

potential development opportunities. Capability gaps and possible technology solutions are proposed, and a budget is developed to distinguish between both funded

and unfunded needs.

The Science & Technology Directorate co-chairs with BTS, the Department’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Working Group, which is currently focused on developing the Border and Transportation Security operational requirements for UAVs

and related technologies, e.g., aerostats, blimps, lighter than air (LTA) ships, and

fixed and mobile towers. The starting point for the requirements generation process

is six BTS capability objectives we have identified that could benefit by the utilization of UAVs: surveillance and monitoring communications, apprehension, targeting,

intelligence, deterrence, and officer safety. Functional capabilities that could be

filled or improved through the application of UAVs and other technologies have been

identified. Based on these high-level requirements, the Science and Technology Directorate is developing concepts of operations and assumptions that will be used in

conducting an Analysis of Alternatives that will include UAVs and other technologies.

In FY 2005 we will be involved in a wide range of activities supporting the components, based upon their needs. For BTS, we will focus on discovering and implementing technologies that include improved screening and inspection, access control,

document verification and validity, and data compression and analysis.

Support to Emergency Preparedness and Response

The Nation has more than 750 regionally accredited community colleges. Community colleges train more than 80 percent of our country’s first responders; these first

responders are critical for homeland security. The Science and Technology Directorate has a responsibility to ensure that these first responders have the necessary

tools available to them to perform their jobs effectively and safely on a daily basis.

This portfolio has a key role in our meeting that responsibility.

The scope of our EP&R portfolio includes research, development, test and evaluation for State, local and federal emergency responders and emergency managers.

Particular emphasis is placed on technology integration at all levels of government,

technology insertion for weapons of mass destruction detection and monitoring systems, and long-term sustained performance and inter-operability to enhance State

and local preparedness.

Our work in the EP&R portfolio focuses on three major areas:

• Technology development for first responders

• Scientific and technical support to federal response

• Technology integration—Safe Cities

The Safe Cities Program, a new initiative in FY 2004, is focused on implementing

technology and operational system solutions in local communities/regions. This program is being piloted in a select number of cities in FY 2004 and will be conducted

in close cooperation with State and local emergency managers and city planners to

identify capability needs and gaps that advanced technologies being developed by

the Science and Technology Directorate can meet. The Safe Cities Program seeks

to provide technology and operational solutions that are sustainable by the communities in which they are implemented. The Safe Cities Program will enable us to

better understand the operational context into which new technologies will be inserted. The Program will result in the creation of an infrastructure that facilitates

the evaluation of new technologies in real-world operating environments as well as

providing a venue for integrating these technologies with existing state and local

systems.

In FY 2005 the EP&R portfolio will continue its focus on technology development

and technical guidance for first responders (State and local), scientific and technical

62

support to the EP&R Directorate; and expansion of technology integration—Safe

Cities.

Support to United States Coast Guard

The Science & Technology Directorate is integrating a major research program

into a United States Coast Guard operational testbed in south Florida. The HAWKEYE program injects technologies (such as Surveillance, Command & Control, Sensor Fusion, and Communications) allowing simultaneous evaluation of technology

performance as a direct impact on mission execution. Additionally, funding has been

made available to support many conventional mission research including improvements to Search and Rescue, Remediation of Aquatic Nuisance Species, and Spill

Response.

Support to the United States Secret Service

We have coordinated with the United States Secret Service and established its

first direct-funded R&D program. Based upon appropriated funding, four initiatives

have been identified and prioritized, and are underway in FY 2004. In addition,

there will be joint activities in support of the assessment of emerging threats.

Homeland Security University and Fellowship Programs

In this portfolio we seek to develop a broad research capability within the Nation’s

universities to address scientific and technological issues related to homeland security. The portfolio places high priorities on developing academic programs and supporting students in order to build learning and research environments in key areas

of Departmental interest.

In FY 2004, this portfolio established the Department of Homeland Security’s first

University-based Center of Excellence, for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism

events. The Center, based at the University of Southern California, The Center,

based at the University of Southern California, will assess the level of risk associated with various terrorist scenarios, in particular the potential economic consequences. A request for proposals has been issued for the next two Centers of Excellence, which will focus on Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense and PostHarvest Food Protection and Defense.

Last fall, we awarded our 2003–2004 academic year DHS Scholarships and Fellowships, and welcomed our new Scholars and Fellows with a reception in Washington, DC. The solicitation for this program received just under 2,400 applications

for 100 scholarships and fellowships. Besides making immediate contributions to

homeland security-related R&D, these students will be part of the development of

a broad research capability within the Nation’s universities to address scientific and

technological issues related to homeland security.

During FY 2005, another 100 Scholars and Fellows will be supported for the academic year of 2004–2005, bringing the total of supported students to 200. We will

also continue to support the Homeland Security University Centers of Excellence established in FY 2004, each with a different subject expertise focused on reducing

the terrorist threat on the United States. Each Center of Excellence is awarded an

initial three-year contract whose annual cost we account for in our planning.

Because our university programs are focused on conducting the foundational research needed for current and future requirements, now is also a good time to briefly discuss the amount of basic research, applied research, and development we are

currently conducting and our plans for the future. In the 11 months that this Department has been in existence, the Science and Technology Directorate has focused

its initial efforts on near-term development and deployment of technologies to improve our nation’s ability to detect and respond to potential terrorist acts. However,

we recognize that a sustained effort to continually add to our knowledge base and

our resource base is necessary for future developments. Thus, we have invested a

portion of our resources, including our university programs, toward these objectives.

The following table indicates our expenditures in basic research, applied research,

and development to date, excluding construction funding.

63

Our initial expenditures in basic research are heavily weighted by our investments in university programs. These university programs will not only provide new

information relevant to homeland security, but will also provide a workforce of people who are cognizant of the needs of homeland security, especially in areas of risk

analysis, animal-related agro-terrorism, bioforensics, cyber security, disaster modeling, and psychological and behavioral analysis.

We expect to gradually increase our total percentage of basic and applied research

to the level needed for sustaining our role as an RDT&E organization.

Counter-MANPADS

The Counter-MANPADS program is focused on identifying, developing, and testing a cost-effective capability to protect the Nation’s commercial aircraft against the

threat of man-portable, anti-aircraft missiles. This program also provides the science

and technology base needed to reduce the vulnerability of commercial aircraft to terrorist attack using man-portable anti-aircraft missiles.

Over the past year, we have had a successful solicitation announcing a program

to address the potential threat of MANPADS to commercial aircraft. White papers

responding to the Counter-MANPADS program solicitation were reviewed by technical experts from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense,

and other government agencies; proposals were evaluated; and awards were made

to three contractor teams to perform the first of two program phases, which began

in January, 2004. The first phase will result in a preliminary design and a test plan

to demonstrate missile countermeasure equipment on selected commercial aircraft.

The second program phase is an 18-month effort beginning in August 2004, with

the one or two contractors that produced the most promising results in Phase One.

During this phase, the commercial prototype countermeasure equipment will be integrated on selected commercial aircraft, and live-fire range tests will be accomplished with extensive data collection and analysis. Results of this second phase will

be presented to the Administration and Congress to aid in formulating an informed

decision on how best to address the protection of commercial airlines from the

MANPADS threat.

SAFECOM

The SAFECOM (Wireless Public SAFEty Inter-operable COMmunications) program is the umbrella initiative to coordinate all federal, State, local, and tribal

users to achieve national wireless communications inter-operability. The placement

of SAFECOM in the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate allows it full access to the scientific expertise and resources needed to help

our nation achieve true public safety wireless communications inter-operability.

Since the Science and Technology Directorate formally assumed responsibility for

the management of the SAFECOM program barely seven months ago:

• SAFECOM has been established as the one umbrella group in the Federal

Government for the management of public safety wireless inter-operability

programs.

• Common grant guidance has been developed and incorporated in the public

safety wireless inter-operability grant programs of both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

• A federal coordinating structure has, for the first time, been created to coordinate all federal public safety wireless inter-operability programs.

64

• The first catalog of national programs touching on public safety wireless

inter-operability has been developed and published.

• The ten major state and local organizations concerned with public safety wireless inter-operability—the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCC),

National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), Major County Sheriffs’ Association

(MCSA), National Association of Counties (NACO), National League of Cities

(NLC), National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), and the

United States Conference of Mayors (USCM)—released a statement in support of the SAFECOM program which declared that ‘‘With the advent of the

SAFECOM Program. . .Public safety, State and local government finally

have both a voice in public safety discussions at the federal level and confidence that the Federal Government is coordinating its resources.’’

Engaging Private Industry

On May 14, 2003, the Science and Technology Directorate, and the interagency

Technical Support Working Group issued a joint Broad Agency Announcement soliciting ideas, concepts, and technology for 50 requirements areas of mutual interest.

This solicitation received 3,344 submittals by the closing date of June 13, 2003.

These initial submittals and the subsequent white papers and proposals used a comprehensive criteria-based evaluation to determine awards, of which more than 50

are expected when the process is completed. HSARPA will provide the programmatic monitoring for the Science and Technology Directorate for these awards.

In addition to its work with TSWG, HSARPA has engaged the private sector in

its first solicitation, seeking detection systems for chemical and biological weapons

and associated materials. We are interested in a timeline of nine to 36 months for

taking a technology from concept to prototype. Interest and response from the private sector has been exceedingly strong. We held a bidders’ conference in Washington, D.C., on September 29, 2003, that drew approximately 400 participants; and

we have received more than 500 white papers as a result. Finalists have been selected for negotiation, and work has already begun in a number of the more important areas.

HSARPA issued its second major solicitation to address radiological and nuclear

detection and portal monitoring systems. This and other solicitations will seek to

engage our nation’s research and development community, including academia, federally funded research and development centers, non-profit organizations, and industry.

On November 13, 2003, HSARPA issued a Small Business Innovation Research

Program Solicitation. The purpose of this solicitation was to invite small businesses

to submit innovative research proposals that address eight high-priority DHS requirements:

• New systems/technologies to detect low vapor pressure chemicals (e.g., toxic

industrial chemicals)

• Chemical and biological sensors employing novel receptor scaffolds

• Advanced low-cost aerosol collectors for surveillance sensors and personnel

monitoring

• Computer modeling tool for vulnerability assessment of U.S. infrastructure

• Ship compartment inspection device

• Marine Asset Tag Tracking System

• Automatic Identification System tracking and collision avoidance equipment

for small boats

• Advanced Secure Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and related distributed control systems.

By the December 15, 2003, deadline 374 proposals had been received. Evaluation

of these proposals is complete and 66 proposers have been notified that they will

enter negotiations for Phase I contracts beginning February 9, 2004.

We are very pleased with the response and interest that private industry has

shown in helping strengthen homeland security and want to publicly acknowledge

their contributions.

Other Science and Technology Activities

In addition to the portfolios and programs previously described, we also have addressed the legislative requirement to establish a Homeland Security Institute and

a Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, both of which

65

will serve to provide independent input and assessment to the Department and the

Science and Technology Directorate.

A formal solicitation was issued in December 2003 for the Homeland Security Institute, a legislative requirement for a federally funded research and development

center to assist the Secretary and the Department in addressing important homeland security issues that require scientific, technical, and analytical expertise. Proposals were received in January 2004. Those proposals are currently being evaluated with an expected five-year award by early May 2004.

In addition, we have now established the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, a legislative requirement for an advisory committee to

be a source of independent, scientific and technical planning advice for the Under

Secretary for Science and Technology. The committee will hold its initial meeting

in February 2004.

Staffing

When the Department of Homeland Security stood up on March 1, 2003, the

Science and Technology Directorate had a total staff of about 87, including the 53

staff transferred from the Department of Energy’s Environmental Measurements

Laboratory. The balance was comprised of permanently assigned personnel, employees detailed from within and without the Department, Intergovernmental Personnel

Act assignments, and personnel support from the National Laboratories.

By January 6, 2004, we more than doubled our staff. In January 2004, we had

a total staff of 212, including 100 DHS employees, six Public Health Service Officers, 21 Intergovernmental Personnel Act employees, 26 individuals on assignment

from other agencies, and 59 contractors.

We continue to be active in staffing our Directorate with well-qualified individuals

whose skills support the full breadth of our responsibilities and RDT&E activities.

We continue to actively seek additional staff in accordance with our approved staffing plan.

Interagency Coordination

One of the accomplishments of which I am personally most proud is the emphasis

our new Directorate has put on interacting with other federal departments and

agencies. Knowledge of other science and technology programs and their results, appropriate collaboration between agencies, coordination of relevant programmatic activities, and information sharing are essential for us to best meet our mission requirements. With pride, I point to interactions between our cyber security personnel

and those at the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who dialog frequently and have already established collaborative and coordinated programs to ensure no duplication of effort. Our biological

and chemical countermeasures staff have partnered with DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to plan and execute the BioNet program and roadmap the

biological countermeasures R&D programs in both agencies to understand capabilities and shortfalls. They work with the National Science Foundation on pathogen

sequencing. The BioWatch program, although led by the Science and Technology Directorate, was accomplished through collaboration with personnel from the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories, contractors, the Environmental Protection

Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We work with DOD’s

Office of Homeland Defense to ensure the effective transfer to the Department of

relevant DOD technologies.

Our high explosives scientists are working with the interagency Technical Support Working Group, managed by the Department of State, to evaluate commercial

off-the-shelf systems with capabilities against suicide bombers. The Director of the

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency is a member of the TSWG

Executive Committee. Our staff are in frequent contact with the Office of Science

and Technology Policy on a range of issues, and several are members and co-chairs

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s National Science and Technology

Council. Our Office of Research and Development works closely with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that the Plum Island Animal Disease Center facility

is operating smoothly and fully meeting its mission. The Office of Research and Development also interfaces with the Department of Energy to keep the Office of

Science, as well as the National Nuclear Security Administration, apprised of our

long-term homeland security requirements.

Conclusion

With less than a full year under the Department’s belt, the scientists and engineers in the Science and Technology Directorate have accomplished more than I

could have expected. I am proud to have shared with you today some of those sucVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
66

cess stories. We have appended a more comprehensive summary of accomplishments

to date for the record.

And yet, we also recognize that there is much to do, and we will be working just

as hard in FY 2005.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on the Science Committee, my colleagues here today, other federal departments and agencies, the academic community and private industry to continue the work begun and continually improve our

ability to protect our homeland and way of life.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gordon and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this

committee and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

67

Appendix

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MARCH 2003 TO FEBRUARY 2004

Biological and Chemical Countermeasures

Biowatch: National Urban Monitoring for Biological Pathogens

The Biowatch program has been established and deployed to cities across the Nation. The program—developed, funded, and managed by the Science and Technology

(S&T) Directorate—is executed in cooperation with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It employs environmental sampling devices to quickly detect biological pathogens, such

as anthrax, in time to distribute life-saving pharmaceuticals to affected citizens. The

S&T Directorate is now focusing its efforts on piloting the next generation of environmental samplers, which will reduce the amount of labor required and the response time needed for detection while keeping the detection probability high and

false alarm rates low. These devices will take advantage of the latest advances in

micro-chemistry, commonly referred to as ‘‘chemistry on a chip.’’

PROTECT (Program for Response Options and Technology Enhancements for Chemical Terrorism): Chemical Defense and Response Capability for Transportation

Facility

The S&T Directorate, in collaboration with the Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority (WMATA), completed PROTECT (Program for Response Options

and Technology Enhancements for Chemical/Biological Terrorism). PROTECT,

which is an operational chemical agent detection and response capability, is deployed in 13 stations and operated by the WMATA. PROTECT is a team effort that

owes its success to the scientific and engineering talent from Argonne, Sandia, and

Livermore National Laboratories and operational expertise from WMATA and the

First Responder community (the District of Columbia; Arlington, VA; Montgomery

County, MD; and others). Also contributing significantly to the project are private

industry partners, including LiveWave Inc., ManTech Security Technology, the detector manufacturer (name withheld for security reasons); and federal partners, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation

(DOT), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). The system integrates chemical detector data and video feed and transmits the integrated information to the

Operation Control Center (OCC), where the information is analyzed and an event

confirmed. The information is then transmitted to the first responders who access

it in both their OCC and through the use of wired jacks on the scene to facilitate

response and recovery. PROTECT also has application in other areas, including fire

and emergency response, security, and forensics. Upon completion, the system will

be totally owned and operated by WMATA and expanded to approximately 20 stations. FTA is working with WMATA and Argonne National Laboratory to transfer

the technology nationally. The information gleaned from PROTECT will have direct

application to facility protection and response. A related effort is being piloted in

the Boston subway system.

Joint Urban 2003: Experimental Atmospheric Transport and Modeling

In June 2003, the S&T Directorate, in coordination with the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Department of Energy, and University of

Oklahoma sponsored a month-long atmospheric dispersion study in Oklahoma City,

OK. Nearly 150 scientists, engineers, and student assistants were dedicated to this

study, which tracked the air movement of safe, non-toxic tracer gases in and around

city buildings. The resulting data is being used to enhance and develop urban-specific atmospheric dispersion computer models that will allow emergency management, law enforcement and other personnel to train for and respond to potential

chemical, biological, and radiological terrorist attacks.

ProACT (Protective and Response Options for Airport Counter Terrorism): Chemical

and Biological Counterterrorism Demonstration and Application Program

The S&T Directorate and its partners at the San Francisco International Airport

are involved in a pilot program that couples biological and chemical detection with

vulnerability analysis, response, and restoration. This program integrates

networked sensors with the operation of ventilation systems, allowing redirection of

contaminated air and effective evacuation should an event occur. Guidance for the

68

airport facility operators to manage biological and chemical crises will be finalized

soon for distribution throughout the applicable community. Protocols and concepts

of operation for restoration also are under development. This program is designed

to serve as a template for deployment of these capabilities to other similar facilities.

LINC (Local Integration of National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center [NARAC]

with Cities): Hazard Assessment Tool for Operational Event Management

LINC demonstrates the capability for providing local government agencies with

advanced operational atmospheric plume prediction capabilities that can be

seamlessly integrated with appropriate federal agency support for homeland security. LINC’s approach is to integrate NARAC capabilities with local emergency management and response centers. In the event of a chemical or biological release,

NARAC predictions can be used by emergency managers and responders to map the

extent and effects of hazardous airborne material. Prompt predictions are provided

to guide front-line responders in determining protective actions to be taken, critical

facilities that may be at risk, and safe locations for incident command posts. LINC

provides response teams from multiple jurisdictions with tools to effectively share

information regarding the areas and populations at risk. To date, several cities have

participated in the project. New York City used LINC to help inform and manage

an explosion and fire at a Staten Island refinery in the Spring of 2003.

BioNet: Integrated Civilian and Military Consequence Management

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense’s

Defense Threat Reduction Agency have initiated the BioNet program to address

joint civilian-military consequence management issues for localities near military

bases. Upon completion of BioNet, a seamless consequence management plan that

incorporates concepts of operation, information products, area monitoring, population health monitoring, and sample analysis laboratory will be developed that can

be used nationally.

Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC)

The S&T Directorate assumed responsibility for the operations of the ‘‘facilities

and liabilities’’ of PIADC in June 2003. A 60-day review of security and operations

resulted in immediate improvements and a plan for enhancements to security and

operational maintenance. Dr. Beth Lautner has become new Center Director for

PIADC. Dr. Lautner was with the National Pork Board for 13 years, most recently

serving as the vice-president of Science and Technology. Highly respected throughout animal agriculture for her work on numerous issues, she pioneered the establishment of the Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) Program and has worked extensively

with the USDA and other organizations on national agricultural security issues. In

1994, she was awarded the prestigious Howard Dunne Memorial Award by the association. In addition, DHS announced on December 9, 2003, the selection of Field

Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), as the new contractor for maintenance at PIADC.

FSSI is a subsidiary of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, an Alaskan Native corporation, headquartered in Barrow, Alaska.

TOPOFF2 Exercise

In May 2003, leadership and staff members of the Science and Technology Directorate served as members of the Secretary’s Crisis Assessment Team (CAT) and the

interagency Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) and provided expert technical advice on understanding, communicating and responding to the hypothetical

radiological and plague events during the TOPOFF2 exercise.

Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures Programs

Radiation Detection in Metropolitan Areas

The Science and Technology division formally assumed management of the Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey’s radiation detection test bed on August

2003. The test bed was previously managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. The

transfer will broaden the project scope beyond testing and evaluation of individual

pieces of technology to a systems approach including response protocols and operational concepts. Radiation detection equipment will be installed at tunnels, bridges,

ports, and airports in the New York City metropolitan area, and all functions associated with their operational use will be evaluated. By judging the efficacy of fielded

systems over time, the Science and Technology division will be able to influence future decisions on detection technology R&D investment, deployment of urban monitoring systems, configurations best able to enhance security, and viable solutions for

protecting the Nation from radiological and nuclear threats.

69

Determined Promise Exercise

In August 2003, staff members of the S&T Directorate participated in Determined

Promise, a Department of Defense (DOD) exercise held in Las Vegas, NV. The exercise demonstrated the military’s capability to assist in the response to a natural disaster, a bioterrorism event, and a number of other emergency situations nationwide.

The exercise also provided a forum for initiating discussions that will foster interagency cooperation between DHS and USNORTHCOM.

Nuclear Threat Assessments

The S&T Directorate has provided eight rapid nuclear threat assessments for the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and approximately two dozen assessments on

reports of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials for the Department of State and

other customers. The Department of Homeland Security has been leading the interagency Nuclear Trafficking Focus Group, which regularly brings together the operational players of all agencies involved in response to and understanding of nuclear

smuggling events.

Secondary ‘‘Reach Back’’

In August 2003, the S&T Directorate’s Nuclear Assessment Program stood up a

system to provide secondary ‘‘reach back’’ support to operational DHS entities employing radiation detection systems in the field. Secondary reach back provides inspectors with an additional information resource to utilize for the resolution of radiation detection alarms that draws upon experience in the analysis of nuclear smuggling incidents and threat analysis.

Standards

Radiation Detection

The S&T Directorate has developed a suite of four radiation detector standards

under the auspices of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)’s Accredited American Standards Committee on Radiation Instrumentation. The four standards deal with radiation pagers, hand-held dosimetry instruments, radioisotope

identifiers and radiation portal monitors. The S&T Directorate has formed three

writing groups to prepare Test and Evaluation (T&E) protocols for hand-held radiation detectors, radionuclide identifiers and radiation portal monitors. The writing

groups have met in working sessions in San Diego, CA (July 2003) and Las Vegas,

NV (September 2003) and have prepared draft T&E protocols. Benchmark testing

against these draft protocols has been initiated at four National Laboratories.

Biopathogen Identification

The Science and Technology Directorate has partnered with the Department of

Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense to fund a contract with the Association

of Analytical Communities International to develop Reference Methods and Official

Methods for bulk assay of bacillus anthracis. This work will also permit the comparison of commercially available rapid identification methods (hand-held assays)

for B. anthracis.

SAFETY Act

On October 10, 2003, Secretary Ridge signed an interim final rule implementing

the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act

which was a requirement of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The SAFETY Act

is designed to encourage the development and rapid deployment of life-saving, antiterrorism technologies by providing manufacturers and sellers with limited liability

risks. The Department is now accepting applications for designation under the Act

and evaluating the proposed technologies.

Inter-operability of Communications

SAFECOM: E–Gov Initiative to Improve Inter-operability of Wireless Communications

The Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to boost the ability of the

approximately 44,000 local, tribal and State entities and 100 federal agencies engaged in public safety to communicate effectively with one another, particularly during an emergency. SAFECOM is a federal umbrella program under the S&T Directorate that is dedicated to improving public safety response through enhanced interoperable wireless communications. The goal is to enable public safety agencies to

talk across disciplines and jurisdictions via radio communications systems, exchanging voice or data with one another on demand and in real time. SAFECOM is providing seed money for the Department of Justice’s Integrated Wireless Network program, which will create inter-operability among local, State and federal public safety

70

agencies in 25 cities. In addition, technical guidance for inter-operable communications that was developed under SAFECOM is included in this year’s Office of Domestic Preparedness grants.

Summit on Inter-operable Communications for Public Safety

In June 2003, the S&T Directorate, Project SAFECOM, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Institute of Justice hosted a

Summit on Inter-operable Communications for Public Safety. The event focused on

familiarizing attendees with programs that assist public safety practitioners, including first responders, and is the first national effort ever undertaken to convene all

the players. In addition, it provided insight on federal resource needs, how government can leverage existing program successes and resources in the area of standards development, approaches, and products and services. The Summit results provided help in formulating a coordinated approach toward nationwide communications inter-operability.

SAFECOM Vendor Demonstration Day

In August 2003, the Science and Technology Directorate held its first SAFECOM

Vendor Demonstration Day, with an overwhelmingly positive response from technology providers. Due to the increasing number of vendor requests to present their

technologies to the SAFECOM Program, the S&T Directorate is holding a vendor

demonstration day on the last Friday of every month. These Friday sessions will

offer a chance for SAFECOM to learn about new technologies for inter-operability,

provide a clear process for managing vendor requests, and ensure that every vendor

has a fair opportunity to participate.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Programs

Addressing Threats and Vulnerabilities in the Oil and Gas Industries

The S&T Directorate sponsored and delivered a prototype system to the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate to perform Graphical

Information System (GIS) based computer assisted threat and vulnerability mapping of the oil and gas infrastructure in the American Southwest. S&T is also in

the process of delivering to IAIP cutting edge visualization, data searching, data correlation, and all-source analytic aids to provide IAIP advanced analytic capabilities

integrated with vulnerability information.

Advanced Algorithms for Bio-detectors

Researchers funded by the S&T Directorate’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research & Development program achieved an important milestone in the speed acceleration of software used to develop advanced bio-detectors. Scientists have made a

pair of related algorithmic advances that will speed the creation of DNA signatures

for pathogen detection at considerably reduced cost. These discoveries will result in

cheaper, faster, and more reliable bio-detectors for homeland security.

Threat-Vulnerability Mapper

Part of the Threat-Vulnerability Information System, the Threat-Vulnerability

Mapper (or TVM), was installed in the analysis center of the Information Analysis

and Infrastructure Protection Directorate in December 2003 and is already in constant use. Developed by the S&T Directorate, the TVM provides counterterrorism

analysts with a simple, straightforward way to not only depict the geographic distribution of threats across the United States, but also to search the underlying databases for information on the possible actors, agents, potential severity of attacks,

and extent of the vulnerabilities to and effects of such attacks. A second TVIS component was delivered to IAIP in January 2003 and should be installed and operational by the end of February 2004.

Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support System

On December 24, 2003, S&T’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support

System (CIP/DSS) team was asked to conduct a rapid analysis of potential consequences following discovery of a cow in Washington State with bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as Mad Cow disease. An analysis was developed within hours using available open literature, past historical data, and the

results from an early stage, Dynamic Simulation agriculture model.

Cyber Security

Experimental Infrastructure Network for Cyber Defense

Led by the S&T Directorate, DHS is co-funding with the National Science Foun- dation a $5.45M, three-year research project to create an experimental infrastructure network to support development and demonstration of next generation informaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
71

tion security technologies for cyber defense. This project supports national-scale experimentation on emerging security research and advanced development technologies. Called Cyber Defense Technology Experimental Research (‘‘DETER’’) Network, this is a multi-university project led by the University of California, Berkley.

Evaluation Methods in Internet Security Technology

DHS is co-funding with the National Science Foundation, a second cyber security

project called Evaluation Methods in Internet Security Technology (EMIST). EMIST

is a testing framework that can be adapted to simulators, emulation facilities, other

testbeds, and hardware testing facilities. The framework will include attack scenarios, attack simulators, generators for topology and background traffic, data sets

derived from live traffic, and tools to monitor and summarize results. EMSIT is a

three-year, $5.6M, multi-university research project that includes Penn State; University of California, Davis; Purdue; and the International Computer Science Institute.

United States Coast Guard

Maritime Surveillance Testbed Prototype

In September 2003, S&T’s Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

and the United States Coast Guard planned and funded the South Florida Coastal

Surveillance Prototype Testbed, a port and coastal surveillance prototype in Port

Everglades, Miami, and Key West areas. The prototype is an evolutionary testbed

that:

• Provides an initial immediate coastal surveillance capability in a high priority

area

• Offers the Coast Guard and other DHS agencies the means to develop and

evaluate CONOPS (Concept of Operations) in a real world environment

• Implements and tests inter-operability among DHS and DOD systems and

networks such as the U.S. Navy/Coast Guard Joint Harbor Operations Center

(JHOC).

• Tests and evaluates systems and operational procedures

• Becomes the design standard for follow-on systems in other areas and integration with wider area surveillance systems.

The program has two phases; an initial prototype development phase, and an improvements and update phase. The program is expected to begin operations in June

2004 and is funded at $2.4M for FY 2003 and $5M for FY 2004.

Partnerships

Workshop on Scientific Computing in Support of Homeland Security

The Science and Technology Directorate brought together experts from academia,

private industry and the national laboratories with staff from various organizations

within the Department to understand how the S&T Directorate’s advanced scientific

computing (ASC) capabilities, centered at the national laboratories, can help address

needs across the Department. This workshop, held October 8–9, 2003, has resulted

in identifying several areas of potential high payoff for the use of these unique capabilities; two examples are advanced research in data management and information

extraction, and research and development of computational simulation tools. The

workshop will produce a formal report identifying relevant ASC capabilities and

matching them up with identified needs within the Department of Homeland Security for improved operational capabilities.

Infrastructure Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council

Staff members of the Science and Technology Directorate had a major role in

drafting the first charter for the National Science and Technology Council’s

(NSTC’s) Infrastructure Subcommittee; the Subcommittee’s first Co-Chairs are from

the S&T Directorate and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Subcommittee serves as a forum within the National Science and Technology Council

(NSTC) for developing consensus and resolving issues associated with coordinating

R&D agendas, policy, and programs to develop and protect the Nation’s infrastructure. The Subcommittee will also be the vehicle used by the Department of Homeland Security and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop the National R&D Plan for Critical Infrastructure Protection.

Homeland Security Standards Panel

The S&T Directorate worked with the American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish

72

a Homeland Security Standards Panel (HSSP) that would coordinate the development of consensus standards among the 280 different standards development organizations. On June 9–10, 2003, the inaugural meeting of the ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel was held at NIST. Plenary session presentations were given

by four S&T Directorate staff members to outline the needs in Department for

standards. The panel selected a small list of topics to address with focus workshops.

The first of these occurred in September 2003 with a focus on needs for standards

in biometrics.

Joint DHS/USDA National Strategy for Foreign Animal Disease

At the request of the Congressional Appropriations Committees for both DHS and

the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the two departments have coordinated a report on a national strategy for foreign animal disease. Participants in the joint

study included DHS (S&T), USDA (the Agricultural Research Service and the Agriculture and Plant Health Inspection Service), and stakeholder groups. The joint

study has prompted an end-to-end review of the national response strategy following

the identification of a case of foot-and-mouth disease, including the R&D requirements and gaps for assays, diagnostics, vaccines, and antivirals. Comprehensive

roadmaps have been developed for these research areas, in one-, three-, and fiveyear timeframes. These roadmaps are important elements of program planning for

S&T.

National Security Council Attribution Working Group

The S&T Directorate initiated and leads the National Security Council Attribution

Working Group, which is revisiting national capabilities to rapidly perform forensic

analysis in cases of nuclear and radiological events of any size. This effort is expected to lead to a robust and completely coordinated forensic capability for attribution.

Workshops on Comparative Analysis

S&T’s Office of Comparative Studies has sponsored two workshops on identifying

analysis techniques and information sources crucial for analyzing the interaction of

the terrorist threat with S&T activities. These workshops brought together participants from two DHS directorates, other government entities, academia and private

industry and have helped to improve communication between these groups. Important analytical techniques and sources of information were identified and have been

utilized. The workshops were also used to establish a set of topics which the office

could profitably study. A proposal is being prepared which will solicit work on several of these topics.

Homeland Security Institute, and Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee

Homeland Security Institute

A formal solicitation was issued in December for the Homeland Security Institute

(HSI), and proposals were received in January 2004. Those proposals currently are

being evaluated with an expected five-year award by early May 2004. However, current legislation states that the Institute’s operation will terminate in November

2005; this issue is of concern to the bidders.

The HSI was mandated by the Homeland Security Act to assist the Secretary and

the Department in addressing important homeland security issues that require scientific, technical, and analytical expertise. The Institute will provide a dedicated,

high-quality technical and analytical support capability for informing homeland security decision making at all levels. This capability will consist of an extensive program of operational assessments, systems evaluations, technical assessments, and

resource analyses comparable to the capability developed and used for decades by

the Defense establishment. The Institute will also provide analytical and technical

evaluations that support DHS implementation of the SAFETY Act. Finally, the Institute will create and maintain a field operations program that will help further

introduce real-world needs and experiences into homeland security is a disciplined

and rigorous way.

Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee

The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC)

was formally established in December 2003 and holds its first meeting in February

2004.

The HSSTAC was mandated by the Homeland Security Act to be a source of independent, scientific and technical planning advice for the Under Secretary for Science

and Technology. The committee will (1) advise the Undersecretary on the mission

goals for the future; (2) provide advice on whether the policies, actions, management

73

processes, and organization constructs of the Science and Technology Directorate are

optimally focused on mission objectives; (3) provide advice on whether the research,

development, test, evaluation, and systems engineering activities are properly

resourced (capital, financial, and human) to accomplish the objectives; (4) identify

outreach activities (particularly in accessing and developing, where necessary, the

industrial base of the Nation); and (5) review the technical quality and relevance

of the Directorate’s programs.

Countermeasures to Man-Portable Air Defense Systems

The S&T Directorate has selected three firms to provide analyses of the economic,

manufacturing and maintenance issues needed to support a system to address the

potential threat of MAN–Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) to commercial

aircraft. The next phase of the program will include development of prototypes using

existing technology which will be subjected to a rigorous test and evaluation process.

This initiative is not intended to develop new technology, but rather to re-engineer

existing technology from military to commercial aviation use.

University and Fellowship Programs

Fellowships and Scholarships

In September 2003, the S&T Directorate named 100 students to the inaugural

class of the Department of Homeland Security’s Scholars and Fellows Program. The

program, which received more than 2,400 applications, supports United States students who choose to pursue scientific careers and perform research in fields that are

essential to the homeland security mission. The first class consists of 50 undergraduate students and 50 graduate students who are attending universities across

the country majoring in the physical, biological, and social and behavioral sciences

including science policy, engineering, mathematics, or computer science. The Directorate has already issued a notice inviting applications from students for the 2004–

2005 academic year. The website is http://www.orau.gov/dhsed/.

University Centers of Excellence

The Science and Technology division has created the Homeland Security Centers

Program that supports university-based centers of excellence dedicated to fostering

homeland security mission critical research and education. The program has established the first Center of Excellence focused on risk analysis and modeling related

to the economic consequences of terrorism at the University of Southern California,

partnering with the University of Wisconsin at Madison, New York University and

the University of California at Berkeley. A request for proposals has been issued

for the second and third Centers of Excellence, which will focus on animal-related

and post-harvest food agro-terrorism.

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

Near-Term Technologies

In May 2003, the Science and Technology Directorate’s Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) released a Broad Agency Announcement through the Technical Support Working Group for near-term technologies that

can be rapidly prototyped and deployed to the field. A total of 3,344 responses as

received in the following broad categories: chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear countermeasures; personnel protection; explosives detection; infrastructure

protection; physical security; improvised device defeat; and investigative support

and forensics. The first contract award went to North Carolina State University for

the development of the next-generation of structural fire fighting personal protective

equipment.

Detection Systems

The S&T Directorate reviewed and selected proposals for funding in response to

its Research Announcement for Detection Systems for Biological and Chemical

Countermeasures, which was published through the Technical Support Working

Group. In September 2003, the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects

Agency (HSARPA) held its first Bidders Conference in Washington, DC. Approximately 420 private sector and university representatives attended the event and

over 500 white papers were submitted. Finalists have been selected for negotiation,

and work has already begun in a number of the more important areas.

Virtual Cyber Security Center

On December 13, 2003, a Request for Proposals and Statement of Work for technical and administrative support for the virtual Cyber R&D Center was published

to seven capable performers listed on the GSA schedule. The deadline for response

74

was December 15, 2003, and two responsive proposals were received. A three million

dollar technical, management, and administrative contract was awarded to SRI

International on February 2, 2004, to support the functions of the HSARPA Cyber

R&D Center. The Cyber R&D Center will be the primary S&T interface with the

academic and industrial cyber security research communities.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Solicitation

On November 13, 2003, the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) issued a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Solicitation. The purpose of this solicitation was to invite small businesses to submit innovative research proposals that address eight high-priority DHS requirements:

• New system/technologies to detect low vapor pressure chemicals (e.g., Toxic

Industrial Chemicals)

• Chemical and biological sensors employing novel receptor scaffolds

• Advanced low cost aerosol collectors for surveillance sensors and personnel

monitoring

• Computer modeling tool for vulnerability assessment of U.S. infrastructure

• Ship compartment inspection device

• Marine Asset Tag Tracking System

• Automatic Identification System tracking and collision avoidance equipment

for small boats

• Advanced Secure Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and related distributed control systems.

By the December 15, 2003, deadline 374 proposals had been received. The evaluation is complete and 66 proposers entered negotiation for Phase I contracts beginning February 11, 2004.

SAFECOM Vendor Demonstration Day

SAFECOM held a Vendor Demonstration Day on January 30, 2004. SAFECOM’s

Vendor Day allows several communications equipment and service providers to

present their products and/or technologies for SAFECOM. Responses from the

SAFECOM Request for Information in November 2003 were used to select vendors

for this event. Each vendor selected represents a different approach to solving the

communications and inter-operability problems facing first responders.

International Programs

Agreement with Canada on Border and Infrastructure Security

On October 3, 2002, Secretary Tom Ridge and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister

John Manley initialed an agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation for protecting shared critical infrastructure and enhancing border security. The S&T Directorate is participating in a Working Group to develop near-term deliverables and

projects to protect shared critical infrastructure such as bridges, dams, pipelines,

communications and power grids; to develop surveillance and monitoring technologies to enhance the ability to disrupt and interdict terrorists; and to develop

technologies for detecting the illicit transportation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons.

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Incident Management

Between March and December of 2003, the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Operations and Incident Management (WMDO–IM) provided surveillance and operational incident response to the Homeland Security Operations Center and law enforcement officials on 24 separate occasions. In addition, the WMDO–IM provided

operational support to the Homeland Security Operations Center during Hurricane

Isabel and the Northeast blackout.

The WMDO–IM established a scientific reach-back and rapid decision support capability through the Scientific and Technical Analysis and Response Teams

(START). In addition to activating the START teams during the Code Orange time

period in December 2003, WMDO–IM provided technical expert consultations on

threats to the Nation’s water resources and responded to concerns about impacts of

solar flares.

WMDO–IM helped develop the Initial National Response Plan (INRP) and its National Incident Management System; the INRP represents a significant first step towards an overall goal of integrating the current family of federal domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into a single all-discipline, all-hazards plan.

75

WMDO–IM provided technical support to the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC), assessing vulnerabilities and actions the HSOC can take to improve the

ability to resist a chemical or biological terrorist attack.

WMDO–IM, with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, developed curriculum for a week-long training workshop on weapons

of mass destruction for the Central Intelligence Agency University. Also in the area

of education and training, WMDO–IM established a homeland security medical executive training course.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHARLES E. MCQUEARY

Dr. Charles E. McQueary was appointed by President Bush as Under Secretary

for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security and confirmed

by the U.S. Senate in March of 2003.

Dr. McQueary leads the research and development arm of the Department, utilizing our nation’s scientific and technological resources to provide federal, State and

local officials with the technology and capabilities to protect the homeland.

Prior to joining Homeland Security, Dr. McQueary served as President, General

Dynamics Advanced Technology systems, in Greensboro, N.C. Earlier in his career,

Dr. McQueary served as President and Vice President of business units for AT&T,

Lucent Technologies, and as a Director for AT&T Bell Laboratories.

In addition to his professional experience, Dr. McQueary has served his community in many leadership roles as Chair of the Board, and Campaign Chair, of the

United Way of Greensboro; Member of the Board of Trustees of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University; Member of the Guilford Technical Community College President’s CEO Advisory Committee; Member of Board of World

Trade Center North Carolina; Chair for Action Greensboro Public Education Initiative; and as a Member of the Board of Guilford County Education Network.

Dr. McQueary holds both a Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas, Austin. The University of Texas

has named McQueary a Distinguished Engineering Graduate.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. McQueary, and

I would note that the Department of Homeland Security has not

even celebrated its first anniversary yet. It stood up last March 1,

and I think you and Governor Ridge and the team there have done

a remarkable job under very difficult circumstances. I think all of

us expect miracles, but miracles don’t happen in government; they

only happen on the ice, which is a plug for the new movie, ‘‘Miracle

on Ice,’’ about the 1980 Lake Placid Olympic U.S. winning team.

Mr. Bond, welcome back.

STATEMENT OF MR. PHILLIP J. BOND, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gordon, Members of the Committee. It is great for me to be

here. I wanted to add a thought on Rita Colwell’s departure, which

is kind of a double whammy for me; I will not only miss the great

pleasure and privilege of working with her, but also have to, as the

Chair alluded to, share the great national treasure we call Arden

Bement with NSF and also join you, Mr. Chairman, in looking forward to his return to NIST.

I want to thank the Committee, and especially the Chairman for

your continued support and leadership on all innovation issues.

You have been a constant and strong voice for the science and technology community. I appreciate that, especially in the areas, of

course, of basic research, cyber security, and nanotechnology that

are so important to the future. It is a privilege for me to be here

this morning to join my colleagues and discuss the President’s R&D

budget, which is an unprecedented total of $132 billion, representing a 44 percent increase since the President took office.

76

The President’s focus on science and technology is reflected as

well in the Department of Commerce’s R&D portfolio, the portfolio

that consists, really, of work done in our two primary technical research bureaus: NOAA, which the Committee is very familiar with,

and the Technology Administration, which I am privileged to oversee.

The fiscal year 2005 budget request for NOAA is $3.4 billion, and in TA, it is $529.8 million. Of course the lion’s share, $521.5 million, of that is at NIST. Through these two bureaus, the Department of Commerce is engaged in critical cutting-edge research in

high priorities, such as nanotechnology, climate change, environmental sciences, information technology, and manufacturing technology.

As you can tell from the witnesses you have heard already, these

are cross-cutting, multiple agency missions, which is one reason

why Secretary Evans has put special emphasis on collaboration,

and it has resulted in Admiral Lautenbacher at NOAA serving as

the Chair of the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural

Resources. And I have been serving as the co-chair of the Committee on Technology with long-time Science Committee staffer,

Richard Russell.

The Commerce budget reflects the priorities of the Department

in continuing its commitment to creating conditions for economic

growth and employment opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship. Resources to enhance these services have, in some cases, been shifted from various

lower-priority programs and, to be sure and to underscore, the Administration, as Rita Colwell mentioned, has had to make some

very tough choices. Some otherwise well-managed and successful

programs could not be given the highest priority for funding.

That said, the Department has an ambitious agenda to leverage

our science and technology resources, and we look forward to working with you and Members of the Committee as these proposals

move through the legislative process.

In my time today, I want to just briefly touch on NOAA, because

I know the Committee has scheduled a separate hearing on that

and talk a little bit about the work at NIST. The President’s request for NOAA in 2005 is $3.4 billion, an increase of about $147

million over the 2004 request. NOAA believes the proposed budget

maintains and enhances programs that enable our scientific understanding of the oceans and atmosphere while also sustaining the

Nation’s environmental health and economic vitality. The request

allows NOAA to develop the science necessary to improve weather,

water, and ecosystem forecasts of the future as well as give policy

makers, like this committee, the data they need to make important

decisions related to climate change. The budget request supports

NOAA’s core activities including its fisheries and oceans program,

climate research, weather forecasting capabilities, and satellite infrastructure necessary to support these functions.

In the Technology Administration, the fiscal year 2005 funding

priorities support programs to promote U.S. industries in their effort to meet the President’s national priorities of fostering economic

growth, defending the homeland, defending the national security,

and winning the war on terrorism. The requests for NIST specifiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
77

cally were—we are exceedingly proud of our world-class research

and Nobel Prize winning scientists. And the President’s request

there reflects his appreciation of the role that technology plays in

both economic security and homeland security.

The request is five percent more than the 2004 request and in- cludes $417.5 million for the NIST laboratories: for that core function, a 9.4 percent increase. $59.4 million is requested for badly

needed facilities’ maintenance and upgrades.

And let me just say for a moment, if I might, Mr. Chairman, that

the support for the thrust of this budget, and the support for the

core efforts at NIST, is so critical. We have witnessed in recent

years a trend of shortfalls in funding for the NIST laboratories, and

it does threaten to undermine the very core measurements and

standards infrastructure upon which so much of the Nation’s scientific, technological, and industrial enterprises rest. It will be incumbent upon us to do as much outreach as possible with our partners across the federal enterprise, and we look forward to doing

that. In fact, I would observe, for the record, that in the 2004 omnibus, all but two of our labs, NIST’s core labs, actually received real

reductions. And so the challenge going into 2005 is very real. Moving on to more details, there is a $39.2 million request for

the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to help small U.S. manufacturers become more competitive and productive.

Recognizing the importance of manufacturing to our economy,

Secretary Evans did release a comprehensive manufacturing strategy aimed at improving the climate for manufacturers in our global

marketplace. A key part of that strategy includes stable support for

the MEP and new steps to review and improve its efficiency. To

emphasize competition in global markets, for example, the Department is exploring ways to team MEP field agents to coordinate better with the International Trade Administration at Commerce.

As noted, there is no funding for the ATP in the fiscal year 2005

budget. There are, however, several major new R&D initiatives.

$15.6 million to support advanced manufacturing, $18.6 million for

work related to public safety and security, $16.2 million to develop

advanced measurement capabilities to meet the needs of 21st century science and industry. Key to this, of course, is the AML [Advanced Measurement Laboratory].

AML also has funding challenges in instrumentation, but it will

become increasingly critically important to nanomanufacturing to

have advances there. In fact, the NNI initiative touches almost

every aspect of NIST in its core efforts and standards and metrology, which really are the linchpin to commercializing so much of

that technology.

NIST is also requesting an increase to address an issue increasingly important to the U.S. economy, which is to equip U.S. manufacturers with the tools to track and respond to international technical standards that block their entry to market. Our formal submission gives you more detail on these and other initiatives.

The budget also includes a very important $8.3 million for the

NIST Center for Neutron Research, one of the world’s true jewels,

so important in many areas. You have more details in my submission there. And critically needed funding in facilities that Mr.

Udall, in particular, is so aware of out in Boulder.

78

With that, let me stop and just observe, Mr. Chairman, that the

focus of the President on creating growth and opportunity is beginning to pay off. We are headed in the right direction: unemployment falling down, manufacturing up, job creation up over the last

four months. And we look forward to working with the Committee

to keep that going.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bond follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. BOND

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to join with my fellow Administration colleagues in your review of the President’s Fiscal Year (FY)

2005 budget request for science and technology programs. As you have already

heard from Dr. Marburger, the President’s budget focuses on leadership in science

and technology by calling for an unprecedented $132 billion investment in research

and development (R&D) that represents a 44% increase since President Bush took

office.

I want to thank the Committee, especially Chairman Boehlert, for your continued

support and leadership on innovation issues. You have been a constant and strong

voice for the science and technology community—especially in the areas of basic research and nanotechnology. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure

America remains the world leader in the science and technology field.

The President’s focus in the area of science and technology is reflected in the Department of Commerce R&D portfolio. The Commerce budget maintains substantial

R&D investments in our two primary technical research bureaus, the Technology

Administration (TA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). Through these two bureaus, the Department of Commerce is engaged in

critical cutting-edge research in high-priority areas of technological innovation such

as nanotechnology, information technology, and manufacturing technology.

The Fiscal Year 2005 President’s budget request for TA is $529.8 million in total

discretionary budget authority, which includes $8.3 million for the Office of Technology Policy and $521.5 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The Fiscal Year 2005 President’s budget request for NOAA is $3.4

billion in total discretionary budget authority.

Additionally, both TA and NOAA have developed strong collaborations with other

federal science and technology agency partners to develop interagency activities and

coordinate major R&D initiatives in these high-priority areas. Given the budget

pressures facing our nation, this approach is necessary in order to fund important

federal science and technology programs. Working with my fellow panelists and others throughout the Administration, at the Department of Commerce, we have been

engaged in extending efforts to cross agency boundaries to strengthen our research

and development capabilities.

Secretary Evans is proud that the Department has been able to play a leadership

role in interagency coordination, especially through the President’s National Science

and Technology Council (NSTC). For example, I co-chair the NSTC Committee on

Technology and NOAA Administrator Admiral Lautenbacher chairs the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The Secretary has tasked us to continue developing partnership models inside and outside of our building to leverage

the Nation’s science and technology enterprise. By developing new methods for collaboration within Commerce and with other agencies, the Administration can maximize the best use of our scarce federal dollars.

Mr. Chairman, in my time with you today, I wish to review the Department’s

science and technology budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, as reflected

in our TA and NOAA requests. Since I know that the Committee intends to hold

a separate hearing in the near future just on the NOAA budget with Admiral

Lautenbacher, I will give a short summary of the NOAA FY 2005 priorities before

discussing the proposed budget priorities for the Technology Administration.

The Commerce budget priorities reflect the Department’s continuing commitment

to creating conditions for both economic growth and employment opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship. To enhance

these services, resources have been shifted from various lower priority programs. To

be sure, the Administration has had to make some very tough choices and some otherwise well-managed and successful programs could not be given a high priority for

funding. The Department, however, has an ambitious agenda to use our science and

technology resources and we look forward to working with you as these proposals

move through the legislative process.

79

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget request totals $3.4 billion for NOAA, including program increases of $146.9 million over the FY 2004 request. NOAA believes that the proposed budget maintains and enhances the programs that enable

our scientific understanding of the oceans and atmosphere, while also sustaining the

Nation’s environmental health and economic vitality. The budget request allows

NOAA to develop the science necessary to improve weather, water and ecosystem

forecasts of the future, as well as give policy-makers the data they need to make

important decisions related to climate change.

The Fiscal Year 2005 budget request supports the NOAA core activities, including

its fisheries and oceans programs, climate research activities, weather forecasting

capabilities, and the satellite infrastructure necessary to support these functions. In

addition, the request continues to focus on maintenance and safety issues associated

with NOAA facilities, vessels, and aircraft.

In order to meet international standards for research surveys and substantially

improve the quality of fishery research, NOAA requests an investment of $34 million to complete NOAA’s third fisheries survey vessel. NOAA will also seek to expand its focus on climate research by devoting $19 million of new funding to address

the critical knowledge gaps identified in the recently released Climate Change

Science Program Strategic Plan. Finally, NOAA will continue to improve its weather

forecasting abilities by requesting funding to expand air quality forecasts nationwide and investing in improved long-range weather forecasting. The Department

will also request an additional $56 million for the continued development of nextgeneration geosynchronous and polar orbiting satellite programs.

Some additional highlights of the NOAA FY 2005 budget proposal include:

• Weather and Water—to serve society’s needs for weather and water information—The $1.41 billion request is an increase of $58.1 million over base goal

levels.

• Climate—to understand climate variability and change to enhance society’s

ability to plan and respond—The $369.3 million request is an increase of

$28.7 million over base goal levels.

• Ecosystems—to protect, restore and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through ecosystem approach to management—The $1.158 billion request is an increase of $145.3 million over base goal levels.

• Commerce and Transportation—support the Nation’s commerce with information for safe, efficient and environmentally sound transportation—NOAA is

requesting $252.1 million, an increase of $23.1 million over base levels, to address this goal.

Technology Administration (TA)

TA’s Fiscal Year 2005 funding priorities for its $529.8 million budget support programs that promote U.S. industries to meet the President’s national priorities of fostering economic growth, providing for a secure homeland and defense, and winning

the war on terrorism. TA meets these priorities by helping to shape an economic

climate that leads to innovation and growth; investing in the NIST core mission of

measurements, standards, research, and services to industry; and supplying NIST

scientists with the laboratory equipment and facilities necessary for world-class research.

TA’s NIST is well-known to the Members of this committee, but the world-class

research of its award-winning scientists and engineers can often be overlooked because the NIST contributions are often made at the beginning of the R&D process—

invaluable contributions that pave the way for the rapid commercialization needed

to advance our economy.

NIST has been often referred to as the ‘‘crown jewel’’ of our federal laboratory system. It is a well-deserved title because there is no other federal lab that industry

relies on as much as NIST. Industry needs the critical NIST metrology research

standards for measurement, testing, analysis, and protocols that allow for inter-operable products to be created, new products to be developed based on consensus

standards, assurances that products meet conformity assessment requirements, and

the ability to effectively bring their innovation from the laboratory to the marketplace.

NIST is an important component of the TA mission, performing world-class research to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life.

Given the rapidly accelerating pace of technology development and change during

the past decade, NIST has had to remain agile and flexible in order to make the

best use of its resources. One telling measure of NIST’s success is that nearly 30

80

economic impact studies by independent experts calculate that every dollar invested

in NIST measurement and standards programs returns at least three dollars in economic benefits to the Nation. Indeed, most NIST programs return substantially

more. The President’s request for NIST for FY 2005 reflects his appreciation of the role

technology plays in both our economic security and our homeland security while

holding the line on non-defense spending. This request—which is five percent more

than his request for FY 2004—includes $417.5 million for the NIST laboratories and

$5.4 million for the Baldrige National Quality Program. Another $59.4 million is requested for badly needed facilities maintenance and upgrades. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) requests $39.2 million to help

small U.S. manufacturers become more competitive and productive. Through its network of centers, MEP makes it possible for small U.S. firm to tap into the knowledge, skill sets, and experience of leading manufacturing, business, and technology

specialists from across the country. With MEP as a resource, American manufacturers have at their disposal the latest and most efficient technologies, processes and

business practices.

Recognizing the importance of manufacturing to our economy, Secretary Evans recently released a comprehensive manufacturing strategy aimed at improving the climate for manufacturers in a global marketplace. With the Manufacturing Index rising to its highest level in nearly 20 years this past December and new orders at

its highest level since 1950, it appears America’s manufacturing sector is expanding

and moving in the right direction, but there is more work to be done. President

Bush will not rest until every American who wants to work can find a job. So, the

Secretary has asked all bureaus within the Department of Commerce to be engaged

in support of manufacturers. A key part of the manufacturing strategy outlined in

Secretary’s Evans’ report includes stable support for the MEP and new steps to review and improve its efficiency. To emphasize competition in global markets, for example, the Department is exploring ways to team MEP field agents will team directly with trade promotion specialists in the International Trade Administration

(ITA) to leverage ITA’s connections and in-depth knowledge of industrial sectors.

The report also recommends that MEP hold a recompetition of all centers that focuses on improving effectiveness and efficiency.

There is no funding proposed for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget. The total NIST request of $521.5 million is $89 million

less than our FY 2004 appropriation. While there is an increase in the FY 2005

funding request for the NIST laboratories, the overall request for NIST is a net decrease due to the termination of funding for the ATP.

It is also important to note that a recent trend of shortfalls in funding for the

NIST laboratories threatens to undermine the very core measurements and standards infrastructure upon which our nation’s scientific, technological and industrial

enterprises depend. Accordingly, the President’s request for NIST incorporates several major new R&D initiatives, including $15.6 million to support advanced manufacturing, $18.6 million for work related to public safety and security, and $16.2 million to develop advanced measurement capabilities to meet the needs of 21st century

science and industry.

Last June the President’s Science Advisor laid out the Administration’s priorities

for science and technology R&D in the FY 2005 budget. These NIST R&D initiatives

are an excellent fit with those priorities:

• Under R&D for Combating Terrorism, the NIST public safety proposal includes a funding increase to advance national measurement capabilities in

the detection of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive materials; in biometric identification, and in cyber security. This work is closely

coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security and other national

security agencies.

• In the rapidly developing field of Nanotechnology, the NIST advanced manufacturing proposal encompasses a wide array of measurement tools, devices,

measurement technologies, standards, and data to provide a critical measurement and standards infrastructure for leading-edge developments in

nanotechnology manufacturing areas. These are assignments directly fulfilling NIST’s mission and in line with NIST’s role in both the National

Nanotechnology Initiative and the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and

Development Act (P.L. No. 108–153) that was spearheaded by this committee.

• In line with the Administration’s priority emphasis on Molecular-level Understanding of Life Processes, NIST’s Measurement Science initiative includes

the development of measurements and test methods that will be critical to developments in biosystems and health, such as work in the measurement and

81

analysis of gene and protein expression, nanobiotechnology and DNA and protein markers.

• In Networking and Information Technology, NIST initiatives in Public Safety

and Advanced Measurement include IT research ranging from improvements

in the state of the art of computer and network security—especially wireless

and industrial control systems—to cutting-edge research in the emerging field

of quantum information science, which promises to lead to advanced information processing systems with phenomenal increases in information storage

and processing speeds.

• NIST also maintains a substantial effort in the areas of Environment and Energy, including unique research facilities and expertise related to various aspects of hydrogen fuel cells, covering the entire spectrum from fundamental

science to successful commercialization.

NIST is also requesting an FY 2005 funding increase to address an issue increasingly important to the U.S. economy—equipping U.S. manufacturers with the necessary tools to track and effectively respond to the development of international

technical standards, particularly where they impact the access of U.S. manufacturers to international markets.

Our formal submission gives you additional details of these and other research

initiatives, but I would like to draw the Committee’s attention in particular to two

very important facilities issues at NIST.

This budget includes a proposed initiative for $8.3 million for capability improvements at the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The NCNR is one of NIST’s truly

unique facilities and an extraordinarily valuable resource for the Nation’s research

community. Neutron beams—especially the low-energy ‘‘cold’’ beams available at

NCNR—have become an indispensable research tool in materials science, biotechnology, chemistry, engineering, and physics. The NCNR has been cited as the

highest performing and most used neutron facility in the United States. In fact, it

draws nearly twice the number of users at the Nation’s other three neutron sources

combined.

Success, however, has strained the resources of the NCNR, which now serves over

four times the number of users predicted in 1987 when it was first funded. Fueland fuel-related costs have spiraled. As a result, NIST’s ability to operate the facility to its maximum utility and to meet the growing demands of the U.S. research

community has been seriously curtailed.

The NCNR initiative will not only address this serious problem in operating expenses but also allow NIST to expand significantly its literally irreplaceable service

to the Nation’s industrial and academic researchers with new instrumentation and

analysis methods. The types of research that would benefit include:

• The study of proteins, that could lead to the development of new drug therapies, new anti-toxins and improved vaccines;

• The development of ultra-high sensitivity detection methods for environmental pollutants as well as explosives and other terrorist materials;

• The study of the workings of complex cellular level biological systems; and

• The development of more efficient fuel cells, batteries and semiconductors.

The FY 2005 budget also includes a $25.7 million initiative primarily devoted to

pressing issues of facility obsolescence at NIST’s Boulder, Colorado, laboratories.

Years of inadequate funding for maintenance and upgrades have left the NIST

laboratories in Boulder, Colorado, severely deteriorated and obsolete. That these facilities have managed to provide U.S. researchers one of the world’s most accurate

and precise time and frequency standards, for example, or the world’s most accurate

voltage standards, is a tribute to the ingenuity and patience of the NIST staff, but

it comes at a price.

• Poor heating and air-conditioning controls have prevented on-time delivery of

specialized superconducting integrated circuit chips to defense contractors, instrument makers and other NIST clients.

• Researchers making sophisticated measurements of magnetic fields—important work done in support of the data storage industry—often must wait an

hour or more for lab temperatures to stabilize sufficiently to work.

• Outages, power spikes, brownouts, and other problems are damaging sensitive equipment, delaying research program, and necessitating expensive repairs.

82

NIST conservatively estimates a 10 percent loss in productivity at the Boulder

Labs purely due to environmental problems in obsolete buildings. And that does not

begin to touch on the staff safety issues.

We appreciate that this committee has long been a strong advocate for NIST. I

am grateful that you understand that an investment in NIST returns great benefits

to our nation as the only federal laboratory with the express mission of working

with industry. I look forward to working with you in addressing NIST’s needs so

that its world-class scientists and engineers can continue to serve our nation effectively.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Commerce’s R&D portfolio is not only strengthening our science and technology portfolio but also strengthening our nation’s economy. The past few weeks have confirmed that America’s economy is strong, and

growing stronger. The Nation’s unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in January,

the fourth consecutive monthly decline, and we added 112,000 new jobs, the largest

single month increase since December of 2000. Overall, the Nation has added

366,000 jobs in the past five months. There’s more evidence of a strengthening economy. Manufacturers report new orders. GDP rose at a 6.1 percent in the second half

of 2003, the fastest pace in nearly 20 years. Inflation remains low, and our nation’s

home ownership rate just reached an all-time high. All of these are signs that our

economic recovery is becoming a lasting expansion. The President has made economic recovery a national priority and I know the Members of this committee are

equally as passionate about this issue. At the Department of Commerce we are fully

engaged in economic recovery by providing leadership in science and technology,

with TA and NOAA leading our R&D efforts.

BIOGRAPHY FOR PHILLIP J. BOND

Phillip J. Bond was sworn in as Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology on

October 30, 2001. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on September

4, and confirmed by the United States Senate on October 23, 2001.

From January 2002 through January 2003, Bond served concurrently as Chief of

Staff to Commerce Secretary Don Evans. In his dual role, Bond worked closely with

the Secretary to increase market access for U.S. goods and services and further advance America’s technological leadership at home and around the world.

Under Secretary Bond serves as the principal advisor to Secretary Evans on

science and technology policy to maximize technology’s contribution to America’s

economic growth. In this context, Mr. Bond’s primary responsibilities are to supervise policy development and direction among the Office of Technology Policy (OTP),

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). He also serves on four committees of the President’s National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), a Cabinet-level council established by the President to coordinate science, space, and technology policy within

the Federal research and development enterprise.

One of Mr. Bond’s top priorities has been to transform the Technology Administration into the pre-eminent portal between the Federal Government and the U.S.

technology industry. In that regard, he directs TA efforts to advocate on behalf of

U.S. technology in the federal policy-making process. Some of the high priority

issues that he is involved in include support for American innovation and entrepreneurship; the converging fields of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and the cognitive sciences; strengthening U.S. technology cooperation with

other countries, especially in areas such as standards development; education and

training of a high tech U.S. workforce; and an array of issues of concern to the telecommunications and information technology industries.

Mr. Bond was recognized in Scientific American Tech Leaders of 2003 (December

2003) for promoting nanotechnology effectively within the executive branch.

His experience in the private sector includes serving as Director of Federal Public

Policy for the Hewlett-Packard Company, a position he held immediately before joining Commerce, and previously serving as Senior Vice President for Government Affairs and Treasurer of the Information Technology Industry Council.

From 1993 to 1998, Phil Bond served as Chief of Staff to Congresswoman Jennifer

Dunn (R–WA). He was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs from 1992 to 1993 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Earlier, he

was Chief of Staff and Rules Committee Associate for Congressman Bob McEwen

(R–OH) from 1990 to 1992. From 1987 to 1990, he served as Special Assistant to

the Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. He is a graduate of Linfield College

in Oregon.

83

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Bond. You have

a good story, and you tell it well. I can understand why you are

smiling. I would like to see bigger smiles on Dr. Colwell’s and Dr.

Orbach’s faces, but I will say, knowing the Committee, as I do, both

sides, we agree with your comments on NIST. And one of the challenges that we face is to undo the damage we did in the omnibus

bill earlier in this year, because we have got some problems for

NIST. Now it is fine for next year, as this budget documents, but

it is this year that we have got to get by. And I mean, to zero out

the funding for research on standards for new election equipment

is goofy. I mean, in view of what happened in the last election, we

have got to figure out how to get that money in there, and it is $2.8

million. And I am concerned that NIST is going to have to reduce

its workforce between now and the next fiscal year by 50 to 100

people. That is not good news.

But the good news is I think the Administration recognizes the

importance of NIST and has been very forthcoming in proposing a

favorable budget for the next fiscal year, and we will work with you

to see that it is embraced.

With that, we go next to Dr. Orbach. Welcome back, Doctor. It

is good to see you once again.

STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert. Chairman Boehlert,

Ranking Member Gordon, Members of the Committee, it is my

great pleasure to join you today to present the Department of Energy fiscal year 2005 budget submission.

I also wish to personally thank Dr. Rita Colwell for her leadership of the National Science Foundation and for the very close and

cooperative relationship that my program has experienced under

her direction. We greatly appreciate it and wish you well, Rita.

I would like to summarize very briefly the programs of the Department of Energy, which fall under this committee’s jurisdiction,

and greater detail is in my written testimony.

For the Office of Science, we are requesting $3.4 billion—$3.341

billion for fiscal year 2005. This request will set us on the path toward addressing the challenges that face our nation in the 21st

century. The Office of Science supports a broad array of research

disciplines. This year, we will increase our activities across the

board in areas such as computation, biological research, environmental remediation, fusion energy, materials, and nanotechnology

R&D. It is also the first year that we will make explicit use of our

laboratories to diversify our scientific workforce.

The Office of Science recently released ‘‘Facilities for the Future

of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook,’’ which sets an ambitious,

prioritized agenda for scientific discovery over the next two decades. Our budget will begin the process of developing those facilities, which we believe to be essential for the advancement of

science and, indeed, for job creation in our country.

For nuclear energy, we are requesting $410 million to continue

the Department’s commitment to nuclear energy as a clean, reliable, and affordable source of energy for this Nation. This request

includes funding to establish a new laboratory for nuclear energy

84

research, development, demonstration, and education. The conceptual design for the next-generation nuclear plant continues to work

to pave the way for a new nuclear power plant order in the near

future, and international efforts to develop new reactor and fuel

cycle technologies.

For our Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we

are requesting $1.25 billion, reflecting the Secretary’s view that

this Office should take a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary,

approach to meet the National Energy Policy goals. One such revolutionary approach is embodied in the President’s FreedomCAR

and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Together with programs in fossil energy, nuclear energy, and science, the Department’s 2005 commitment to this initiative is more than $300 million.

Fossil energy’s program supports the President’s top initiatives

for energy, security, clean air, climate change, and coal research.

The $728.9 million request supports the development of lower cost,

more effective pollution control technologies for coal, extended options for reducing greenhouse gases, and the Nation’s energy security by providing a short-term emergency response, such as the

Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or longer-term response, such as gas

hydrates.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Department’s fiscal year 2005 budget submission meets the Nation’s critical needs for energy, environmental, and national security at a difficult time in our history.

I appreciate the opportunity to present the 2005 budget, and I

greatly appreciate the support of this committee for the energy and

research goals of this country. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Orbach follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to join you today to

present the Department of Energy’s FY 2005 budget submission and to focus on the

details that fall under the purview of this committee. The Department appreciates

the support of the Chairman and the Members of the Committee over the past years

and I look forward to working with you to ensure that our nation stays at the leading edge of science and technology in the 21st Century. I am testifying on behalf

of Mr. Robert Card, Under Secretary for Energy, Science and the Environment at

the Department of Energy.

The Department of Energy in the last three years has been guided by the Administration’s commitment to better management in government and the importance of

scientific discovery. Our cadre of scientists and engineers from all disciplines create

and inspire dynamic discoveries that change our way of life. To complement our support for scientific discovery, the Department has fully embraced the President’s

Management Agenda—emphasizing performance, aligning resources directly to mission priorities, and integrating these objectives into the management of human capital. This synergy has sharpened the focus of the Department of Energy and, I believe, will result in dramatic achievements of real importance to the everyday lives

of Americans.

Setting Priorities

Three years ago, Secretary Abraham defined the Department’s primary mission

to support national security and established a series of programmatic objectives in

national security, energy, environmental quality, science, and corporate management. From this mission and departmental objectives, the Department’s Strategic

Plan was developed, setting in place a long-range programmatic vision. To orient the

Department to results and performance, the long-range planning goals and targets

have been articulated into shorter-term performance goals, objectives, and metrics

that are reflected throughout the FY 2005 detailed budget justifications.

85

The FY 2005 budget request of $24.3 billion is formulated to meet four broad programmatic goals and objectives in corporate management:

• Defense—To protect our national security by applying advanced science and

nuclear technology to the Nation’s defense. The FY 2005 budget proposes $9.0

billion to meet defense-related objectives. The budget request maintains commitments to the nuclear deterrence requirements of the Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review and continues to fund a strong strategy to mitigate the

threat of weapons of mass destruction.

• Energy—To protect our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and the delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally

sound energy. The FY 2005 budget requests $2.7 billion to meet energy-related objectives. The budget request maintains Presidential objectives to promote energy security and reliability through increases in coal research and

development, hydrogen production and fuel cell powered vehicles, advanced

nuclear energy technologies, and electric transmission reliability.

• Science—To protect our national and economic security by providing a worldclass scientific research capacity and advancing scientific knowledge. The FY

2005 budget seeks $3.4 billion to meet science-related objectives. The budget

request continues the Administration’s commitment to the Nation’s scientific

strength by maintaining essential facility and national laboratory operations,

and support for research in the exciting fields of fusion, advanced scientific

computing, nanoscience, microbial genomics, high energy and nuclear physics

and the research tools that enable forefront scientific research.

• Environment—To protect the environment by providing a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of the Cold War and by providing for the permanent disposal of the Nation’s high level radioactive waste. The FY 2005

budget requests $8.4 billion to meet environmental-related objectives. The

budget request includes significant increases to fulfill commitments to accelerate environmental cleanup, maintain the schedule to establish a permanent

geologic nuclear waste repository by 2010, and accelerate assistance to employees of the Cold War nuclear weapons complex who may have been

harmed by their work.

All of the programs and activities highlighted in this Budget depend heavily upon

advanced research and development and could not be achieved were it not for the

world-leading scientific and engineering capabilities available in the Department’s

national laboratories and at universities across the Nation.

I am proud to tell you that the Department of Energy was ranked the most improved cabinet-level agency in the most recent scorecard to assess implementation

of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). The scorecard, which evaluates

agency performance in the areas of human capital, competitive sourcing, financial

management, e-government, and budget/performance integration, was issued by

OMB in January and recognized the Department as one of the agencies ‘‘leading the

pack with regard to management improvement.’’

Let me now review the program areas under this committee in greater detail.

The Office of Science

Overview

The Office of Science FY 2005 budget request is $3.432 billion, a $68,451,000 decrease over the FY 2004 appropriation levels. When $140,762,000 for FY 2004 Congressionally-directed projects is set aside, there is an increase of $72,311,000 in FY

2005. When compared to the FY 2004 comparable President’s Request, the FY 2005

request increases $104,885,000 or 3.2 percent. This request allows us to increase

support for high priority scientific research, increase operations at our key scientific

user facilities, keep existing construction projects on schedule, and support new initiatives. This request, coming at a time of tight overall federal budgets, is also a

demonstration of the Administration’s support for basic research and the role that

fundamental science plays in keeping our nation strong and secure.

When I joined the Office of Science after a career as a university scientist and

administrator, I came with an appreciation for the four key roles that the Office

plays in the U.S. research effort: We provide solutions to our nation’s energy challenges, contributing essential scientific foundations to the energy, national, and economic security missions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). We are the Nation’s leading supporter of the physical sciences, investing in research at over 280

universities, 15 national laboratories, and many international research institutions.

We deliver the premier tools of science to our nation’s science enterprise, building and

86

operating major research facilities for open access by the science community. We

keep the U.S. at the forefront of intellectual leadership, supporting the core capabilities, theories, experiments, and simulations to advance science.

This FY 2005 budget request will set us on the path toward addressing the challenges that face our nation in the 21st Century. The Office of Science has recently

released Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook which sets an

ambitious agenda for scientific discovery over the next two decades. The priorities

established in this plan—which is not a budget document—reflect national priorities

set by the President and the Congress, our commitment to the missions of the Department of Energy, and the views of the U.S. scientific community. Pursuing these

priorities will be challenging, but they hold enormous promise for the overall wellbeing of all of our citizens. We will soon release an updated Office of Science Strategic Plan that is fully integrated with the Facilities Plan, the Department’s new

Strategic Plan, and the President’s Management Agenda—including the R&D Investment Criteria and OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool. The FY 2005 budget request begins to implement these plans.

DOE’s Office of Science leads the world in the conception, design, construction,

and operation of these large-scale devices. These machines have enabled U.S. researchers to make some of the most important scientific discoveries of the past 70

years, with spin-off technological advances leading to entirely new industries. More

than 19,000 researchers and their students from universities, other government

agencies (including the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of

Health), private industry, and those from abroad use DOE facilities each year.

These users are both growing in number and diversity.

We credit our outstanding track record in construction to a highly effective management and review process. We have been so successful that our process is now

considered a ‘‘best practice’’ across the U.S. government by OMB and OSTP, and we

are being consulted by CERN, Europe’s premier particle physics laboratory, on construction of their Large Hadron Collider, a facility to which the United States

(through a partnership between the Office of Science and the National Science

Foundation) is contributing $531 million.

Because of the extraordinarily wide range of scientific disciplines required to support facility users at national laboratories, and the diversity of mission-driven research supported by the Office of Science, we have developed an interdisciplinary

capability that is extremely valuable to some of the most important scientific initiatives of the 21st Century. There is also a symbiotic relationship between research

and research tools. Research efforts advance the capabilities of the facilities and

tools that in turn enable new avenues of research.

The Office of Science funds research at DOE’s national laboratories and at 280

colleges and universities located across the country. Excluding funds used to construct or operate our facilities, approximately half of our base research funding goes

to support research at universities and institutes. Academic scientists and their students are funded through peer-reviewed grants, and SC’s funding of university research has made it an important source of support for graduate students and

postdoctoral researchers in the physical sciences during their early careers.

Office of Science research programs are managed in seven major areas, including

an enhanced effort in Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists.

Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)

ASCR significantly advances scientific simulation and computation, applying new

approaches, algorithms, and software and hardware combinations to address the

critical science challenges of the future, and provides access to world-class, scientific

computation and networking facilities to the Nation’s scientific community to support advancements in practically every field of science and industry. The ASCR

budget also supports the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing

(SciDAC) program—a set of coordinated investments across all Office of Science mission areas with the goal of achieving breakthrough scientific advances via computer

simulation that were impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies alone.

The FY 2005 budget includes $204 million for ASCR to advance U.S. leadership

in high performance supercomputing, networking and software development to continue to advance the transformation of scientific simulation and computation into

the third pillar of scientific discovery. The request includes $38 million for the Next

Generation Computer Architecture (NGA) to acquire additional advanced computing

capability for existing users, and for longer-term research and development on new

architectures for scientific computers. Enhancements are supported for ASCR facilities—the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). The request also includes $8.5 million for the

new Atomic to Macroscopic Mathematics research effort to provide the research supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

port in applied mathematics needed to break through the current barriers in our

understanding of complex physical processes.

Basic Energy Sciences (BES)

The BES program is a principal sponsor of fundamental research for the Nation

in the areas of materials sciences and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates to energy. This research underpins the DOE missions in energy,

environment, and national security; advances energy-related basic science on a

broad front; and provides unique user facilities for the scientific community and industry. For FY 2005, the Department requests $1,064 million for BES including $209 million to continue to advance nanoscale science through atomic- and molecular-level

studies in materials sciences and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and energy

biosciences. This supports Project Engineering Design (PED) and construction on

four Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) and a Major Item of Equipment

for the fifth and final NSRC. NSRCs are user facilities for the synthesis, processing,

fabrication, and analysis of materials at the nanoscale. The request also includes

$80.5 million for construction and $33.1 million for operation of the Spallation Neutron Source and $50 million for design and long lead procurement of the Linac Coherent Light Source, a revolutionary x-ray laser light source. With these tools, we

will be able to understand how the compositions of materials affect their properties,

watch proteins fold, see chemical reactions, and design matter for desired outcomes. The FY 2005 budget request also includes $29 million for activities that support

the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This research program is based on the

BES workshop report ‘‘Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy,’’ which

highlights the enormous gap between our present capabilities and those required for

a competitive hydrogen economy.

Biological and Environmental Research (BER)

BER advances energy-related biological and environmental research in genomics

and our understanding of complete biological systems, such as microbes that

produce hydrogen; in climate change, including the development of models to predict

climate over decades to centuries; developing science-based methods for cleaning up

environmental contaminants; in radiation biology, providing regulators with a

stronger scientific basis for developing future radiation protection standards; and in

the medical sciences, by developing new diagnostic and therapeutic tools, technology

for disease diagnosis and treatment, non-invasive medical imaging, and biomedical

engineering such as an artificial retina that will restore sight to the blind. For FY

2005, the Department requests $502 million for BER which does not provide continued support for the $141 million in Congressional earmarks from FY 2004.

Research on microbes through the Genomics: GTL program, addressing DOE en- ergy and environmental needs, continues to expand from $63.4 million in FY 2004

to $67.5 million in FY 2005. The request also supports initiation of Project Engineering Design (PED) activities for the GTL Facility for the Production and Characterization of Protein and Molecular Tags, a facility that will help move the excitement of the Genomics: GTL systems biology research program to a new level by

greatly increasing the rate and cost-effectiveness with which experiments can be

done. DOE, through the Genomics: GTL program, will attempt to use genetic techniques to harness microbes to consume pollution, create hydrogen, and absorb carbon dioxide.

Fusion Energy Sciences (FES)

The FES program advances the theoretical and experimental understanding of

plasma and fusion science, including a close collaboration with international partners in identifying and exploring plasma and fusion physics issues through specialized facilities. This includes: 1) exploring basic issues in plasma science; 2) developing the scientific basis and computational tools to predict the behavior of magnetically confined plasmas; 3) using the advances in tokomak research to enable the initiation of the burning plasma physics phase of the Fusion Energy Sciences program;

4) exploring innovative confinement options that offer the potential of more attractive fusion energy sources in the long-term; 5) focusing on the scientific issues of

nonneutral plasma physics and High Energy Density Physics; 6) developing the cutting edge technologies that enable fusion facilities to achieve their scientific goals;

and 7) advancing the science base for innovative materials to establish the economic

feasibility and environmental quality of fusion energy.

When the President announced that the U.S. would join in the International

Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project he noted that ‘‘the results of

ITER will advance the effort to produce clean, safe, renewable, and commercially

available fusion energy by the middle of this century.’’ To this end, the Department

88

continues its commitment to the future of Fusion Energy Science research with a

request of $264.1 million, slightly above the FY 2004 level. Within that amount,

DOE’s funding in preparation for ITER in FY 2005 is $38 million, $30 million more

than last year. Of this $38 million, $7 million is for engineers who support the

International Team and for the qualification of vendors for superconducting cable.

The other $31 million is for experiments on our tokamak facilities and for component R&D in our laboratories and universities that is closely related to our ongoing

program but which is focused on ITER’s specific needs.

Fabrication of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) will continue

with a target of FY 2008 for the initial operation of this innovative new confinement

system that is the product of advances in physics understanding and computer modeling. In addition, work will be initiated on the Fusion Simulation Project to provide

an integrated simulation and modeling capability for magnetic fusion energy confinement systems over a 15-year development period. The Inertial Fusion Energy research program will be redirected toward high energy density physics research

based on recommendations of the recently established Interagency Task Force on

High Energy Density Physics.

High Energy Physics (HEP)

HEP advances understanding of dark energy and dark matter, the striking imbalance of matter and antimatter in the current universe, the basic constituents of

matter, and the possible existence of other dimensions, collectively revealing the key

secrets of the birth, evolution, and final destiny of the universe. HEP expands the

energy frontier with particle accelerators to study fundamental interactions at the

highest possible energies, which may reveal the rest of the universe: new particles,

new forces or undiscovered dimensions of space and time; explain how everything

came to have mass; and illuminate the pathway to the underlying simplicity of the

universe.

For FY 2005, the Department requests $737 million for the HEP program, about

the same as in FY 2004. Highest priority in HEP is the operations, upgrades and

infrastructure for the two major HEP user facilities at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC),

to maximize the scientific data generated.

In 2005, the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) facility will be complete and

the beam line will be commissioned. The FY 2005 budget request also supports engineering design activities for a new Major Item of Equipment, the BTeV (‘‘B Physics

at the TeVatron’’) experiment at Fermilab to extend current investigations that uses

modern detector technology to increase our data rate by more than two orders of

magnitude. Research, development and design funding continues in FY 2005 on the

proposed Supernova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) experiment for the DOE/NASA

Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM).

Nuclear Physics (NP)

NP supports innovative, peer reviewed scientific research to advance knowledge

and provide insights into the nature of energy and matter, and in particular, to investigate the fundamental forces which hold the nucleus together, and determine

the detailed structure and behavior of the atomic nuclei. Nuclear science plays a

vital role in studies of astrophysical phenomena and conditions of the early universe. At stake is a fundamental grasp of how the universe has evolved, an understanding of the origin of the elements, and the mechanisms of supernovae core collapse. The program builds and supports world-leading scientific facilities and stateof-the-art instruments necessary to carry out its basic research agenda. Scientific

discoveries at the frontiers of Nuclear Physics further the Nation’s energy-related

research capacity, which in turn provides for the Nation’s security, economic growth

and opportunities, and improved quality of life.

The FY 2005 budget request of $401 million gives highest priority to exploiting

the unique discovery potentials of the facilities at the RHIC and Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) by increasing operating time by 26 percent

compared with FY 2004. R&D funding is provided for the proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) and 12 GeV upgrade of CEBAF at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.

Operations of the MIT/Bates facility will be terminated as planned, following

three months of operations in FY 2005 to complete its research program. This facility closure follows the transitioning of operations of the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory 88Inch Cyclotron in FY 2004 from a user facility to a dedicated facility

for the testing of electronic circuit components for use in space (using funds from

other agencies) and a small in-house research program. These resources have been

89

redirected to better utilize and increase science productivity of the remaining user

facilities and provide for new opportunities in the low-energy subprogram.

Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists

The mission of the Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program

is to continue the Office of Science’s long-standing role of training young scientists,

engineers, and technicians in the scientifically and technically advanced environments of our National Laboratories.

The FY 2005 budget request of $7.66 million provides $1.5 million for a Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development activity. About 90 participating

teachers will gain experience and enhance their skills at five or more DOE laboratories in response to the national need for science teachers who have strong content

knowledge in the classes they teach. A new $0.5 million Faculty Sabbatical Fellowship activity will provide sabbatical opportunities for 12 faculty from minority serving institutions (MSIs). This proposed activity is an extension of the successful Faculty and Student Teams (FaST) program where teams of faculty members and two

or three undergraduate students, from colleges and universities with limited prior

research capabilities, work with mentor scientists at a National Laboratory to complete a research project that is formally documented in a paper or presentation.

The Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Research, development and deployment of advanced clean energy technologies are

making a difference in everyday lives of Americans today and will make an even

larger difference tomorrow. Advanced energy efficient technologies and practices

that use less energy, as well as renewable energy technologies that produce power

and heat more cleanly than conventional sources, are well on their way to becoming

today’s answers to tomorrow’s energy and environmental challenges.

The Department allocates more funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy than it does for any other energy activity. The Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is $1.25 billion, a $15.3 million increase over the Fiscal Year 2004 comparable funding level.

This budget builds on successes already achieved and delivers on promises and commitments made in past budget requests.

The Department’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget request continues to implement the

priorities established in the National Energy Policy Report and the Department of

Energy Strategic Plan, and reflects priorities set in the EERE Strategic Program

Review. EERE also used the research and development investment criteria called

for in the President’s Management Agenda to evaluate its portfolio and focus its research and development dollars on long-term, potentially high payoff activities that

require federal involvement to be successful and achieve public benefit.

The Fiscal Year 2005 budget reflects Secretary Abraham’s challenge to EERE that

it take a bold approach to EERE-sponsored work. Recognizing increasing dependence on energy from areas of the world that can be unstable, and recognizing that

questions surrounding climate change can increase the focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Secretary directed that the program take a revolutionary,

rather than an evolutionary approach to meeting National Energy Policy Report’s

goals of increased energy security, greater freedom for Americans in their energy

choices, and reduced costs and environmental impacts associated with those choices.

One such revolutionary approach is embodied in the President’s FreedomCAR

Partnership and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the goal of which is an industry decision

by 2015 to commercialize hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. To the extent that hydrogen is produced from domestic resources in an environmentally sound manner,

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will require no petroleum-based fuels and emit no criteria pollutants or carbon dioxide, and their commercial success would essentially

remove personal transportation as an environmental issue and substantially reduce

our dependence on foreign oil. The FreedomCAR Partnership and Hydrogen Fuel

Initiative now include both auto manufacturers and energy companies, helping to

ensure that hydrogen will be available and affordably priced when fuel cell vehicles

are ready for commercialization. Over the past year significant R&D advances have

increased confidence that the 2015 goal is realistic and attainable. Together with

programs in Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy and Science, the Department’s Fiscal

Year 2005 commitment to the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is $227 million.

The Fiscal Year 2005 budget requests $10.2 million to continue our Solid State

Lighting program begun last year. Solid State Lighting represents a revolutionary

approach to lighting our homes and businesses that has the potential to more than

double the efficiency of general lighting systems in the coming decades, conserving

enough electricity nationally to power the states of Arizona, Colorado, and Mississippi. Advancing the technology and lowering the cost of organic and inorganic

90

light emitting diodes will lead to more efficient, flexible and functional lighting technology in the future. The budget for Solid State Lighting keeps the Department on

track to overcome technical barriers to everyday use of these innovative technologies.

In the deployment area, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget request maintains the President’s commitment to increase funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program

by $1.4 billion over ten years to help low-income Americans who spend a disproportionately high share of their income on energy. This year’s budget request will allow

the weatherization of nearly 119,000 low-income homes, saving $1.30 in energy costs

for every dollar invested.

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) alternative financing programs

and technical assistance helps federal agencies access private sector financing to

fund energy improvements through Energy Savings Performance Contracts and

Utility Energy Service Contracts at no net cost to taxpayers. In addition, FEMP promotes a whole-building design strategy and provides awards to groups within federal agencies that achieve excellence in energy management. The Fiscal Year 2005

request is $17.9 million for FEMP to continue reducing federal energy consumption.

As FEMP’s core activities have evolved, efficiencies have increased, enabling a reduced funding level in Fiscal Year 2005.

The Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution

The mission of the newly created Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution

(OETD) is to lead a national effort to modernize and expand America’s electricity

delivery system to ensure a more reliable and robust electricity supply, as well as

economic and national security. This is vital to the Department’s strategic goal: to

protect our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy.

The August 14, 2003 blackout demonstrated the electric grid’s strategic importance to our nation. President George Bush stated in September 2003: ‘‘. . .it’s clear

that the power grid needs an overhaul. It needs to be modernized. As we go into

an exciting new period of American history, we want the most modern electricity

grid for our people. . .we need more investment; we need research and development.. . .’’

OETD requests $90.9 million for FY 2005 to increase reliability, which reflects a

12.4 percent increase over the FY 2004 comparable appropriation. This effort includes research, development, demonstration, technology transfer, and education

and outreach activities in partnership with industry, businesses, utilities, States,

other federal programs and agencies, universities, national laboratories, and other

stakeholders.

Neither government nor industry alone can satisfy the Nation’s electric infrastructure needs. The National Delivery Technologies Roadmap provides a framework for

all of the electric industry stakeholders to work together to achieve common aims.

The call for grid modernization is coming from all levels of leadership. The President’s 2004 State of the Union request to Congress to ‘‘modernize our electricity system’’ reiterated the Administration’s objectives first outlined in the National Energy

Policy [May 2001] and then reinforced, in more detail, in the National Transmission

Grid Study (NTGS) [May 2002].

Modernizing the grid will involve time, resources, and unprecedented levels of cooperation. The Nation’s aging electric infrastructure—and the increasing requirements placed on it—have contributed to market inefficiencies and electricity congestion in several regions. These conditions could lead to more outages, more power

quality disturbances, higher prices, and the less efficient use of resources. We must

act now or risk even greater problems in the future.

The GridWise and GridWorks Initiatives

OETD’s FY 2005 Budget request—reflecting the Administration’s efforts to modernize and expand the electric grid—includes $10.5 million for the new GridWorks

Initiative and the existing GridWise Initiative, which are aimed at reducing the

likelihood and impact of reliability events, such as blackouts.

GridWise denotes a modernized electric infrastructure framework where open, but

secure, communication and information technologies, and associated standards, are

used throughout the electric grid to enhance reliability and robustness, promote economic efficiencies, and provide value and choices to electricity consumers. The

GridWise program activity (software-centric) comprises the intelligence—or brains—

behind a modern electric grid that incorporates GridWorks (hardware-centric) technology.

GridWorks is focused on advanced equipment applications, taking an integrated

approach to the entire electric system. It bridges the gap between the laboratory

91

prototypes of the base programs and the application needs of the electric industry.

GridWorks uses the facilities at DOE’s National Laboratories to accelerate the development and testing of advanced conductors, which can increase much-needed

transmission line capacity. It complements GridWise’s architectural software development by developing and demonstrating associated hardware, such as sensors.

GridWorks pursues advanced power electronic breakthroughs to provide faster

means of limiting transmission problems before they propagate through the electric

system.

High Temperature Superconductivity

OETD’s FY 2005 Budget request includes a $10.9 million increase for High Temperature Superconductivity R&D to develop second generation wire usable in cables,

generators, transformers, and motors—equipment that crosscuts the entire electric

power value chain.

High temperature superconductors are a good example of advanced materials that

have the potential to revolutionize electric power delivery in America. The prospect

of transmitting large amounts of power through compact underground corridors,

with minimal electrical losses and voltage drop over long distances, could significantly enhance the overall energy efficiency and reliability of the electric system,

while reducing fuel use, air emissions, and any physical footprint. Also, breakthroughs in basic science are rapidly applied in the area of high temperature superconductivity. For instance, benefits from nanoscience research are accelerating

progress in superconductivity wire development.

The Office of Fossil Energy

Fossil Energy’s programs focus on supporting the President’s top initiatives for

energy security, clean air, climate change, and coal research. FY 2005 Fossil Energy

programs:

• Support the development of lower cost, more effective pollution control technologies embodied in the President’s Coal Research Initiative or help diversify

the Nation’s future sources of clean-burning natural gas to meet the goals of

President’s Clear Skies initiative;

• Expand the Nation’s technological options for reducing greenhouse gases either by increasing power plant efficiencies or by capturing and isolating these

gases from the atmosphere as called for by the President’s Global Climate Initiative;

• Or measurably add to the Nation’s energy security by providing a short-term

emergency response, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or a longerterm alternative to imported oil, such as hydrogen and methane hydrates.

The President’s Coal Research Initiative

Fossil Energy’s FY 2005 Budget continues to meet the President’s clean coal com- mitment by providing $447 million for the Coal Research Initiative, an increase of

40 percent or $126.5 million over last year’s request.

Under President Bush’s leadership, budget requests for coal R&D have more than

doubled over historical amounts and appropriations.

Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen

The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a key component of the National Energy Policy to address the reliability and affordability of the Nation’s electricity supply, particularly from its coal-based generation. The FY 2005 Budget includes $287

million for CCPI, of which $237 million is for FutureGen, the world’s first zero-emissions hydrogen and electicity producing power plant. FutureGen will establish the

capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with essentially zero emissions, including carbon sequestration and gasification combined

cycle, both integral components of the zero emissions plant of the future.

The CCPI is a cooperative, cost-shared program between the government and industry to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power generation

and to accelerate their commercialization. The Nation’s power generators, equipment manufacturers, and coal producers help identify the most critical barriers to

coal’s use in the power sector. Technologies are selected with the goal of accelerating

development and deployment of coal technologies that will economically meet environmental standards, while increasing the efficiency and reliability of coal power

plants.

CCPI is especially significant because it directly supports the President’s Clear

Skies initiative. The first projects included an array of new cleaner and cheaper concepts for reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury—the three air pollutants targeted by the Clear Skies initiative.

92

Since last year, the Department has made significant progress on a new generation of environmentally-clean coal technologies.

The ‘‘first round’’ in the Clean Coal Power Initiative—the centerpiece of the President’s clean coal commitment—attracted three dozen proposals for projects totaling

more than $5 billion. In early 2003, we announced the first winners of the competition—eight projects with a total value of more than $1.3 billion, more than one billion dollars of which would be provided by the private sector. These projects are expected to help pioneer a new generation of innovative power plant technologies that

could help meet the President’s Clear Skies and climate change objectives.

Competitive solicitations for the ‘‘second round’’ will be made in early 2004 and

are open to technologies capable of producing any combination of heat, fuels, chemicals, or other useful by-products in conjunction with electricity generation.

FutureGen. In order to assure that FutureGen is successful, it will be supported

in FY05 by a clean coal R&D effort at a proposed level of $46.5 million. It will be

focused on all the key technologies needed—such as carbon sequestration, membrane technologies for oxygen and hydrogen separation, advanced turbines, fuel

cells, coal to hydrogen conversion, gasifier related technologies, and other technologies.

Carbon Management

Several Clean Coal projects also help expand the menu of options for meeting the

President’s climate change goal of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity (carbon equivalent per GDP) by 2012, primarily by boosting the efficiencies of

power plants (meaning that less fuel is needed to generate electricity with a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gases).

Carbon management has become an increasingly important element of our coal

research program. Carbon sequestration—the capture and permanent storage of carbon dioxide—has emerged as one of our highest priorities in the Fossil Energy research program—a priority reflected in the proposed budget of $49 million in FY

2005.

Continuing in FY 2005, one of the cornerstones of our carbon sequestration program will be a national network of regional partnerships. This Secretarial initiative,

which I announced last year, will bring together the Federal Government, state

agencies, universities, and private industry to begin determining which options for

capturing and storing greenhouse gases are most practicable for specific areas of the

country.

Funding from the Fossil Energy program will be combined with funding from the

Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

to competitively fund technology R&D with the greatest potential to reduce, avoid,

or sequester gas emissions.

Hydrogen

Another aspect of the President’s Clean Coal Research Initiative is the production

of clean fuels from coal. Hydrogen has emerged as a major priority within the Administration and the Department of Energy as a clean fuel for tomorrow’s advanced

power technologies (such as fuel cells) and for future transportation systems. Within

the Fossil Energy program, we have allocated $16 million for research into new

methods for making hydrogen from coal.

Advanced Research

To provide fundamental scientific knowledge that benefits all of our coal technology efforts, our FY 2005 Budget includes $30.5 million for advanced research in

such areas as materials, coal utilization science, analytical efforts, and support for

coal research at universities (including historically black and other minority institutions).

Other Power Systems Research and Development

We are also proposing $23 million for continued development of fuel cells with an

emphasis on lower-cost technologies that can contribute to both Clear Skies emission reductions, particularly in distributed generation applications, and Climate

Change goals by providing an ultra-high efficiency electricity-generating component

for tomorrow’s power plants. Distributed power systems, such as fuel cells, also can

contribute to the overall reliability of electricity supplies in the United States and

help strengthen the security of our energy infrastructure.

Natural Gas Research

The President’s Clear Skies Initiative also provides the rationale for much of the

department’s $26.0 million budget request for natural gas research. Even in the abVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
93

sence of new environmental requirements, natural gas use in the United States is

likely to increase by 50 percent by 2020.

Our natural gas research program, therefore, is directed primarily at providing

new tools and technologies that producers can use to diversify future supplies of gas.

Emphasis will be increased on research that can improve access to onshore public

lands, especially in the Rocky Mountain region where much of our undiscovered gas

resource is located.

A particularly important aspect of this research will be to develop innovative ways

to recover this resource while continuing to protect the environmental quality of

these areas.

We also plan to establish a new industry-led, university consortia-based program

to develop breakthrough technologies that can help assure a continued supply of affordable natural gas beyond 2015. The focus of this program will be on projects that

could revolutionize the way natural gas is supplied in the United States—a focus

that is well beyond the type of research industry is now doing.

Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance in the United States

as more and more power plants require consistent, year-round supplies of natural

gas. Toward this end, we will initiate a nationwide, industry-led consortium that

will examine ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of our nation’s gas storage system and explore opportunities for LNG facility siting.

Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from hydrates could have major

energy security implications. Hydrates are natural gas-bearing, ice-like formations

in Alaska and offshore.

U.S. Geological Survey estimates indicate U.S. gas hydrates resources are larger

by several orders of magnitude than previously thought and dwarf the estimated

1,400 trillion cubic feet of conventional recovered gas resources and reserves in the

United States.

This huge resource warrants a new look at advanced technologies that might one

day reliably and cost-effectively detect and produce natural gas from methane hydrates. Hydrate production, if it can be proved technically and economically feasible,

has the potential to shift the world energy balance away from the Middle East. Understanding hydrates can also improve our knowledge of the science of greenhouse

gases and possibly offer future mechanisms for sequestering carbon dioxide. For

these reasons, we are continuing a research program to study gas hydrates with a

proposed funding level of $6.0 million.

Oil Technology Development

The President’s NEP calls attention to the continued need to strengthen our nation’s energy security by promoting enhanced oil (and gas) recovery and improving

oil (and gas) exploration technology through continued partnerships with public and

private entities.

At the same time, however, we recognize that if the federal oil technology R&D

program is to produce beneficial results, it must be more tightly focused than in

prior years. Consequently, our FY 2005 Budget request of $15.0 million reflects a

reorientation of the program toward those areas where there is clearly a national

benefit.

One example is the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection to enhance the recovery

of oil from existing fields. CO2 injection is a proven enhanced oil recovery practice

that prolongs the life of some mature fields, but the private sector has not applied

this technique to its fullest potential due to insufficient supplies of economical CO2.

A key federal role to be carried out in our proposed FY 2005 program will be to

facilitate the greater use of this oil recovery process by integrating it with CO2 captured and delivered from fossil fuel power plants.

We will also refocus much of our Oil Technology program on a new Domestic Resource Conservation effort that will target partnerships with industry and universities to sustain access to marginal wells and reservoirs. These aging fields account

for 40 percent of our domestic production and contain billions of barrels of oil that

might still be recovered with ever-improving technology.

A high priority effort in FY 2005 will be to develop ‘‘micro-hole’’ technology. Rather than developing just another new drilling tool, the federal program will integrate

‘‘smart’’ drilling systems, advanced imaging, and enhanced recovery technologies

into a complete exploration and production system. Micro-hole systems may offer

one of our best opportunities for keeping marginal fields active because the smallerdiameter wells can significantly reduce exploration costs and make new drilling between existing wells (‘‘infill’’ drilling) more affordable.

Using breakthrough technology like this to keep marginal fields in production preserves the opportunity to eventually apply even more advanced innovations that

94

could recover even larger quantities of domestic crude that traditional oil recovery

methods currently leave behind.

Other Fossil Energy Activities

Our budget also includes $124.8 million for other activities in our Fossil Energy program, including $106.0 million for headquarters and field office salaries, $6.0

million for environmental restoration, $3.0 million for federal matching funds for cooperative research and development projects at the University of North Dakota and

the Western Research Institute, $1.8 million for natural gas import/export responsibilities, and $8 million for advanced metallurgical research at our Albany Research Center.

Petroleum Reserves. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve are key elements of our nation’s energy security. Both serve as response tools for the President to use to protect U.S. citizens from disruptions in commercial energy supplies.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President has directed us to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its full 700 million barrel capacity. The mechanism for doing this

is a cooperative effort with the Minerals Management Service to exchange royalty

oil from federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico. We have been able to accelerate fill

from an average of 60,000 barrels per day at the start of the President’s initiative

to a rate of 130,000 barrels per day.

Because of the President’s ‘‘royalty in kind’’ initiative, we have achieved the Reserve’s highest inventory level ever, now at 638 million barrels. Our goal remains

to have a full inventory of 700 million barrels by the end of calendar 2005. Our FY 2005 Budget for the SPR is $177.1 million, all of which is now in our

facilities development and operations account. We do not require additional funds

in the oil acquisition account because charges for transporting ‘‘royalty in kind’’ oil

to the SPR are now the responsibility of the oil supplier. Also, because we have the

authority to ‘‘borrow’’ funds from other Departmental accounts to support an emergency SPR drawdown, we no longer require the same amount of standby funding

in this account.

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. We are requesting $5.0 million for the

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, the same level as last year. The 2-million barrel reserve remains ready to respond to a Presidential order should there be a severe fuel oil supply disruption in the Northeast. A key element of this readiness is

a new online computerized ‘‘auction’’ system that we implemented to expedite the

bidding process. Installing and testing the electronic system (including tests with

prospective commercial bidders) has been a major element of the Office of Fossil Energy’s role in implementing the ‘‘e-government’’ initiatives in the President’s management agenda.

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves. The FY 2005 Budget request of $20.0

million funds continued operations. The Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center

(RMOTC), established at the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 in Wyoming, will be

funded at $3 million. We also are working on proposals to transfer the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California to the Department of the Interior by the end of

FY 2005, although we anticipate that transition and certain environmental compliance activities will continue into FY 2005. We also expect to be able to reduce our

funding requirements for equity redetermination studies for the Government’s portion of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, which was divested in 1998.

Of the four producing zones for which final equity shares had to be finalized, three

have been completed; the fourth (the Shallow Oil Zone) is expected to be finished

in FY 2005.

The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

Overview

The FY 2005 budget proposal continues the Department’s commitment to refining

the benefits of nuclear power as a clean, reliable and affordable source of energy

for this nation. The proposed $410 million investment in the Department’s nuclear

energy program includes funding to establish a new laboratory for nuclear energy

research, development, demonstration and education; preconceptual design work for

the Next Generation Nuclear Plant; continued work with utilities to pave the way

for an industry order for a new nuclear power plant in the near future; and continued work with other countries to develop new reactor and fuel cycle technologies.

This budget request moves forward the Department’s commitment to support the

President’s priorities to fortify U.S. energy independence and security while making

significant improvements in environmental quality through the deployment of nonemitting generation capacity by the end of the decade. It also strengthens our nation’s nuclear education infrastructure, and recommends increased support for the

95

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, which will take high temperature nuclear energy systems for clean hydrogen production from concept to reality. Finally, this request

supports funds for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which is aimed at developing

proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technologies to reduce the volume and toxicity of

commercial spent nuclear fuel and maximize energy from nuclear fuel.

Please allow me to explain in more detail how this budget proposal continues to

advance the Department’s nuclear energy initiatives.

Development of the Idaho National Laboratory

DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research Center. This budget supports the Secretary’s realignment of the mission at the current Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to a focus on nuclear energy research and development. The Department is in the process of establishing the Idaho National Laboratory, which will

combine the resources of the INEEL and the Argonne-West site. As the Department’s leading center of nuclear research and development, a core mission of this

laboratory is advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies, including the development of space nuclear power and propulsion technologies. The new Idaho National Laboratory will play a vital role in the research and development of enabling

technologies for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, which will support the Department’s long-term vision of a zero-emissions future free of reliance on imported energy.

The Department issued a Request for Proposals last week to find a management

team to reduce costs and build expertise at the INL. The Department’s nuclear energy program involves the collective talents of universities, the private sector, international partners and many of our other national laboratories—Argonne, Los Alamos, Sandia and Oak Ridge among them. The rebuilding of the Department’s nuclear power research and development program, however, will be centered at INL.

While environmental cleanup remains an important focus at the Idaho site, real

progress is being made that will aid in the expansion of nuclear research and development. Within the 2005 budget, an additional $44 million is requested to manage

laboratory infrastructure and security.

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

The Generation IV program continues to support the Department’s work to develop advanced reactor technologies for commercial deployment in the 2015 to 2030

timeframe. These advanced reactor concepts offer significant improvements in sustainability, proliferation resistance, physical protection, safety and economics. Generation IV nuclear energy systems will not only be safe, economic and secure, but

also include energy conversion systems that produce valuable commodities such as

hydrogen, desalinated water and process heat. These features make Generation IV

reactors ideal for meeting the President’s energy and environmental objectives.

The development of these reactors is being led by the Generation IV International

Forum, a group of 10 leading nuclear nations (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France,

Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United

Kingdom and the United States), plus Euratom. The forum has selected six promising technologies for next-generation nuclear energy systems. While the Department is supporting research on several reactor concepts, this budget proposal places

priority on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), a Very-High Temperature

Reactor. This emphasis reflects the NGNP’s potential for economically and safely

producing electricity and hydrogen without emitting greenhouse gases. FY 2005

NGNP activities will be focused on research and development of fuels and structural

materials for high-temperature, high-radiation environments, and continuing the

concept design activities initiated in FY 2004. Research and development for the

other Generation IV systems will focus on establishing technical and economic viability, and the resulting core and fuel designs and materials requirements.

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiatives

Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology, particularly for

the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in transportation will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, enhancing national security. Significant

progress in hydrogen combustion engines and fuel cells is making transportation by

hydrogen a reality. The goal of the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative is to demonstrate

the economic, commercial-scale production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. If successful, this research could lead to a large-scale, emission-free domestic hydrogen

production capability to fuel a future hydrogen economy.

The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative will focus primarily on hydrogen production technologies that utilize high-temperature nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen, which

then could supplant fossil fuels in our transportation system. With funding of $9

million in FY 2005, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative will move toward demVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
96

onstrating nuclear-based hydrogen producing technologies in the laboratory, study

potential hydrogen production schemes, and develop deployment alternatives to

meet growing hydrogen demand.

As previously noted, the Generation IV program priority is on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, which utilizes a Very-High-Temperature Reactor for advanced

hydrogen production and electricity generation. Investigating and demonstrating the

Generation IV nuclear energy systems will require advances in materials and systems technology, including development of high temperature and corrosion-resistant

materials, and advanced chemical systems analysis. NE is working in close cooperation with the Department’s Office of Science, through the Future Energy Advanced

Materials Initiative, to evaluate common areas of research to develop advanced materials for use in nuclear hydrogen systems, as well as Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

Of all the challenges affecting the expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S. and

worldwide, none is more important or more difficult than dealing effectively with

spent nuclear fuel. After a long and difficult process, the country is moving forward

with licensing a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. This is an absolute necessity, even as the Department develops advanced forms of spent nuclear fuel treatment. The Department plans to submit a license application for the repository to

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2004.

Research on improving ways to treat and utilize materials from spent nuclear fuel

will allow the Department to optimize the first repository, and delay—and perhaps

even eliminate—the need for future repositories. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, with an investment of $46 million for FY 2005, will continue the progress made

in the development of proliferation-resistant treatment and transmutation technologies that can reduce both the volume and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel. These

technologies would support both national security and energy independence by reducing inventories of commercially-generated plutonium while recovering residual

energy value from spent nuclear fuel.

The Department is proposing a research program leading to a demonstration of

proliferation-resistant fuel treatment technology to reduce the volume of high-level

waste, and development of advanced fuels that could allow the consumption of plutonium using existing light water reactors, or advanced gas reactors. Under the

President’s request, the Department will continue work toward demonstration of

proliferation-resistant fuel treatment technology and continue design and testing of

transmutation fuels for future use with current reactor technologies.

For the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to be successful, advanced fuel treatment

and transmutation research and development must be integrated with the development of Generation IV nuclear energy systems, particularly with those reactor technologies that can produce very high neutron levels that would be needed to transmute a wide variety of toxic radioactive species. To support this goal, the Advanced

Fuel Cycle Initiative will develop the advanced proliferation resistant fuels and fuel

cycle systems for Generation IV reactors.

Nuclear Power 2010

The President’s budget supports continuation of Nuclear Power 2010 in FY 2005

to demonstrate, in cost-shared cooperation with industry, key regulatory processes

associated with licensing new nuclear plants in the U.S. The requested funds of $10

million would support the activities associated with achieving NRC approval of early

site permits and development of Combined Construction and Operating License applications.

University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Initiative

For years, the Energy Department has sponsored an initiative that supports nuclear science and technology educational infrastructure through our University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Initiative. This program is essential to the continued operation of the Nation’s university research and training reactors, which

play a vital role in supporting nuclear education and training.

The growth of nuclear energy in the United States is dependent on the preservation of the education and training infrastructure at universities. Research conducted

using these reactors is critical to many national priorities. Currently there are 27

operating university research reactors at 26 campuses in 20 states. These reactors

are providing support for research in such diverse areas as medical isotopes, human

health, life sciences, environmental protection, advanced materials, lasers, energy

conversion and food irradiation.

Beyond technology and equipment, the DOE’s university program supports the

personnel required for a strong nuclear energy future. The demand for trained and

97

qualified nuclear scientists currently exceeds supply. The President’s budget includes $21 million for fellowships, scholarships, nuclear engineering research, and

for critical support to university research reactors—all of which will help address

this shortage of well-trained nuclear scientists.

Closing

Mr. Chairman, I believe the Department’s FY 2005 budget submission meets the

Nation’s critical needs for energy, environmental and national security at a difficult

time in our history. The Department of Energy, which Secretary Abraham has said

might well be called the Department of Energy and Science, hopes to join the Members of the Committee in working to strengthen American science and technology.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RAYMOND L. ORBACH

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach was sworn in as the 14th Director of the Office of Science

at the Department of Energy (DOE) on March 14, 2002. As Director of the Office

of Science (SC), Dr. Orbach manages an organization that is the third largest federal sponsor of basic research in the United States and is viewed as one of the premier science organizations in the world. The SC fiscal year 2002 budget of $3.3 billion funds programs in high energy and nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, magnetic fusion energy, biological and environmental research, and computational

science. SC, formerly the Office of Energy Research, also provides management

oversight of the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations Offices, the Berkeley and Stanford Site Offices, and the ten DOE non-weapons laboratories.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Orbach served as Chancellor of the University of

California (UC), Riverside from April 1992 through March 2002; he now holds the

title Chancellor Emeritus. During his tenure as Chancellor, UC–Riverside grew

from the smallest to one of the most rapidly growing campuses in the UC system.

Enrollment increased from 8,805 to more than 14,400 students with corresponding

growth in faculty and new teaching, research, and office facilities.

In addition to his administrative duties at UC–Riverside, Dr. Orbach maintained

a strong commitment to teaching. He sustained an active research program; worked

with postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate students in his laboratory; and

taught the freshman physics course each winter quarter. As Distinguished Professor

of Physics, Dr. Orbach set the highest standards for academic excellence. From his

arrival, UC–Riverside scholars led the Nation for seven consecutive years in the

number of fellows elected to the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Dr. Orbach began his academic career as a postdoctoral fellow at Oxford University in 1960 and became an assistant professor of applied physics at Harvard University in 1961. He joined the faculty of the University of California, Los Angeles

(UCLA) two years later as an associate professor, and became a full professor in

1966. From 1982 to 1992, he served as the Provost of the College of Letters and

Science at UCLA.

Dr. Orbach’s research in theoretical and experimental physics has resulted in the

publication of more than 240 scientific articles. He has received numerous honors

as a scholar including two Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowships, a National

Science Foundation Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship, a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship, the Joliot Curie Professorship at the Ecole

Superieure de Physique et Chimie Industrielle de la Ville de Paris, the Lorentz Professorship at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, and the 1991–1992 Andrew Lawson Memorial Lecturer at UC–Riverside. He is a fellow of the American

Physical Society and the AAAS.

Dr. Orbach has also held numerous visiting professorships at universities around

the world. These include the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, Tel Aviv

University, and the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London. He also

serves as a member of 20 scientific, professional, or civic boards.

Dr. Orbach received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the California

Institute of Technology in 1956. He received his Ph.D. degree in Physics from the

University of California, Berkeley, in 1960 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

Dr. Orbach was born in Los Angeles, California. He is married to Eva S. Orbach.

They have three children and seven grandchildren.

98

DISCUSSION

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And thank all of

you, proving, once again, what valuable resources we have for this

committee.

Let me lead from the heart, if I may, and this is a question for

Dr. Colwell and Dr. Marburger. I am baffled as well as disturbed

by the proposal to move the Math and Science Partnerships to the

Department of Education. At the NSF the program is peer-reviewed, a competitive effort at an agency known for peer-review.

The Administration is proposing legislation, which I think is unlikely to pass, to force the Department of Education to peer-review

the program. Why does it make sense to move the program to an

agency which has procedures the Administration itself opposes?

And while you are thinking about the best way to finesse an answer, let me enter into the record at this juncture a letter jointly

signed by the Presidents of the American Council on Education, the

Association of American Universities, and the National Association

of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, which says in part,

‘‘Transferring the MSP program entirely to the Department of Education will fundamentally change the manner in which funds are

distributed. An MSP program at the Department of Education is

primarily a block grant program where funds are distributed to

states on a formula basis. This would be a significant disincentive

for the best researchers at our universities to continue to participate in this important program.’’ And we want the best researchers

at our universities to have incentives, not disincentives. I mean,

that is part of the heart and soul and promise of the program. [See

Appendix 2 for the information referred to.]

So Dr. Marburger, I will let you lead off.

Dr. MARBURGER. Well, I will make a general statement and let

my colleague, Dr. Colwell, make more specific statements.

The Department of Education itself is assuming a greater responsibility for research and implementation of programs that integrate the educational resources of the Nation. And that is reflected

in the budget proposals and in the changes that are requested for

permitting the Department of Education to make competitive

grants larger than a certain amount. The role of research within

the Department of Education has been strengthened. Mr. Chairman, yet another New Yorker is heading up that effort, and I believe that the Department of Education is capable of mounting an

excellent program——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Nice finesse, but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix

it.

Dr. Colwell.

Dr. COLWELL. Well, the Math and Science Partnership is clearly

a Presidential priority. The Administration decided to change the

focus of the program, moving in a direction away from academic institutions working in partnership with local school districts and

away from education and research testbeds.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is that the right direction?

Dr. COLWELL. I have always——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well——

99

Dr. COLWELL [continuing]. Been moving toward a model that consolidates the school—control in the school districts.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Nice attempt. Thank you very much.

Let me go to the next question. But I hope you understand where

we are coming from, at least where the Chair is, and I think a vast

majority of this committee: we are simply not doing well enough in

math and science education K through 12, and if we don’t do better, shame on us. Our preeminent position in the global marketplace is going to be lost. And I had a meeting last night with some

of the Presidents of some of our leading companies: Hewlett Packard, Dell, etc., etc. This is a major concern that they have. It is a

crisis when our kids, in the math and science disciplines, are compared with their counterparts around the world and score 16 or 17

on the list. That is not good enough. And so this is one where we

are going to do battle, if you all try to just be good soldiers.

Let me go to the next question for Dr. Colwell and Dr. Orbach.

And I am not—Chuck and Phil, I am not ignoring you, but you did

quite well on the budget. I would like each of you to tell me, with

some specificity, what you would spend money on if you had received a five percent or a ten percent increase in the Administration’s budget rather than the figure you have got. Dr. Colwell.

Dr. COLWELL. Well, very clearly, grant size and duration is very,

very important. And we have focused on management excellence,

making more efficient and more effective the workings of our scientists and engineers and providing them with the tools that they

need to do good science. So very clearly, increasing grant size and

duration is a very, very important objective.

Dr. ORBACH. We believe that we have made the correct priority

decisions within the Office of Science. We would like to suggest

that areas that would help the research community explicitly,

namely university support, to use the facilities that we currently

have would be an excellent choice.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

This committee was very proud when the President, with a good

deal of fanfare, signed legislation that came from this committee to

put the National Science Foundation on the path to double its

budget in five years. We are still wedded to that concept, and we

think it makes a great deal of sense for the American economy.

And Dr. Orbach, we have a great deal of interest in what you are

doing. It is very important work, and you need resources to do it.

And once again, I am not advocating that we just spend willy-nilly

and add to the deficit. Every Committee Chairman says, ‘‘Don’t

touch my turf; just increase it and worry about everything else.’’ In

the overall budget numbers, I can find wiggle room, and the wiggle

room would be in your favor.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And first, let me concur with everything that you said, particularly in the science and education——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Let the record denote that.

Mr. GORDON. I think we will do that frequently, but particularly

in the area of science and education. I hope this is something that

we can get behind us quickly.

100

And Dr. Marburger, I recognize you are the messenger, and that

you are doing the best that you can with what you have to bring

us, so don’t—you know, I am not here to criticize you in any way.

And I agree with you that we did make good strides—or I am

pleased with the increases in the nanotechnology. I think that is

going to be a high priority, and it should be.

But I simply can’t agree with you on your statement that we are

maintaining our world leadership. As I look at this budget—in the

Administration’s own budget, on page 61, as I look through here,

I see NASA, the Earth Science’s S&T is down eight percent. Aeronautics Technology, a cut of 11 percent. Energy research is cut by

two percent. The energy conservation is cut by a full ten percent.

Even Defense, in the S&T area, is cut by 11 percent. Basic research, four percent. Applied research, 13 percent. Agriculture is

cut in S&T by nine percent. Interior, two percent. Veteran’s affairs

research, six percent. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 percent. Transportation, four percent.

And Mr. Bond, I was really excited about your statistics, and I

couldn’t—I was trying to, you know, get these equated with the

book. Fortunately, my Legislative Assistant here is smarter than I

am, and she explained to me the problem and that is you are basing your increases on what the President had requested the previous year. But Congress had increased all of those. And so yes,

you are getting an increase on—the President is increasing his request, but not in terms of what you are actually getting. I mean,

as I see it, the Commerce Department, just in R&D itself, is taking

a—you know, that is a five percent cut. And then if you look over

at your S&T budget on page 61, the whole S&T Commerce is getting a 14 percent cut. NOAA is getting cut 11 percent. The Advanced Technology Program is getting cut by, as you know, 100

percent. So it is—as they talk about statistics, but you did a good

job. Fortunately, we have someone here that is, as I say, smarter

than I am to understand this.

And I know you have no vendetta against the manufacturing

community. You want to see us prosper and do well. And I am sure

that with the assets you are giving, you are going to do, you know,

the best job that you can. And I think it will be a good job.

We talked the other day about the Manufacturing Extension Programs. And as a quick review, as you know, the Administration requested it be done away with completely two years ago as well as

the ATP, although they did leave $12 million in for—from, I think,

$106 million to $12 million to close it out. Congress, in a bipartisan

way, put $36 million back in. This year, you are asking for that to

be, you know, at least maintained at that area. And as you know,

this is a program where our dollars, our federal dollars, then get

matching dollars from state and then another match from the revenue. So it is a one—you know, it is $1 generating $3.

And so I am just trying to get a hold of these priorities here. In

2002, they did a survey of B of the MEP clients. And they found

that the program had resulted in increased and retained sales of

$2.8 billion, achieved cost savings of $681 million, led to the investment of $940 million, and created 35 million jobs. Now with that

track record—and that was conservative, that was just B. Now they

may have taken the best B, I don’t know, you know, but there was

101

still more to go. With that kind of track record and with the match

you are getting, where should we better be putting money? I mean,

what programs do you have that are better than this?

Mr. BOND. Well, I would say that, in this case, the Administration has arrived at the conclusion that they want to support the

MEP program going forward. And as you noted, that compares favorably with prior years. What we want to do is try to make sure

that we are leveraging it and being as smart as we possibly can

with, admittedly, a very tough legislative environment. There is—

I am not going to say anything but good things about the MEP program and its effectiveness. This is a reflection of very difficult

budgetary times.

Mr. GORDON. Well, states are telling me that they are going to

have to start closing things down. I mean, are you hearing the

same situation?

Mr. BOND. The centers and their various partners at universities

and states and so forth are certainly aware, first and foremost, I

think, of the 2004 action and trying to figure out what that means

for the remainder of this fiscal year. And we are talking to them.

We do want to try to keep the network alive. We want to make it

useful to manufacturers. We are going to look at ways to leverage

other resources, both within the Commerce Department, but across

the federal enterprise, because as the Secretary’s report made

clear, the challenge to manufacturers is multifaceted. As I know

that you said in our meeting the other day, it is not as if fully funding MEP solves the manufacturing issue in America. There are intellectual property issues that Chairman Smith deals with over in

the Judiciary Committee. There is tax policy, and many others.

So we are going to try to look at all of these. In the case of MEP,

we are going to try to take advantage of technology to minimize

back office expenses. Maybe coordinate on a regional basis, get on

a common platform for sharing information and data, which doesn’t

exist currently, and then we are going to try to maximize the feet

on the street by making sure we work smartly with our partners

at ITA, but also looking at other bureaus of Commerce, looking at

the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense,

the Department of Labor and their 21st century jobs act effort

wants to go to community colleges. 138 community colleges are

part of MEP.

Mr. GORDON. I have been told that my time is over; that means

your time is over.

Chairman BOEHLERT. But our time up here isn’t, and this is a

program we have an affection for.

Thank you very much.

In keeping with Committee tradition, first come, first served.

Next up, Ms. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I might, for the

record, associate myself with your remarks about the math and

science. I truly believe that if this goes over to the Department of

Education that all of the good work that has been done will be lost.

And I would hope that there would be more talk about what really

has happened and what has been done at NSF, too, and the good

that has been done from this program. I go out and talk to young

women, and I know that they hold you up. And I use you as an

102

example as a role model for young women to go into the profession.

And so I thank you, Dr. Colwell, for all you have done. And I hope

that that program remains.

And ordinarily at this time, I would talk about my strong support for scientific research at the DOE and my disappointment in

the fiscal year 2005 budget for the DOE Office of Science, the Nation’s primary supporter of research in the physical sciences, which

has been essentially flat-funded for the past decade. But today, I

want to take the opportunity to ask some questions of Dr.

McQueary about science and technology at the Department of

Homeland Security. One of the responsibilities that I take very seriously, as Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee is my responsibility to oversee and be a steward of all of the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories. And that is why I have to express some

strong skepticism and concern about the Department of Homeland

Security’s December 16 decision on what various roles different National Laboratories will be playing in the Homeland Security research.

I really believe that the labs work best when they are allowed

to work together, so that they can collaborate and do the research

that they do best. The structure established by the Department to

involve the labs in the Homeland Security research basically puts

a wedge, I think, or a firewall between the National Laboratories,

creating two classes of laboratories, undermining their ability to

collaborate and essentially setting these two groups up to work

against each other. And if there is going to be a firewall, wouldn’t

it be better between the—that it be between the labs and the private sector rather than DOE’s various National Laboratories? So

namely, I am concerned about the lack of transparency by which

DHS decided which labs were to be intramural and which were to

be extramural, and the criteria to make such a determination really lacked transparency. And assuming this criteria was actually

used to make, rather than simply after the fact justify the decision,

then I would think that the Department would have no problem in

sharing with me this information. And I would ask if you could

submit that criteria to me in writing as well as something about

the different labs and, you know, how they stacked up against each

other.

Dr. MCQUEARY. Sure, we would be happy to do that. This has

been a remarkable experience for me, personally, because when we

sat in the room deciding how to approach this, what we truly believed we were doing was providing the maximum opportunity for

the labs to be a participant in what we are doing, and yet this

somehow has been turned into a view that somehow we are trying

to exclude labs, which is nothing further from what the factual

truth was. So I would be more than happy to share with you what

the criteria had been. I would be happy to have an independent

group come in and review our approach to doing this, because, I

can assure you, nothing that we ever talked about or any discussion that we ever had went along the lines of the view that has

been developed about what our intentions were. It is a complete polarization of what we were really trying to do.

We are in a situation where it is very important that we have

the support from the labs, and of course, the Homeland Security

103

Act not only provided us the opportunity to do that, we are greatly

appreciative for that, because we could not do the work we have

to do without it. It also had given us the opportunity to work with

the labs that we deemed most appropriate for our mission that we

have. And so our choices were really based upon looking at the mission responsibilities we have in the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear areas. So yes, I will be happy to do what you

would like from us.

Ms. BIGGERT. If that independent group recommended a different

approach to the intramural external—or extramural designations,

would your Department adopt that recommendation?

Dr. MCQUEARY. I would like to look at the criteria that they

would use to come up with a different conclusion, but certainly we

would listen very attentively to it, which is part of the responsibility that we have.

Ms. BIGGERT. One other problem, and I did talk to one of the

senior members of your staff——

Dr. MCQUEARY. Yes.

Ms. BIGGERT [continuing]. About this, that I couldn’t—that I had

trouble understanding is that you talk about a mission-directed applied research for what the Department will be looking at, and specifically not basic research. Isn’t the support for today’s basic research essential to ensure that tomorrow’s technology—to ensure

the technological advances? So if it is not your agency who supports

the basic research, how do you propose to take advantage of the

pipeline from basic research to fulfill your mission?

Dr. MCQUEARY. You are touching on something that is very important, and I think it relates directly to where we are in the formation and execution of the responsibilities of the Department.

Were we much farther into this process, I think we would see a

greater emphasis on basic research, but when I came into this position, very early on, I thought that the responsibly that I was going

to have was to set what the fundamental research direction had to

be. What we have actually found is that there is an enormous

amount of technological capability, not only in the labs, but in private industry and universities, that is available, essentially, now to

be brought to bear to work with the Department.

Ms. BIGGERT. But it seems in your structure that you set up

some of the labs to be in competition with industry, and yet there

has always been the criteria, or at least in most of the—when the

labs are doing research, that they will do it unless the industry can

do it. If the industry is not capable of doing it, then the labs step

in. So there really has been this criteria not to compete with industry. How is that going to change?

Dr. MCQUEARY. Well, I don’t believe we set up a situation where

we——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, respond to that, and that will be—

your time is expired, but this is an important question, so——

Dr. MCQUEARY. We did not intentionally set up something where

the labs were competing with industry, in fact, quite the opposite.

We think it is absolutely essential that we have the participation

not only of the labs, because there are scientific areas in which only

the labs have the expertise and capabilities that this country needs

in order to excel in this mission that we have in Homeland SecuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
104

rity. What we have tried to do with the selection of the labs as we

did was provide the opportunity, actually, for some of the labs to

work and compete with private industry in some of the—and particularly in the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project

Agency. So we did not try to set up any kind of a competition whatsoever, and I don’t believe that we have in the approach that we

have taken. It is a——

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. MCQUEARY. Thank you for the questions, important ones.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also welcome

the panel. And if I might, I am going to direct some questions to

Secretary Bond, but I just want to make a couple of quick comments.

I think we are known as a gentle Committee here or rational

Committee. We take our cue from the scientists who advise us. But

I know that the remarks of the Chairman and the Ranking Member represent many of the sentiments that we share. And R&D is

a cause for all of us, and we, for many important reasons, understand the role that R&D and these investments make in our economic competitiveness, our very quality of life, our standing in the

world. And I think it is clear, also, that you all are messengers,

and that you have been asked to deliver some tough news to all

of us. But you are also messengers going back the other way. And

I feel a little bit like the situation here at the Science Committee

is akin to the fact that you have got librarians that are concerned

about the Patriot Act, and those radical librarians, you have got a

lot of the rational Members of the Science Committee who are very,

very concerned about where we are heading with this budget that

is in front of us. And I think you are going to hear more about it,

but I am asking you to deliver the message back to the people with

whom you work that we have some grave concerns, and we are

going to work hard on this committee to see that these budgets are

boosted up and that we make the kind of investments that are

going to pay off in the long-term.

With that, Secretary Bond, great to see you. Thank you for your

kind words about NIST and the work we are doing together. I

looked somewhat like Congressman Gordon has at some of the

numbers, and when I look at the NIST lab funding and I start to

add up the numbers, we got $85 million added in 2005, but if you

look at the facts, there is probably only $11 million really for new

initiatives out of that $85 million. I want to run my math by you

and get you to comment. We have $26 million you have got to

transfer for AML minus $35 million for the ATP close-out that is

not included here. From what I understand, we zero out ATP, but

we have got $35 million we have to use in the close-out. Plus, we

have transferred a certain percentage in the past of ATP funds to

the lab, $13 million, give or take. So if you add all of those numbers up, out of that $85 million that are in the budget that is a

plus, that leaves, really, only $11 million. So how are we going to

fund these new initiatives that, in my math, total about $58 million

to $60 million?

Mr. BOND. Well, you are putting your finger, in particular, on the

ATP issue, and we are going to have to try to work through the

105

implications of that and look forward to working with the Committee on that. It is a very difficult implication of both the intramural and buyout proposals, in terms of buyouts of existing mortgages within that program. Of course, those have always been on

a funds-available basis. But that is a real challenge. And what our

message is, our focus is, the core work of the labs along with the

really pressing construction and facility needs out of Boulder in

particular and that that needs to be our focal point going forward.

And so the impacts and implications of some of these other numbers, we are going to have to work through, and I am going to have

to, in conjunction with folks out at NIST, work better and smarter

at finding other clients, both in the private sector, for instance

through AML, and in the public sector, who use the metrology and

great science that is going on at NIST in completing their missions

and attract more other agency funding.

Mr. UDALL. So you are acknowledging, then, in fact, some of the

numbers I have shared with you make some sense, and when you

begin to add those up that you have got some inner line item transfers and that that $85 million is not what it appears to be when

you first take a look at it?

Mr. BOND. Well, the $85 million that you are citing is a comparison, I believe, with the 2004 appropriation rather than the 2004 request. But there are implications to some of these things, and I

would be happy to sit down and parse through all of the numbers

with you in excruciating detail, but the challenge is clear in the implications.

Mr. UDALL. Let me move in my remaining time to MEP. I think

you know my support for MEP. We have some great success stories

in my District. And again, Congressman Gordon, I think, asked a

fundamental question. What a great return on investment we have

had with that program, and what is it going to take to make the

further investments in the future? But if we move in the direction

that the budget suggests, we are going to work more with the

states. And have we contacted—have you been in contact with the

states to generate some ideas as to how this new approach would

unfold? I have a whole slew of questions. I don’t have enough time

to ask all of them of you——

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. UDALL [continuing]. But how are we going to portion the

funding? Are the states going to be equal partners or are they just

going to be pass-throughs? How are we going to work this new

MEP approach out? Can you respond?

Mr. BOND. Yeah, very quickly. We do envision a recompetition in

July, as was outlined in the Secretary’s report. And the centers already are talking among themselves about how to coordinate on a

regional basis. There may be Centers of Excellence that emerge out

of that where more than one center would go together to form a

Center of Excellence. So there is going to have to be some creative

thinking going forward. And from our side, we are going to look at

how to combine them with the U.S. Export Assistance Centers deployed all around the country, perhaps even the Agriculture Extension Service offices around the country, to leverage federal expenditures, wherever they are, to try to help manufacturers both

globalize their markets and upgrade their technology.

106

Mr. UDALL. Again, I want to thank you for sharing your point

of view with us, and I look forward to some spirited discussions

and your good work on behalf of NIST. Thank you.

Mr. BOND. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The Chair yields

five minutes to Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

And Dr. Colwell, in my years as Chairman of the Research Subcommittee, I have really appreciated working with you to keep NSF

as one of our gems. And Dr. Bement, Arden, look forward to you

taking the baton and running the next 440 lap to make sure that

we not only continue that gem but maybe improve it.

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to express my serious concern,

as you did, about the Administration’s suggestion of moving the

Math and Science Partnership out of the National Science Foundation over to Education. And I would like to move that a letter from

one of my constituents, Hyman Bass, who is the immediate past

President of the American Mathematical Society. He is now President of the International Commission on Mathematics Instruction.

If I could enter his letter into the record expressing his deep concern about the movement of that facility. [See Appendix 2 for the

information referred to.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SMITH. And I think I would like to just follow that up with

a question to you, Dr. Colwell, in terms of has the National Science

Foundation been doing a good job, and what have you been doing,

just briefly, to try to implement this program? I have the pen that

the President signed the legislation with just 14 months ago with

a lot of accolades on the potential success for having a research

community move into the kind of research that is going to make

more evident what is successful and not successful. What has NSF

done in the past year and what have you done successfully?

Dr. COLWELL. I think the most important aspect of the success

is bridging the higher education community with the K–12 community and with the community itself, the citizenry of the community,

including industry. I think that triumvirate is extremely important

in building the kind of strong background support that you need

for maintaining a really good K–12 education. And we have introduced into the program learning capabilities, hands-on science and

math education in the programs. It has enabled, as well, integration with the other disciplines of the National Science Foundation.

Mr. SMITH. If the program is transferred to another department,

and I hope it will not be, how are the programs that you have initiated going to—are they going to continue——

Dr. COLWELL. Oh, yes. They——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. With the oversight of NSF or will that

oversight be transferred?

Dr. COLWELL. No, they will continue—the ones that have been

initiated will continue with NSF oversight, and our programmatic

thrust will definitely continue.

Mr. SMITH. I want to, I think, preface a lot of people are here

listening to what is going on in this hearing, because there are a

lot of people interested in the science and research that we do. It

is important to our future, but let me say we are in a predicament

107

now. We just spent two hours in our Republican conference expressing concern over the $540 billion deficit that we are amassing

this year. And so I would suggest, respectfully, that that means

there is a responsibility to everybody in this audience, certainly the

Administration, to look for ways that we can improve the efficiency

of our research programs. Research is vital to our economic future.

However, we have now seen that our basic research is sometimes

picked up and implemented or applied by other countries. We have

got to look for ways, and you are the people that can help guide

us, on how do we make it a win-win situation for business and industry to be more involved in research in general, to be more involved in basic research as we look at how we are going to write

the tax credit for the future, as we look at how we can adjust property rights to make sure that our basic research is mostly implemented to the advantage of our economy and the jobs in the United

States, and not simply give into other countries who are now

spending their federal dollars in application.

Let me also get a quick response, maybe, in terms of what we

are going to do in terms of the problems of the giant increase in

major research facilities. I think there is almost a 30 percent research increase in large, big facilities. This means, to me, that

there is an obligation in the future that there is going to be an increased financial effort to keep these large research projects going.

With a 30 percent increase now, and I am going to start with you,

Dr. Marburger, what are we going to do? Does this mean that we

are going to expect budgets in future years after 2005 to continue

the implementation of these large research projects? Is that going

to eat up more of our basic research budget?

Dr. MARBURGER. Congressman, that issue is very important to

us, and it requires planning and wise marshaling of resources at

the present time. All of the agencies, all of the large science agencies that have these types of facilities are doing planning. I would

point to the facilities plan that was recently released by the Department of Energy——

Mr. SMITH. Specifically, does this mean the 2006, the 2007, the

2008 budgets are going to have to have a larger dedication to the

financing, the continuation, the utilization of this large research increase effort?

Dr. MARBURGER. Our expectation is that facilities will be built in

the expected envelope for funding. Reasonable projections have

been made. I know that in the Department of Energy Office of

Science facilities plan they worked closely with the Office of Management and Budget to craft a funding framework that could accommodate the operation as well as the construction of these facilities. And we look for that. We continue to try to make sure that

these facilities can be operated in the long run. OSTP has a National Science and Technology Council Committee that is cochaired, I believe, by NSF and NIH or—I am sorry. I can’t recall.

Dr. COLWELL. The Committee on Science——

Mr. SMITH. I am just saying, Mr. Chairman, it is an obligation

for the future for this subject. It is a problem that needs to be

looked at very carefully.

108

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, and I would point out that Dr.

Orbach’s report assumes some things that I am not sure we are in

a position to assume: increases of about ten percent a year.

Dr. ORBACH. The outlook itself did not assume that; it said that

these were the priorities of the Office of Science and were the budget to increase, this is how the money would be spent.

Dr. COLWELL. May I comment, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Colwell.

The gentleman’s time has expired, but your comments are always welcome.

Dr. COLWELL. Thank you.

I think it is important to look at it from another perspective.

That is very critical. We have very carefully prioritized, but the

projects keep us at the leading edge of science. And they—but these

are tools which are used to educate the next generation, and these

are tools that allow our scientists to remain at the forefront of discovery. So I think the careful selection of the projects that lead us

in physics, in biosciences, environmental sciences, oceanography,

these have to—the investments have to be made, but, as Dr.

Marburger said, we have to make sure that they are very carefully—budgets are very carefully constructed to get done what we

need to get done without excess.

Mr. SMITH. May I speak? So the starting with the obligation for

the future is what I think needs to be examined.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to associate myself with the words of Nick Smith

about Dr. Colwell and the work that you have done. It has been

impressive knowing you and working with you and on that wonderful trip that we had a little over a year ago I learned a great deal

from you, that impressive work, I want to congratulate you for it.

And then I want to associate my words with Congressman Udall

when he commented about all of our concerns about what this

budget looks like. And I—probably rudely, but I will say it anyway,

it made me wonder a little bit why some of you who believe so

strongly on some of these things can sit there and tell us some of

what you say about the budget and what we—and what I know you

and many of the people in this room and across this country who

are watching this would truly like to see. We need the help when

we can get it, and you are the leaders in that area that can put

into our minds what we can do to help this whole process of growing the knowledge that we have in this country.

Let me ask—try to get three questions in, and the first one is on

the off-shoring of jobs, and this is of Dr. Marburger. There was an

article in the Los Angeles Times that came out, I think yesterday,

‘‘Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.’’ There is a growing concern

about jobs moving overseas, and increasingly it is the high-tech

jobs, like radiologists and software developers that seem to be moving. One comment that Gregory Mankiw, the Chairman of the Administration’s Council on Economic Advisors, made the comment

that maybe we will outsource some radiologists. And what does

that mean? Well, maybe the next generation of doctors will train

109

fewer radiologists and we will train more general practitioners and

surgeons. Maybe we don’t have a real comparative advantage in radiology. My brother, who is a radiologist, doesn’t agree with that

and is very concerned about what might be the future of his own

profession in this country. What is the Administration’s philosophy

about off-shoring of high-tech jobs? Is it a problem or is it a valuable byproduct of free trade, as the President’s Chief Economist

suggested recently? And what are the implications of off-shoring

high-tech jobs on the future need for scientists and engineers within this country? Dr. Marburger.

Dr. MARBURGER. The answer to the question of off-shoring is

really to make sure that we have a strong innovation infrastructure in the U.S. so that we continue to create high value added

jobs. Wherever the frontier is in technology, we have to be on that

frontier, because inevitably, as technology increases the global

economies throughout the world, we are going to have more and

more people who are capable of doing more and more sophisticated

work, and those jobs will be shared. The only way we can stay

ahead is to make the basic investments that this committee advocates in the infrastructure that permit us to develop innovative

technologies and get them into the marketplace. That is the philosophy of this Administration: stay ahead, keep moving, and make

those jobs work for all Americans.

Mr. LAMPSON. Well, it remains to be seen, obviously, the jobs

that we are soon to be creating are coming in at about 30 percent

less income-wise than what those that we seem to be losing from

this country.

Let me move on, because I want to get two other points in. Dr.

McQueary, in the Environmental Protection Agency budget documents, we find an $8.2 million reduction that represents complete

elimination of Homeland Security building decontamination research. We have a little bit of an interest in that around here, because of the anthrax and the ricin that have caused building shutdowns recently. Would you explain the logic behind this decision to

eliminate this research? And would you agree that the value of a

network to detect the presence of hazardous agents is diminished

if we haven’t determined the most effective ways to recover from

the attacks detected by that network?

Dr. MCQUEARY. I don’t have the knowledge to comment upon the

EPA reduction that you mentioned. I was not aware of that. I certainly agree with the premise, though, that we must have the

knowledge to be able to make the detection and the determination

as to what needs to be done. But I can’t answer the question. I

would be happy to look into it and provide a response back to you.

Mr. LAMPSON. We would appreciate it——

Dr. MCQUEARY. Okay.

Mr. LAMPSON [continuing]. If you would.

And then one last thing that has a significant importance to me.

I have been on the Aviation Subcommittee on Transportation. We

have the Houston Intercontinental Airport just on the fringe of my

District, and I am in that airport every week coming back and

forth here. A significant and near-term threat is the use of Man–

Portable Air Defense Systems to attack commercial airliners. What

actions has the Directorate taken to address this threat? And what

110

is the current expectation for seeing those defenses employed—deployed, and has the Department given consideration to groundbased defenses against these potential missile attacks?

Dr. MCQUEARY. As you know, we have initiated a program called

Counter-MANPADS, and we have selected three contractors to

begin six-month studies to begin looking at what needs to be done

to transition the military version of aircraft protection into a commercial application. If you have talked to commercial pilots, people

in the commercial airlines industry, it is not just a simple issue of

translating what the military is already doing——

Mr. LAMPSON. Right.

Dr. MCQUEARY [continuing]. And putting it on commercial aircrafts. There are a lot of issues that have to be dealt with. And we

believe the program that we have undertaken to get to an answer

that the Congress and the President can consider at the end of

about a two-year period of time, to make the determination as to

whether putting Counter-MANPADS on the aircraft is an appropriate thing to do or not, is a very aggressive program, but one that

we believe that we can execute on.

Mr. LAMPSON. We are most anxious to hear more of that.

And Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time, and forgive me——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Mr. LAMPSON [continuing]. I must go to another hearing.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into my

main questions, I just want to add my voice to the chorus, condemning the proposal to move the NSF Math and Science Program

to the Department of Education.

Chairman BOEHLERT. All opposed, say no. Aye. The nos have it.

Mr. EHLERS. It obviously is dead on arrival, but I just can’t understand where this came from. I mean, the most polite comment

I can make is that it is strange. A little more accurate would be

that it is absurd. And if I told you what I really thought of it, you

would rule me out of order.

This is a program that we established in law. It is a Math and

Science Program put in an agency that has 30 or 40 years of experience in doing peer-reviewed grants for this type of program. In

fact, I was a recipient of two of those many years ago in my teaching career. And it is being moved to a department, which doesn’t

have that experience. It is stripped out of science, makes it simply

math for high school students and for students who are at higher

risk, and it totally defeats the original purpose. While at the same

time, in the math—in the No Child Left Behind Act, we did provide

for a Math and Science Partnership program there. We authorized

it at $450 million a year, and the Administration has rarely requested anywhere near the amount, and the amount we have in it

is due entirely to my efforts in lobbying the appropriators here. So

it just—it is a no-starter, and we might as well kill it immediately

and let everyone know it is killed.

I will—Dr. Marburger and Mr. Bond, shifting gears, I would like

to discuss a current budget year problem, even though this is a

hearing on next year’s. And we appreciate some of the changes

111

being advocated for NIST for next year, but the current year, they

are on the rocks, literally. And I am not blaming you for that; the

Congress deserves as much, or more, blame for that than you do.

But what are you going to do to get NIST through this fiscal year?

And there are several programs that have to be done. The Voting

Committee, establishing standards for voting machines, is not

going to be finished until after we have spent the $2.5 billion for

voting machines. That makes absolutely no sense. And we need the

money for that right now. In fact, we needed it months ago. You

have other budgetary problems there. What ideas do you have for

getting them through this current fiscal year, and especially if we,

for some reason, can not get agreement on the appropriations and

have a continuing resolution, you are in even worse trouble? I

would appreciate comments from both of you.

Dr. MARBURGER. This is an operational problem. As the Department of Commerce discovers ideas, my office will certainly help to

implement them in whatever way we can. There is no question that

the bill that was passed appropriating funds for NIST creates big

problems. And Congress may need to help.

Mr. BOND. Mr. Ehlers, if I could, let me start by thanking you

for your non-stop support for NIST. But let me say that there are

going to be some real difficulties in probable dislocations. We are

going to have to look at not only early retirement options where

that might work, but possible rifts. That is a reality that we are

looking at. And we are going to try to exhaust every opportunity

that we can to keep the scientists on board, as much as possible.

In terms of the HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, I do want you

to know that we are committed to trying to find a solution that—

I have had our attorneys looking at different options to see what

we might work out with states and the EAC and others involved

to see—it is very much a chicken-egg problem. They don’t want to

move ahead until they have the standards guidelines from NIST,

but we don’t have the funding to do that. So we need to solve that,

and we look forward to working with you to do that.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, all of it has to be solved, and you have an

agency that has won two Nobel Prizes in a——

Mr. BOND. More coming.

Mr. EHLERS [continuing]. Space of two years. Just announced the

discovery of the Fermion condensate, which may or may not be eligible for another Nobel Prize, and you are starving this particular

year. And I hope—I think it is going to take action outside of your

Department as well to resolve that problem, and I hope, Dr.

Marburger, you can help with that.

Let me shift to the R&D budget, which has also been mentioned.

Chairman BOEHLERT. A quick shift, if you will. You have 20 seconds left.

Mr. EHLERS. Oh, well, I can keep going longer than that.

Dr. Marburger, you indicated that the budget response to the

recommendations of PCAST, the President’s Council of Advisors in

Science and Technology, regarding needs in physical science research, and they recommend that science—physical science research be brought into parity with biomedical research and other

life science research. This budget doesn’t do that. And are you—do

you have plans to try to bring that back up? The Congress has exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
112

pressed that we want to double the NSF budget. This budget certainly is not going to do that, but there are other physical science

areas that are in trouble, such as Dr. Orbach’s. Could you comment, please?

Dr. MARBURGER. This budget does give a larger increase for NSF,

for example, than for NIH, which is an unusual——

Mr. EHLERS. In dollar amounts or percentages?

Dr. MARBURGER. Well, the NIH budget is really up there, as you

know, and so any shifting of emphasis in a budget of this size is

going to take more than one year. And I believe that what we

should look for in this budget are signs of intent and priorities.

And the priorities that receive increases in this budget certainly

fall in those areas that we have been getting a lot of recommendations about. And I believe that that is a significant signal. Keep in

mind that in many of these areas, there is a fairly large base and

that it isn’t as if this Administration has been sitting on its hands

for four years, that the record of increases in all of the relevant

science budgets for physical science is good for this Administration.

So I am optimistic that, with time and the assistance of Congress,

we will tune up our budget and make sure that it stays current

with where the opportunities in science are today.

Mr. EHLERS. May I just quickly comment that the record is good,

primarily because the Congress every year has increased the Administration’s request, largely due to the efforts of Mr. Boehlert

and some others.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I will give you more

time if you are going to speak like that.

For the concluding questioning for this round, we will go to Dr.

Gingrey, and then we will have—Mr. Gordon wants to get something on the record, and we hope to have this wrapped up by 1:00,

because we are mindful of your schedules and ours.

Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, these are pretty tough economic times, of course, and

we are looking at a $520 billion deficit that nobody is happy with,

but of course, we have got an ongoing war and Operation Iraqi and

Enduring Freedom. We are trying to continue to build a strong national defense and providing a much needed prescription drug benefit, especially for the neediest seniors, recovering from a recent cyclical recession and, of course, the economic devastation of 9/11. So

there are a lot of things that have contributed to the situation we

find ourselves in this fiscal year, and, as I say, a $520 billion deficit. Now the President is calling for, in this fiscal year 2005, to

hold discretionary spending, excluding Homeland Security and the

Department of Defense, to no greater than c of one percent increase. And of course, there are a lot of programs in there in that

discretionary spending, social programs, education, that a lot of

Members are going to have a hard time and are going to have a

lot of heartburn in holding that spending to a c of one percent increase, or possibly even decreasing it.

And so in looking at the Department of Homeland Security, in

particular, and I will direct this question to you, Dr. McQueary, in

regard to the increased spending that this recommendation has on

113

R&D, and I think that number comes to almost 15 percent in this

particular, and that is on top of almost a 90 percent increase from

2003 to 2004. How can you—how can we justify that level of increased spending, particularly when we have things like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which took a tremendous hit, and

now the recommendations that we stayed level at that previous 70

percent reduction from last year? That is one question I would like

for you to answer.

And the other one is this: in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations

report for the Department of Homeland Security, Congress instructed the Department to consolidate all research and development funding within the Science and Technology Directorate in the

fiscal year 2005 request, and this has not happened. What Department of Homeland Security Research and Development activities

have not been transferred into the Science and Technology Directorate? And are these activities that overlap—are there activities

that overlap and could be consolidated down into a single program?

Where can we save some funding?

Dr. MCQUEARY. You—well, you asked several questions. I hope

I can do justice to all of them. Let me touch upon the last question

first. We have a plan that we have put together and, per the direction of the Congress, to have the consolidation for all of the R&D

work done within the Science and Technology Directorate this fiscal year, and we will have that done. We have looked at budgets.

We have examined where they are. We want to make sure that

what we transfer in is primarily—is the R&D, not any of the operational aspects. And so some of the units have both operational responsibilities as well as R&D responsibilities. So how we take that

apart and transfer it is really important.

The part that we have not transferred in is—really falls in two

areas: one, the Secret Service function, we have very carefully left

that alone for the time being, although we do have a Secret Service

portfolio so that we believe that we will be increasing the amount

of R&D to support them, but it will be managed by S&T. The second area is in the Coast Guard area. As you well know, there is

great interest within the Congress. They have a small laboratory

in Connecticut that has had a budget of about $22 million, and that

organization will remain with the Coast Guard, although we will

assume oversight responsibility for work that is done there. So in

those two areas, Secret Service and Coast Guard oversight, and all

of the others, the R&D work will be transferred in.

In terms of whether we can save any money yet, sir, it is just

too early to be able to know. The primary budget increase we had

was in the biological area, particularly in the—so we can do better

biological surveys within large metropolitan areas. We do have

about a doubling of the number of sensors and capability in that

area.

And you may have had one other point that I have failed to pick

up.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I think the last point was—and I know we

are about running out of time, but I think my last point was just

that the overall amount of increase and your feeling in regard to

the Department of Homeland Security and a ten percent increase

as the President’s budget calls for——

114

Dr. MCQUEARY. Yeah.

Mr. GINGREY [continuing]. When everything else is being, virtually, frozen.

Dr. MCQUEARY. I have not examined my fellow workers here at

the table, their budgets, and therefore, I would not, for a moment,

attempt to try to comment upon those budgets. I think it would be

inappropriate for me to do so, because we are talking in numbers.

I think the issues that we have to address are what kinds of things

that are being accomplished. And that is really the measurement,

not the amount of money that is being spent.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s

time is expired.

Mr. Gordon.

[No response.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman, Ranking

Member, and the panelists. Let me acknowledge and express my

appreciation, Dr. Colwell, for your service and energy behind the

National Science Foundation. And I am sure that though you are

very professional today, there is a sense of glee, no more Congressional Committee hearings. And I won’t ask you to applaud for you,

and I thank you so very much for your service.

Dr. COLWELL. Well, thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. When I came to this committee some years

ago, and those of us who are on the Science Committee believe it

is the most important committee this Congress has, and of course

it engages us in a vigorous debate, but we believe it is very important. I said that—and it preceded the turn of this new century—

I said that science was the work of the 21st century, meaning that

as we do science and technology, clearly we are preparing not only

for bright minds, but we are also preparing this economy.

This morning, also, we participated in the announcing of the new

Members of the Inventors Hall of Fame and to listen to some of the

inventions, maybe of yesteryear, that have become commonplace,

we know how important civilian investment in research is.

So I would like to pose a series of questions that I know my colleagues have offered, and I just believe it is important to bring

home. I am concerned that, as we look at the budget for this year,

that, in actuality, we are not focusing on how science can help create jobs. The bulk of the development work or research is housed

in the Defense Department. I know that as I was leaving the room,

this line of questioning was being posed. My understanding is that

it is $64.6 billion. Though I will acknowledge that, for those of us

concerned about health issues, I will applaud the Department of

Defense in that it has done some collaborative work on health

issues, and I acknowledge that. But what I am concerned about is

that the work on Federal Science and Technology has gone down.

It is $64.4 billion, but if you look at it, it really has not kept pace,

as far as I am concerned.

And the crux of the problem is that most of our research seems

to dwell on weaponry, more money for that and not enough money

for civilian research, not enough money for education. And I would

like all of the panel to address the question of how are we preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
115

paring for a better quality of life by using science, and really, we

look to the Federal Government as being at the cutting edge of research, science and technology, then the private industry tends to

follow, or either they say, ‘‘You go forward first, because we don’t

have the capital or the where with all or the stock owners’ will for

us to go forward.’’ But yet it seems that the dominance of what we

are doing is in weaponry as opposed to civilian research and development. And I have a pause with that and a concern with that.

And might I start from, I guess, your right to left to be able to address that question.

Dr. MARBURGER. Yes, regarding the balance of basic research,

most basic research is, in fact, not performed within the Department of Defense but in the other agencies. The basic research

budgets are dominated by health, biomedical research, and many

other areas that do, in fact, contribute to the quality of life for all

Americans. And I would go on to say that investments in Defense

systems and Homeland Security systems are at the foundation of

protecting the quality of life that we have in America and ensuring

its future robustness and competitiveness in a very complex world.

So I think that we should not simply separate this budget into

useless Defense and useful non-Defense, because the Defense budget is a very important part of the technical infrastructure of this

country, and it does support a very substantial number of innovations and products that find their way into the civilian marketplace. It provides jobs for the people that our higher education community prepares.

So I think it is very important to keep this budget in context.

There have been significant increases during this Administration

in the Federal Science and Technology budget. It is certainly flat

for this year, but within that, there are important priorities that

are being addressed in the National Science Foundation, in NASA,

in the Department of Energy, and the other important agencies. So

I would tend to disagree with the significance of this budget with

respect to American quality of life.

Dr. COLWELL. I am going to say that the activities that I would

like to highlight in the National Science Foundation budget that

address your question include the investment in the human and social dimensions focus that I mentioned in my introductory remarks

and the social behavioral sciences. We are making an increased investment there, because we need to understand how people live in

a world of change, how people make decisions and how they assess

risks.

I would say another area that is very important is partnerships

and innovation, and that is the connection between the research

that is done and the actual transfer into industry, which Congressman Smith alluded to earlier.

And then thirdly, I would like to point out our investment that

we are requesting for international cooperation. And I think that

is very critical, having our students being able to interact with students of other countries in the programs that we are supporting in

international research in the Office of International Science and

Engineering.

And finally, I think the investment in people, the graduate fellowships, the programs that enhance student opportunities, these

116

are the kinds of things that lead to a safer, more stable, more secure future.

Dr. MCQUEARY. In the case of Science and Technology representing the Department of Homeland Security, we are just developing a very close relationship with the Office of Homeland Defense within the Department of Defense, because they have the requirement to transfer to the Department of Homeland Security

those technologies that can be brought from the Defense area. So

I see that relationship as an important part of our being able to

not have to spend money that we otherwise would if we did not

have that close relationship with what they are doing.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Bond.

Mr. BOND. Just very quickly, at NIST, I think that our research

is tied directly to quality of life issues, unlocking the next wireless

technologies and the standards there, the tissue engineering that

will be so valuable in biotechnology, nanomanufacturing, advanced

manufacturing that offers great advantage to American companies,

and we will leave it at that.

Dr. ORBACH. Within the Office of Science and the Department of

Energy, the President’s FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

will give us energy independence and will give us energy security,

something critical for our way of life. And this budget represents

a real increase in our investment in these areas. And you will see

that, I believe, showing up in the robustness of our economy.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, and quickly, Mr. Bond, I am not trying to pick on you,

but you were just—happened to be thrown a tough, hot potato.

Your solution to many of the problems was creative thinking. And

I would like to take advantage of your creative thinking, and if you

could, the ATP, as Mr. Udall pointed out, was completely zeroed

out. I would assume there is going to be some kind of transition

cost if that occurs and there is some contractual obligation, which

means that that money has got to come from somewhere, which is

probably NIST or somewhere else. So if you could let me know

what you think those costs would be, and where you intend to get

those, that would be helpful. And with the MEP program, also your

creative thinking on what you are going to do, and then what impact that is going to have on the states. And if you don’t mind, you

can just send that to me in a letter later, because you may not

have it all right now.

Mr. BOND. Sure. I would be happy to do that.

I wanted to just draw attention to one thing on MEP, because

I think the Chairman and other Members of the Committee would

be interested. We would love to work with this committee to get

statutory authority for the MEP network to be able to have access

to private sector direct money, whether non-profit or for-profit.

They do not have that authority now. They have federal dollars,

they have state dollars, and they have fees that they raise, but if,

for instance, a foundation wanted to invest some money to assist

U.S. small manufacturers and non-profit foundations, we can not

receive those funds right now, and that is one of the things——

117

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, we are rather enamored with that

proposal——

Mr. BOND. Right.

Chairman BOEHLERT [continuing]. But we want to continue the

MEP program. We want that to supplement, not replace.

Mr. GORDON. And you might also let us know who are some of

those agencies or companies that are volunteering to do that.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, and if you would, Mr. Bond, direct

your response to the Committee for the attention of Mr. Gordon,

but I want all Committee Members to share your response.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I said he would be last, but I lied. That is

not the first time it has happened on Capitol Hill. A brief comment

from Dr. Ehlers, and then I will close with a brief comment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, before Dr. Ehlers, may I ask

a question that goes on the record so I can get an answer in writing?

Chairman BOEHLERT. All Members will be entitled to ask questions in writing, and we would expect the panelists to be timely in

their response, but we are trying to wrap this up. We promised

people 1:00, and we are going to try to stick to that as close as possible.

Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want—two quick comments. First of all, I made some fairly

strong statements, and I want to make clear that I have complete

and utter respect for the members of the panel. I think you are—

I, in fact, I have some sympathy for you, too. I think you have been

asked to defend some things that are not defensible. But I personally have great respect for you and appreciate the service that you

are giving. It is not an easy job.

Dr. MARBURGER. Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. The second comment was Mr. Smith asked a very

searching question: Why is our applied—pardon me, our basic research being applied in other countries and not ours? And the answer is most other countries put substantially more money into

technology transfer than we do, and at the same time, we are zeroing out ATP and having trouble with MEP, and I hope we can reverse that.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good point.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

And finally, Dr. Orbach, a quickie. As you know, we have been

supportive of U.S. participation in ITER [International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor], as long as U.S. involvement is limited. With the continuing disputes over location, can you assure us

that the U.S. cost will not increase? As I understand it, the cost

projected, a life cycle, $700 million?

Dr. ORBACH. That is correct. And I can assure you that. I can

also tell you that not only will our contribution be capped at the

current level, but also that the level of performance will be maintained so that the baseline will follow the current projections.

118

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you for that assurance.

And thank all of you for being such valuable resources. And once

again, Dr. Colwell, arrivaderci.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(119)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

120

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert

Q1. Cyber security research and development (R&D) is very important to the Committee, as indicated by our Cyber Security Research and Development Act signed

into law in 2002. At last year’s budget hearing, we were given assurance that

details regarding funding levels and coordination of programs would be provided in upcoming budgets. Yet the fiscal year 2005 budget still does not provide government-wide breakdowns of the current and proposed funding for

cyber security R&D. Please provide the Committee with this breakdown.

A1. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expects to be able to provide this

information shortly.

As is the case for detailed information in other areas of R&D coordination, it can

take considerable time and effort to identify activities and funding levels that are

relevant to a specific research topic such as cyber security R&D. Identifying the appropriate scope for what to include or exclude as part of a cyber security data collection has been difficult. It is a challenge to identify proportions of information technology (IT) security programs or IT R&D programs that are specifically devoted to

cyber security R&D. Finally, given other data we collect on homeland security and

information technology R&D, we want to understand how these and other data collections interrelate as we report them, to maximize their quality and consistency.

Q2. Last year, the Office of Science and Technology Policy led an interagency task

force that evaluated federal programs related to high-performance computing.

What results came out of that effort? How did the task force affect the fiscal year

2005 request for the interagency Networking and Information Technology R&D

program?

A2. The High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force (HECRTF) to which you

refer gathered an array of information from academia, government and national

labs, and industry through 84 solicited white papers, a workshop, and meetings with

industry representatives. The draft Task Force Plan was completed too late to have

significant influence on FY 2005 budget deliberations for most of the participating

federal agencies. It is expected that all participating agencies will take the plan into

account as they form proposals for the FY 2006 Budget.

Q3. Even though the Administration considers nanotechnology a priority, the budget

proposes to reduce nanotechnology funding at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and

the Department of Defense. Please provide the rationale for the proposed

nanotechnology cuts at each of these three agencies.

A3. The decrease in the amount requested for the Department of Defense (DOD) in

FY 2005 versus estimated spending in FY 2004 reflects the scheduled completion

of a number of programs, mainly within the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA), in FY 2004. Within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), of the $63 million estimated to be spent for nanotechnology R&D in

FY 2004, approximately $53 million was within the NIST core budget, and nearly

$10 million was under the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Thus the FY 2005

request of $53 million represents stable funding for the NIST core nanotechnology

program. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) FY 2005 request of $35 million for nanotechnology R&D is an increase over the FY 2004 request ($31 million). When the FY 2005 Budget was being planned, Congress had

yet to pass the FY 2004 appropriations, which increased spending to $37 million.

Q4. The President’s budget proposes an overall decrease of $43 million for the Climate Change Science Program. Within that program, however, the budget requests a $70 million increase for the Climate Change Research Initiative, which

supports targeted, short-term climate research activities. Please describe more

specifically what climate change research activities would receive increased

funding within the President’s request. What activities within the larger program is the Administration proposing to decrease, terminate or transfer in order

to arrive at an overall decrease for climate change research?

121

A4. The edition of ‘‘Our Changing Planet’’ that covers fiscal years 2004 and 2005

is expected to be available shortly and will provide detailed program summaries and

funding tables for each Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) agency.

The largest dollar increase for the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI)

comes from additional investment in NASA’s ‘‘Glory’’ mission—designed to improve

our understanding of aerosols and their impact on global climate. The 2005 Budget

includes an increase of $42 million for this mission. Other CCRI increases are in

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs (+ $29 million)

aimed at reducing the scientific uncertainty associated with aerosols and the carbon

cycle as well as accelerating progress in developing a global ocean observing system.

The drop in total CCSP funding is primarily due to a decrease in NASA’s Earth

Science budget. While NASA’s CCSP research efforts increase, the budget for spacebased observations is reduced by some $75 million. This decrease is due to the natural down cycle resulting from completion of the initial Earth Observing System,

the deferral of a new mission to monitor global precipitation and the cancellation

of a proposed mission to ensure continuity in the measurement of winds on the

ocean surface. However, NASA’s Earth science program will continue to provide key

data sets and building blocks required for climate science and a comprehensive

Earth observing system. In addition to the aerosol mission discussed above, new research-oriented missions to measure ocean salinity and carbon dioxide concentration

are supported in the 2005 Budget.

There are some reprioritizations within NOAA’s climate program as well. While

NOAA’s overall CCSP contribution is increased by nearly $20 million, legacy programs in global change, including several Office of Global Program grant programs,

have been reduced to accommodate increased investment in CCRI priorities.

These changes are the result of a systematic analysis of priorities within CCSP.

Q5a. Because of its role and expertise in emergency response to chemical contamination, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plays an important role in

homeland security R&D. For example, EPA was instrumental in removing anthrax and ricin from Senate office buildings, and has received substantial

funding for building decontamination research over the last few years. Yet the

budget proposes to eliminate the program. What is the rationale for this action?

A5a. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Homeland Security

Research Center (NHSRC) was established to conduct research in support of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure protection, decontamination after an intentional release of chemical or biological materials, and risk assessment for rapid response to a terrorist event. While the President’s 2005 Budget does not provide new

funding specifically for building decontamination research, it continues to support

each of these critical activities. In fact, the Budget allows EPA to continue decontamination research, keeps the program’s technical staff intact, and enables EPA to

meet its core homeland security responsibilities.

EPA has received significant funding for building decontamination research over

the last two years. In fact, EPA had sufficient unobligated funding at the beginning

of this fiscal year that it was able to move projects scheduled for FY 2005 into FY

2004. The Administration anticipates that the level of funding received to date will

be sufficient to complete EPA’s major priorities and continue program activities

through FY 2005 using prior year funds. Decontamination research and development projects are being conducted at other agencies as well. For example, protocols

are being developed for large-scale decontamination after a chemical, biological, or

radiological attack including personal decontamination systems for processing large

numbers of individuals. Research also is being conducted to improve decontamination chemicals and personal protection equipment, as well as to develop advanced

methods for decontamination of food. You can see below that EPA’s decontamination

research program represents only a small portion of the U.S. Government’s investment in decontamination research across the federal agencies with this expertise.

Q5b. For fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and for the 2005 request, please provide a

breakdown, by agency, of how much the Federal Government spent (or will

spend) on R&D related to building decontamination.

122

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. Nanotechnology Funding—Last year Committee Democrats offered an

amendment to the nanotechnology bill mandating that five percent of all federal

nanotechnology funding would go toward societal and ethical aspects of the program. This was based on the formula used in the Human Genome Program. The

Committee leadership, reflecting Administration views, opposed the amendment

and it was not adopted. Does the Administration still think that the five percent

123

mandate is a bad idea? What fraction of nanotechnology funding would go towards societal/ethical concerns in FY 2004 and in the FY 2005 budget? Please

provide a breakdown of these funds by agency and by subject. [NOTE: Do not

include research into environmental applications of nanotechnology in this

total.]

A1. The Administration generally believes that it is preferable to allow for flexibility in R&D program management instead of establishing formula-based setasides. From its inception, the National Nanotechnology Initiative has emphasized

the need for addressing the societal, ethical, legal, and workforce implications of

nanotechnology. These issues are being addressed through a number of activities,

including:

Societal implications. NSF expects to spend $3.6 million in FY 2004 and a minimum of $2.5 million in FY 2005 on societal implications of nanotechnology research

through a combination of specified nanotechnology programs and core programs. Additional funding may be directed to such research in FY 2005 if the quantity and

quality of proposals warrants. Among currently funded projects is an interdisciplinary research program at the University of South Carolina that draws upon members of the philosophy, chemistry, and anthropology departments, among others.

Education and workforce preparation. NSF plans to spend $10.5 million in FY

2004 and $24.7 million in FY 2005 on educational programs relating to

nanotechnology. These programs are aimed at all levels, from K–12 to post-graduate, and address the developing need for a workforce with suitable training and

skills to design, work, and manufacture at the nanoscale. Curriculum development

for K–12 lays the groundwork for workforce training and also helps to create an

educated public that can make informed decisions about science and technology in

general, and nanotechnology in particular. In the past, DOD and NIH have spent

$2 million annually on educational programs related to nanotechnology.

Environmental and health effects. In addition to research on applications that may

prove beneficial to the environment and public health, the NNI funds research on

the potential health and environmental risks of nanotechnology. Such research addresses perhaps the most pressing societal implication of this new technology. Collectively, the agencies participating in the NNI plan to spend in FY 2004 $3.2 million on health implications research and $5.3 million on environmental implications

research. In FY 2005, NSF intends to award $17.6 million on understanding the

fundamental effects of nanostructures on the environment, and EPA intends to

award $5 million for environmental effects research. Moreover, EPA is working to

partner with other agencies, such as NSF and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), on a joint solicitation for proposals in this area.

In order to protect public health and the environment, it is important to understand the properties of nanomaterials that are likely to make their way from the

laboratory to the marketplace. To address this issue, the National Toxicology Program (an interagency program within the Department of Health and Human Services) has initiated toxicological studies to begin to determine the risks of exposure

to certain engineered nanomaterials through skin, oral and inhalation exposures. In

FY 2004, $0.5 million will go towards these studies, which will grow to approximately $2 million in FY 2005.

In addition to the above activities, the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council,

through the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), is funding a

project at the North Carolina State University to study methods by which the public

can be informed of and provide input on nanotechnology. NSET and NNCO personnel also devote resources toward public outreach activities aimed at various

groups, including the public, school children, industry and small businesses, and researchers. Along with the educational programs described earlier, such activities

help to address public concerns and, in some cases, misconceptions, about the possible effects of nanotechnology.

Q2. Off-Shoring of Jobs—There is growing concern about jobs moving overseas.

Increasingly, it is high-tech service jobs (e.g., radiologists, software developers)

that seem to be moving.

Q2a. What is this Administration’s philosophy about off-shoring of high-tech jobs?

Is it a problem or is it a valuable by-product of free trade, as the President’s

chief economist suggested recently?

A2a. The President believes the best way to deal with the issue of off-shoring is to

make America the best place in the world to do business. A key priority of this Administration is to create jobs in America and, as the President has said many times,

124

he will not be satisfied until every American who seeks work can find a job. More

than 1.4 million jobs have been created since last August.

The most important way to support growth in jobs is to maintain a strong pace

of economic activity. Administration initiatives aimed at promoting economic

growth, such as the substantial tax relief package passed by Congress, have softened the impact of the recession and helped put the economy on the road to recovery. We have seen the results of these actions in the robust recovery that has been

underway since the middle of last year. Real GDP has expanded at an annual rate

of 5.0 percent over the last year. This is the best four-quarter performance in nearly

20 years and the best among the major developed economies.

Policy should also foster an environment in which businesses will expand and jobs

will be created. The President’s initiatives to reform the tort system, to ensure a

reliable energy supply, to make health care more affordable, and to streamline the

regulatory burden will remove barriers to prosperity and promote sustained growth

in output and employment.

Engagement with the world economy represents another key to the prosperity of

the U.S. economy. Open markets allow American firms to sell world-class products

and services in the large global economy (95 percent of the potential customers for

American products live outside the United States). Open markets also give American households the ability to stretch budgets and the freedom to buy the greatest

variety of goods and services at the best prices. Finally, free trade allows American

businesses to buy the best equipment and materials, and this benefits their workers,

owners, and customers.

At the same time that we recognize the gains from free and open markets, we

must appreciate that any economic change, whether arising from trade or technology, can cause painful dislocations for some workers and their families. Public

policy should ease the transition and help workers prepare for the global economy

and the jobs of the future. The President’s ‘‘Jobs for the 21st Century’’ initiative will

help address this by preparing U.S. workers to take advantage of better skilled,

higher paying jobs. In addition, since 2002, spending on Trade Adjustment Assistance has nearly tripled, and the President’s FY 2005 Budget provides more than $23

billion for worker training and employment programs.

Q2b. What are the implications of off-shoring of high-tech jobs on the future need

for scientists and engineers in this country?

A2b. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has

defined what they call the Nation’s ‘‘innovation ecosystem,’’ which has produced the

global economic leadership and high standard of living our country enjoys. Future

generations of scientists and engineers will be key to keeping our National innovation ecosystem strong, which is why the President requested an increase in the Department of Education’s Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) program—an important component of the President’s Jobs for the 21st Century Initiative. The United

States has achieved and solidly retains world leadership as measured by prosperity

and efficiency from two related engines of growth—innovation and productivity. This

growth is furthered by the federal investment in R&D, for which this Administration has provided record levels of funding.

By promoting strong economic growth and encouraging innovation, the President’s

policies have supported the robust recovery that the economy has been experiencing

since the middle of last year and they will also help economic activity move onto

a long-run path of strong sustainable expansion. Growing economies both at home

and abroad will provide an expanding market for the services of scientists and engineers in this country.

Q3. Roadmap for High-End Computing—The fact sheet released on the Networking and Information Technology R&D budget refers to the efforts of the

High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force to develop an interagency R&D

roadmap for high-end computing core technologies and a federal high-end computing capacity and accessibility improvement plan.

Q3a. What is the status of the roadmap and plan? Will they be published?

A3a. The roadmap and plan, entitled ‘‘Federal Plan for High-End Computing,’’ was

released at a House Science Committee hearing on May 13, 2004.

Q3b. Did the roadmap influence the FY 2005 budget request, and if so, in what way?

Are there specific agency programs proposed to implement them?

A3b. The draft Task Force Plan was completed too late to have significant influence

on FY 2005 budget deliberations for most of the participating federal agencies. It

125

is expected that all participating agencies will take the plan into account as they

form proposals for the FY 2006 Budget.

Q3c. What is the relationship between the High-End Computing Revitalization Task

Force and the interagency working group that has been in place for many years

to coordinate and plan the Networking and Information Technology R&D program?

A3c. The High-End Computing Interagency Working Group (HEC IWG) of the Networking, Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program has

been responsible for the coordination of information technology for high-end computing across federal agencies for more than a decade. The High-End Computing

Revitalization Task Force, coordinated through the National Science and Technology

Council, was charged by OSTP to ‘‘develop a plan to guide future federal investments in high end computing.’’ Most of the members of the HEC IWG were Task

Force participants. However, recognizing that answering this charge would require

expertise in areas not currently represented on the HEC IWG (primarily regarding

certain scientific applications related to high-end computing), the Task Force was

augmented with agency representatives having this expertise.

Q4. IT Plan—Under the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, the annual implementation plan for the interagency Networking and Information Technology

R&D program is due at the time of the President’s budget submission. When will

it be delivered to Congress?

A4. The NITRD Supplement to the President’s FY 2005 Budget (often called the

‘‘Blue Book’’) is expected to be ready for transmittal to the Congress this summer.

Q5. MEP—Your testimony touches on the Administration’s three criteria for judging

federal programs—namely relevance, quality, and performance.

Q5a. Please rate the MEP program. How does it score on each of these three criteria?

A5a. The Office of Management and Budget rated the MEP program using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Because MEP Centers provide extension

services and do not conduct R&D, the program was rated according to the criteria

for competitive grant programs and not according to the R&D criteria noted above.

Overall, MEP was rated as moderately effective. The review found that the program

was well-managed by NIST. MEP centers are established through open competitions, and center activities are closely monitored by MEP staff for performance.

MEP’s annual performance measures do demonstrate benefits to MEP firms, but it

is difficult to identify the impact of MEP on the small manufacturing community

as a whole. The review also questioned the appropriateness of taxpayer support for

services that benefit individual firms (e.g., increased sales, capital investment, and

inventory savings) and are similar to services provided by private consultants.

Q5b. Based on these ratings, explain why you the Administration proposed terminating MEP in 2004 and cutting it to one-third of historical funding levels in

FY 2005.

A5b. While the PART helps inform budget decisions, it is not the only consideration.

The Budget advances three national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting

the homeland, and strengthening the economy. These priorities reflect changing

needs and require making difficult budgetary choices. The Budget proposes $39 million for MEP, equal to the amount provided in 2004.

Under the program’s original authorization in 1988, federal assistance to MEP

centers was to be ended after six years; currently, only two centers are less than

seven years old. While this original funding principle was relaxed by authorizing

legislation in 1998, the Administration believes that as the centers provide services

comparable to, and in some cases competitive with, private consulting, federal support for the centers can and should be reduced. The Department of Commerce has

developed a series of reforms to improve the efficiency of the centers and reduce

their reliance on taxpayer funding.

Q6. Student Visas—Some universities have reported problems with foreign graduate students being able to obtain visas to enter the U.S. This has occurred with

new students and with enrolled students attempting to return to the U.S. after

brief visits home. What is being done to address this problem, and does your

office interact with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to help ensure the visa approval process is not unnecessarily impeding university-based research?

126

A6. Yes, OSTP works with the Departments of State and Homeland Security and

others to review policies that may contribute to student visa delays, to facilitate

interagency efforts to seek improvements in the visa process now that SEVIS and

USVISIT are in place, and to provide policy guidance on visa, immigration and

entry–re-entry policy issues that impact international students and researchers. The

Departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security and other relevant agencies,

including OSTP and the Homeland Security Council, are working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the visa process, including the entry–re-entry policies.

OSTP is a full participant in this ongoing process and focuses primarily on S&Trelated (Mantis) and student visa issues.

Q7. Tracking of Foreign Students—Please give us a status report on the implementation of SEVIS, the computerized tracking system for foreign students.

A7. SEVIS implementation is underway and ongoing. The Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) put in place a special support team to facilitate the fall arrivals,

which was well-received by the university community. Some fraudulent cases were

discovered and dealt with at ports of entry. DHS also conducted a major ‘‘customer

service’’ outreach effort on December 11, 2003—‘‘Foreign Student and Exchange Visitor Issues Forum’’—to compile a list of residual issues, and instituted a weekly conference call to continue the open dialog and to address both technical and policy

issues. DHS reconvened its special team to facilitate the re-entry process of international students after the Christmas break. Additional institutions are applying to

join the SEVIS program. OSTP believes that many of the original concerns about

SEVIS have been resolved.

Q8. Earmarks—In both your written and oral testimony, you complained about the

negative impact of Congressional earmarks on federal research portfolios. Please

provide us with your plans for ameliorating the impacts of earmarks. Specifically:

Q8a. Have you performed a legal analysis to determine whether existing laws may

require competition on earmarks that are specified in report language? If so,

what agencies are covered by these procurement laws?

Q8b. Have you encouraged agencies to work with earmarked institutions so that the

output of the project is consistent with agencies’ missions? Or do most agencies

simply write a check for the earmark?

A8a,b. The Administration appreciates your interest and help in this matter. As I

know you are aware, OSTP concludes that earmarks undermine and crowd out

merit-based processes for best allocating our important research investments. We

estimate that $2.2 billion of the Federal Science and Technology budget was earmarked in fiscal year 2004. After accounting and adjusting for these diverted resources from more merit-based, competitive awards for our national S&T priorities,

the President’s FY 2005 Budget actually includes a three percent increase for the

national research portfolio, rather than the 0.4 percent cut that results if parochial

earmarks are continued. In the case of construction programs and R&D programs,

10 USC 2361 requires DOD to use competitive procedures in the award of a grant

or contract to a university or college. This requirement has helped the Department

to make some awards through a more merit-oriented process than might otherwise

have been the case. Also, DOD awards officers generally try to make sure that earmarked funds are applied against military needs, to the degree possible under the

terms of the earmark. However, the fact that most earmarks are targeted to specific

institutions or specific geographical locations, or address narrowly conceived solutions to needs that may or may not be of high priority to the Nation’s defense means

that, on average, the funds cannot be applied as effectively as through an allocation

approach that is merit-based from conception through the award. In addition, the

number of earmarks in the DOD S&T program and the amount of additional administrative workload required to execute earmarks have significantly hurt the Department’s ability to execute the rest of its S&T program in a timely manner. Certainly,

some agencies have had success in working with earmarked institutions to guide the

relevance of the earmarked effort, but success is mixed across the agencies. The Administration has more work to do to investigate previously successful and new ways

to address research earmarks, including the specific ideas you suggest. Going forward, we would be most interested in speaking to you, your staff and other stakeholders about your ideas and some of our own for avoiding or improving research

earmarks.

Q9. Science Education—The fact sheet your office released on science education

support in the FY 2005 budget request indicates that the NSF Math and Science

127

Partnerships program is being moved to the Department of Education but does

not give a rationale for this action.

Q9a. Since the President signed the bill authorizing the NSF program only a year

ago, what has changed—is NSF failing to implement the program adequately?

A9a. The President’s Budget FY 2005 Budget includes a total of $349 million, for

the joint Math and Science partnerships (MSP) program at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (NSF), a $61 million increase over the

2004 level. The decision to consolidate the MSP program in the Department of Education positions the program closer to the classroom and to actual teaching practices. The NSF supports a number of other programs aimed at developing more effective ways of involving universities in efforts to improve both pre-service and inservice training for math and science teachers. These efforts will continue. NSF will

retain $80 million of MSP to continue ongoing commitments.

Q9b. Since the partnerships program is intended to forge links between education

practitioners and science, math and engineering faculty at institutions of higher education, why does the Administration believe the Department of Education

is better suited to accomplish this goal than NSF?

A9b. The consolidation of the MSP in the Department of Education reflects a desire

to focus the program on integrating research-proven practices into classroom settings and a desire to focus the impact of the program more directly at the local level.

Consolidating the MSP at the Department of Education will place this program at

the agency best positioned to work closely with state and local educational systems

to implement research-based teacher enhancement efforts within the local school

systems.

Q10. International Scientific Cooperation—Your statement does not address

international scientific cooperation. Even in the depths of the Cold War, we had

a productive scientific relationship with the Soviet Union that provided us with

many benefits. And now—at a time when this country desperately needs some

positive diplomatic initiatives—science may offer many wonderful opportunities

in this area.

Q10a. What initiatives do we have to re-invigorate scientific relations with countries

in the Middle East?

A10a. We have launched several initiatives aimed at the nations of North Africa,

the Middle East, and South Asia. For the first time, we are close to signing umbrella agreements for cooperation in science and technology with Morocco, Tunisia,

and Algeria (the three countries generally referred to as the Maghreb). Based on

the findings of an interagency assessment team, which visited the science establishments of those countries in 2003, there is significant interest in the U.S. scientific

community in cooperation with the three neighboring countries of the Maghreb.

Agreements have been drafted, circulated to the interagency community, and we expect they will soon be signed, opening the way for an unprecedented, wide array

of science and technology (S&T) cooperation.

Areas in which we expect to initiate joint projects include basic research, science

education, meteorology and weather forecasting, seismic research, basic space

science and remote sensing, health sciences and public health, watershed management, marine research (including coastal research, aquaculture and fisheries management), environment and biodiversity protection, energy and alternative energy

research and development, information and communications technology, and all facets of biotechnology.

In Egypt, we have expanded funding and S&T cooperation under the U.S.-Egypt

Science and Technology Joint Board, which operates under the bilateral umbrella

S&T agreement. This program, now funded at approximately $1.5 million per year,

supports linkages between U.S. agencies and their Egyptian counterparts through

collaborative grants, workshops and the training of young Egyptian scientists in

U.S. institutions. Priority areas for these collaborations are agricultural biotechnology, meteorology, materials science, energy, and social sciences including economics.

In Jordan, the United States is a partner in the SESAME project, which aims to

establish a synchrotron light source facility near the capital, Amman, at which scientists from the entire Middle East, including Israel, can conduct basic research in

areas such as materials science. Construction of the facility was begun in March of

this year at Al-Balqa University in Allan, Jordan, about 30 kilometers from the capital. The project is being undertaken under the umbrella of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), of which the U.S. is now

128

a member. The idea for the project originated between Stanford’s Linear Accelerator

Center (SLAC) and the DESY Synchrotron Center in Germany. A German synchrotron, which has been replaced, was donated as the basis for the project, and Stanford is donating a number of Department of Energy (DOE) components, surplused

by the recent upgrade of their existing synchrotron to a third generation facility.

DOE is currently working with the Department of State on sorting out the international legal aspects of this transfer.

Q10b. Will we aggressively reach out to China in our new space initiative?

A10b. The President’s Space Vision explicitly calls for the participation of international partners in this long-term effort to develop space-faring capability, asking

NASA to ‘‘pursue opportunities for international participation to support U.S. space

exploration goals.’’ Other countries have valuable contributions to bring to this effort

in terms of engineering capabilities, hardware, human resources, expertise, space

experience and, of course, financial resources.

As of now, no country, including China, has been excluded as a potential partner.

A decision to enter into cooperation with any country would be based on several factors: the partner’s potential contribution; the status of bilateral relations and S&T

cooperation with that country; and foreign policy and national security considerations. If Chinese participation would advance the goals of the space vision and is

consistent with broader U.S. policy objectives, we would consider it at the appropriate time.

Q10c. What is this Administration doing that is new to utilize S&T as a diplomatic

tool?

A10c. President Bush announced in 2002 that the United States would rejoin

UNESCO after an absence of 18 years. This became a reality in October, 2003.

OSTP has spearheaded the engagement of the United States scientific community

with UNESCO’s science division. We expect to strengthen ongoing collaborations in

oceans, fresh water, mitigation of natural hazards and disasters, and we also plan

to make science and engineering education an area of emphasis. UNESCO’s focus

on the developing world makes this a unique and valuable platform for us to connect with developing countries in science and technology.

This spring, OSTP concluded a meeting of senior G–8 policy and research officials

in Washington, to coordinate planning for research in three priority areas designated by the G–8 leaders at last summer’s Evian Summit. The meeting concentrated on three topics: global observations, cleaner and more efficient energy

technologies, and agricultural productivity and biodiversity. The G–8 partners also

considered how best to assist developing nations that have their own research programs in these areas.

The United States has recently concluded umbrella S&T agreements with Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), based on a new

model expressly developed to facilitate S&T cooperation with developing countries.

This new style S&T agreement puts the emphasis on capacity building in our S&T

partner countries, while relaxing the requirement for both partners to bring equal

resources to the table, a constraint which had previously limited our S&T agreements largely to advanced industrial nations.

Another initiative begun under this Administration which makes successful use

of science and technology as a diplomatic tool is the Embassy Science Fellows Program run by the State Department. This program places scientists from U.S. agencies in American Embassies abroad, in response to requests from posts, to work on

S&T related projects and establish liaisons with the science communities of the host

countries. Over the past three years this program has expanded with each cycle and

now enjoys the participation of scientists from NSF, the United States Geological

Survey, NOAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and EPA.

Q11. Union of Concerned Scientists Report—Recently, the Union of Concerned

Scientists issued a report critical of the Administration’s use of science. Do you

intend to produce a point-by-point response to the UCS report? If so, please provide us with a copy of your response.

A11. On April 2, I submitted a statement and a more comprehensive response for

the record, to reply to questions raised during Senate and House Appropriations

Subcommittee hearings regarding a document issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists. I have attached a copy of the response I submitted to Senate Appropriations

Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Chairman Christopher Bond,

and to other Members of the Subcommittee, and to House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Chairman James Walsh, and to

other Members of the Subcommittee. [The information referred to follows.]

129

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. MARBURGER III

Scientific Integrity in the Bush Administration

APRIL 2, 2004

President Bush believes policies should be made with the best and most complete

information possible, and expects his Administration to conduct its business with integrity and in a way that fulfills that belief. I can attest from my personal experience and direct knowledge that this Administration is implementing the President’s

policy of strongly supporting science and applying the highest scientific standards

in decision-making.

The Administration’s strong commitment to science is evidenced by impressive increases devoted to federal research and development (R&D) budgets. With the President’s FY 2005 budget request, total R&D investment during this Administration’s

first term will have increased 44 percent, to a record $132 billion in FY 2005, as

compared to $91 billion in FY 2001. President Bush’s FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5 percent of total discretionary outlays to R&D—the highest level in 37

years.

In addition to enabling a strong foundation of scientific research through unprecedented federal funding, this Administration also believes in tapping the best scientific minds—both inside and outside the government—for policy input and advice.

My office establishes interagency working groups under the aegis of the National

Science and Technology Council for this purpose. In addition, this Administration

has sought independent advice, most often through the National Academies, on

many issues. Recent National Academies reviews of air pollution policy, fuel economy standards, the use of human tests for pesticide toxicity, and planned or ongoing

reviews on dioxin and perchlorate in the environment are examples. The Administration’s climate change program is based on a National Academies report that was

requested by the Administration in the spring of 2001, and the National Academies

continues to review our programs and strategic research planning in this field. The

frequency of such referrals, and the high degree to which their advice has been incorporated into the policies of this Administration, is consistent with a desire to

strengthen technical input into decision-making.

Climate change has proven to be a contentious science-related issue. President

Bush clearly acknowledged the role of human activity in increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in June 2001, stating ‘‘concentration of greenhouse

gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase

is due in large part to human activity.’’ That speech launched programs to accelerate climate change science and technology to address remaining uncertainties in

the science, develop adaptation and mitigation mechanisms, and invest in clean energy technologies to reduce the projected growth in global greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2004, the U.S. will spend approximately $4 billion in climate change science and

technology research.

The President created the new U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to

refocus a disorganized interagency activity into a cohesive program, oriented at resolving key uncertainties and enhancing decision-making capabilities. The Strategy

was heartily endorsed by the National Academies in its recent review. Their report,

Implementing Climate and Global Change Research—A Review of the Final U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan, stated ‘‘In fact, the approaches taken

by the CCSP to receive and respond to comments from a large and broad group of

scientists and stakeholders, including a two-stage independent review of the plan,

set a high standard for government research programs.. . .Advancing science on all

fronts identified by the program will be of vital importance to the Nation.’’

In this Administration, science strongly informs policy. It is important to remember, however, that even when the science is clear—and often it is not—it is but one

input into the policy process.

Regulatory decisions provide the trigger for some of the most contentious policy

debates. Science can play an important role in these policy decisions, and this Administration has sought to strengthen, not undermine, this role. In fact, the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) has for the first time hired toxicologists, environmental engineers, and public health scientists to review regulations and help agencies strengthen their scientific peer review processes. This increased attention to

science in the regulatory process is providing a more solid foundation for regulatory

decisions. As several recent examples demonstrate, emerging scientific data has

130

prompted swift action by the Bush Administration to protect public health, strongly

guided by advanced scientific knowledge:

• On May 23, 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new

regulation to reduce by 90 percent the amount of pollution from off-road diesel engines used in mining, agriculture, and construction. This proposed rule

stemmed from collaboration between EPA and OMB. Recent scientific data

from the Harvard School of Public Health indicates that diesel engine exhaust

is linked to the development of cardiopulmonary problems and also aggravates respiratory health problems in children and the elderly.

• On July 11, 2003 the Food and Drug Administration required that food labels

for consumers contain new information on trans-fat content in addition to existing information on saturated fat content. This rule, requested by the White

House via a public OMB letter, responded to emerging scientific data indicating that intake of trans-fats (found in margarine and other foods) is linked

to coronary heart disease.

• On December 29, 2003, the Department of Transportation requested public

comment on ideas for potential reform of the CAFE program. Several potential reform ideas contained in that request for comment come directly from

a 2002 National Academies report on the effectiveness of the current CAFE ́

program.

Regarding the document that was released on February 18, 2004 by the Union

of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I believe the UCS accusations are wrong and misleading. The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify

the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement. I

believe the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions,

not the least of which is the failure to consider publicly available information or to

seek and reflect responses or explanations from responsible government officials.

Unfortunately, these flaws are not necessarily obvious to those who are unfamiliar

with the issues, and the misleading, incomplete, and even personal accusations

made in the document concern me deeply. It is my hope that the detailed response

I submit today will allay the concerns of the scientists who signed the UCS statement.

I can say from personal experience that the accusation of a litmus test that must

be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous. After all,

President Bush sought me out to be his Science Advisor—the highest-ranking S&T

official in the Federal Government—and I am a lifelong Democrat.

I have discussed the issue of advisory committees with the agencies mentioned in

the UCS document and am satisfied with the processes they have in place to manage this important function. I can say that many of the cited instances involved

panel members whose terms had expired and some were serving as much as five

years past their termination dates. Some changes were associated with new issue

areas for the panels or with an overall goal of achieving scientific diversity on the

panels. Other candidates may have been rejected for any number of reasons—this

is ordinary for any Administration.

My office is involved in recommending candidates for the President’s Council of

Advisors on Science and Technology, the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, and the nominating panel for the President’s Committee on the National Medal of Science. I have intimate knowledge of the selection process for these

committees. This process results in the selection of qualified individuals who represent a wide range of expertise and experience—the right balance to yield quality

advice for the President on critical S&T issues.

The UCS document also includes a highly unfortunate and totally unjustified personal attack on a Senate-confirmed official in my office. I strongly recommended the

appointment of that individual after evaluating the needs of the office and deciding

that it required talents and experience that differed from previous incumbents. The

attack appears to be based on a lack of understanding of the function of my office

and the qualities that are required to perform them properly. Given the ease with

which this ignorance could have been rectified, it is inexcusable.

I hope this response will correct errors, distortions, and misunderstandings in the

Union of Concerned Scientists’ document. The bottom line is that we have a strong

and healthy science enterprise in this country of which I am proud to be a part.

Response to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ February 2004 Document

I. THE UCS’ CLAIM OF ‘‘SUPPRESSION AND DISTORTION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS AT FEDERAL AGENCIES’’

131

1The 205-page CCSP Strategic Plan was released by Secretaries Evans and Abraham on July

24, 2003. The EPA Report on the Environment was released on June 23, 2003. The draft EPA

report had contained a four-page segment on climate change.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Distorting and Suppressing Climate Change Research’’

• The UCS document claims that ‘‘the Bush Administration has consistently

sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the view held by the vast

majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide

and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global

warming.’’

This statement is not true. In his June 11, 2001, Rose Garden speech on climate

change, the President stated that the ‘‘[c]oncentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in

large part to human activity.. . .While scientific uncertainties remain, we can now

begin to address the factors that contribute to climate change.’’ In this speech, the

President cited the National Academy’s Climate Change Science report that was initiated at the Administration’s request, and launched a major, prioritized scientific

effort to improve our understanding of global climate change.

Moreover, the President’s Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has developed

its plans through an open and transparent process. In the development of its Strategic Plan, released in July 2003, the CCSP incorporated comments and advice from

hundreds of scientists both from the U.S. and around the world. The CCSP Strategic

Plan received a strong endorsement from the National Academy of Sciences in a

February 2004 review, which commended the work of the CCSP.

• The UCS claims that the ‘‘Bush Administration blatantly tampered with the

integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the

White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s draft Report on

the Environment.’’

This statement is false. In fact, the Administrator of the EPA decided not to include a short summary on climate change. An ordinary review process indicated

that the complexity of climate change science was not adequately addressed in

EPA’s draft document. Instead, the final EPA report referred readers to the far

more expansive and complete exposition of climate change knowledge, the Climate

Change Science Program (CCSP) Strategic Plan.1 The Administration chose, appropriately, to present information in a single, more expansive and far more complete

format. This choice of presentation format did not influence the quality or integrity

of the scientific analysis or its dissemination.

• The UCS quotes an unnamed EPA scientist as saying that the Administration

‘‘does not even invite the EPA into the discussion’’ on climate change issues,

and cites a previous Clinton Administration OSTP official, Dr. Rosina

Bierbaum, as claiming that the Administration excluded OSTP scientists from

the climate change discussions.

These accusations are wrong. The EPA, in fact, is a key participant in the development and implementation of climate change policy in the Bush Administration.

The EPA participates in the development of Administration policy on climate change

through the cabinet-level Committee on Climate Science and Technology Integration, which was created in February 2002. The EPA is also a member of subsidiary

bodies, such as the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change Science and

Technology, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. (A table illustrating the Bush Administration’s climate change program’s organization can be found on page 9 of the CCSP Strategic Plan (2003)).

Moreover, the EPA is a co-chair of the National Science and Technology Council’s

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). CENR has oversight of

and responsibility for the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. (This subcommittee holds the same membership and is functionally the same entity as the

Climate Change Science Program, noted above.)

Dr. Bierbaum’s claim refers to cabinet-level discussions that led to the development of the Administration’s climate change organization described above. The cabinet-level discussions referenced by Dr. Bierbaum included numerous, respected federal career scientists including Dr. David Evans, former Assistant Administrator for

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA, Dr. Ari Patrinos, Associate Director

of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the Department of Energy, and Dr. Dan Albritton, Director of the Aeronomy Laboratory of Oceanic and

132

Atmospheric Research at NOAA. Starting with these early discussions, the Bush

Administration’s climate change organization has fully involved climate change experts from throughout the Federal Government.

As already noted, subsequent to its initial internal discussions, the Administration submitted the draft CCSP Strategic Plan to some of the Nation’s most qualified

scientists at the National Academy of Sciences for review. The Academy made numerous recommendations, which the CCSP incorporated. The CCSP then resubmitted its plans to the Academy for further review, and just recently, the NAS returned a highly favorable review. The Administration developed the climate change

science strategic plan through an open, back-and-forth process.

• The UCS claims that the Administration refused the request of the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in USDA to reprint a brochure on

carbon sequestration prepared several years ago and claims that this was censorship of government information.

This accusation is false. The USDA’s NRCS decided not to republish the brochure

for appropriate reasons. The brochure had received extensive comments from within

the Department that the brochure was outdated and did not reflect significant recent decisions by USDA to address greenhouse gases. For example, in June 2003,

Secretary Veneman announced that for the first time, USDA would give consideration to greenhouse gas reductions and carbon sequestration in setting priorities for

conservation programs. In addition, USDA is developing new accounting rules and

guidelines so that farmers and landowners can register greenhouse gas reductions

and carbon sequestration activities with the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy released its accounting guidelines for greenhouse gas reporting in

December 2003, and it is expected to release technical guidelines in early summer

2004. USDA is working with DOE to develop the guidelines for agriculture. The

technical guidelines should include more specific information as to how farmers and

ranchers could report and register greenhouse gas reductions. Once the new guidelines are available, USDA will reprint this brochure including information on how

farmers can use the new guidelines.

Furthermore, there are still approximately 37,000 existing brochures available for

distribution. The document is posted on the Soil and Water Conservation Society

website: http://www.swcs.org/docs/carbon¥brochure.pdf. Links to the document are

found on the NRCS website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/

000424.html.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Censoring Information on Air Quality’’

• The UCS claims that the Administration was withholding the publication of

an EPA report on children’s health and the environment in order to avoid the

issue of mercury emissions by coal-fired power plants. The UCS also claims

that the Administration suppressed and sought to manipulate government information about mercury contained in the EPA report.

This is not true. The interagency review of the EPA report on children’s health

and the environment occurred independently of the Administration’s deliberations

on mercury emissions from power plants. The interagency review process is the

standard operating procedure for reports that include areas of scientific and policy

importance to multiple agencies. As such, the report was reviewed by a number of

scientists and analysts across federal agencies. During this review, other agencies

expressed concerns about the report. OSTP worked collaboratively with EPA staff

on addressing interagency comments to make certain that the proposed indicators

had a robust scientific basis and were presented in an understandable manner.

The report contained a statement that eight percent of women of child-bearing age

had at least 5.8 ppb of mercury in their blood in 1999–2000 and therefore children

born to these women are at some increased risk. This information was available well

before the EPA report both in raw form through the CDC and in an interagency

analysis (CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review, 2001) that indicated that

approximately 10 percent of women of child-bearing age had blood mercury levels

above the EPA reference dose, as opposed to the eight percent level noted in EPA’s

report. The updated analysis in EPA’s report and later published in the scientific

literature (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2003) included an additional year of data and found the level to be eight percent. These updated risk levels

133

2The proposed regulations include a Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard which

would result in a 29 percent reduction by 2009, and a two-phase cap and trade program which

will result in a 68 percent reduction when fully implemented. 3The background of this rulemaking and the text in question is as follows. On January 30,

2004, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate mercury emissions from

power plants. The language at issue, which appears in two places in the proposal’s preamble,

was derived from two memoranda submitted by a law firm early in the rulemaking process

(March and September, 2002). In the first instance, a section of one memorandum discusses the

statutory framework of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Administration staff largely copied this

discussion into portions of its own discussion, entitled ‘‘What is the Statutory Authority for the

Proposed Section 112 Rule?’’ The law firm had used this discussion to argue for a regime of ‘‘system-wide compliance,’’ but EPA rejected that argument and did not propose such a regime. In

the second instance, another memorandum argued that EPA should allow ‘‘sub-categorization’’

within existing coal-fired units under the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regime. This discussion did not deal with any scientific issues but explained how different types

of coal are typically classified. EPA largely copied several paragraphs from this document into

the preamble’s discussion of sub-categorization.

were used by the Administration in the preparation of its two regulatory proposals

to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.2

The final report was released in February 2003, as soon as the interagency review

process was completed.

• The UCS states that ‘‘the new rules the EPA has finally proposed for regulating power plants’ mercury emissions were discovered to have no fewer than

12 paragraphs lifted, sometimes verbatim, from a legal document prepared by

industry lawyers.’’

The UCS’ implication that industry is writing government regulations is wrong.

The reference here is to a preamble of a proposed EPA rule to control (for the first

time) mercury emissions from power plants. The text in question is in the preamble,

not the proposed rule itself. The preamble is intended to engage the public and encourage comments, including both assenting and dissenting viewpoints. All agencies,

including EPA, openly seek public comment during rulemaking proceedings in order

to obtain useful information and advice that is accepted or rejected or used in part.

Such direct use of submitted memoranda should not have occurred. However, the

text at issue was taken from memoranda that were publicly presented to an advisory group made up of environmental activists, State officials, and industry representatives. These documents are openly available in the public docket. The UCS’

allegations are based on text that had nothing to do with the integrity of the science

used by EPA.3

• The UCS states that the EPA has suppressed research on air pollution; specifically that the EPA evaluated a proposed measure by Senators Carper,

Gregg and Chafee to regulate carbon dioxide in addition to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury, but withheld most of the results.

This accusation is false. EPA did, in fact, provide full information to the Senators.

S. 843 was introduced by Senators Carper, Gregg, and Chafee on April 9, 2003. EPA

submitted a cost analysis of the legislation to the Senators in July 2003, and submitted a cost and benefits analysis in October 2003. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has also analyzed and compared the costs of S. 843 and S. 485 (the

Administration’s Clear Skies proposal), and provided the analysis to Congress in

September 2003.

The leaking of a draft EPA analysis was improper and unfortunate. The report

underwent a standard interagency pre-release clearance process, and an intent to

release always existed. Furthermore, these types of analyses have long been available and released by the Administration once completed. In fact, EPA had also analyzed a very similar bill Senator Carper introduced in 2002 and provided it to Congress in November 2002.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Distorting Scientific Knowledge on Reproductive Health Issues’’

• The UCS claims that the Administration distorted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) science-based performance measures to

test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, and attempted

to obscure the lack of efficacy of such programs.

This accusation is false. The UCS mischaracterizes the program, its performance

measures, and the reasons behind changes that were made to those performance

measures. There were no CDC science-based performance measures associated with

this program. Currently, the Federal Government funds abstinence-only education

programs through the Health Resources and Services Administration, not CDC. The

134

program was never designed as a scientific study, and so even if the original performance measures had been kept, little or no scientifically usable data would be

obtained. However, other independent evaluation efforts are underway that are intended to address questions of the effectiveness of abstinence only programs.

• The UCS claims that a CDC condom fact sheet posted on its web site was

removed and replaced with a document that emphasizes condom failure rates

and the effectiveness of abstinence.

This accusation is a distortion of the facts. The CDC routinely takes information

off its website and replaces it with more up-to-date information. Recently updated

topics include anthrax, West Nile Virus, and other health issues for which new information had become available. The condom fact sheet was removed from the

website for scientific review and was subsequently updated to reflect the results of

a condom effectiveness review conducted by the National Institutes of Health, as

well as new research from other academic institutions. The condom information

sheet was re-posted with the new information.

The ‘‘Programs That Work’’ website was also removed because the programs it

listed were limited. CDC is exploring new and appropriate means to identify and

characterize interventions that have scientifically credible evidence of effectiveness.

In addition, CDC is currently working on a new initiative that is aimed at better

addressing the needs of schools and communities by providing assistance in selecting health education curricula based on the best evidence available.

• The UCS alleges that information suggesting a link between abortion and

breast cancer was posted on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website despite substantial scientific study refuting the connection, and only revised

after a public outcry.

This claim distorts the facts. The NCI fact sheet ‘‘Abortion and Breast Cancer’’

has been revised several times since it was first written in 1994. NCI temporarily

removed the fact sheet from the website when it became clear that there was conflicting information in the published literature. In order to clarify the issue, in February 2003 a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk was convened. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a

woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings,

titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop,

can be found at http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report. A revised fact

sheet was posted on the NCI website shortly after the workshop reflecting the findings.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Suppressing Analysis on Airborne Bacteria’’

• The UCS claims that a former Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientist

at Ames, Iowa, Dr. James Zahn, was prohibited on no fewer than 11 occasions

from publicizing his research on the potential hazards to human health posed

by airborne bacteria resulting from farm wastes.

This accusation is not true. Dr. Zahn did not have any scientific data or expertise

in the scientific area in question. Dr. Zahn’s assigned research project, as part of

the Swine Odor and Manure Management Research Unit, dealt with the chemical

constituency of volatiles from swine manure and ways to abate odors. In the course

of this research, Dr. Zahn observed incidentally that when dust was collected from

a hog feeding operation, some of the ‘‘dust’’ emitted from these facilities contained

traces of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The recorded data were severely limited in

scope and quantity, and did not represent a scientific study of human health

threats.

In February 2002, Dr. Zahn was invited to speak at the Adair (Iowa) County

Board of Health meeting in Greenfield, Iowa. Permission was initially granted by

ARS management for Dr. Zahn to speak because it was thought that he was being

invited to speak on his primary area of scientific expertise and government work,

management of odors from hog operations. Permission for Dr. Zahn to speak representing the ARS at the meeting was withdrawn when it was learned that Dr.

Zahn was expected to speak on health risks of hog confinement operations, an area

in which Dr. Zahn did not have any scientific data or expertise.

The accusation of ‘‘no fewer than 11 occasions’’ of ARS denials to Dr. Zahn for

him to present or publicize his research is not accurate. He was approved to report

on his preliminary observations of dust borne antibiotic resistant bacteria at the

135

2001 meeting of the American Society of Animal Science and at a 2001 National

Pork Board Symposium. He also was approved on numerous occasions to present

and publish his research on volatiles and odors from swine manure. However, on

five occasions he was not authorized to discuss the public health ramifications of

his observations on the spread of resistant bacteria, because he had no data or expertise with respect to public health. Three of these occasions were local Iowa public

community meetings; two others were professional scientific meetings.

• The UCS also claims that the USDA has issued a directive to staff scientists

to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on

‘‘sensitive issues.’’

This is not true. USDA–ARS headquarters has had a long-standing, routine practice (at least 20 years) that has spanned several Administrations to require review

of research reports of high-visibility topics (called the ‘‘List of Sensitive Issues’’).

ARS headquarters review, when required, do not censor, or otherwise deny publication of, the research findings, but may aid in the interpretation and communication

of the results, including providing advance alert to others. The purpose of this review is to keep ARS Headquarters officials informed before publication and in an

otherwise timely way of new developments on cutting-edge research, controversial

subjects, or other matters of potential special interest to the Secretary’s Office, Office of Communications, USDA agency heads (particularly those other agencies in

USDA that depend on ARS for the scientific basis for policy development and program operations), scientific collaborators, the news media, and/or the general public.

This practice deals with research reporting only and does not relate to the initial

research priority setting process or to determining which studies will be undertaken.

To the contrary, the ‘‘special issues’’ are mostly high-priority items and receive considerable research attention.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Misrepresenting Evidence on Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes’’

• The UCS claims that the Administration was aware of disagreement among

experts on the purpose of aluminum tubes that Iraq attempted to acquire and

that the Administration knowingly disregarded scientific analysis of intelligence data.

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet addressed this issue directly in his

February 5, 2004, speech at Georgetown University:

‘‘Regarding prohibited aluminum tubes—a debate laid out extensively in the

[National Intelligence] Estimate, and one that experts still argue over—were

they for uranium enrichment or conventional weapons? We have additional data

to collect and more sources to question. Moreover, none of the tubes found in

Iraq so far match the high-specification tubes Baghdad sought and may never

have received the amounts needed. Our aggressive interdiction efforts may have

prevented Iraq from receiving all but a few of these prohibited items.

‘‘My provisional bottom line today: Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon; he

still wanted one; and Iraq intended to reconstitute a nuclear program at some

point. But we have not yet found clear evidence that the dual-use items Iraq

sought were for nuclear reconstitution. We do not yet know if any reconstitution

efforts had begun, but we may have overestimated the progress Saddam was

making.’’

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Manipulation of Science Regarding the Endangered Species

Act’’

• The UCS claims that the Administration is attempting to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

This accusation is false. The current listing situation results from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) practices in place before the Bush Administration took office. The

FWS listing budget is currently consumed by court-ordered listings and critical

habitat designations. These court orders result from pre-2001 FWS decisions to list

endangered species but not to designate associated critical habitat as required by

the Act as well as to ignore pending petitions to list species. This practice resulted

in a flood of litigation forcing FWS to act on petitions that had been languishing

for years as well as to designate critical habitat for already listed species. Fulfilling

the resulting court mandates expends all of FWS’s listing budget (the Administration has taken steps to redirect additional funds to this budget account, and the

President’s FY05 Budget requests an increase of more than 50 percent). With respect to the critical habitat designations, officials from both the current and prior

136

4Moreover, without regard to the current court-driven budgetary situation, the number of new

species listed as endangered during a particular time period varies over time for numerous reasons, and as such is not an appropriate measure of the success of the Act. 5 Among this new information was that, since the 2000 Biological Opinion, two of the endangered species population levels had improved significantly: Piping plover numbers had increase

460 percent within the Missouri River basin since 1997, with pair counts now exceeding recovery goals; and the least terns’ estimated population of 12,000 exceeded the recovery goal by

5,000 terns, although the goal of 2,100 terns for the Missouri River itself had not been met.

administrations have said that these lawsuits prevent FWS from taking higher priority actions such as listing new species.4

This Administration is committed to working in partnership with States, local

governments, tribes, landowners, conservation groups, and others to conserve species through voluntary agreements and grant programs in addition to ESA procedures. For FY 2005, the President’s proposed budget includes more than $260 million in the Interior Department budget alone for cooperative conservation programs

for endangered species and other wildlife. The President created the new Landowner

Incentive Program and the Private Stewardship Initiative grant programs to help

private landowners conserve endangered species habitat on their property. In early

March 2004, for example, Secretary Norton announced $25.8 million in cost-share

grants to help private landowners conserve and restore the habitat of endangered

species and other at-risk plants and animals. These grants are going to support

projects in 40 states and the Virgin Islands.

Because the large majority of threatened and endangered species depend on habitat on private lands, this Administration believes it is vitally important that the

Federal Government provide incentives for landowners to engage in conservation efforts. The incentive programs implemented during this Administration have shown

returns in the form of voluntary contributions of time and effort by landowners.

These contributions provide far more to species conservation than the government

could ever compel through regulatory action. This Administration is focusing on enhancing and restoring habitats of threatened and candidate species populations—

thus keeping them off the list by preventing these species from becoming threatened

in the first place.

‘‘In 25 years of implementing the ESA, we have found that designation of official critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species,

while it consumes significant amounts of scarce conservation resources,’’ Jamie

Rappaport Clark, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the Clinton

Administration, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water. May 27, 1999.

‘‘These lawsuits [forcing the Service to designate critical habitat] necessitate the

diversion of scare federal resources from imperiled but unlisted species which

do not yet benefit from the protections of the ESA.’’ Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Senate Testimony, May 27, 1999.

‘‘Struggling to keep up with these court orders, the Fish and Wildlife Service

has diverted its best scientists and much of its budget for the Endangered Species Act away from more important tasks like evaluating candidates for listing

and providing other protections for species on the brink of extinction.’’ former

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, New York Times op-ed, April 15, 2001.

‘‘The best alternative is to amend the Endangered Species Act, giving biologists

the unequivocal discretion to prepare maps when the scientific surveys are complete. Only then can we make meaningful judgments about what habitat should

receive protection.’’ Bruce Babbitt, New York Times, April 15, 2001.

• The UCS claims that the FWS inappropriately established a new ‘‘SWAT’’

team to swiftly revise an earlier 2000 Biological Opinion on the Missouri

River rather than allow that opinion to take effect in 2003.

The UCS distorted the facts. The UCS failed to mention several vital facts and

mischaracterized subsequent events. First, after its issuance, the terms and conditions of the 2000 Biological Opinion were in effect already. Pursuant to that Biological Opinion, a spring rise in water levels was to occur every three years if reservoir

levels were sufficiently high. Due to the prevailing and serious drought conditions,

a 2003 water rise would not have occurred under the 2000 Biological Opinion.

Second, the development of an amended Biological Opinion was triggered by the

Corps noting new information5 and submitting new proposed updates to its Master

Water Control Manual for the Missouri River. As such, the subsequent consultation

process with FWS was mandatory, not discretionary.

137

6Memorandum to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, from the Directors of

the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region and the Southwest Region (December 17, 2003).

Third, FWS’s swift action derived from court mandates imposed on the Corps. Due

to various court orders the Corps had an obligation to ensure finalization of its Master Manual and compliance with the Endangered Species Act by Spring 2004. To

meet that requirement, the Corp requested consultations with FWS under Section

7 of the ESA in Fall 2003 regarding its proposed management of the river system.

In order to allow the Corps time to implement FWS’s recommendations by Spring

2004, the FWS had to accelerate the consultations. This resulted in the FWS having

45 days, rather than the usual 135 days, to complete the 2003 amended Biological

Opinion. To meet this accelerated timeframe, a team of 15 Fish and Wildlife Service

experts (including seven from the 2000 team) with a collective 300 years of experience was assembled.

Fourth, the 2003 amended Biological Opinion on the Corps’ new management proposal determined that jeopardy still existed for one of the three species that were

in jeopardy under the 2000 Biological Opinion (the pallid sturgeon), and included

specific biological and habitat development targets that must be met to protect all

three species. The 2003 amended Biological Opinion thus presented a new reasonable and prudent alternative that includes a number of steps the Corps must take,

which not only built on measures recommended in a National Academy of Sciences’

review of the 2000 Biological Opinion, but also included the vast majority of the

measures included in the 2000 Biological Opinion.

Finally, it is important to note that this team operated independently and reached

a consensus biological opinion based upon the best and latest scientific information

available. In fact, in an unsolicited and unprecedented action, the two career federal

officials leading the process noted in their cover memorandum transmitting the

2003 amended Biological Opinion, that the 2003 amended Biological Opinion process

followed a mandate to go ‘‘where the science leads us.’’

They noted they had not been contacted by their superiors, and that they were

unhindered in pursuing a project with ‘‘only one focus: the pursuit of science and

the well-being of the species.’’ 6

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Manipulating the Scientific Process on Forest Management’’

• The UCS claims that the USDA manipulated the scientific process on forest

management, and used a ‘‘Review Team’’ made up primarily of non-scientists

to ‘‘overrule’’ an existing forest management plan.

This claim is false. This case actually highlights how aggressive the Administration has been in using input from the scientific community to inform its forest management decisions. The UCS claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of the

NEPA processes used to update the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

(SNFPA) Record of Decision. In fact, the Forest Service received over 200 appeals

of the SNFPA and had to review and respond to them. To address these appeals,

the Regional Forester (Region Five—California) established the five-person Review

Team to evaluate any needed changes to the SNFPA Record of Decision. One scientist provided scientific support to this team. Once the Review Team completed its

work, a Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) was completed. This was developed using

an interdisciplinary team of 31 people, which included four individuals with Ph.D.s

and nine additional individuals with Master’s degrees in scientific fields.

A Science Consistency Review (SCR) was conducted to assess the DSEIS from a

scientific perspective. The Forest Service uses the SCR process infrequently and

only when the additional level of thoroughness is judged necessary to ensure that

decisions are consistent with the best available science. Controversy is not a consideration in the SCR process. The SCR is accomplished by judging whether scientific

information of appropriate content, rigor, and applicability has been considered,

evaluated, and synthesized in the draft documents that underlie and implement

land management decisions. This SCR included 13 members, with 11 being scientists, nine external to the Forest Service and seven of these external to the government, including those from universities, the Nature Conservancy, and an independent firm. The results of the SCR were provided to a group of Forest Service

professionals (including those experienced in NEPA, science, writing, and resource

management) who prepared the final NEPA documents.

It would be highly unusual for all SCR comments to be reflected in the final

NEPA documents, since these are prepared in the face of significant scientific uncertainty and a diversity of values. Nevertheless, the draft documents, the science consistency review, the response to the science consistency review, the responses to

public comments, and the final SEIS are all available on the web so that scientific

138

information used and the process that utilized this information is transparent. How

uncertainty and risk are handled in the decision have both scientific and policy elements. In addition, a paper discussing the risk and uncertainty issues around the

decision was developed by four additional university scientists. These documents are

all available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘OMB Rulemaking on ‘Peer Review’ ’’

• The UCS claims that OMB has proposed a ‘‘rulemaking’’ on peer review that

would centralize control of review of scientific information within the Administration, prohibit most scientists who receive funding from government agencies from serving as peer reviewers and ‘‘have dramatic effects’’ upon the promulgation of new government regulations, ‘‘even though OMB fails to identify

any inherent flaws in the review processes now being used at these agencies.’’

This UCS claim is wrong on many levels. First, OMB did not propose a new government-wide rule, but rather proposed a new Bulletin or guidance document under

the Information Quality Act (IQA) and other authorities. To improve its proposed

peer review Bulletin, OMB established a 90-day public comment period, which

ended December 15, 2003. OMB received 187 public comments, all of which are

available on OMB’s website. OMB also sought broad input on its proposal by commissioning an open workshop at the National Academy of Sciences to discuss its

draft. OMB is now in the process of revising the Bulletin based on the comments

received. It should be noted that while such entities as the National Academy of

Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association

of American Medical Colleges, the Federation of American Scientists, the American

Chemistry Council, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, and the National Resources Defense Council all submitted comments, the Union of Concerned Scientists

did not.

Second, the proposed Bulletin did not prohibit most scientists who receive funding

from government agencies from serving as peer reviewers, nor would it exclude

those who are most qualified. While the draft Bulletin cites government research

funds as one factor that agencies should consider when determining which scientists

should be selected, the listed factors are those ‘‘relevant to’’ the decision, not criteria

that automatically exclude participation. Moreover, the proposed Bulletin noted in

a variety of places that concerns also exist about potential conflicts of interest for

those affiliated with the regulated community. OMB specifically asked for comments

on how members of peer review panels should be selected, and will address these

comments in crafting the final bulletin.

Third, OMB explained the reasons for its proposal: OMB was (1) responding to

a new statutory requirement (the IQA) to improve the quality of information produced by agencies; (2) seeking to improve the Federal Government’s practice of peer

review so that it is applied consistently across the Executive Branch to ensure the

highest quality scientific information possible; and (3) seeking greater transparency

of the peer review process.

Fourth, the proposed OMB Bulletin’s peer review requirements should not slow

down agency regulatory proceedings. A well-conducted peer review process can accelerate the rulemaking process by reducing controversy and protecting any resultant rules against legal and political attack. When done in an open, transparent

manner, independent peer review improves both the quality of science disseminated

and the public’s confidence in the integrity of science.

Finally, the UCS description of the proposed Bulletin concludes with a quote from

the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) that implies that

PhRMA thinks the Bulletin would contribute little value and lead to obstruction and

delay. This quote is taken completely out of context. The PhRMA letter applauds

OMB for its proposed Bulletin, and discusses how OMB’s proposed procedures are

already being effectively incorporated into many of FDA’s regulatory activities. It

concludes that the terms of OMB’s proposed Bulletin, especially its exemption for

adjudications, is good policy. The quoted sentence is used to articulate why OMB

should not change the proposed Bulletin’s exemption for adjudications.

II. THE UCS’ CLAIM OF ‘‘UNDERMINING THE QUALITY AND INTEGRITY

OF THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS’’

Suggestions of a political litmus test for membership on technical advisory panels

are contradicted by numerous cases of Democrats appointed to panels at all levels,

including Presidentially appointed panels such as the President’s Information Technology Advisory Council, the National Science Board, and the nominating panel for

the President’s Committee on the National Medal of Science.

139

7 In 1991, the federal standard for lead poisoning was set at 10 micrograms per deciliter of

blood. 8There are no clinical interventions to reduce blood lead levels that are in the range of 1–

10 micrograms. No drugs or other methods have been identified that either lower the blood lead

levels for children to the levels in the range under discussion (1–10 micrograms) or reduce the

risk for adverse developmental effects. Should a child have an elevated blood lead level, a lead

inspection would be conducted to determine the source of lead including looking at paint, soil,

and house dust. Should these sources result in negative readings, other sources would then be

reviewed with the ultimate goal of removing as much of the source as possible. For a blood lead

level of 45 micrograms or higher, chelation therapy would be used to reduce, as much as possible, the lead level in the blood and tissue. At a level of 15–45 micrograms, the course of action

would be to remove external sources of lead such as lead paint. At a level below 15 micrograms,

the course of action would be to educate parents or caregivers about hazards and how to reduce

access to hazards. But there are no good methods to intervene and bring a blood lead level of,

for example, eight micrograms down to four micrograms. 9Sources of exposure for lead poisoning are very difficult to determine at a blood lead level

below 10 micrograms. The higher the blood lead level, the easier it is to find the source or

sources during a lead inspection. But at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms, the source or

sources can be virtually impossible to determine because multiple sources can contribute and

each source is additive. 10 As with all lab tests, there is a certain amount of random error that is unavoidable. In blood

lead testing, the typical error rate is + or - 2 micrograms. At a very high blood lead level, this

error rate is not of great consequence but at a low blood lead level, the error rate is too great

to ensure that children are properly classified.

It is unfortunate that the Union of Concerned Scientists would attack specific individuals who have agreed to serve their country. Every individual who serves on

one of these committees undergoes extensive review, background checks, and is recognized by peers for their contributions and expertise. Panels are viewed from a

broad perspective to ensure diversity; this may include gender, ethnicity, professional affiliations, geographical location, and perspectives.

To put this issue in perspective, note that this Administration has over 600 scientific advisory committees. HHS alone has 258 advisory committees. The UCS accusations involve instances explained below, representing rare events among a large

number of panels.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Industry Influence on Lead Poisoning Prevention Panel’’

• The UCS claims that industry influence on the lead poisoning prevention

panel led to interference with an action to toughen the lead poisoning standard. The UCS also takes issue with the HHS Office of the Secretary appointing individuals for the Advisory Committee, rather than making the appointments at a lower level.

This claim distorts deliberations on the complex issue of lead poisoning. First,

there was no link between appointments and consideration of toughening the guidelines. The appointments were made in October 2002 and the subcommittee work

group was not considering the lead poisoning guidelines at that time. In October

2003, a subcommittee work group of the Childhood Lead Advisory Committee reported its review of scientific evidence to determine whether there was sufficient

evidence of adverse health effects on children with blood lead levels less than 10

micrograms per deciliter of blood.7 The work group had ongoing discussions with

CDC about its work, which indicated that while there are adverse health effects in

children at blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms, the possibility of confounding

by other factors leaves some uncertainty as to the size of the effect. These discussions led to the conclusion that more emphasis needed to be placed on primary prevention. This conclusion was reached for a variety of reasons, including: (1) there

are no clinical interventions (treatments) to reduce blood lead levels that are in the

range of 1–10 micrograms;8 (2) it is extremely hard to classify sources of exposure

for lead poisoning at blood lead levels below 10 micrograms;9 (3) error rates in lab

testing make it extremely difficult to classify a blood lead level below 10

micrograms;10 and (4) there is no evidence of a threshold below which adverse effects are not experienced. Thus, there was a renewed emphasis on preventing children’s exposure to lead in the first place while continuing the critical work of identifying and intervening on behalf of children with higher blood lead levels.

For all of these reasons CDC concluded that it did not make sense to change the

guidelines. CDC advised that studies provide a strong rationale to emphasize preventing exposure of children to lead. The two essential elements are focusing on systematic reduction of lead paint in housing and restricting or eliminating non-essential uses of lead paint in toys, eating and drinking utensils, cosmetics, etc. Eleven

of the twelve Advisory Committee members were receptive to CDC’s recommended

approach.

140

Regarding the suggestion that two appointees had ties to the industry, every candidate is put through a rigorous ethics process that includes a conflicts of interest

analysis. All of the appointments on the Childhood Lead Advisory Committee were

cleared through this process.

Regarding the issue of appointment of advisory committee members, the members

in question replaced outgoing members who had served several terms and others

had permissibly served beyond the expiration of their present terms. Therefore, it

was part of the normal advisory committee process to identify new members.

Under the HHS General Administration Manual, the Secretary of HHS is required to approve the appointment of Federal Advisory Committee members except

those members who are appointed by the President. CDC and the Office of the Secretary worked to find a balanced slate of individuals to serve on the Childhood Lead

Advisory Committee who would reflect a diverse set of opinions, including those

from industry, and produce a comprehensive and thoughtful discussion in service of

the public’s health.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Political Litmus Tests on Workplace Safety’’

• The UCS claims that ‘‘circumstances strongly indicate a politically motivated

intervention’’ for dismissing three experts on ergonomics from a narrowly focused peer review panel at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH), implying that at least two were removed because of their

support for a workplace ergonomics standard. Another prospective member of

the study section charged publicly that someone from Secretary Thompson’s

staff, while vetting her nomination, had asked politically motivated questions

such as whether she would be an advocate on ergonomic issues.

The claim of politically motivated intervention is not true. In contrast to the NIH,

where emphasis panels, peer review groups, and study sections do not come under

the purview of Secretarial oversight, CDC’s study sections are appropriately under

the review of the Office of the Secretary. Agencies typically review many individuals

to serve on advisory panels and they may be rejected for a variety of reasons. In

this instance, one of the scientists that the UCS mentions was actually selected to

be appointed to the committee.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Non-Scientist in Senior Advisory Role to the President’’

• The UCS asserts that Richard M. Russell is not qualified by his experience

to serve in a senior scientific capacity as a Deputy Director of OSTP.

The notion that Richard Russell’s policy experience is insufficient for him to lead

the Technology Policy division at OSTP is one of the most offensive statements contained in the UCS document. Mr. Russell’s policy experience is as strong, if not

stronger, than many of his predecessors. He has worked in both the U.S. House of

Representatives and in the United States Senate and for two Committees of the

House of Representatives. Most recently, Richard Russell served on the House

Science Committee. He not only was a professional staff member, as the report

states, but was also Staff Director of the Technology Subcommittee and then Deputy

Chief of Staff for the full Committee.

Senior positions within OSTP are defined by the Director, who, in this Administration, has significantly reorganized the office to strengthen coordination with

other relevant policy offices and congressional committees. Mr. Russell possesses superior qualifications for the functions he performs in this organization.

The American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES), the umbrella organization for Engineering Societies which represents over one million engineers, endorsed Mr. Russell’s candidacy. In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member

of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee

on Science, Technology, and Space the Chairman of AAES wrote: ‘‘Mr. Russell’s experience on Capitol Hill and his strong understanding of federal science and technology policy make him well suited to lead the Technology Division of OSTP.. . .We

are very pleased with Mr. Russell’s nomination, because his professional accomplishments indicate that he appreciates the important role federal research policy can

play in the economic and national security of our nation.’’ The Senate concurred

with AAES’ assessment and confirmed Mr. Russell by unanimous consent.

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Underqualified Candidates in Health Advisory Roles’’

• The UCS claims that the Administration’s candidates for health advisory

roles ‘‘have so lacked qualifications or held such extreme views that they have

caused a public outcry.’’ Two cases cited are the appointment of Dr. W. David

Hager to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Reproductive

141

Health Advisory Committee, and the appointment of Dr. Joseph McIlhaney to

the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.

This accusation is offensive and wrong. Both the individuals cited by the UCS are

in fact well qualified. Their CV’s are widely available and it is not necessary to repeat them here.

The UCS’ claims on Litmus Tests for Scientific Appointees

• The UCS asserts that a political litmus test was the reason why Dr. William

Miller was denied an appointment on the National Institute for Drug Abuse

(NIDA) advisory panel.

This claim is false. The HHS Office of the Secretary recommended that Dr. Miller

be considered for this panel and NIDA did not concur. The decision by NIDA/NIH

was not based on any conversations with any members of the Secretary’s Office.

• The UCS document suggests that a nominee to the Army Science Board was

rejected because he had contributed to the presidential campaign of Senator

John McCain.

This contention is without support. Nominees for standing membership are approved at several levels within the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense,

and some may be turned down during this process for various reasons. Some may

later be reevaluated and included, depending on the current composition of the

Board (with a goal to achieve a wide variety of expertise and balance between experienced Board members and new voices). Mr. Howard, the individual identified by

the UCS, has expertise relevant to defense issues, and his technical advice has been

sought on Army Science Board, Air Force Science Advisory Board, and Defense

Science Board studies as a consultant during the current Administration.

The UCS’ claims on Dismissal of Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Panels

• The UCS document suggests that the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control

Panels of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) were ‘‘summarily abolished.’’

This contention distorts the facts. The NNSA Advisory Committee was established

in June 2001, not by Congress, but by the Department of Energy to advise the

NNSA Administrator on a wide range of issues affecting the newly established

NNSA, including technology, policy, and operations, not just science. As is the case

with most advisory committees, the NNSA committee was established for a period

not to exceed two years. The charter expired in June of 2003 and was not renewed.

The committee had fulfilled its mission. The expiration of the Advisory Committee’s

charter does not preclude the NNSA Administrator from initiating other advisory

groups when warranted. NNSA gets input from the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, the Defense Science Board, the Secretary of Energy Advisory

Board, and the National Academy of Sciences. The NNSA has always had ample

independent oversight and analysis requested by DOE or Congress. The Advisory

Committee had no oversight responsibilities.

• The UCS document claims that the arms control panel that advised the State

Department on technical matters was dismissed, and that a promised new

committee to take its place has not been formed.

The Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Group had reached the end of

its two-year charter (as set forth in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.

Appendix 2) ), as is the case with most advisory committees. In order to be reconstituted, the charter and composition was examined for any required revision (cf. Section 14 of FACA).

The Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Group has been reauthorized by

Under Secretary of State for Management Grant Green as of November 2003. The

specific membership is currently under consideration.

III. THE UCS’ CLAIMS OF ‘‘AN UNPRECEDENTED PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR’’

The UCS’ claims on ‘‘Disseminating Research from Federal Agencies’’

Part III closes the UCS ‘‘investigation’’ and contains two sections—one on ‘‘Disseminating Research from Federal Agencies’’ and one on ‘‘Irregularities in Appointments to Scientific Advisory Panels.’’ Here, the UCS does not provide a single instance of an actual suppression of agency research or an appointment irregularity

142

occurring. Both sections consist entirely of quotations from various individuals and

one organization.

Individual opinions are not actual events with facts that can be determined. With

no context, one must assume these opinions are based upon the type of misinformation presented throughout the UCS document.

The stated opinions do not reflect the views of many outstanding scientists who

have worked with this Administration. In particular, the National Academy of

Sciences has been closely involved in various aspects of the Bush Administration’s

science policies. The Academy of Sciences has graciously accepted numerous requests to conduct research program reviews, and have gained first-hand knowledge

of the Administration’s commitment to independent scientific advice, a commitment

that extends to all areas of science under federal support. The most prominent example is the National Academy’s review of the Climate Change Science Program’s

recently released Strategic Plan. If there has ever been an area of contention about

this Administration’s commitment to science, climate change science is it. Yet the

Academy says about the Strategic Plan that:

‘‘The Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program articulates

a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope. It encompasses activities related to areas of long-standing importance, together with

new or enhanced cross-disciplinary efforts. It appropriately plans for close integration with the complementary Climate Change Technology Program. The

CCSP has responded constructively to the National Academies review and other

community input in revising the strategic plan. In fact, the approaches taken

by the CCSP to receive and respond to comments from a large and broad group

of scientists and stakeholders, including a two-stage independent review of the

plan, set a high standard for government research programs. As a result, the

revised strategic plan is much improved over its November 2002 draft, and now

includes the elements of a strategic management framework that could permit

it to effectively guide research on climate and associated global changes over the

next decades.. . .Advancing science on all fronts identified by the program will

be of vital importance to the Nation.’’

143

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Arden Bement, Jr., Acting Director, National Science Foundation

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON NSF PRIORITY SETTING

FOR MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES

Q1. What actions does the Foundation plan to take in response to the recent report

from the National Academy of Sciences calling for a more open process for selecting and prioritizing major facilities projects supported by NSF?

A1. NSF embraces the goals of the National Academies report, which are to promote greater transparency of the process by which large facility projects are selected, and to apply uniform principles to their management and oversight. The

Foundation recognizes the importance of promoting this transparency by articulating a selection process that is clearly defined and easily understood by the research community and the Congress. A number of internal discussions within NSF,

and thoughtful interactions with the NSB, have already taken place as we consider

how best to achieve these goals. This dialogue will continue at the May and August

NSB meetings with a goal of implementing recommendations in early Fall.

Q2. Will NSF develop a roadmap for major facilities, as called for in the report and

similar to the one developed this year by the Department of Energy?

A2. I believe we will develop a road map, but it will be a roadmap with NSF characteristics and will have features that are somewhat different from those of missionoriented agencies. NSF supports research in nearly every field of science and engineering, and that enormously diverse community is very likely to change its views

regarding what the most important facility requirements are likely to be over the

next decade. While NSF can identify, with reasonable certainty, the facilities likely

to be required over the next five years or so, it is important for NSF to be able to

reconsider and re-prioritize what facilities will be needed over longer time scales.

Preserving NSF’s flexibility to reconsider this process in light of continually emerging opportunities is critical to promoting and maintaining a forefront research portfolio.

Q3. Also, what plans are underway to establish committees of external and internal

experts to provide annual assessments of facility operations?

A3. NSF has employed practices for post-award oversight of large facility projects

for a number of years that are very much in accord with the review process recommended in the National Academies report. For example, LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory), IceCube, and the joint NSF–DOE participation in the CERN Large Hadron Collider program have all been handled this way.

For some other projects that are now underway or are just getting started, this approach is a new paradigm. One of the responsibilities of the recently appointed Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects will be to make sure that these oversight

practices are uniformly applied across the NSF.

Q4. Will NSF strengthen the authority of the Deputy Director for Large Facility

Projects?

A4. The authority of the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects to act flows

down through the internal NSF chain of command from the NSF Director. During

the next few weeks, the Director intends to consider further the appropriate role,

authority, scope of responsibilities, and resources required for that position.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES ACCOUNT

Q5. Please provide an explanation of how NSF would use the additional funds proposed for the Salaries and Expenses account.

A5. The additional $75.3 million for the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Account is

associated with NSF’s Organizational Excellence (OE) Strategic Goal, a goal that became part of the Foundation’s five-year Strategic Plan in September 2003. OE

serves as the cornerstone for NSF operations and activities, and is intrinsically

linked with NSF’s ability to efficiently and effectively achieve its mission-oriented

outcome goals (People, Ideas, and Tools).

As NSF’s top investment priority for FY 2005, the additional resources for OE will

enable the Foundation to address the staffing, human resource, operational and

144

physical and technological infrastructure challenges created by the growing volume

and increased complexity of the workload. In addition, the resources will enable

NSF to address the President’s Management Agenda, focus on management challenges and reforms identified by OMB or GAO, address issues identified in NSF’s

annual review of financial and administrative systems as required by the Federal

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act and by the NSF Office of Inspector General, and

implement recommendations stemming from the comprehensive three-year Business

Analysis.

The primary areas of focus within the OE request are:

• Technologies and Tools (+$51.80 million): Areas of investment include IT security and protection of information and assets, next generation grants management capabilities and services, new Human Capital and Learning Management systems, and ongoing applications and IT infrastructure maintenance and operations. Collectively, these investments will promote the Foundation’s ability to deliver world-class customer services, secure its infrastructure, enhance leadership and innovation in e-Government and complement

Human Capital initiatives.

• Human Capital (+$20.94 million): Areas of investment include a workforce

planning system, enhancements in recruiting and retention of employees, an

improved performance management system, development of competencybased job families, work life/workplace initiatives, and enhanced education

and training opportunities through the NSF Academy. Collectively, these investments will enable the Foundation to attract and retain the highest caliber

scientists, engineers, and educators to fulfill its mission, and to ensure that

its technical and administrative staff remains innovative and entrepreneurial.

An additional 25 FTE are also included in this request to respond to the

growing number of proposals, additional administrative responsibilities and to

enhance award management and oversight.

• Business Processes (+$2.56 million): The area of investment will be the comprehensive multi-year Business Analysis that is crucial to the overall framework for long-term investments in OE. The Analysis will address issues such

as alternative, more efficient methods for conducting the proposal review

process, developing more formal procedures for managing the technical risk

of awards, assessing the contribution of NSF-funded projects to the advancement of science and engineering, and providing a framework for implementing NSF’s next generation IT environment. Collectively, the Analysis will

provide a roadmap for improvements in NSF’s business processes, human

capital management, and technology and tools management.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP

Q1. The NSF budget request proposes termination of the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program, transfers $80.0 million for MSP close-out funding from

EHR to R&RA, and cuts the remaining K–12 science education programs in

EHR by an additional $40.0 million.

Should these actions be interpreted as a policy decision by NSF to de-emphasize,

or abandon, K–12 STEM education programs, and will we see additional cuts

to these programs in future budgets?

A1. The phasing out of the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program at NSF—

and the consolidation of initiative efforts at the Department of Education—reflects

the Administration’s desire to consolidate resources into a single program for maximum impact. NSF has requested $80 million to honor funding commitments for the

existing portfolio of MSP awards in 2005. Administering the funding for MSP in the

Integrative Activities portion of the Research and Related Activities Account acknowledges the integrative aspects of the program across NSF.

Neither the phase-out of MSP nor the additional cuts in EHR should be interpreted as a policy decision by NSF to de-emphasize or abandon K–12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education programs, but rather as a

set of strategic decisions by NSF to continue its impact on K–12 STEM education

within current priorities.

Q2. And if this is not the intention, in light of the evident need to improve K–12

STEM education, what is the rationale for these budget proposals?

145

A2. Within EHR, efforts will continue to enhance comprehensive K–12 teacher education, to develop high-quality instructional materials, to prepare a new generation

of education leaders capable of addressing emerging issues facing STEM education

nationally and to facilitate linkages between the informal and formal education communities. Increasing efforts will be placed on conducting educational research in

STEM education and aggressively pursuing efforts to effectively disseminate that research to practice. Moreover, complementing EHR efforts are the activities within

disciplinary directorates that integrate research and education at the K–12 level, for

example, through outreach efforts of the Science and Technology Centers and the

Engineering Education Centers.

BROADENING PARTICIPATION

Q3. The NSF budget presentation describes the Human Resource Development activity at NSF as being focused on increasing participation and advancement of

under-represented groups and institutions in STEM education.

Since there is wide agreement on the importance of such programs, why does

the budget request cut them by seven percent overall and freeze funding for a

particularly effective program, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation? What is the rationale for these funding decisions, particularly with regard

to programs that NSF’s own assessments have found to be effective?

A3. Programs supported by the Human Resource Development (HRD) sub-activity

are focused on increasing participation and advancement of under-represented

groups and institutions in STEM education. The funding requested for HRD is $4.53

million above the Administration’s FY 2004 Request, although less than the amount

eventually appropriated by Congress. It will provide for continued coordination with

the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and the Alliances for

Graduate Education and the Professoriate. The Education and Human Resources

Directorate has been working to broaden the impact of the LSAMP program (e.g.,

co-funding of collaborative initiatives between Mathematical and Physical Sciences

programs and LSAMP and the summer internship collaboration between Department of Energy and LSAMP). The LSAMP funding level provides for full funding

for Cohort I Alliances. Additionally, the FY 2005 Budget Request will provide first

year support for at least four new awardees. Thirteen of the 14 STEM doctoral degree granting HBCUs that are eligible for CREST/THRUST awards will have been

funded by the end of FY 2004. These 13 HBCUs are not eligible for additional

CREST/THRUST awards in FY 2005, but four can compete for supplements from

the regular CREST program in FY 2005.

NSF WORKING GROUP ON POSTDOCTORATES

Q4. A response to a written question that Congresswoman Johnson sent to NSF prior

to this hearing indicated that one result arising from the efforts of the NSF-wide

Working Group on Postdoctorates is the policy for NSF’s postdoctorate programs

to include support for fringe benefits, especially heath care.

With regard to postdocs who are supported as research personnel under normal

research grants, does NSF plan to institute terms and conditions in its grants

to regulate the treatment of postdocs in a way that is consistent with NSF’s own

postdoc programs?

A4. NSF does not have plans ‘‘to institute terms and conditions’’ for the support of

postdocs on research grants beyond its current policy. In particular, although subject to external peer and NSF staff review before a grant is awarded, the stipend

level and benefits package are developed by the submitting institutions according

to their policies and practices. With input from the community, NSF is continuing

a review of its policies with respect to financial support of postdocs and mechanisms

that improve their career development.

CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE

Q5. The FY 2004 Budget Request included $20.0 million for a new

Cyberinfrastructure sub-activity in the computer science directorate.

What has happened to this initiative in the FY 2005 Request?

A5. At the time the FY 2004 Request was being formulated, preliminary discussions

among the NSF directorates were underway and the NSF Advisory Committee on

Cyberinfrastructure was still in the process of preparing its report. Since that time,

146

the Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure completed its report, and the agency has consolidated responsibilities for shared cyberinfrastructure within a single division, the CISE Division of Shared Cyberinfrastructure. The $20 million requested

as a sub-activity in FY 2004 will be managed in the Division of Shared

Cyberinfrastructure; this funding augments $92.6 million available within that division for shared cyberinfrastructure in FY 2004. As indicated in the President’s

Budget Request, in FY 2005, NSF expects to invest nearly $400 million in

cyberinfrastructure across both shared and domain-specific resources. These investments will be made through a wide range of programs and funding modes, providing

opportunities for individual institutions to participate.

Q6. What resources are available to individual institutions for upgrading

cyberinfrastructure, and what is being developed for shared cyberinfrastructure?

A6. In FY 2005, NSF will continue to take steps toward deploying an enhanced

cyberinfrastructure for science and engineering research and education. These steps

build on the results of FY 2004 competitions, and draw upon input from the academic community and NSF’s programmatic directorates and offices, as well as recommendations from the report of the NSF Advisory Committee on

Cyberinfrastructure.

As previously announced, the Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) have been extended through the end of FY 2004. During this period, both PACI lead sites—the National Center for Supercomputing Applications

(NCSA) and the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC)—will deploy significant

technology upgrades, almost doubling the high-end computing resources that NSF

makes available to the Nation’s scientists and engineers.

In FY 2005, NSF plans to support the following cyberinfrastructure activities,

amongst others:

• Support will be provided for NCSA and SDSC to ensure the continuing provision of high-end supercomputing resources and related services to the national community. In addition, SDSC and NCSA will work in partnership

with NSF and the science and engineering community at large to define

emerging cyberinfrastructure opportunities to advance all fields. These and

other community activities will inform NSF’s development of future

cyberinfrastructure-enhancing competitions.

• Complementing the cyberinfrastructure resources and services provided by

NCSA and SDSC, the Extensible Terascale Facility (ETF)—which is on track

to be commissioned October 1, 2004—will demonstrate the potential of revolutionary grid computing approaches to advance science and engineering research and education. Additional ETF upgrades are planned for FY 2004,

which includes a new capability computing investment for the Pittsburgh

Supercomputing Center (PSC). This upgrade represents the final stage of the

ETF’s construction phase. Support for the management and operations of

ETF-enabled cyberinfrastructure will be provided beginning in FY 2005 and

extending through FY 2009.

• To ensure that all science and engineering communities are prepared to inform the development of and effectively utilize the broad, evolving

cyberinfrastructure, NSF plans to hold an open competition during FY 2004

that will ultimately support a comprehensive set of education, training and

outreach awards. This competition will build on the work of the successful

PACI Education, Outreach and Training (EOT) and other activities.

• Support for the NSF Middleware Initiative will ensure the availability of the

tools needed to build future generations of distributed systems and applications. Middleware manages interactions among distributed resources, providing usability, robustness, security and other features, while hiding complexity of individual computers. Emphasis for 2005 includes integration of

middleware services with domain sciences, and development and prototyping

of new middleware functionality and services.

• International Research Network Connections supports the cooperation and

collaboration of U.S. based researchers with researchers in other nations by

providing access to data, research outputs, and other networked resources;

the program also supports connectivity to instruments that are shared across

borders. In FY 2005, the program will emphasize solutions that provide the

best economies of scale and provide access to the largest communities of scientists, engineers and educators.

Q7. Where does high-end computing, particularly provision for leading edge supercomputers, fit into your cyberinfrastructure plans?

147

A7. High-end computing remains a priority for NSF. As indicated above, supercomputing is a key component in the cyberinfrastructure and NSF will address support

for supercomputing through awards to NCSA, SDSC, and the Extensible Terascale

Facility partners (at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, NCSA, SDSC, Argonne National Laboratories, the California Institute of Technology, Indiana University, Purdue University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the University of Texas).

Q8. How have the findings and recommendations of the interagency High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force (HEC–RTF) influenced your FY 2005 budget

decisions for cyberinfrastructure?

A8. NSF is actively pursuing two of the issues explored by the HEC–RTF. To address software needed for high-end computers, NSF and DARPA have just released

an announcement ‘‘Software and Tools for High-End Computing’’ (NSF–04–569) on

this topic; NSF will invest $6.0 million and DARPA will invest $1.0 million. This

effort also addresses a second issue: collaboration among federal agencies. In addition this joint announcement, NSF also is collaborating with DARPA on their High

Productivity Computing Systems program, in which NSF will assist in reviews and

co-fund projects.

PLANT GENOME RESEARCH

Q9. The recently enacted NSF authorization law includes an authorization for basic

genomic research related to crops grown in the developing world.

Within NSF’s proposed plant genome research activities and international programs for FY 2005, what resources are being made available to implement this

new budget authority?

A9. To encourage international collaboration on crop plants important to the developing world, the Plant Genome Research Program Announcement soliciting proposals for FY 2004 and FY 2005 includes the following language:

‘‘NSF encourages international research collaborations, particularly with investigators from developing countries, and especially where there is a common research focus or system.’’

In FY 2004, the Plant Genome Research Program released a Dear Colleague Letter entitled, ‘‘Developing Country Collaborations in Plant Genome Research’’ (NSF

04–563) to announce the availability of funding to augment existing grants for activities designed to foster research collaborations between U.S. scientists and scientists from the developing world. The focus of the added support would be on research on crops grown in the developing world and/or on traits that are important

to crops grown in the developing world. The NSF Office of International Science and

Engineering and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provided

substantial input to the Dear Colleague Letter. USAID has agreed to provide assistance to Principal Investigators in identifying potential scientists and institutions in

developing countries.

In addition, the Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes, an NSTC subcommittee involving NSF, USDA, USAID, DOE, OSTP, NASA, and OMB, is discussing an interagency joint program to support research collaboration in plant

genomics/biotechnology between U.S. scientists and scientists from the developing

world.

Furthermore, database and genomic tools developed through NSF funded research

will provide the basis for future international cooperation. The development of tools

for rice is an excellent example. These tools can be used to identify genes governing

economically important traits such as drought tolerance, flowering time, and disease

resistance across a range of rice species, including African cultivars, which are distinct from those grown in Asia.

It should be noted that NSF-supported researchers are already collaborating with

institutions in developing countries, utilizing results from previously-funded research. Examples include a collaboration between the group studying a model legume (Medicago) and a group in India studying chickpea, and the group studying

Sorghum genomics with groups working on Sorghum in Africa. NSF supported a

training workshop on maize in Mexico City that was attended by students and researchers from Africa who received travel support from USAID.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES ACCOUNT

Q10. The FY 2005 budget proposal for the NSF Salaries and Expenses Account includes a request of $84.0 million for information infrastructure acquisitions.

148

NSF has underway a three-year, $12.0 million review of the agency’s business

processes and required human capital and enabling technologies. One outcome

is to be an integrated enabling technologies plan.

Why does this proposed, substantial budget increase for information infrastructure for internal NSF operations precede the completion of the enabling technologies plan?

A10. The budget increase for information infrastructure for internal NSF operations

reflects and is consistent with analysis and products completed to date as part of

the Business Analysis, as well as to enhance system security and update an aging

infrastructure as part of our normal operations. Information Technology Plan and

Enterprise Architecture work being conducted under the agency-wide Business

Analysis study is designed to be an iterative process, with periodic analytical and

planning products produced frequently. Planning and analysis products are strategic

in nature and are focused on the major technology initiatives, architectural components, management principles and technical standards needed to better support

NSF business processes. The baseline Enterprise Architecture and the preliminary

target Enterprise Architecture, delivered in September 2003, were used to formulate

and inform the FY 2005 budget request for IT investment in next generation grants

management and human capital systems, and to establish priorities for acquisition

of critical supporting infrastructure.

Q11. Why do you believe that the technologies you are seeking to acquire will be consistent with the recommendations from the management study?

A11. The FY 2005 Request reflects an information technology investment roadmap

and plan for achieving significant improvements in NSF’s business processes that

are fully aligned with the preliminary target Enterprise Architecture. NSF is using

this roadmap, plan, and preliminary Architecture to tactically plan for, assess, acquire, and implement identified high priority technologies. The Business Analysis

recommendations are largely focused on making infrastructural and architectural

improvements that will be robust enough to accommodate future technology environments regardless of the exact form of the final target architecture. For example,

a high priority recommendation is to transition to an enterprise directory service to

provide a mechanism for consolidating and integrating information, improving security, and increasing inter-operability. NSF’s FY 2005 Request reflects the priority

to acquire and deploy this key architectural element, recognizing that deployment

of specific technologies and capabilities will be an ongoing, iterative process within

the overall Enterprise Architecture framework. The next iteration of the target Enterprise Architecture and the information technology plan are scheduled for June

and September 2004. NSF will continue to plan for and acquire recommended enabling IT infrastructure in alignment with the target Architecture and implementation plan. NSF will also maintain high quality customer service, assure system performance, and improve management and operational efficiency of systems, networks, data center and help desks.

POST-AWARD MANAGEMENT

Q12. The FY 2003 independent auditor’s report for NSF found one reportable condition on post-award management. The audit recommended that NSF fully implement post-award grant monitoring policies and procedures specified in the

NSF ‘‘Award Monitoring and Business Assistance Program Guide.’’

When will this recommendation be implemented?

A12. NSF’s implementation of this recommendation began with development of a

Pilot Program in FY 2002 that featured a risk assessment model and a select number of site visits. In FY 2002, nineteen award monitoring and business assistance

site visits were conducted.

In FY 2003, from lessons learned, NSF developed a strategic program—Award

Monitoring and Business Assistance Program (AMBAP)—that balances risk mitigation and cost-benefit. This program incorporates post-award management monitoring and those complementary end-to-end award management activities that support its effective implementation. This program includes:

• A dynamic risk assessment framework that integrates institutional and

award risks. The data elements that describe the risk factors are incorporated

into the database, allowing for electronic analysis.

• A site selection process that uses data from the above as a first level of identification. NSF’s comprehensive site selection process supplements the outputs

149

from the implementation of the risk assessment framework, with specific program office referrals and requests; institution-initiated requests; reverse site

visits; and audit resolution visits.

• The AMBAP Guide includes: core review areas; preparation protocols; site

visit tools; post visit follow-up with NSF program staff and NSF grantees; and

reporting and documentation requirements.

The AMBAP Guide is a living document that NSF continues to refine as it gains

experience and in which new requirements are incorporated as they are deemed appropriate. For example, in FY 2004 NSF is conducting test work for erroneous payments on high-risk grants as part of NSF’s compliance with the Improper Payments

Information Act of 2002.

SETTING PRIORITIES FOR LARGE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Q13. A response to a written question Congresswoman Johnson sent to NSF prior

to this hearing, regarding the recommendations of the National Research Council on setting priorities for NSF’s large facilities construction account, indicated

that NSF has reservations about developing a 10–20 year roadmap of

prioritized facilities construction projects. The main objection seemed to be that

a 20-year timeframe was too long, but implied 10 years may be possible.

Is the time period your main objection to this NRC recommendation? Do you

believe it is feasible to develop, say, a 10-year roadmap?

A13. To reiterate some of the points made in answer to question number one, NSF

supports the goals of the National Academies study—enhanced transparency of the

large facilities selection process, development of well understood budgets that are

needed to construct and operate these facilities, and application of the highest

standards of oversight to their construction and operation.

NSF has some concerns regarding the rather detailed recommendations for implementation contained within the report. The NSF context for implementing these recommendations is not fully reflected within the report. As mentioned in answer to

the first question, the breadth of research supported by NSF makes it difficult to

predict the needs of and opportunities for such a varied group of disciplines far in

advance. It is possible to do this with good precision at least five years into the future, and maybe even further, because the timescale for development of construction

proposals by the academic community is at least that long in most cases. So the

timescale is one of the concerns, but there are others.

Another concern we have with the report concerns the rather prescriptive role it

defines for the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects. NSF recognizes the need

to strengthen its oversight capabilities during the construction of large facility

projects. To address this concern, the agency has created this new position. The intention in doing so was to hire a person to be charged with the responsibility for

coordinating with program officers throughout the Foundation to make sure that

NSF’s policies and guidelines for project oversight are uniformly applied, within the

existing organizational framework. NSF feels that it would not be helpful to establish an independent organization to oversee and manage large projects during their

construction phases.

Q14. Would NSF be willing to encourage and support efforts by science and engineering disciplines that do not now do so to develop prioritized lists of facilities

construction projects in their fields, which NSF could then use to develop a

prioritized roadmap across fields?

A14. NSF is very much willing to encourage and support efforts of various research

disciplines to articulate their needs for large facilities. The Foundation have long

supported these activities in communities that are facility intensive, such as astronomy and particle physics, through workshops, summer studies, and enabling smaller

scale research and development grants. More recently, NSF extended this support

to other areas as opportunities have arisen, such as ecology, oceanography, and civil

engineering, and plan to continue to look for ways to enable disciplines to strategically plan. These inputs are very helpful to NSF, since fundamentally the Foundation reacts to the needs of the research communities it serves to strategically plan

for the future. However, many disciplines have not traditionally organized themselves in this way, and it is likely that some will continue to pursue alternative

ways to voice their ideas.

150

NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Q15. The Nanoscale Science and Engineering priority area receives an increase of 20

percent under the FY 2005 NSF budget proposal. However, the breakout of

funding by research directorate shows a four percent decrease in funding in the

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate, from the already low

level of $1.56 million for FY 2004.

Could you explain why research related to the societal implications of

nanotechnology appears to be de-emphasized in this budget request?

A15. Research on the societal implications of nanotechnology is an important priority for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) and the

National Science Foundation (NSF). SBE and the Foundation anticipate substantial

investments in research exploring the societal implications of nanotechnology. The

$1.5 million mentioned in the SBE budget reflects the Directorate’s formal commitment to the Nanoscale Science and Engineering priority area competitions. This

amount does not reflect the full amount that the NSF anticipates will be spent on

research on the societal implications of nanotechnology. In particular, it excludes investments that SBE is likely to make through its core program competitions and

its contributions to the Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) priority area, as well

as work on the societal implications of nanotechnology supported by funds budgeted

in other Directorates. While NSF expects additional investments, they cannot be estimated with any precision.

The Engineering Directorate has recently stated that they will be increasing the

Directorate’s contribution to research in the societal implications of nanotechnology

in both FY 2004 and FY 2005. This will bring the minimum research funding in

this area to $2.5 million in both years with the ability to increase this level if the

quality and quantity of proposals are similar to FY 2003.

Success of Nanotechnology Ad hoc Proposals. The importance of the societal implications of nanotechnology to the research community and to NSF is demonstrated

in the submission and competitive, peer reviewed, awarding of significantly more

proposals in FY 2003 than originally anticipated. In FY 2003, $1.1 million was

budgeted for proposals involving the social, ethical, and other societal implications

of nanotechnology. Based on the quality of proposal submissions, NSF funded $3.4

million for proposals in this area. This is over three times the anticipated amount

and demonstrates the commitment of the agency and the research community to

this important area of social scientific research.

Increased Interest Within the Research Community. Already in FY 2004, NSF has

seen increased interest in the societal implications of nanotechnology outside the

formal nanotechnology solicitation. Programs in the SBE Directorate have received

many proposals to perform research in this area and the Human and Social Dynamics priority area, which SBE coordinates, is stimulating further interest. Researchers have submitted letters of intent to submit proposals in this year’s HSD priority

area competition with topics such as perspectives of nanotechnology risk, the implications of nanotechnology on society and the economy, and the development of research infrastructure associated with nanoscience and nanotechnology. These and

many more will be peer reviewed and will also likely lead to increased funding of

the societal implications of nanotechnology beyond the formal SBE commitment to

the Nanoscale Science and Engineering solicitation.

Question submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith

SILICON NANOELECTRONICS AND BEYOND

Q1. In the next 10–15 years the country will reach the physical limits of the semiconductor technology we have used for the past 30 years, and absent a replacement

technology, semiconductor driven productivity gains will slow significantly. The

NSF has just started a program, called Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond, so

that we can continue development of replacement technology.

Does NSF have any plans to increase university research under this program

to ensure our ability to remain competitive in the semiconductor and

nanotechnology markets?

A1. The NSF (Directorates for Engineering; Mathematical and Physical Sciences;

and Computer and Information Science and Engineering) and the Semiconductor

Research Corporation (SRC), through a Memorandum of Understanding, have developed a partnership in Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond (SNB) to work together

in developing the fundamental research base and creation of new knowledge needed

151

to sustain the U.S. leadership and competitiveness in the global semiconductor industry. The SNB joint activity will seek to provide expanded and possibly collaborative support for research needs identified in the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) and in the integration of biological, molecular, and

other emerging areas of electronics at the nanoscale.

NSF is providing opportunities for U.S. academic researchers to submit proposals

in SNB within the NSF-wide Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NS&E) competition, which is conducted annually as part of NSF’s investment in its priority area

of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. The NS&E competitions provide support for

centers, interdisciplinary research groups, and exploratory research by individual investigators. Individual investigators may also submit unsolicited proposals in SNB

to NSF core program areas.

The current FY 2004 Nanoscale Science and Engineering solicitation has added

specific language identifying opportunities in SNB under the research area

Nanoscale Devices and System Architecture. Beginning in FY 2005, and in subsequent years, the NS&E solicitation will include a separate section describing research opportunities in SNB. NSF and SRC will jointly define and conduct the SNB

portion of the FY 2005 NS&E competition, in accord with established NSF procedures. NSF’s investment in SNB is expected to grow in FY 2005 and FY 2006 as

the community of SNB researchers becomes energized and the number and quality

of SNB proposals grow. The magnitude of future investments by NSF will depend

critically on the budget allocations available to this research area.

152

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Charles E. McQueary, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert

Q1. For the current fiscal year, please provide a breakdown of how funds have been

allocated among Department of Energy laboratories, universities, and private industry. Also, in the current fiscal year, how much funding will be allocated to

the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency?

A1. For the current fiscal year, $146.0 million has been allocated to the Department of Energy (DOE) DOE National Laboratories and sites, $69.6 million has been allocated to the University Programs/Homeland Security Fellowships, and $483.8 million to private industry. The Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

(HSARPA) has been allocated a total of $246.5 million.

Q2. In the fiscal year 2004 appropriations report for DHS, Congress instructed the

Department to consolidate all research and development funding within the

Science and Technology Directorate in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. This

has not happened—for example, the budget request explicitly includes $154 million for research and development activities in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Q2a. Please describe the DHS research and development activities, including those

at TSA, that have not been transferred into the S&T Directorate.

Q2b. What is the schedule for transferring these activities to the S&T Directorate?

Q2c. How is your Directorate overseeing and coordinating these programs in the

meantime?

A2a,b,c. The Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate will establish management

relationships regarding research and development (R&D) activities in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the following:

• Transportation Security Laboratory (Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Transportation Security Administration);

• Customs Applied Technology Division (Border and Transportation Security

Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection);

• Customs Laboratory System’s Laboratories & Scientific Services Research Facility (Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Bureau of Customs

and Border Protection); and

• Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Forensic Document Laboratory

(Border and Transportation Security Directorate, Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement).

• In addition, S&T will establish management relationships with the U.S.

Coast Guard R&D Center and with U.S. Secret Service Laboratory R&D activities that will take into consideration the traditional and protective missions respectively of these entities.

Details of actions and timelines required to establish new management relationships and integrate R&D activities in the Department will be finalized by the Secretary.

We will complete the administrative requirements to establish management relationships between R&D activities in other DHS components and S&T by September

30, 2004. Our intent is to develop and expand collaborative relationships as the new

management relationships are established. To establish these management relationships, the S&T Directorate expects to take the following steps:

• The proposed management relationship between S&T and each R&D activity

will be determined;

• Memoranda of Agreement will be promulgated between S&T and each R&D

activity; and

• Mutually agreed-to transition plans will be developed.

S&T staff have collaborated as appropriate with R&D-related activities located in

DHS elements external to the S&T Directorate. The formation of official management relationships between the S&T Directorate and each R&D activity in the Department will identify responsibilities for coordination and oversight of R&D activities as appropriate.

153

Q3. The fiscal year 2005 budget request proposes that the DHS Science and Tech- nology Directorate’s University Programs be decreased from $69 million in fiscal

year 2004 to $30 million in fiscal year 2005. How would this cut affect your continuing and future programs, such as the university centers of excellence and the

fellowships for students in homeland security-related fields?

A3. Maintaining a cadre of talented scientists and engineers and investing in our

future scientific workforce is a top priority of the Department. DHS will maintain

this core program, but will not be able to expand the Scholars/Fellows program to

include fellowships for post-docs and faculty at the reduced funding level. The reduced funding may also impact the internship component of the Fellowship program

in the summer of 2005.

To date, DHS has established three university-based Homeland Security Centers

of Excellence (HS Centers), the University of Southern California’s Homeland Security Center for Risk-Based and Economic Analysis of Terrorist Events. Two more HS

Centers in the area of agricultural security—foreign animal and zoonotic disease defense, and post-harvest food protection and defense—were recently chosen at Texas

A&M University and the University of Minnesota respectively.

DHS has solicited input from the National Academies of Science to determine appropriate topics and prioritized areas for future HS Centers. DHS expects to release

solicitations and award two additional HS Centers in FY 2004 for a total of five HS

Centers. The reduced funding level for the University Programs will not impact the

initial three-year funding for each HS Center established.

Q4. How is your Directorate working to transfer technology to the operational portions of the Department? Please provide an example of a technology that has

been successfully transferred to another unit or to industry, or plans to transfer

one of your nearly mature technologies.

A4. The S&T Directorate’s primary focus is on applied research and development,

improving technologies, and deploying them to emergency responders and end-users

as rapidly as possible. Several of the primary end-user communities (e.g., Secret

Service, Coast Guard, Border and Transportation Security, and Emergency Preparedness and Response) are represented in the S&T Directorate by Portfolio Managers. These Portfolio Managers lead the S&T planning and budgeting effort relating to end-user organizations. Additionally, S&T staff works within the Information

Analysis & Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP) to facilitate the development

and communication of requirements. In addition, by emphasizing a systems engineering approach to technology development, end-user needs and life cycle considerations such as affordability, manufacturability, inter-operability, ease of use and

sustainability are embedded at the beginning of the development effort.

Examples of technologies successfully transferred or demonstrated by S&T to

operational components or industry include:

• PROTECT: a chemical detection and response capability now deployed in the

Washington Metro System. This system is being operated and expanded by

the Washington Area Metropolitan Authority.

• LINC: provided the tools and know-how to several U.S. Municipalities to facilitate on-site response and decision-making if a nuclear, biological and

chemical atmospheric release were to occur and to link those cities with the

National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center if a more sophisticated analysis is required.

• Audio matrix switches: installed in strategic radio communication locations in

the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, to improve inter-operability in the

Metropolitan Inter-operability Radio System. This program demonstrates

inter-operability in a dense urban area through the use of multi-band audio

switches in multiple locations and jurisdictions.

• Dual Zone Maritime Inter-operability Solution: implemented in the New Orleans/Baton Rouge, LA, region, which improves regional inter-operability along

the Mississippi River using audio matrix switches to connect radios operating

on disparate systems.

• Radio Infrastructure Inter-operability Planning Tool (RIIPT): assesses coverage, technology, and inter-operability across government agencies. It is

being used to analyze federal agencies along the United States northern border for the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) to identify coverage

deficiencies and overlaps, and to recommend inter-operability improvements.

• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): demonstrated in an operational environment, as part of the Arizona Border Control Initiative/Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate.

154

• Threat Vulnerability Mapper (TVM): enables the geospatial depiction of terrorist threats against the nationwide infrastructure vulnerabilities. It has

been delivered and successfully integrated within the Information Analysis

and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate.

• BorderSafe: an information sharing capability that allows state and local law

enforcement agencies to share relevant information on investigations and includes specific U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) data that furthers investigation of potential terrorist activities. BorderSafe currently operates in

Arizona and California.

Examples of technologies that are nearly mature and will soon be transferred:

• Micro-Chem Lab: a portable capillary electrophoresis analysis tool to conduct

on-site characterizations of biotoxins, bacterial and viral threat agents. The

S&T Directorate is now entering into a cooperative R&D agreement with a

commercial partner.

• Autonomous Pathogen Detection System (APDS): a field-deployable system

that performs automated on-board analysis of a dozen or more threat agents

on a 24/7 basis and communicates any positive results via wireless communications. System research and development will be completed in 2004. The

S&T Directorate is now entering into a cooperative R&D agreement with a

commercial partner. The APDS will be demonstrated in the field in partnership with New York City for upcoming special events.

• Counter-MANPADS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated

an aggressive two-phase System Design and Development (SD&D) program

for antimissile devices for commercial aircraft. This program intends to migrate existing the Department of Defense (DOD) missile warning and countermeasure technologies to the commercial airline industry, rather than developing new technologies. This re-engineering project will ensure that the resulting countermeasure systems are consistent with commercial air carrier

and airport operations, maintenance, support, and logistics activities. The

program seeks to balance cost, schedule, and performance and to clarify the

needs and requirements of the aviation community stakeholders. It will provide the data and analysis needed by the Administration and Congress to

make an informed decision on deployment and implementation.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. Biological Counter-Measures—The most significant increase in the Directorate’s budget is requested for biological countermeasures, particularly in the

area of detection and assay. What does the Directorate expect to accomplish if

these increases are approved?

Q1a. To what extent are the detection networks under development capable of identifying the full spectrum of biological threats?

A1a. The currently deployed Phase 1 BioWatch system detects six of the top

threats—both bacterial and viral. Advanced detection systems, now under development, should allow us to cost-effectively expand detection capability to more than

20 threat agents (including markers for antibiotic resistance and engineered organisms) by FY 2009. A reasonable expansion in the suite of threat agents detected

is likely before that time. The scope of these potential additions will be decided on

the basis of threat information, integration costs and operational considerations.

Q1b. The efforts to detect and counter other threats (chemical, explosive or radiation)

do not receive equivalent increases. What explains the disparity in how the Directorate is focusing its resources?

A1b. Resource allocation in the Directorate is based on a comprehensive review of

the threat, vulnerabilities to the threat, catastrophic magnitude of a potential event,

national capacity to respond, and other factors. This review is married with current

national policy directives to provide a balanced investment portfolio to counter the

threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The biological countermeasures

area has received increased emphasis based on this approach.

In addition, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) and National Security Council

(NSC) recently completed a Biodefense End-to-End study. This study resulted in a

National Biodefense Strategy, to be promulgated in a joint National Security Presidential Directive/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD/HSPD) in April

2004. One of the major recommendations of this study was the need for an integrated biosurveillance system which would integrate information on the health of

155

our Nation’s population, livestock, and plants with environmental monitoring data

on our cities, food, and water supplies, along with threat and intelligence information. This integrated data will provide a continuing situational awareness, early detection of potential events, and early characterization of the extent of any attack.

Because of the very high leverage that such an integrated biosurveillance system

has on the rest of the biodefense system, the administration highlighted a coordinated, interagency, biosurveillance initiative in its FY 2005 budget submittal. Expanding the current, successful, BioWatch system and developing the next generation of detection technologies to further increase the capability, coverage, and monitoring frequency of a next generation BioWatch system figures prominently in this

interagency initiative. A similar, joint NSC–HSC, ‘‘end-to-end’’ study is now underway for Chemical Defense and it is reasonable to expect that this study will also

identify key initiatives critical to improving the Nation’s chemical defense.

Q2. University Fellowship Cuts—Of all the areas in the Department’s R&D

budget request, there is one that stands out as a significant loser: the University

and Fellowship Program. It is reduced from $68.8 million to $30 million.

Q2a. Given the Directorate’s expressed interest in ‘‘ensur[ing] a diverse and highly

talented science and technology community to achieve the DHS mission and objectives,’’ how does reducing funding by more than half achieve your purpose?

A2a. Maintaining a cadre of talented scientists and engineers and investing in our

future scientific workforce is a top priority of the Department. At the reduced funding level, DHS will maintain this core program, but will not expand the Scholars/

Fellows program to include fellowships for post-docs and faculty.

To date, DHS has established three university-based Homeland Security Center

of Excellence (HS Centers), the University of Southern California’s Homeland Security Center for Risk-Based and Economic Analysis of Terrorist Events. Two more HS

Centers in the area of agricultural security—foreign animal and zoonotic disease defense, and post-harvest food protection and defense—were recently awarded to

Texas A&M University and the University of Minnesota respectively.

DHS has solicited input from the National Academies of Science to determine appropriate topics and prioritized areas for future HS Centers. DHS expects to release

solicitations and award two more HS Centers in FY 2004.

Q2b. The Department funded 100 undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships in FY 2003. A new competition is currently underway. Are you confident

the Department will be able to fulfill its commitment to these students, and will

this reduction reduce the number of awards available for the 2005 competition?

A2b. Yes, the Department of Homeland Security will maintain the core program of

Scholars and Fellows.

Q2c. Is the funding for University Centers of Excellence drawn from these funds? If

so, how does this affect the Department’s current plan for establishing and supporting these Centers?

A2c. The funding for the University Centers of Excellence comes from the same

funds as the Fellows and Scholars program. As previously discussed, DHS has

awarded three university-based homeland security Centers of Excellence. DHS expects to release solicitations and award two more HS Centers in FY 2004. The reduced funding level for the University Programs will not impact the initial threeyear funding for each HS Center established.

Q3. USC Center—Last November, the University of Southern California was designated the first Homeland Security Center of Excellence. The Center, according

to the Department, ‘‘will address both the targets and means of terrorism, with

emphasis on protecting the Nation’s critical infrastructure systems, such as electrical power, transportation and telecommunications. In addition, the HS Center

will develop tools for planning responses to emergencies, to minimize the threat

to human lives and reduce the economic impact in the event of an attack.’’

Q3a. What are the products the Department expects to receive from its investment

in the Center, and what is the anticipated schedule for delivery?

A3a. The University of Southern California Homeland Security Center for Risk and

Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events will serve the national interests by providing tools and guidance to the Department of Homeland Security for the

prioritization of counter-measures to terrorist threats, identifying areas where investments are likely to be most effective, computing relative risks among potential

terrorist events, and modeling and estimating the social consequences of terrorism.

156

More specifically, the Center and its consortium partners will develop modeling

capabilities that cut across general threats and targets, represented by application

areas such as electrical power, transportation and telecommunications. Additionally,

the Homeland Security Center will develop tools for planning responses to emergencies to minimize the threat to human lives and reduce the economic impact in

the event of an attack.

The HS Center will work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to

prioritize key research areas, and is also expected to provide educational programs

related to their grant. The grant allows the HS Center to pursue research and development and educational programs in accordance with DHS priorities. This will

provide the Department with peer-reviewed, scientifically-validated assessments and

models and independent technical expert advice.

Q3b. How does the S&T Directorate anticipate that these products will ultimately be

employed to support the Department’s mission or to assist State and local governments and emergency responders?

A3b. The Department of Homeland Security envisions using the assessment products to improve estimates of the risks of various attacks. These improved risk estimates will aid decision-makers in prioritizing terrorist threats and identifying optimal risk management measures, and to develop guidelines for risk management.

Models may also have the potential to be used in conjunction with global information system (GIS) software to evaluate security improvements of critical infrastructure and surrounding environments.

As proposed by the University of Southern California (USC), a GIS emergency

model would be developed to evaluate a set of plans, for example, estimating the

delays in receiving medical care, applying disaster relief, and speeding response and

recovery. Also, USC has proposed emergency response modeling that incorporates

personnel and equipment resource allocations during the response to a catastrophic

terrorist attack. In addition to homeland security applications related to terrorist

threats, the assessment products will aid the Department’s operational end-users in

preparedness and response to natural and man-made accidental disasters.

Q3c. How will the Center’s research program address the priorities governing the Department’s research and development strategy?

A3c. The priorities governing the Department’s research and development strategy,

with particular emphasis on critical infrastructure protection, were set forth in the

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the Center award. DHS focused the first HS

Center on Risk-Based and Economic Analysis of Terrorist Events in order to validate models that may provide direct input on the risk and economic impacts of terrorism. This input will assist the Science and Technology Directorate prioritize its

research agenda. This topic was also included in the National Academies of Sciences

report, Making the Nation Safer.

Q3d. The announcement indicates the Department anticipates a three-year grant of

$12 million for the Center. At the end of that period, will the grant be re-competed?

A3d. DHS S&T will determine to re-compete or extend a specific grant based on

several factors, including but not necessarily limited to: review and evaluation of the

Center’s objectives and outcomes; the Department’s understanding of current and

emerging threats; defined and anticipated requirements of operational end-users;

interagency priorities for workforce development in the sciences and engineering

fields; achievement of regional diversity necessary to strengthen and sustain the

homeland security complex and Departmental ties to state and local end-users; and

priorities and resources within University Programs.

Q4. Role of the DOE Labs—On December 17, 2003, Dr. Maureen McCarthy, the

Director of the DHS Office of Research and Development, sent a memorandum

to the DOE National Laboratories of the Department of Energy. This memorandum described the anticipated relationship between the Department and the

various Laboratories.

Q4a. Please submit a copy of Dr. McCarthy’s memorandum for the record.

A4a. The Memorandum for the Record identified in this question is attached here.

In addition, a second memo on ‘‘Additional Guidance to the DOE National Laboratories to Assist their Decision-Making on Participation in Department of Homeland

Security Science & Technology (DHS/S&T) Programs’’ follows the Memorandum for

the Record.

157

Summary

The purpose of this memo is to explain the policy and procedures of the Department’s Science & Technology Directorate (DHS/S&T) for utilizing the capability base

of the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE DOE National Laboratories, sites,

and technology centers have a tremendous breadth of technical expertise and capability in areas related to homeland security. The nation has invested in building this

capability base for over sixty years. The DHS/S&T is committed to maximizing the

opportunities for all of the DOE assets to play a role in supporting the missions of

the Department.

In accordance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the S&T Directorate may

utilize the broad base of capabilities at the Department of Energy’s DOE National

Laboratories and sites to meet homeland security mission requirements. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires that DHS/S&T manage both intramural and extramural programs to satisfy homeland security mission requirements.

In carrying out its mission requirements, it has become necessary for DHS/S&T

to establish a division between intramural and extramural programs. This division

will guard against organizational conflicts of interest and inappropriate use of inside

government information in responding to competitive solicitations open to the private sector.

DHS/S&T is therefore implementing separate mechanisms to access the capability

base at the DOE DOE National Laboratories for extramural and intramural programs. Designation of ‘‘intramural’’ and ‘‘extramural’’ laboratories is a practical consequence.

Based on an assessment of the intramural and extramural mission requirements,

laboratory self-assessments, institutional core competencies, and external technical

and user reviews of proposed projects, the DOE National Laboratories that are designated to lead the intramural programs are Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak

Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Sandia DOE National Laboratories.

The laboratories designated to participate in the extramural programs are Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho Environmental and Engineering, and the Bechtel-Nevada

laboratories. The DOE National Laboratories that participate in the extramural programs may also be involved in projects and tasks through the intramural programs

under appropriate conflict of interest safeguards.

158

All other DOE DOE National Laboratories, sites, and technology centers are also

eligible to participate in DHS/S&T extramural programs. All DOE DOE National

Laboratories are invited to continue participation in the University Programs’ DHS

Scholars/Fellows Program, and to contribute content and utilize information-sharing

benefits of the Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Intranet web site.

The Office of DOE National Laboratories is responsible for ensuring that processes are in place to maximize opportunities for the DOE DOE National Laboratories to participate in both intramural and extramural programs while avoiding organizational conflicts of interest.

Extramural Programs

The extramural programs are aligned with the mission requirements that are best

suited for execution by entities in the private sector. The majority of this work will

be procured through open competitive solicitations managed by the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) and Systems Engineering & Development (SED). The HSARPA conducts extramural programs for DHS/S&T that

engage the private sector through research, development, test, and evaluation

(RDT&E) programs to satisfy homeland security mission requirements. The SED

manages extramural homeland security project offices for operational and pilot deployments, technology test beds, and limited-scale systems acquisition.

HSARPA and SED are structuring these programs to engage the broadest base

possible from the private sector to provide the Nation with efficient, effective, and

innovative solutions to challenging homeland security problems now and in the future. They are engaging industry, the academic community, and private research institutes through contracts, cooperative agreements and grants.

At present, the nine DOE DOE National Laboratories receiving this memo are not

eligible to participate in extramural programs that involve open, competitive solicitations to the private sector through HSARPA and SED, because they have received

internal government planning information that could provide an unfair competitive

advantage. Effective January 1st, the DOE National Laboratories with capabilities

aligned with the mission responsibilities of HSARPA and SED will be eligible to

participate in the openly competed extramural programs, with expected adherence

to federal regulations governing such competitions.

Intramural Programs

The intramural programs draw upon the expertise of federal laboratories (whether

government or contractor operated); these programs are managed by ORD. The

ORD’s intramural RDT&E programs, designed to provide the Nation with an enduring homeland security capability, are executed at the DOE DOE National Laboratories, DHS laboratories, the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures

Center, and through partnerships with other federal agencies.

The intramural programs will be focused on mission requirements involving:

• specialized/unique federally-owned facilities, assets or materials;

• classified research;

• analytic and technical support to other DHS directorates and federal agencies

for threat characterization and vulnerability assessments on new and emerging threats;

• coordination with national security programs by other government agencies;

• a cadre of dedicated scientists and engineers that can provide independent

technical assessments and advice to the Federal Government;

• unique or specialized capabilities and technologies that the private sector

does not have business incentives to pursue; and/or

• technical support to develop federal regulations, standards, and certifications.

In addition, the ORD will establish an Office to provide Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) support to DHS/S&T. The selection of laboratories/sites to lead the

ORD/OT&E activities is still under review, pending further development of plans

and requirements.

Because staff at the intramural laboratories may have access to internal government information as part of the nature of the intramural programs, the laboratories

that play a significant role in the intramural programs will be ineligible to participate in DHS/S&T extramural programs that involve competitive solicitations open

to the private sector.

FY04 Funding for Extramural and Intramural Programs

ORD, HSARPA and SED execute RDT&E programs in accordance with the mission requirements defined by the DHS/S&T Office of Programs, Plans and Budgets

159

(S&T/PPB). An illustration of DHS/S&T’s functional organization is attached. In accordance with annual DHS/S&T program guidance, while some portfolios will be

managed entirely by HSARPA or SED, the major portfolios will have both intramural and extramural programs that will execute specific missions requirements

within an agreed upon scope and budget. DHS/S&T portfolio descriptions are also

attached. The division of intramural and extramural mission requirements for ORD,

HSARPA and SED is determined by DHS/S&T senior leadership.

In FY04, the majority of the ORD intramural programs are in Biological Countermeasures, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures, Threat & Vulnerability Testing &

Assessment, and Standards. The ORD will have limited (less than $10M) or no program management responsibility for the remaining portfolios.

The majority of the DHS/S&T programs will be extramural and will be executed

through open, competitive solicitations to the private sector. The most significant

HSARPA programs are in Rapid Prototyping, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures, Chemical Countermeasures, Biological Countermeasures, Threat & Vulnerability Testing & Assessment, and Cyber Security.

In addition, HSARPA will have primary responsibility in DHS/S&T for executing

RDT&E programs for the conventional mission portfolios (BTS, USCG, and USSS)

and for enhancing the engagement of the private sector across all portfolios.

The SED will have the responsibility for systems integration, demonstration test

& development, and acquisition for all programs within DHS/S&T including,

Counter MANPADs, BioWatch, NYNJ Port Authority Test Bed, and SAFECOM.

Special provisions will be made to ensure that ongoing activities in the Critical

Infrastructure Protection program can continue under the existing management

structure.

Conclusion

In closing, I offer my sincere gratitude to you and your staff for all your efforts

in identifying capabilities, developing technical proposals, and defining roles and responsibilities of the DOE National Laboratories to support homeland security programs in the Department’s Science DHS/S&T. The homeland security capabilities at

all the Department of Energy DOE National Laboratories, technology centers, and

sites are important and vital resources to the S&T Directorate. It is essential that

the Nation’s best and brightest scientific and technological expertise be engaged in

the homeland security mission. The S&T Directorate is committed to utilizing the

extensive capabilities of the all of the DOE DOE National Laboratories to protect

the homeland.

Dr. Caroline Purdy, Deputy Director, Office of DOE National Laboratories, will

be contacting the Homeland Security Directors at your laboratories to arrange a

meeting or conference call within the next weeks to discuss issues pertaining to this

memo. Dr. Purdy may be reached (202) 772–9979 or by e-mail at caroline.purdy@dhs.gov.

Attachments:

DHS S&T Organization by Function

Abstract Descriptions of DHS S&T Portfolios

cc: Donald Joyce, Argonne National Laboratory

Richard Tighe, Bechtel Nevada Remote Sensing Laboratory

Paul Moskowitz, Brookhaven National Laboratory

John Noon, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Don Prosnitz, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Wiley Davidson, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Gordon Michaels, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Ned Wogman, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Richard Stullen, Sandia National Laboratory

160

MEMO: (Date of transmittal: 3/26/04)

To: Laboratory Directors and Homeland Security Coordinators

From: Maureen McCarthy

Subject: Additional Guidance to the DOE National Laboratories to Assist their

Decision-Making on Participation in Department of Homeland Security

Science & Technology (DHS/S&T) Programs

The Department of Homeland Security, through Section 309 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is provided access to the DOE National Laboratories and sites

managed by the Department of Energy to carry out the missions of DHS. The DHS

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) wishes to make the best use of each of

these laboratories and sites in consonance with statute, regulation, and policy, and

thus it is asking laboratories and sites to make a decision regarding their desired

mode of interaction with the Directorate. That decision carries with it several implications, which this memorandum should clarify. S&T is requesting that you respond

by COB 31 March in writing to U/S McQueary with your decision on how you wish

to participate in S&T programs. U/S McQueary will be scheduling a meeting with

you in early April to discuss S&T plans and programs involving the DOE National

Laboratories. Please contact me directly if you need more information or have any

requests.

Clarification of the Issue for Decision:

• A national laboratory may choose to participate in S&T’s internal strategic

planning and program development processes or, if otherwise permissible

under applicable law, regulation, contract, and DOE policy, to respond to certain types of S&T solicitations open to the private sector.

• The general prohibition against Federal Funded Research & Development

Centers (FFRDCs) competing with the private sector contained in the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 35.017(a)(2) continues to apply. Accordingly,

DOE National Laboratories are not permitted to directly respond or participate as a team member in a response to a Request for Proposals (RFP).

• However, the FAR allows FFRDCs to respond to certain kinds of research and

development solicitations such as Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) available to the private sector. Accordingly, DOE National Laboratories that are

FFRDCs may respond to BAAs and other similar research and development

solicitations in accordance with the FAR and Section 4(a and b) of Department of Energy Order 481.1B of September 28, 2001. S&T utilizes such solicitations to execute its programs through the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), the Office of Systems Engineering & Development (SED), and the Office of Research & Development’s University Programs (ORD/University Programs).

• Additionally, consistent with current DOE policy, DOE National Laboratories

are not precluded from providing potential RFP respondents with lab capability statements in order to make available, post award, laboratory capabilities and expertise. If it is determined that a critical expertise or capability

exists at a laboratory, the S&T may, prior to issuance of a RFP, enter into

a directly funded agreement with DOE to make those services available to all

respondents as government furnished services. DHS/S&T-procured laboratory

expertise or capability will be made available on an equal and non-discriminatory basis to all respondents to the RFP.

• Notwithstanding the above, a national laboratory will be barred from participating in BAAs if it opts to participate in support of S&T’s strategic planning

and program development processes. This is because as a result of such participation, S&T will give it access to internal DHS strategic planning information. DHS policy is that if any non-DHS entity, including a national laboratory, receives that kind of information, DHS considers that entity to have an

‘‘organizational conflict of interest’’ that makes the entity ineligible to participate in any solicitations open to the private sector issued by S&T. This level

of exposure to sensitive information would give such an entity a competitive

advantage that would make it inappropriate for the entity to participate in

any future solicitation open to the private sector for a prescribed period of

time.

• A laboratory will remain ineligible to participate in such S&T solicitations for

three years after it ceases engagement in the S&T strategic planning and program development process.

161

Opportunities Open to All Laboratories

• All laboratories are eligible to execute DHS mission-directed projects through

ORD in accordance with S&T mission requirements and program execution

plans. A laboratory’s ability to receive direct DHS funding for mission-directed projects is independent of whether or not it participates in S&T strategic planning.

• All laboratories are eligible to execute DHS mission-directed projects through

SED in accordance with S&T mission requirements and program execution

plans. A laboratory’s ability to receive DHS direct funding for mission-directed project is independent of whether or not it participates in S&T strategic planning.

• All laboratories are eligible to serve as a technical resource to S&T to provide

Government Furnished Information (GFI) and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) through HSARPA and SED.

• Technical experts from any laboratory may serve as Subject Matter Experts

(SMEs) and provide scientific reach-back for DHS for emergency and incident

operations, and regional support.

Execution of Work at the DOE National Laboratories:

• Execution of all S&T programs at the DOE National Laboratories will be conducted in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement Between Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security (dated 28 Feb 2003)

and DOE Notice 481.1A, Reimbursable Work for the Department of Homeland Security (dated 21 April 2003).

Issues to Consider:

1. S&T must maintain a homeland security complex that will provide the Nation with an enduring capability to meet homeland security mission requirements now and in the future. The homeland security complex consists of:

• An interdisciplinary cadre of dedicated experts working on homeland security missions, with appropriate supporting infrastructure

• Programs scoped and resourced to ensure the Federal Government has

the core competencies to counter new and emerging threats

2. S&T may make strategic and focused investments at certain government laboratories and sites in order to establish and maintain mission-critical core

competencies. Limited resources are currently available to support these efforts. A laboratory’s decision to participate in the S&T strategic planning

process is independent of S&T’s decision to make future strategic investments in that institution.

3. The majority of S&T programs that are targeted at developing, testing and

transitioning homeland security technologies and capabilities to operational

end-users are managed by HSARPA and SED. These include, e.g., the development of technologies for prevention & detection and response & recovery.

4. The programs that are potentially the subject of direct funding to the DOE

National Laboratories will be primarily focused on: 1) scientific-based threat

and vulnerability assessments, and 2) systems architecture design & analysis. At present, S&T is committed to making strategic investments to establish and maintain core competencies in the following program areas: Biological Countermeausures, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures, Threat &

Vulnerability Testing & Assessment, Chemical and High-Explosive Countermeasures. S&T will also support direct funding of projects in these and other

portfolio areas.

5. S&T will primarily conduct mission-directed applied research. S&T will leverage the basic research investments made by other government agencies.

In order to strengthen this link, S&T and DOE Office of Science (DOE/SC)

have recently formed a working group to coordinate program activities and

to advise DOE/SC on how it can support homeland security by enhancing

long-term fundamental science efforts in mission-critical areas.

162

Q4b. Would you please describe the types of intramural research programs Dr.

McCarthy intends to establish at the Department?

A4b. The DHS Science and Technology intramural programs are research, development, test & evaluation programs that are managed by the Office of Research and

Development (ORD) and executed at government laboratories (either government or

contractor operated) in accordance with S&T mission requirements.

There are five major program areas for intramural programs that are expected

to be executed through the ORD through FY 2004–2009.

• Biological Countermeasures: provides the science and technology needed to

reduce the probability and potential consequences of a biological attack on

this nation’s civilian population, its infrastructure, or its agricultural system.

The DOE National Laboratories will assist in developing and implementing

an integrated systems approach with a wide range of activities, including vulnerability and risk analyses to identify the need for vaccines, therapeutics,

and diagnostics; development and implementation of early detection and

warning systems to characterize an attack and permit early prophylaxis and

decontamination activities; and development of a national bioforensics analysis capability.

• Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures: provides the science and technology

needed to reduce both the probability and the potential consequences of a radiological or nuclear attack on the Nation’s civilian population or nuclear

power facilities. The DOE National Laboratories assist in providing the enduser community with the most appropriate and effective detection and interdiction technologies available to prohibit the importation or transportation

and subsequent detonation of a radiological or nuclear device within U.S. borders.

• Threat and Vulnerability, Testing & Assessment: provides the science and

technology needed to develop methods and tools to test and assess threats

and vulnerabilities to protect critical infrastructure and enhance information

exchange.

Activities are designed to help evaluate extensive amounts of diverse threat

information; detect and document terrorist intent; couple threat information

with knowledge of complex, interdependent critical infrastructure

vulnerabilities; and enable analysts to draw timely insights and distribute

warnings from the information.

The DOE National Laboratories will contribute to the development and operation of a large Threat and Vulnerability Information System (TVIS) that will

draw on advances in the information and computer sciences as well as innovative analytic techniques, help produce high-quality net assessments and assessments of weapons of mass destruction, development of advanced computing algorithms in support of improved aerosol dispersion models, blast effects calculations, neutron interrogation models, bioinformatics, and scalable

information extraction; and the development of biometrics for precise identification of individuals and instrumentation to aid authorized officials in detecting individuals with potentially hostile intent.

• Chemical and High-Explosive Countermeasures: provides the science and

technology needed for reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to chemical attacks

on its civilian population and infrastructure, and addresses the threat that

terrorists will use explosives in attacks on buildings, critical infrastructure,

and the civilian population in the United States. The DOE National Laboratories will contribute to efforts to protect facilities from chemical attacks and

to control the industrial chemicals that may be used for such attacks; will assist in development and fielding of equipment, technologies and procedures to

interdict suicide bombers and car and truck bombs before they can reach their

intended targets.

• Standards: as envisioned in the Homeland Security Act, the Standards portfolio seeks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and inter-operability of the

systems and technologies developed by the S&T Directorate. The DOE National Laboratories will contribute to development of technical standards and

test and evaluation protocols for decontamination technologies and analysis

across the range of weapons of mass destruction.

Q4c. For FY 2004, the intramural programs receive $120 million and the extramural

programs are allocated $213 million. Which programs in the directorate are

contributing funds to these programs?

163

A4c. The funding division indicated in the question has since been refined, based

on execution plans recently approved for research, development, testing and evaluation programs and their implementation through the Homeland Security Advanced

Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD),

and Office of Systems Engineering and Development (SED).

The table presented on the next page provides the funding division currently expected for intramural and extramural performance of research, development, testing

and evaluation. These values may change based on execution year program adjustments to optimize meeting S&T requirements. The intramural allocation reflects

participation of DHS and other federal agency laboratory participation in program

execution, in addition to Department of Energy DOE National Laboratories and

sites.

Q4d. What are the requested funds for each program in the FY 2005 budget?

A4d. The President’s budget request for FY 2005 for the DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s portfolios is given below; numbers are in millions of dollars:

The Science and Technology Directorate has initiated a threat-based strategic

planning process which will inform allocations of the Directorate’s FY 2005 funding,

164

taking into account a range of budget scenarios in response to passage of the Department’s annual appropriation.

Q4e. How will the competition for extramural research programs be managed by the

Directorate?

A4e. In accordance with the Homeland Security Act, the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) is responsible for administering competitive, merit-reviewed grants, cooperative agreements, contracts or other transactions for research or prototypes to public or private entities, including businesses,

federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), and universities.

HSARPA structures and manages its competitions to ensure that DHS requirements

are met through the active engagement of the private sector, and awards contracts

for extramural programs and projects based on technical merit and feasibility reviews.

The solicitations released through HSARPA (as well as S&T’s Office of Systems

Engineering and Development) seek to the maximum extent possible to capture the

best ideas and solutions. To achieve this end, Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs)

or Research Announcements (RAs) are the preferred mechanisms. Under a BAA or

RA, teams are not in direct competition; each team is judged on the basis of the

unique ideas proposed to solve the broadly defined technology challenge evaluated

against the published criteria.

HSARPA has also instituted a competitive process to award Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants.

Q4f. What is the relationship between these research programs and the University

Centers of Excellence being established by the Department?

A4f. The Science and Technology Directorate has a coordinated approach to generating requirements, which are met through extramural and intramural execution of

research, development, testing and evaluation programs, and also through grants

awarded to the university-based Homeland Security Centers of Excellence (HS Centers).

The Centers of Excellence complement other programs within the Department

and Federal Government that fund project-focused research to develop and deploy

specific homeland security technologies and capabilities. The S&T Directorate

strongly encourages HS Centers to partner with other colleges and universities, National and DHS laboratories, industry, and/or State and local governments. The HS

Centers will be expected to coordinate efforts with relevant federal, State and local

agencies and private institutions, to minimize duplication in R&D, enhance communications among programs, and leverage financial support.

Moreover, the Centers of Excellence, DHS laboratories, DOE National Laboratories, and other federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) together comprise the homeland security complex. Through information-sharing, infrastructure support, and exchange of personnel across these institutions, we can

achieve and effectively steward an integrated network of people, places and programs dedicated to homeland security, to build an enduring capability for the Nation.

Q5. Data vs. Knowledge—Significant efforts are being made to apply information

technologies to the detection and identification of terrorists. There are, however,

many examples where the ability to collect data overwhelms the ability to extract

useful knowledge from that data.

Q5a. What guidelines do we use to determine when technology is an aid, and not

a hindrance, to security?

A5a. The Science and Technology Directorate believes strongly that our research,

development, testing and evaluation program must be sensibly prioritized. The S&T

Directorate uses Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to prioritize its programs. These

IPTs, made up of membership from each of the four Offices in the Directorate, are

integral to the S&T planning process. Each IPT covers a focused portfolio or program area and works as a team to determine mission space, strategic goals for the

next five years, and a list of prioritized deliverables. In this process, each IPT considers the directives, recommendations and suggestions from many sources, including legislation, National priorities and operational end-user needs and requirements

as well as considering the costs of operation and maintenance of a given technology.

In all our technology development areas, including information technologies, the

S&T Directorate engages operational end-users both in the identification of needed

capabilities and as a critical source for feedback on developed and field tested applications. This input is essential to ensure we are developing capabilities and techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
165

nologies that have a positive impact on protecting the Nation’s citizens, emergency

responders and critical infrastructure.

Q5b. To what extent is the Directorate evaluating proposals for technical systems to

determine whether they offer real reductions in cost and/or risk?

A5b. The Science and Technology Directorate does evaluate proposals for technical

systems to determine if they offer real reductions in cost and/or risk.

A specific example of this is our work in Critical Infrastructure Protection. Decisions affecting our Nation’s critical infrastructures are too important to be made

without performing analyses beforehand that carefully weigh the benefits of reducing risks with the cost of protective actions. The most effective way to examine these

tradeoffs is to utilize a decision support system that incorporates the results of

threat assessments, vulnerability assessments, and analyses that are based on comprehensive, advanced modeling and simulation. Such a decision support system

could be used by government (Federal, State, local) and industry decision makers

to prioritize protection, mitigation, response, and recovery strategies as well as to

support red-team exercises and provide real-time support during crises and emergencies.

The Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support System (CIP/DSS) project

aims to develop such a decision support system. The value of the CIP/DSS is that

it will incorporate a wide variety of disparate information into a well conceived modeling framework supporting decision-making related to critical infrastructure protection. Los Alamos, Sandia and Argonne DOE National Laboratories are teaming to

provide an ‘‘iterative development’’ approach where the focus in the first year has

been on a set of analytical tools that provide decision-makers with an initial capability to set priorities for reducing infrastructure vulnerabilities. It includes all

major critical infrastructures (and key assets) and their primary interdependencies.

The initial proof-of-concept work began in August 2003 and delivered a prototype

model and case studies in February 2004. This prototype model included representation of all fourteen critical infrastructures and their primary interdependencies.

Activities in this and subsequent fiscal years will improve the integration, resolution, and fidelity of the individual infrastructure models, and will greatly improve

the interdependencies models. It will also incorporate vulnerability and threat data

in order to ultimately provide a ‘‘risk-based’’ prioritization decision support system.

Q5c. To what extent did the Directorate contribute to the design, development and

implementation of the ‘‘Total Information Awareness’’—or ‘‘Terrorism Information Awareness’’—proposal by the Department of Defense, and the second-generation ‘‘Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System’’ by the Transportation Security Administration?

A5c. The Science and Technology Directorate did not contribute to either the Total

Information Awareness or Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System program.

Q5d. The budget briefing for ‘‘Threat and Vulnerability Testing and Assessment’’ indicates that the Directorate is working to ‘‘develop instrumentation to aid in

detecting individuals with particularly hostile intent.’’ Would you explain the

type of instrumentation being considered and how you anticipate it will be

used?

A5d. Efforts in the Determination of Intent program have so far been limited to

proof-of-concept demonstrations by university research groups. Three types of system are being considered or evaluated, namely, human kinetics (body movements)

or speech characteristics suggestive of stress or deception and remote, covert sensing

(using near-infrared imaging) of brain activity associated with deception. The

Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment Portfolio (TVTA) portfolio is also

intending to fund a series of National Academies of Sciences studies on social and

behavioral indicators of terrorist intent. Finally, funds have been allocated in FY

2004 to the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) for

a comprehensive Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) on Scene Understanding,

which will enable a broad range of research to be funded on human kinetics.

Q6. HSARPA—The Department was given an entity—HSARPA—that was to do for

Homeland Security research what DARPA has done for Defense research.

DARPA is widely seen to be a model of applied research innovation—they rotate

in top people from industry and academe, they pick the most promising approaches to solving a problem and nurture them until a wise choice can be

made, and they accelerate the movement from development to deployment

through their funding efforts.

166

What progress have you made in setting up HSARPA, and in what ways will

it conduct business as DARPA does and in what ways do you believe it will

(should) differ?

A6. The Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) came

into existence on March 1, 2003, with other parts of the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS). Its first employee, the Deputy Director, was detailed to HSARPA

from the Office of Naval Research on May 5, 2003. HSARPA is active and growing.

Like DARPA, HSARPA has a philosophy of bringing in senior technical managers

and, after their project’s lifespan, rotating them back out to the broader technical

community. To date, HSARPA has recruited twelve technical experts in their respective disciplines, most with extensive government program management experience.

HSARPA has made good use of the tools given by the Congress to hire and retain

just such people. It has used all five methods of hiring available to it under the law,

i.e., DHS employee, Inter-governmental Personnel Act, Section 1101 Experimental

Personnel Hiring Authority, other government detailees, and contractor. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act authority and the Experimental Personnel Management Program (EPMP) in particular are excellent recruitment tools.

Aside from an emphasis on hiring practices, however, the analogy between

DARPA and HSARPA is at best a weak one. DARPA exists within the Department

of Defense as a means for performing undirected research and development—that

is, research and development that is not initiated and directed in pursuit of an explicit customer need. Most of the research and development activities within the Department of Defense but outside of DARPA are in fact directed, and are performed

within the acquisition chains of the respective military Service, or at places like the

Missile Defense Agency or the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, in pursuit of specific needs.

In contrast, within the Department of Homeland Security there are no ‘‘Service’’

research and development entities that span the space of activities required by the

President’s National Strategy for Homeland Security or the responsibilities associated with the Homeland Security Act. Thus, HSARPA is the primary means for procuring research and development from the private sector, including activities that

are driven by customer requirements. Those needs and requirements are generated

within portfolios in the Plans, Programs, and Budget (PPB) Office of the Directorate, which reports to the Under Secretary.

The PPB Office manages and executes the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) cycle for the Directorate, and hence represents the primary

management tool utilized by the Under Secretary in developing a strategic plan, establishing priorities, budgeting, and monitoring execution as required by Section

302 of the Homeland Security Act. The Under Secretary, through the Office of PPB,

sets short-, mid-, and long-range goals aimed at achieving the needs set out by the

Administration. These goals include, for example, countering the threat of weapons

of mass destruction and addressing the needs of customers in the operational Directorates in the Department and of state and local entities.

Membership from all of our executing Offices—Office of Research and Development (ORD), Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) and

the Office of Systems Engineering and Development (SED)—participates actively in

the PPB process through integrated product teams (IPTs). These IPTs are integral

to the planning process. The IPTs for each portfolio work as a team to determine

their mission space, their strategic goals for the next five years, and a list of

prioritized deliverables. The executing Offices then respond to the prioritization

process with programs that are subsequently executed. HSARPA is responsible for

the execution of its programs and determines, within the overall funding constraints

dictated by the Under Secretary, the Department, and the Congress, the resources

needed to meet the milestones and objectives of a particular program as laid out

by the PPBS.

HSARPA performs its execution functions by awarding research contracts, grants,

cooperative agreements, or Other Transactions for Research or Prototypes to private

entities, businesses, federally funded research and development centers, and universities. All solicitations to date have been open competitions with winners selected

on technical merit, contribution to the Department’s missions, and best value to the

government.

Additionally, unlike DARPA, we have a mixed set of needs that vary by region.

The military services have a strong understanding of equipment inter-operability

and its configuration control. In contrast, DHS must cope with large differences in

scale (from large metropolitan cities to rural areas) and a broad variety of communications, firefighting, law enforcement, and protective equipment. Our research, development, and systems must account for—and match—regional needs. Our techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
167

nology developments must be tailored to existing vulnerabilities, local government

requirements, methods of operations and especially to existing legacy systems.

It was recognized early that, despite the need for HSARPA to execute requirements-driven programs, a true ‘‘DARPA-like’’ function also needed to be performed.

Thus, there is an Emerging Threats budget line that is primarily for the use of the

Director of HSARPA to develop and execute programs that are explicitly not requirements-driven. The role of PPB in that area is simply to set overarching policy,

to review the efforts for technical soundness and relevance to the needs of homeland

security periodically, and to oversee budget execution. If HSARPA were to become

truly ‘‘DARPA-like’’ in character, then another organization would need to be created to execute within the private sector the needs-driven R&D of the Department.

This function is where the large majority of private sector funding would reside (as

with DoD), and the remaining (non-requirements driven) HSARPA would be quite

small. The economies of scale associated with combining both directed and undirected research and development procurements with the private sector are obvious.

Not all private sector R&D is, however, procured through HSARPA. For example,

there are programs where the key issue is not technical-the need to invent some

new capability-but rather the need to impose a disciplined systems engineering process in order to deliver the capability in a timely and efficient manner. Those efforts

(e.g., counter-MANPADS) reside within the Systems Engineering and Development

office. In addition, capital investments, such as the planned National Biodefense

Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) facility, are not executed through

HSARPA. Finally, private sector investments made through another government

agency (e.g. standards work through the National Institute of Standards and Technology) may be, but are not always, executed most efficiently through HSARPA.

Q7. Building Decontamination—Please respond to Mr. Lampson’s question dur- ing the hearing concerning EPA’s $8.2 million reduction in homeland security

building decontamination research.

The following is an excerpt from the hearing transcript [Added by DHS Office

of Legislative Affairs]:

‘‘Dr. McQueary, in the Environmental Protection Agency budget documents,

we find an $8.2 million reduction that represents complete elimination of

homeland security building decontamination research. We have a little bit

of an interest in that around here because of the anthrax and the ricin that

caused building shutdowns recently.

Would you explain the logic behind the decision to eliminate this research?

And would you agree that the value of a network to detect the presence of

hazardous agents is diminished if we haven’t determined the most effective

ways to recover from the attacks detected by that network?’’

A7. There has been much concern in Congress about the Administration’s proposed

complete elimination of homeland security building decontamination research at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I want to state very clearly that the

Department of Homeland Security believes that decontamination research is critically important. Without full recovery from any potential terrorist attacks, we have

not met our full mission, which ranges from Awareness to Recovery. We must have

active research and development (R&D) to ensure full decontamination and full recovery. With respect to the particular question of EPA’s decontamination R&D

budget, I understand that the FY 2005 budget does not include a request in the area

of building contamination research because unexpended existing funds from previous years will carry over and ensure that this important research is fully funded.

In fact, the Budget continues to fund decontamination research, the program’s technical staff will remain intact, and the EPA will still be able to achieve its core homeland security responsibilities.

However, specific requests regarding the EPA’s FY 2005 budget request and their

R&D programs should be referred to EPA. I assure you we will work with the EPA

to address the critical research needed for decontamination.

Questions submitted by Representative Judy Biggert

Q1. In your letter of March 4, 2004, you stated that the DHS would convene an external panel to ‘‘review and offer suggestions’’ on the policy of dividing the DOE

laboratories into intramural and extramural groups.

Q1a. Will the external panel be charged with developing an alternative to the previous intramural/extramural designations, or might the panel endorse the previous designations made by the DHS?

168

A1a. The Department of Homeland Security, through Section 309 of the Homeland

Security Act of 2002, is provided access to the DOE National Laboratories and sites

managed by the Department of Energy (DOE) to carry out the missions of DHS.

The DHS Science and Technology Directorate, wishing to make the best use of

each of these laboratories and sites in consonance with statute, regulation, and policy, asked laboratories and sites to make a decision regarding their desired mode

of interaction with the Directorate—to participate in S&T’s internal strategic planning and program development processes or, if otherwise permissible under applicable law, regulation, contract, and DOE policy, to respond to certain types of S&T

solicitations open to the private sector.

On March 31, 2004, the following DOE National Laboratories and sites communicated their decision to Under Secretary McQueary to participate in S&T’s internal

strategic planning and program development processes: Argonne National Laboratory, Bechtel Nevada, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the Sandia DOE National Laboratories.

An external review will be conducted to assess the baseline capabilities of the

DOE National Laboratories and sites to provide the Department with an enduring

capability to meet long-term mission requirements. The results of this review will

be utilized by the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee

(HSSTAC) to advise the Department on options for establishing a long-term strategic relationship with the DOE National Laboratories and sites.

Q1b. If the external panel recommends an alternative to the intramural/extramural

designations previously made by the DHS, will the DHS adopt the panel’s recommendations?

A1b. As previously discussed, the following DOE National Laboratories and sites

communicated their decision to Under Secretary McQueary to participate in S&T’s

internal strategic planning and program development processes: Argonne National

Laboratory, Bechtel Nevada, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory, and the Sandia National Laboratories. The designation of intramural/extramural is therefore no longer necessary for the nine laboratories and

sites under consideration.

DHS will consider all recommendations and advice provided by external reviews.

The results of the review will also be utilized by the Homeland Security Science and

Technology Advisory Committee to advise the Department on options for establishing a long-term strategic relationship with the DOE National Laboratories.

Q1c. If the external panel is not charged with developing an alternative to the previous intramural/extramural designations, and/or its recommendations are

not binding on DHS, please explain the value in convening an external review

panel.

A1c. As mentioned above, the designation of intramural/extramural is therefore no

longer necessary for the nine laboratories and sites under consideration. The Department of Homeland Security will consider all recommendations and advice provided by external reviews. The results of the review will also be utilized by the

Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee to advise the Department on options for establishing a long-term strategic relationship with the

DOE National Laboratories.

Q2. If the external review panel endorses the previous designations of the DOE laboratories into intramural and extramural groups, is DHS still committed to allowing each laboratory to determine which group it is in?

A2. The DHS Science and Technology Directorate, wishing to make the best use of

DOE National Laboratories and sites in consonance with statute, regulation, and

policy, asked laboratories and sites to make a decision regarding their desired mode

of interaction with the Directorate—to participate in S&T’s internal strategic planning and program development processes or, if otherwise permissible under applicable law, regulation, contract, and DOE policy, to respond to certain types of S&T

solicitations open to the private sector.

On March 31, 2004, the following DOE National Laboratories and sites communicated their decision to Under Secretary McQueary to participate in S&T’s internal

strategic planning and program development processes: Argonne National Laboratory, Bechtel Nevada, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los AlaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
169

mos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the Sandia DOE National Laboratories. The designation of

intramural/extramural is therefore no longer necessary for the nine laboratories and

sites under consideration.

Q3. What particular steps will the DHS take to ensure that the appropriate Members

and committees of Congress are informed of the activities and progress of the

external review panel?

A3. The Science and Technology Directorate will remain available to brief appropriate Members and committees of Congress on the results of the external review

and the findings of the Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, which will be charged with advising the Department on options for establishing a long-term strategic relationship with the DOE National Laboratories and

sites.

Q4. You testified before the Science Committee on February 11, 2004, that you

‘‘would be happy to share with [the Committee] what the criteria had been’’ in

designating the DOE National Laboratories as intramural or extramural. But

during a meeting with staff on February 24, 2004, Assistant Secretary Parney

Albright said that DHS did not apply written criteria and did not assign numerical scores to the laboratories in its designations of the laboratories as intramural or extramural. Please explain the contradiction and provide the promised

criteria.

A4. During the Fall of 2003, the S&T Directorate further defined its programs,

stood up the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) and

Systems Engineering and Development (SED), established the roles and responsibilities for all of the offices within the S&T Directorate, and further refined what program areas were the unique (or majority) responsibility of the Federal Government

to execute. Accordingly, the S&T Directorate developed the following criteria to further determine which laboratories are best suited to participate in activities involving strategic planning, program development, and stewardship planning:

1. Institutional culture and infrastructure dedicated to national security, which

includes the ability to conduct classified programs and manage field intelligence elements;

2. Systems engineering capability and culture for transitioning research and

development programs into fielded operational capability through partnerships with end-users;

3. Significant technical breadth and depth in the assigned mission area(s), including unique expertise, capabilities and assets; and

4. Ability to leverage other multidisciplinary programs to address mission requirements.

On March 31, 2004, the following DOE National Laboratories and sites communicated their decision to Under Secretary McQueary to participate in S&T’s internal

strategic planning and program development processes: Argonne National Laboratory, Bechtel Nevada, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the Sandia DOE National Laboratories. The designation of

intramural/extramural is therefore no longer necessary for these entities.

Questions submitted by Representative Lynn Woolsey

Q1. Much of our attention is captured by the type of attacks we have seen in the Capitol complex in the last three years where there is a targeted release of a deadly

substance (anthrax and ricin). These attacks are horrific and those exposed may

become ill or even die, but this type of agent will not produce widespread effects

to others in the community. I am worried about a different kind of attack wherein a virus or bacteria is modified and released into major population centers

with the intent of seeing the disease spread to thousands or even millions of people.

What work is the DHS doing to develop the tools necessary to detect such an

attack, diagnose the agent, and to react swiftly with effective and appropriate

treatment?

A1. The Department of Homeland Security, through its National Biological Defense

and Analysis Center (NBACC), has a major effort on providing the scientific data

170

to understand and prioritize biological threats—both current and emerging. One key

element of this, done in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH),

is to identify what are known as virulence pathways—the mechanisms that an organism uses to invade and attack its host. Even if an organism has been engineered,

it must retain these virulence pathways to efficiently infect its host. Thus, an improved understanding of these pathways will lead to the development of medical

countermeasures targeted against them and to a more robust defense.

A second key element, being executed as part of a coordinated interagency BioSurveillance Initiative, is to conduct continuous monitoring of the health of our Nation’s population, livestock and plants and to combine this with environmental monitoring data on our cities, food, and water supplies. This continuous situational

awareness is geared at giving the Nation the earliest possible indicator of a biological event—whether from traditional agents or from a new, and as yet unknown,

agent.

A third element is the development of advanced detection systems and the associated bioassays. Bioassays allow the detector to ‘‘recognize’’ an organism as a threat.

Current bioassays are largely targeted at unique features (genetic or protein) that

distinguish the threat organism from look alike organisms and from normal ‘‘environmental’’ backgrounds. Several paths are being pursued to increase the capability

of bioassays against engineered threats, including:

• Searching for ‘‘markers’’ of bio-engineering;

• Linking the unique signatures to known genetic and protein features that are

critical to virulence; and

• By broad classification techniques, be able to determine that a new organism

has features similar to already-characterized organisms.

Q2. The budget submission from DHS specifically mentions the effort to increase

sampling coverage and frequency in urban areas—this is part of the $407 million for biological countermeasures. What is the range of biological threats this

effort will try to detect? What technical hurdles stand between the Department

and its goals? Again, in light of the kind of threat I mention above of a viral

or bacterial agent, is the Department looking at establishing a sampling and

testing system for public healthcare workers or other emergency responders who

would be among the first to see the effects of a widespread biological attack?

A2. The Science and Technology Directorate remains committed to increasing sampling coverage and frequency in urban areas. The FY 2005 budget request includes

$65 million for these activities and for developing next generation technologies.

More than half of these funds, $34 million, will be used to increase the number

of collectors in the Nation’s highest-threat cities. Another $17 million will be used

to accelerate the research and development of the next generation of detection technology. The new detectors will be fully autonomous and capable of conducting both

the sampling and collection in the field. This will significantly reduce the cost of the

current system, which is dominated (?70%) by the labor costs associated with retrieving and analyzing samples. Furthermore, this technology will allow simultaneous detection of more than 20 threat agents, including some markers of genetic

engineering.

The biggest technical hurdles are:

• Achieving a low false alarm rate of less than one in 100 million;

• Realizing autonomous operation capable of running 24/7/365 with only periodic routine maintenance;

• Incorporating biological assays that are robust against engineered organisms;

and

• Ensuring low acquisition and sustainment costs on the order of $25,000 per

copy to acquire and $10,000 per year to operate.

In deploying systems like BioWatch, the Science and Technology Directorate

works closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and with

the local public health and emergency management offices where BioWatch is deployed. The local public health authorities establish the sampling and testing protocols for their healthcare workers.

Q3. Currently, I have been told that it takes an average of three years to develop a

vaccine. Is anyone at DHS working on speeding up the time to develop a vaccine

to something like, say three months or even three weeks? If you are not working

on that, who in the government is working on the problem?

171

A3. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has the responsibility

to develop medical countermeasures for the human population; however, the Department of Homeland Security advises on the development of medical countermeasures

based on its threat information.

172

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Department of Commerce

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. TA—Your testimony did not address any activities of the Technology Administration. Provide the Committee with five outcome-oriented accomplishments of

the Technology Administration during the past year.

A1. The Technology Administration (TA) was established to carry out the mission

mandated by the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. That Act

calls for conducting technology policy analysis to improve U.S. productivity, technology, and innovation. The Act lists areas for that analysis, including: the relationship between technology development and U.S. economic performance; the influence

of economic and labor conditions, industrial structure and management, and government policies on U.S. industry; technological needs, problems, and opportunities

that, if addressed, could make a significant contribution to the U.S. economy. It also

calls for supporting policy experiments, encouraging collaborative research, stimulating interest in high technology careers, encouraging technology skills in the

United States, and considering government measures with the potential to improve

U.S. technological innovation. In addition, the NIST Authorization Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–519) mandated that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of Technology Policy, and the National Technical Information

Service all be a part of what comprises the Technology Administration. The following are some of the recent activities that contribute to TA’s mission.

Advanced Technologies for Education and Training

More than 40 representatives of industry, academia, teachers, and public interest

groups formally urged TA to lead an effort to foster next generation learning technologies. These technologies would enable: visualization, modeling, and simulation;

virtual worlds; intelligent tutors and assessment tools; large scale digital libraries

and on-line museums; distributed learning and collaboration; and new learning

management tools. Studies suggest that these technologies, coupled with new cognitive science, could enable dramatic improvements in learning performance, speed

to mastery, and higher levels of achievement, at lower cost. This could have profound effects on U.S. competitiveness and economic growth, and provide an important new advantage for U.S. workers in their competition for jobs against knowledge

workers in other countries who are willing to work for less.

TA’s leadership role was sought because many of the challenges related to developing and deploying these technologies are innovation challenges. TA has primary

responsibility in this area due to its mission and expertise in technological innovation, as established by the Stevenson-Wydler Act.

In response to these calls for leadership, TA developed and established the White

House National Science and Technology Council Working Group on Advanced Technologies for Education and Training, co-chaired by the Under Secretary for Technology. The Working Group has 17 federal departments and agencies as members,

and has developed a two-pronged agenda. First, the working group will inventory

and examine federal investments focused on the development of advanced technologies for learning. Second, under TA leadership, the working group developed an

action-oriented innovation agenda focusing on: private sector investment and market development; organizational and systems change in education and training institutions; preparing people for new roles; building bridges for market responsiveness

and technology transfer; and other factors that affect learning technology innovation. Since establishing the working group in October 2003, Under Secretary Bond

has convened four townhall meetings with the education community and technology

providers to gain a better understanding of the challenges and to solicit advice.

Establishment of the working group was praised in press releases from: the Software and Information Industry Association, Federation of American Scientists, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges in partnership

with the Business-Higher Education Forum, Microsoft, and the Alliance for Science

and Technology Research in America.

Biotechnology

US/OTP developed, fielded, and analyzed the first federal survey of the use of biotechnology in U.S. industry. This was a ground-breaking collaborative, interagency

effort because, prior to development of this survey, no comprehensive official United

173

States Government (USG) statistics existed about the use and development biotechnology and its contributions to the U.S. economy.

The goals of the collaborative survey project were to:

• Develop estimates of the economic and industrial impact of biotechnology on

U.S. industries and the national economy, as well as information about firms’

economic performance, growth, trade, and markets; research and development; employment; interactions with the Federal Government; defense orientation; and perceived barriers to innovation and competitiveness.

• Test survey definitions, questions and process in order to provide information

to federal statistical agencies (NSF and Census) as they develop collection

methods for statistical measures for biotechnology products and processes.

• Demonstrate the United States Government’s responsiveness to industry

needs.

Surveys were mailed to 3,189 U.S. companies and responses were obtained from

70 percent of firms; 1,031 firms confirmed that they were performing biotechnology

activities relevant to the assessment and provided sufficient data for analysis.

US/OTP’s statistical analysis of the data (published in November 2003) has been

used to inform policy-makers interested in capitalization of U.S. biotech firms (such

as questions related to SBA guidelines for SBIR grants) and for workforce and biodefense-related issues. US/OTP currently is engaged in discussions with federal statistical agencies to encourage a second (revised) survey in order to begin to develop

a USG longitudinal data series on this important new technology area.

Science and Engineering Workforce Trends

To support policy development directed at ensuring the Nation has an adequate

supply of scientists and engineers to meet current and future demand, TA has conducted extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of U.S. science and engineering workforce trends, including: recent occupational growth; salary growth; unemployment rates; educational preparation, including degrees earned by specialty, race,

and gender; and projected job growth and job openings by occupation. TA staff has

disseminated the results of this analysis through briefings to a wide range of

groups:

• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology staff

• NSF STEM Pathways Conference

• Computing Research Association’s Computing Leadership Summit and Board

of Directors

• American Society for Engineer Education’s Engineering Dean’s Council

• Council of Scientific Society Presidents

• Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

Education and Training for Information Technology Workers

After extensive research and outreach to employers, labor, and the education and

training community (involving outreach to more than 450 participants), TA published the ground-breaking Report to Congress on Education and Training for the

Information Technology Workforce. This report includes extensive findings on the

education, training, skills, and experience employers seek in IT workers. In addition, for the first time, the report lays out the complex education and training landscape that IT workers must navigate to acquire education and skills. As the IT labor

market becomes more competitive and off-shoring of IT work increases, this report

helps U.S. IT workers better understand the kinds of skills they need to be competitive in this labor market, and the types of education and training programs that

offer such skills. This report also helps education and training providers better understand the IT knowledge and skills they need to provide to their students. TA analysts have also sought to disseminate the findings of this study by speaking at a

variety of industry, academic and government fora. In particular, TA staff delivered

presentations to three bidder’s conferences held by the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration in support of its H–1B Technical Skills

Training Grants program, as well as at its national grantees conference.

Nanotechnology/Converging Technologies

TA has taken a leadership role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

to ensure that the insights and breakthroughs emerging from our substantial federal investments in nanoscience and nanotechnology research move into the commercial marketplace to provide economic growth, high-wage job creation, and social

benefits. Through TA’s development of and participation in outreach events such as

174

conferences and workshops, I have personally highlighted the need to proactively

address societal and ethical concerns in order to lower possible impediments to development and commercialization of new products; the importance of moving research into the marketplace expeditiously; and encouraged increased participation

by scientists and engineers in public education and discussion.

TA’s efforts to support these messages and engage policy-makers in these issues

include:

• Initiating a dialogue between industry and NNI leaders for senior officials of

the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) on how nanotechnology may affect,

and be affected by, export controls. This work led to a proposal by Secretary

Evans to the President’s Export Council for consideration of the formation of

a nanotechnology subcommittee which would provide a structural mechanism

to enable policy-makers to receive counsel from the private sector.

• Fostering greater dialogue and engagement between stakeholder groups-scientists, engineers, business leaders, venture capitalists, educators, ethicists,

philosophers, other federal agencies—on issues affecting the development and

commercialization of nanotechnology.

Outreach efforts include working with federal, State and local economic development officials to spur awareness and adoption of nanotechnology as a

tool for technology-led economic developments around the country. For example, in partnership with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, TA

developed and led the first Regional-State-Local Nanotechnology Workshop

for state economic development and technology leaders. More than 125 technology and economic development officials from 25 states and the District of

Columbia participated in the conference.

TA also is working to increase public understanding of federal efforts to ensure the responsible development of nanotechnology, including its impact on

human health and the environment. For example, TA supported the development of the Converging Technologies Bar Association (CTBA), a non-profit organization focused on proactively identifying and addressing legal implications of converging technologies (nanotech, biotech, and IT).

• Increasing understanding among federal agencies of the status and implications of nanotechnology research and development, and the relationship of

this new technology to their agencies’ missions. For example, TA is working

with workforce development officials at the U.S. Department of Labor to ensure the department’s training programs include support for nanotechnologybased occupations.

Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI)

TA led the development of the Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI), a White House

initiative announced in March 2003 by Secretary Evans. TA continues to lead the

DFI, which has brought several federal agencies together with over 40 IT firms and

organizations to promote technology partnerships and entrepreneurship as catalysts

for economic expansion within developing economies. The goal of the Digital Freedom Initiative is to open new markets and create demand for U.S. high-technology

products and services by promoting economic growth in developing countries—specifically by teaching the benefits of information and communication technology (ICT)

to entrepreneurs and small businesses in developing countries. The DFI leverages

USG leadership with the creativity and resources of over 90 U.S. businesses and

non-profit organizations, together with the vision and energy of local entrepreneurs

in host countries. U.S. business volunteers such as Hewlett-Packard, CISCO and

other smaller firms are currently implementing programs in Senegal aimed at increasing IT capacities of small business in that country while at the same time creating new market demand for U.S. products and services. On October 16, 2003,

President Bush announced that Peru and Indonesia have agreed to follow Senegal’s

lead and join the DFI partnership; Jordan is being considered as the next DFI partner.

U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission (USISTC)

The USISTC binational initiative advances collaborative and technological development, helps reduce impediments in the conduct of business, and promotes government and industry cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. The Commission’s secretariat, the Technology Administration, worked throughout 2003–04 with a host of

interagency S&T directorates, industry sectors, and Commission constituents to expand binational collaboration through a fast-paced agenda with a strong technology

focus. Key outcomes and accomplishments include the issuance of a biotechnology

175

and life sciences RFP and subsequent $1 million grant award to a consortium of private sector biotechnology entities designed to foster bilateral development between

the U.S.-Israeli biotech sectors; development of a U.S.-Israel cooperative program for

civil infrastructure security (CIS) leveraging expertise and resources for R&D, technology assessment and demonstrations of innovative utility sector technologies; implementation of a demonstration project in partnership with Israel’s Ministry of Environment and the White House Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

(OFEE) that will advance integration of environmental and security management

systems to enhance security preparedness in the public and private sectors; and, organization of a Nanotechnology Roundtable of U.S.-Israeli experts to help analyze

potential high technology collaborations.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Russian Ministry of Education and

Science

In response to an agreement reached at Camp David in October 2003 by President

Bush and President Putin to cooperate on high technology matters, OTP and the

Russian Ministry of Education and Science (MES) worked to negotiate an MOU to

promote S&T Cooperation in Technology and Innovation. The MOU was signed on

April 19th by U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans and Minister Andrey

Fursenko/MES. OTP’s next activities will follow up recent discussions between Minister Fursenko and Under Secretary for Technology Phillip Bond on appropriate

Terms of Reference (TOR) for an Innovation Council on High Technologies. The

Council will serve as the mechanism to achieve goals defined in the MOU and will

focus on identifying and addressing technological, legal and financial issues that impact the ability of U.S. and Russian private and public entities to form partnerships

and establish commercially oriented programs to serve the international market

place.

Technology Transfer

OTP’s activities were guided by statutory requirements and requests for resident

expertise. Recent activities include:

• Preparation of the statutory annual report (under the Technology Transfer

Commercialization Act, P.L. 106–404) on the technology transfer activities of

Department of Commerce federal laboratories (NIST, NOAA, NTIA) in FY

2003.

• Collaboration with OMB (summer 2003 and March 2004) to develop detailed

guideline materials for federal agency preparation of statutory (see above) annual reports on federal lab technology transfer. TA/OTP language incorporated in OMB’s Circular A–11 of July 2003; revisions for the new fiscal year

to be incorporated in the forthcoming July 2004 edition of Circular A–11.

• Provided preliminary statistics to the Congress (April 2004) on technology

transfer activities through FY 2003 of the federal labs across ten federal departments. This information is assembled and analyzed by TA/OTP (consistent with OMB’s Circular A–11 guidelines—see above) as part of the preparation of the next edition of the Secretary of Commerce’s Summary Report on

Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer (also statutory under the Technology

Transfer and Commercialization Act).

• Worked with the federal agencies (through the Interagency Working Group

on Technology Transfer—chaired by TA/OTP) and others in the technology

transfer community to provide information and comment on drafts of the recent evaluation report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology (PCAST) on ‘‘Technology Transfer of Federally Funded R&D.’’

PCAST’s report was transmitted to the President in May 2003. TA/OTP’s coordinated activities significantly enriched the findings and proposed actions

discussed by the report.

• Organized subcommittee of the Interagency Working Group on Technology

Transfer (chaired and coordinated by TA/OTP) to work with the Department

of Commerce’s Office of General Counsel to prepare revised regulations for

federal invention licensing (37 CFR Sec. 404). Revised version of licensing

regulations to be published in Federal Register summer 2004 (estimated).

State S&T Indicators Issued

TA released The Dynamics of Technology based Economic Development: State

Science & Technology Indicators, 4th edition, which tracks changes in values of

metrics for up to ten years. The State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI), representing a nationwide network of state practitioners and policy-makers, has confirmed that the report is used extensively by those in the public and private sectors

176

concerned with regional innovation and competitiveness. Findings include: for the

2001–2002 time period for the number of U.S. patents issued per 10,000 business

establishments, Idaho was ranked first, followed by California, and Vermont; for

number of engineers employed per 10,000 civilian workers, Washington state was

first, followed by Massachusetts, and Kansas; and for the average annual number

of Small Business Innovation Research awards per 10,000 business establishments,

Massachusetts was first, followed by New Mexico, and Maryland.

Facilitating Federal Laboratory Participation in Economic Development

A Technology Administration report, which was highlighted by the Economic Development Administration, identified the best practices of seven federal laboratory

partnerships and two intermediary programs in working with entrepreneurs, local

business groups, and higher education to support technology-led economic development. The report, Partners on a Mission: Federal Laboratory Practices Contributing

to Economic Development, provided national exposure to a set of innovative lab practices that can be used by communities to support innovation, technology transfer,

to create new jobs, products and services. Key findings of the report were: technical

and entrepreneurial assistance, now a peripheral activity for most government labs,

can be very beneficial to the labs technology transfer mission; mentor prote ́ge ́ programs encourage small business partnering and help strengthen suppliers; entrepreneurial leave programs can be valuable mechanisms for promoting commercial use

of laboratory technology; some federal laboratories are effectively sponsoring entrepreneurial, seed and venture capital and business networking events, and; research

parks and incubators set up by federal labs were more effective in attracting research companies and suppliers when the public-private linkages were facilitated by

economic development organizations.

Collaboration with National Association of Seed and Venture Funds (NASVF)

(Ongoing) TA is working with NASVF to support local efforts to create angel investor networks through one-day workshops, designed by nationally known business

and economic development professionals, on how communities have used team-based

approaches for supporting local entrepreneurship and networking sources of capital.

Rationale for TA’s approach is that most states are involved in supplying or catalyzing the formation of a variety of risk capital to support local technology business

growth. Outcomes include: Communities involved have reported an energized local

seed investing market, more effective networking of local investors interested in

technology-based companies, and greater resources for the local knowledge-based

economy.

Telehealth

The Technology Administration began an initiative to analyze innovation, demand

and investment in telehealth resulting in the following accomplishments: a partnership between the American Telemedicine Association and NIST to develop initial

standards for diabetic retinopathy; identification of homeland security applications

for telehealth networks; increased telehealth technology and services exports

through trade missions to Colombia, Ireland and the U.K.

Assistive Technologies (AT)

In support of the President’s New Freedom’s Initiative, TA is leading an eightpoint Department of Commerce initiative to support the development of assistive

technologies and to promote the U.S. assistive technology industry. The Secretary

of Commerce began the initiative through the Technology Administration to identify, understand and support innovation, growth and investment in assistive technologies. This initiative has resulted in the following to date: established positive

working relationship with AT industry, including establishment of relationship with

NIST for manufacturing and standards services; convened policy roundtable for the

broad range of AT stakeholders; facilitated dialog between AT industry and federal

AT research centers; collected and compiled international market data for 10 countries and reviewed foreign trade policies for unfair practices; included AT industry

in export promotion events.

Q2. SBIR—OMB has labeled 13 federal programs as failures, including the Small

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program at the Department of Commerce

(Washington Post, 11 February 2004). A review of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) finds fault with the Department of Commerce management of

the program and implies criticism of the legislation establishing the SBIR program. NOAA and NIST manage Commerce’s SBIR program. What steps will

these two agencies be taking in response to the PART analysis? What are the

shortcomings that the Administration finds with the SBIR legislation?

177

NIST Answer. OMB applied the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)—a programmatic evaluation tool—to the individual offices charged with administering the

program within DOC. As a result, OMB found the overall management of the individual SBIR programs effective but had concerns in the areas of program rationale,

program planning, and results. NIST has a strategic plan in place for its SBIR program that focuses on improving efficiency and effectiveness and developing performance measures to gather customer satisfaction data from the small businesses participating in the SBIR program. While NIST is working to adopt these improvements, progress may be limited due to resource constraints. Funds allocated to the

SBIR program are for the exclusive purpose of funding SBIR awards and cannot be

used for the administration of the program or the implementation of evaluation

methods.

The major issues involve program purpose and design. OMB states that the SBIR

program is redundant of other federal programs. In addition, OMB finds that the

design of the SBIR program (a mandatory ‘‘tax’’ on R&D programs) reduces agencies’ flexibility by restricting their investment decisions. These program requirements are mandated by the law.

NOAA Answer. The NOAA Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA)

manages the NOAA component of the DOC program under the auspices of the Small

Business Administration. NOAA’s goal, which is consistent with Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) legislation, is to enhance small business research and development and to stimulate economic growth. It is the function of the NOAA SBIR

Workgroup, which is comprised of one representative from each Line Office, to develop and submit to ORTA research topics that advance and are consistent with

NOAA’s mission and strategic plan.

The only aspect of the PART scoring of the NOAA SBIR Program under ORTA’s

control is the management portion, of which NOAA received a high score.

Q3. MEP—The Administration’s request for the Manufacturing Extension Program

is only one-third of what is required to maintain the existing network of MEP

centers. What will be the impact of the Administration’s funding request on the

level and amount of services provided to small manufacturers? For example in

FY03, MEP served more than 18,000 clients. With only $39 million, how many

small manufacturers will be served and what will be the economic impact?

A3. Since its inception as a pilot program in 1988, the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP) has provided many small U.S. manufacturers with useful business services to become more competitive and productive. MEP’s nationwide network serves to promote lean manufacturing techniques such as zero-defect quality

programs. The program makes it possible for even the smallest firms to tap into

specialists from across the country with manufacturing and business expertise in

plant operations and on manufacturing floors. MEP clients have experienced more

growth in labor productivity over a five-year period than similar non-client firms.

MEP was originally intended to be comprised of 12 federally supported centers, with

federal funding ending after six years. In its 15 years of operation, the program has

expanded away from this original design to include 400 locations, and Congress has

removed the sunset provision. Funding for the MEP centers is a cost-sharing arrangement consisting of support from the Federal Government, State and local government, and the recovery of fees for services. Given advances in manufacturing and

technology, it is appropriate to evaluate MEP operations and take steps for continuous improvement.

While the President’s request is a reduction from historical levels, it maintains

the level of funding appropriated in FY04. To improve the effectiveness of the program at these reduced levels, the Administration proposes to coordinate MEP fully

with other Commerce Department programs that are helping manufacturers to be

more competitive and expand markets. Through this coordination, the Commerce

Department can more closely link the technical and business staff employed by the

MEP centers located around the country with trade promotion specialists in the

Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration. In addition, the ITA

has experts with in-depth knowledge of various sectors of industry. MEP field

agents and these sector experts, the program can be a more effective national resource to help small manufacturers compete and succeed in the global marketplace.

Additionally, MEP will hold a re-competition, with a focus on effectiveness and costefficiency.

Q4. MEP—The President’s manufacturing initiative states that there will be a recompetition of all MEP centers that will focus on improving effectiveness and

efficiency. What steps has the Administration taken to improve the effectiveness

and efficiency of MEP centers during the past three years? Or is this re-competiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
178

tion just a way to cut the number of centers to fit within the Administration’s

budget request? What are the new selection criteria for the re-competition? If you

can’t answer this question now, when will you be able to? What should Centers

and States do in the interim while the Administration develops its re-competition criteria and what does this mean for federal funding to existing Centers?

A4. During the last year, the Department took a comprehensive look at the issues

influencing the long-term competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing to identify the

challenges our manufacturers face and outline a strategy for ensuring that the government is doing all it can to create the conditions that will allow U.S. manufacturers to increase their competitiveness and spur economic growth. That review ultimately lead to the recently-released U.S. DoC Manufacturing Report. As a result of

these efforts, and reduced funding levels enacted in FY04, NIST plans to implement

the following MEP operating plan:

1. Redefine all existing cooperative agreements with current MEP centers

through Fiscal Year 2004.

• Continue FY 2003 levels of funding support for centers—with month-to-month

commitments—through September 30, 2004. By carefully managing FY 2004

funds, this approach can sustain the existing center system through the fiscal

year with the current appropriation because of the staggered basis upon

which centers have been funded to date (most centers will be operating on

FY 2003 funds through June 30, 2004).

• Centers are not obligated to accept the month-to-month funding and can

choose to discontinue efforts at any time.

2. Conduct a full and open competition to establish a program that maximizes service impact at the reduced program level in Fiscal Year 2005.

• Hold a re-competition for MEP centers in the fall of 2004. This timing will

allow the Department to solicit and receive input from state co-investors in

the MEP centers. Because MEP is a cost shared program relying upon the

contributions from its State partners (B of the total center funding), it is critical to get their input in defining the format and structure of the re-competition. This is essential to assure state support for the re-competition and to

encourage states to support proposals for well-qualified, well-financed centers.

• MEP will conduct a series of regional discussions to get state and other investor inputs in the July/August 2004 timeframe. NIST will release a Federal

Register notice requesting proposals on or about September 1, 2004, with proposals due October 31, 2004 (60 days later). Awards are expected to be effective January 1, 2005.

• The center competition will use the criteria and protocols as established in

the MEP rule (15 CFR 290).

• Aggregation of service entities will be encouraged to maximize leverage of

limited funding, including regional centers.

• The concepts identified in the recent Department of Commerce Manufacturing

Report will be implemented.

• MEP will implement, as appropriate, any proposed program reforms in the

upcoming National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) analysis of the

MEP program.

• Centers will be expected to use the limited federal resources to support the

delivery of services to small manufacturers and limit their expenditures on

administrative functions.

• MEP will provide software and other standard approaches to support center

operations.

• Per their request, centers and state economic development offices will be

given opportunities to provide input on the re-competition.

3. Discontinue any center support and stewardship activities that are no

longer relevant.

• Center annual reviews and panel reviews will be discontinued as appropriate.

• Contracts and procurements associated with center support that is no longer

needed will be terminated for convenience.

4. Begin internal staffing analysis and reductions.

• MEP and NIST have received Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA)

and buyout authority.

179

• MEP and NIST will begin Reduction-In Force (RIF) processes as needed after

VERA and buyouts are applied.

• MEP will implement the reduced level of program support and NIST will implement the reduced level of administrative overhead once the RIF is completed.

The evaluation criteria that must be used for the re-competition are specified by

the MEP governing regulation, 15 CFR 290. These criteria are equally weighted and

are as follows:

• Identification of Target Firms in Proposed Region. Does the proposal define

an appropriate service region with a large enough population of target firms

of small- and medium-sized manufacturers that the applicant understands

and can serve, and which is not presently served by an existing center?

Market Analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service region’s manufacturing base, including business size, industry types, product mix, and technology requirements.

Geographical Location. Physical size, concentration of industry, and economic

significance of the service region’s manufacturing base. Geographical diversity of the centers will be a factor in evaluation of proposals.

• Technology Resources. Does the proposal assure strength in technical personnel and programmatic resources, full-time staff, facilities, equipment, and

linkages to external sources of technology?

• Technology Delivery Mechanisms. Does the proposal clearly and sharply define an effective methodology for delivering advanced manufacturing technology to small- and medium-sized manufacturers?

Linkages. Development of effective partnerships or linkages to third parties

such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic organizations, and State

governments who will amplify the center’s technology delivery to reach a

large number of clients in its service region.

Program Leverage. Provision of an effective strategy to amplify the center’s

technology delivery approaches to achieve the proposed objectives as described in 15 CFR 290.3(e).

• Management and Financial Plan. Does the proposal define a management

structure and assure management personnel to carry out development and

operation of an effective center?

Organizational Structure. Completeness and appropriateness of the organizational structure, and its focus on the mission of the center.

Program Management. Effectiveness of the planned methodology of program

management.

Internal Evaluation. Effectiveness of the planned continuous internal evaluation of program activities.

Plans for Financial Matching. Demonstrated stability and duration of the applicants funding commitments as well as the percentage of operating and capital costs guaranteed by the applicant. Identification of matching fund sources

and the general terms of the funding commitments.

Budget. Suitability and focus of the applicant’s detailed one-year budget and

budget outline for years 2–5 and beyond.

Q5. MEP—It has been suggested that the Administration wants to develop a network of regional MEP Centers. How would movement to a network of a few regional centers affect the current cost-share (B federal, B State and B service

charges)? For example, if there were a Midwest regional center, how would State

funding be apportioned? Have you discussed any of these scenarios with the

States, which are equal partners with the Federal Government in the program?

In general, what discussions have you had with States regarding the Administration’s vision for the MEP? If you have not had any discussions, when do you

intend to consult with the States?

A5. Because MEP is a cost shared program relying upon the contributions from its

State partners (B of the total center funding), many of which have been active for

most of the past decade and some since the late 1980s, it is critical to get their input

in defining the format and structure of the MEP and re-competition. This is essential to assure state support for the re-competition and to encourage states to support

proposals for well-qualified, well-financed centers. NIST/MEP is planning to conduct

a series of regional discussions to get State and other investor inputs in the July/

August 2004 timeframe.

180

Q6. Voting Systems—During the past year there have been numerous reports of

problems with electronic voting systems. The Department of Defense recently

scrapped its plans for Internet voting. There have also been widespread calls for

better standards for electronic voting equipment. Under the Help America Vote

Act, this committee ensured that NIST would have a role in the development of

voting system standards. NIST has been working with state officials this past

year in a very limited way on this issue. Why didn’t the Administration consider

this a priority for NIST and request funding for NIST voting standards efforts?

A6. Tight budget constraints and the Administration’s priority on the war on terrorism prevented an appropriation request for activities under the Help America

Vote Act in NIST’s Fiscal Year 2005 Budget request. NIST is devoting $375,000 on

voting standards and technology-related funding in FY 2004. The Administration is,

however, exploring the possibility of NIST’s providing services to the TGDC via a

Memorandum of Understanding with the EAC. That could provide a source of funds

for NIST in FY 2005.

Q7. Mr. Gordon’s Questions—Please respond to Mr. Gordon’s questions at the

hearing:

Q7a. If the Administration’s proposal to eliminate ATP funding in FY 2005 were enacted, what would the contractual and transition costs in FY 2005 be and

would these costs be absorbed by the NIST budget?

A7a. If Congress enacts the FY 2005 President’s Budget proposal to terminate funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), the Department of Commerce and

NIST will pursue all available means to address the termination cost requirements,

consistent with legal obligations and sound management practices. To the greatest

extent possible, NIST will seek opportunities to place ATP staff elsewhere in NIST

or at other agencies, both within and outside the Department. NIST already has received VERA and buy-out authority to reduce the number of its employees in light

of the lower appropriation level for other programs in FY 2004. The use of funding

that may become available through prior year deobligations in ATP is also a possibility to offset ATP shutdown costs. Prior year deobligations have averaged $13 million over the last three years, although a lower level is projected for FY 2005. Finally, the Department may be able to use special transfer authority to cover ATP

termination costs if the FY 2005 appropriations bill contains the requested provision

comparable to Section 205 of the General Provisions applicable to the Department

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004.

Q7b. If the FY 2005 MEP budget were enacted, what impact would it have on the

States?

A7b. As a result of the findings in the U.S. DoC Manufacturing Report, and the reduced funding level provided in FY 2004, the the Administration has just recently

finalized the implementation plan outlined above. Until the individual Centers give

us specific information or the planned re-competition of Centers can be held, it is

hard to determine which states will continue to provide a third of the funding support to the MEP system.

Q7c. Which agencies, companies, or foundations are volunteering to invest in the

MEP program?

A7c. Negotiations are underway with a variety of federal programs which could capitalize on MEP’s unique access to the small manufacturing marketplace. These opportunities include the following:

Department of Defense: utilize MEP to assist in overcoming critical defense production needs, identification and transfer of technologies with defense application,

streamline defense supplier networks, etc.

Department of Homeland Security: assist in outreach to manufacturers and supplier networks which are part of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, assessment of

vulnerabilities and contingencies to address disruption in the Nation’s supply system.

Department of Labor: assist in training and development of the 21st century

workforce particularly in emerging manufacturing and technology sectors.

Department of Commerce: provide assistance and outreach in conjunction with

the proposed Manufacturing & Services directorate within the International Trade

Administration as a critical linkage to the Nation’s smaller manufacturers for the

purpose of policy development. In addition, TA and EDA recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding by which EDA will make available a limited amount of

181

FY 2004 economic adjustment assistance funding in support of existing NIST-funded MEP centers. Subject to EDA’s eligibility and program requirements, MEP centers will be able to apply for an estimated aggregate of $5 million of such funding.

MEP has also considered foundation-type funding which is typically raised as

principal to be kept intact, while the earnings from the principal are used to capitalize activities. For MEP to develop a steady stream of funding of any significance

to substitute for some of the federal funding, the foundation would need to be capitalized at $400 to $500 million to prevent rapid depletion.

182

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood Boehlert

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Q1. At the hearing, in response to a question about the total life-cycle cost of the

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), you stated, ‘‘I can

assure that, not only will our contribution be capped at the current level, but

I can also tell you that the baseline level of performance objectives will be maintained so that the baseline will follow current projections.’’ When you spoke of

the U.S. contribution being capped at the current level, were you referring to the

percentage of costs that would be covered by the U.S. or a specific dollar amount

in current dollars? If the latter, at what dollar level is the U.S. contribution

capped? Can you be more specific about what you meant when you referred to

the level of performance objectives? Has there been any discussion of adjusting

the level of performance? Do we have any indications that the overall cost of

ITER (not just the U.S. portion) has increased or will increase?

A1. The total U.S. contribution to the construction, operation and decommissioning

of the ITER project is capped at a specific dollar amount. This amount is an essential element of our negotiating mandate and, as such, should not be discussed in

public. The amount is consistent with a share of approximately 10 percent of the

costs, the same as the other non-host participating Parties. Regarding the level of

ITER performance objectives, there are no plans to change the objectives contained

in the ITER Final Design Report of 2001. Since then, minor design changes have

been considered by the transition design team; however, there is no indication of

any net cost increase.

Science Laboratories Infrastructure

Q2. The budget request would cut funding for science laboratories infrastructure

nearly in half and you have told us that you hope to address the most urgent

infrastructure needs through third party financing.

Q2a. Under this approach, what specific measures do you plan to put in place to ensure that governmental goals drive the construction of new infrastructure, rather than the needs and desires of third parties to generate business?

Q2b. Third party and lease-back arrangements, although initially less costly, often

result in higher costs to the government over the life of the facility. What kind

of bargaining leverage does the government have to ensure that these facilities

have a lower cost to the taxpayer?

A2a,b. All new capital asset projects with a total project cost of $5 million and

above, including those that might be third-party-financed projects, are subject to

DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital

Assets. This Order and the accompanying Manual—which embody the capital asset

principles and budget scoring guidelines set out in OMB Circular A–11—delineate

a staged approval process that includes an assessment of mission need followed by

an alternative analysis before selecting a strategy for addressing that mission need.

This is the method that the Department will use to ensure that governmental goals

drive such projects. Also, the Department’s Office of Engineering and Construction

Management is currently in the process of developing additional guidelines (as an

addendum to Order 413.3) to address issues unique to alternative financing mechanisms.

Alternative financing is intended to be the exception rather than the rule, and

projects must make good business sense for the government while being attractive

to the private sector. The Department supports the Administration’s position, as set

out in OMB Circular A–11, that public-private partnerships should be used only

when they are the least expensive method, in present value terms, to finance construction or repair. DOE Order 413.3 requires that several options for the acquisition of a proposed project be compared based on the total life-cycle-cost of each option. In the event that third party financing with a lease-back to the government

is selected as the lowest life-cycle-cost acquisition strategy, then the resulting leaseback will include a one-year cancellation clause to ensure that the government will

have the flexibility to address changing needs.

183

New Facility Starts in a Flat Budget

Q3. The Administration’s budget projections indicate that it is unlikely that your Office’s budget will receive significant increases in the near future, yet the budget

proposes that work on three new projects begin in fiscal 2005. What impact will

those projects have on the budgets of ongoing programs in your Office in the

coming years? In the past, you have said that using existing laboratory facilities

more fully is a higher priority than new starts. Doesn’t the proposed budget run

counter to that statement? Given the tight budgets, at what point will you have

to reassess the facilities plan you recently issued?

A3. Both scientific opportunity and mission need demand that new activities be

started even in difficult budget times. The Department has made various levels of

commitment to three important new facilities in FY 2005: a new construction start

for the Center for Functional Nanomaterials (CFN) at Brookhaven National Laboratory; long-lead procurement activities for the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS)

at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and, project engineering design on the

Production and Characterization of Proteins and Molecular Tags facility. The LCLS

activities are construction related, but the Proteins and Molecular Tags facility activities are only design related and do not commit the Department to moving forward with construction of the project. The budget places a high priority on existing

facility operations, and increases both overall funding and operating time—as a percentage of optimum capacity—for the Office of Science’s facilities.

As described in our budget submission, each of these proposed new facilities will

enable outstanding, transformational science; will be a major resource for the

science communities that we serve; and will advance the missions of the Department of Energy. Continuous renewal and reinvention are necessary if we are to

maintain our world leadership position in science and in the technology that is enabled by it. The choices that we have put forward in our FY 2005 budget submission

strike a balance between the stewardship of our existing facilities and the renewal

and reinvention that will ensure a bright future.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. Hydrogen—Last week, the National Academy of Science concluded that many

of the Department’s goals for a hydrogen economy were ‘‘unrealistically aggressive.’’ Specifically, the report concludes that effects of hydrogen cars on oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions over the next 25 years ‘‘are likely to be

minor.’’

Q1a. Doesn’t this suggest that the Administration’s strategy for automotive emissions

should be reconsidered?

A1a. The National Academies’ report does not characterize the goals of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative itself as ‘‘unrealistically aggressive.’’ Instead, the report used

that description in referring to particular near-term Departmental milestones, including fuel cell durability, component costs and on-board storage. These milestones

are indeed aggressive but are not unrealistic in our opinion. In fact, given the technical challenges ahead, these interim milestones must be aggressive to stimulate innovative R&D approaches. To ensure milestones are realistic, they are continuously

evaluated in close consultation with our automotive and energy industry partners

and can be adjusted as necessary or appropriate. Reconsideration is a regular part

of the Initiative’s ongoing adjustment processes. The Department agrees that the effects of hydrogen cars on oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions over the next

25 years may indeed be minor. Goals of the President’s Hydrogen Initiative include

a commercialization decision by 2015, followed by vehicles available for purchase by

2020. Because growth in market share is typically gradual, and because it will take

approximately 20 years to replace the vehicle population, full realization of the benefits of hydrogen vehicles is not anticipated until 2040.

However, this timeline illustrates why it is so critical to work on hydrogen-related

technologies now to achieve resulting energy security benefits. The timeline for market introduction and transition included in the National Academies’ report closely

matches that of the Initiative. We believe that the overwhelmingly positive overall

nature of the report, combined with a vision for market introduction similar to the

vision of the Initiative, constitutes an endorsement of the Initiative’s strategy.

Q1b. Does this suggest that the Bush Administration’s shift in R&D funding from

hybrid vehicles (which will reduce emissions significantly in the next 25 years)

to hydrogen vehicles was a bad idea?

184

A1b. The Department invests in a balanced portfolio of R&D, including R&D on

short- and mid-term transportation technologies as we transition to a hydrogen

economy. The Department is actually proposing a $6.8 million increase in its FY

2005 request over FY 2004 appropriation levels in the area of advanced hybrid and

electric drive technologies. These technologies can be applied in the near-term to

gasoline-electric and diesel-electric hybrid vehicles as well as fuel cell vehicles as we

transition to a hydrogen economy in the long-term.

Facilities Plan

Q2. The President’s budget request for the Office of Science effectively leaves your

budget flat in real dollars for the fifth year in a row. In November the Department issued a report entitled Facilities for the Future of Science, A Twenty-year

Outlook, ranking the major science facilities that need to be built over the next

twenty years. No estimated costs were included in this report but one illustration

shows that funding would have to ramp up and stay ramped up over virtually

the entire period. With a flat budget, how can the Department successfully carry

out this 20-year plan?

A2. The 20-year facility plan, which is not a budget document, reflects an optimistic

view of the future of the Office of Science. Affordability of these facilities will depend

upon many factors in the future. In the FY 2005 request, funding is provided for

the top five facility priorities in the plan as follows: ITER $7,000,000; Ultrascale Scientific Computing Capability $38,212,000; Joint Dark Energy mission $7,580,000;

Linac Coherent Light Source $54,075,000; and Protein Production and Tags

$5,000,000. If the multilateral negotiations are successful, ITER construction is expected to begin in FY 2006. The Ultrascale Scientific Computing Capability is not

a traditional facility, and some research and development was already started in FY

2003. Formal construction start decisions for the Linac Coherent Light Source and

the Protein Production and Tags facility will be considered as a part of the normal

process for preparing the President’s future budget requests. We consider the above

facilities to be near-term priorities for the next decade.

DOE Earmarks

Q3. The Department has complained about the level of congressionally directed funding, or earmarks, in the FY04 budget and has produced statistics showing substantial increases in earmarks over the last several years, especially in certain

programs.

Q3a. What is your definition of an earmark?

Q3b. The Administration complains a lot about earmarks. What is being done to diminish the effect of earmarking (for example, competing the contract)? Are you

working with the earmarked institution to enable work consistent with DOE’S

missions, or do you simply write a check?

A3a,b. An earmark is an activity called out by Congress for funding that was not

requested in the President’s budget by the Department (DOE).

To help reduce earmarks, all of our research with the university community is

competitively awarded. Our laboratories widely advertise unique capabilities available to the private sector and compete opportunities to partner with the university

community.

DOE is constrained by the conference agreement report language directing funds

for the specified earmarked activity which may or may not directly contribute to

DOE missions. Wherever possible and appropriate, DOE staff work diligently with

the earmarked institutions to verify that the funding to support the proposed activity is within the scope of the Congressional direction. The award is made based on

the determination for noncompetitive financial assistance following DOE guidelines.

Lab Infrastructure

Q4. A persistent concern at the National Labs has been aging infrastructure. Some

buildings and facilities date back to World War II, and some still in use were

constructed as temporary buildings.

Q4a. How much money does the President request for renovation, rehabilitation and

demolition of these facilities that have continued in service well beyond their

useful life?

Q4b. Are there facilities still in service that pose a danger to lives and adjacent property and if so, what is being done to eliminate these threats?

185

A4a,b. The President’s request includes $22,927,000 under the Office of Science

(SC) Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI) program for renovation, rehabilitation, replacement and demolition of aging facilities at SC’s laboratories. The applicable construction and demolition activities in the FY 2005 SLI budget are shown in

a table I would like to insert for the record. The information follows:

Note that the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) Research Support Building

Phase I and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) Continuous

Electron Beam Accelerator Facility Center Addition are new buildings that replace

38,400 square feet of existing space that can no longer be economically maintained.

Regarding the concern that there may be facilities still in service whose condition

may pose a danger to lives and adjacent property, we are confident that our systems

and processes have identified any such facilities and they have been removed from

service pending rehabilitation, renovation, or removal. The primary management

process is the clear assignment of landlord responsibility within each laboratory for

all facilities at the laboratory. Landlord divisions or departments have facilities

managers who are fully knowledgeable in daily use and operation and have access

to laboratory wide facilities management and environmental, safety, and health

staff to support review and analysis of any issues of concern.

A secondary check is the condition assessment survey required on all facilities at

least once every five years. These surveys are generally conducted by outside contractors or an independent facilities group at the laboratory. Survey results establish the condition of each facility and this information is entered into the Facility

Information Management System (FIMS), the DOE corporate facilities management

system.

Thirdly, using FIMS and periodic walk-throughs, the Site Office monitors those

facilities that fall in the ‘‘poor’’ or ‘‘fail’’ category and reviews the corrective actions

planned.

Strategic Plan for Science

Q5. You stated in your prepared testimony that the Department’s updated Office of

Science Strategic Plan will be fully integrated with the twenty-year facilities

plan. What budget increases, over and above the requirements to carry out the

186

facilities plan, do you do you expect to be requesting to fully implement the Strategic Plan?

A5. Our strategic plan does not contain funding projections but it does outline an

ambitious agenda for scientific discovery and leadership.

FutureGen

Q6. FutureGen—The Department is making a major commitment towards the

funding of the FutureGen, a project that holds the promise of an essentially

emission-free coal-burning electric power plant within the next 20 years. What

progress do you expect to make during this Fiscal Year towards making a decision on where the project will be located?

A6. There are several steps that we will follow in making a decision on a site for

the FutureGen project. The Department is currently completing internal management review requirements for FutureGen and continuing to coordinate with the applicable committees concerning the program plan called for in the Conference Committee Report (H.R. 108–330). Once we have that process complete and once the FY

2004 funding for FutureGen is made available, the Department can begin negotiations with an industry partner. We forecast awarding the cooperative agreement in

the late 2004 time frame. After release of funds in FY 2004, the Department will

immediately begin its NEPA process for FutureGen. Once the negotiations are complete, the first priority is to develop a set of technical siting criteria that will be

used in an open, fair, and transparent process.

Proposed sites will be qualified for consideration based on the technical criteria

as well as on NEPA. Qualified sites will be further evaluated on the technical criteria in parallel with the NEPA process for the project. Upon completion of the

NEPA process, formal site selection will be made based on NEPA and site evaluation criteria. This will take about two years from the time a cooperative agreement

is awarded.

Fusion Funding

Q7. Funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) has increased substantially in this request—by $30 million—while the Fusion

Science program has only increased slightly. One of the ongoing concerns of the

fusion community has been that ITER should not cannibalize the base program.

What cuts do you expect to make in the base program to fully fund the U.S. commitment to the ITER project in this fiscal year? Do you expect to restore funding

to the base program or is the Department now embarking on a course of

subsuming the base program as funding requirements for ITER grows?

A7. The FY 2005 funding provides $7,000,000 for specific ITER-related activities

such as assigning engineers to the International Team and qualifying equipment

vendors. The rest of the $38,000,000 involves redirecting the focus of our fusion research program toward support of ITER. For example, our tokamak experiments, although operating for fewer weeks in FY 2005, will focus their program on science

issues needed by ITER. This refocusing is slight, since the major world tokamaks

were already doing science of relevance to ITER, but significant, in that research

will now be coordinated world-wide through the International Tokamak Physics Activity, with a focus on specific, detailed, ITER needs.

Similarly, our long range component development program will be closed out in

an orderly fashion in FY 2004 and the resources will be redirected to support research on those components needed for our contributions to ITER, as well as for our

ongoing experiments. Fusion advanced computing funding of $3,000,000 is also

being redirected to fund ITER-relevant simulation efforts.

Given these shifts, there will be some dislocations and staff reductions in the program. Some of these reductions may be mitigated as we conduct competitions for

various parts of the program in FY 2004. However, as the National Research Council report on Burning Plasma Physics concluded, we no longer have a domestic program and an ITER program. We have a single integrated fusion program that includes ITER.

Oil and Gas R&D

Q8. The budget requests for the oil and gas R&D program continue to decline yearafter-year while oil and gas production in this country continues to decline at

a rapid rate. The U.S. is dependent on oil and gas for well over half of its energy

needs and imports are rising rapidly. To its credit the department indicates it

plans to establish a new industry-led consortia-based program to develop a continued supply of natural gas beyond 2015. How can the department begin to conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:44 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 091690 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL04\021104\91690.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
187

sider such an ambitious undertaking with such a minimal request? Why does

the department effectively ignore research to address our natural gas supply

needs that are acute now?

A8. Unfortunately, the Department will not be able to initiate this consortia-based

program in natural gas since comprehensive energy legislation has not yet been

passed. However, the Department recognizes the importance of natural gas production and is requesting funding to provide sound science for policy decision-making,

and to enhance environmentally safe access to resources on federal lands, primarily

in the gas-rich Rocky Mountain region. In addition, we recognize the importance of

increasing supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and are requesting funding to

help provide answers to safety, environmental, and technology issues associated

with the siting of LNG terminals.

Q9. Energy Efficiency—Deployment programs are considered to be some of the

most successful in EERE. Long-standing programs such as Industries for the

Future, Rebuild America and the Federal Energy Management Program provide

real metrics for results from DOE research and development efforts. Yet, these

programs have seen massive cuts to their budget.

Q9a. Given the amount of energy resources that can be saved from even the smallest

changes in industrial processes, how do you account for slashing the program

budget by over one-third, especially in light of the President’s recent commitment to domestic manufacturing?

A9a. We are asking these industries to bear a greater share of the effort in achieving energy savings which, after all, benefit the efficiency of their operations and enhance their own profitability. Over the past several years, the Congress has given

us more funding than we have requested for the Industrial Technologies Program

(ITP), and less than we have asked for to fund the low-income weatherization program. Low-income weatherization reduces energy use among low income Americans

who spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on energy. The ITP

helps to reduce energy use among large industries that know how to save energy

and have financial incentive and capital to do so. We have shifted resources to reflect the relative priority of these programs.

Q9b. Is the decrease in funds a sign that these programs may have reached the end

of their useful life?

A9b. Industries of the Future, Rebuild America, and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) are robust contributors to EERE’s energy efficiency portfolio.

• Industries of the Future: As stated above, we are asking these industries to

bear a greater share of the effort in achieving energy savings which, after all,

benefit the efficiency of their operations and enhance their own profitability.

Over the past several years, the Congress has given us more funding than

we have requested for the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP), and less

than we have asked for to fund the low-income weatherization program. Lowincome weatherization reduces energy use among low income Americans who

spend a disproportionately high percentage of their income on energy. The

ITP helps to reduce energy use among large industries that know how to save

energy and have financial incentive and capital to do so. We have shifted resources to reflect the relative priority of these programs.

• Rebuild America: Outreach and education efforts for Rebuild America will be

consolidated in FY 2005 into a single outreach and communications office, increasing efficiency and lowering costs. In addition, the program has determined that less technical assistance is needed for certain mature and successful sectors.

• FEMP: As FEMP’s core activities have matured, the efficiencies in those activities have increased, enabling the program to reduce its funding request in

FY 2005. In FY 2005, FEMP will continue to streamline program activities.

For example, FEMP has determined that it is no longer necessary, because

of activity maturation, to create any new Technology Specific Energy Savings

Performance Contracts (ESPCs). We have found that we can achieve the same

benefits through a fuller utilization of our baseline ESPCs in a way that is

less complicated for our agency customers. Through more efficient use of its

resources, FEMP will continue to conduct its other activities, such as partnership meetings, annual awards, outreach publications and technical assistance

projects.

188

Q9c. Is this indicative of the Department’s approach towards deployment programs

as a whole?

A9c. In total, we believe that our funding request for deployment activities is in

alignment with previous requests, based on our estimates of allocation of program

funding. Deployment activities comprise a critical part of the EERE portfolio because they help facilitate the market adoption of new technologies and energy

sources. Without deployment activities, market barriers would delay or prevent the

successful commercial adoption of certain EERE technologies that offer substantial

energy security, environmental, and other benefits to the Nation.

Q9d. What are the metrics used to determine investment in deployment of such technologies?

A9d. EERE evaluates its investments based on the potential economic, environmental, and energy security benefits resulting from making energy-efficient products and renewable energy resources available to consumers.

Deployment activities can play a key role in facilitating the adoption of new technologies and energy sources. EERE focuses its deployment efforts on the removal

of market barriers that make it difficult or impossible for certain technologies to

penetrate markets. For example, the Rebuild America activity in the Building Technologies Program develops local markets for energy-efficient building retrofit services and markets.

Not all technologies or products face such barriers. EERE evaluates the benefits

of technology development by considering how quickly they are likely to be adopted

on their own (i.e., without federal assistance). In the cases where barriers make

early or rapid market adoption unlikely, deployment options are assessed based on

their potential to accelerate market adoption.

Global Warming

Q10. In your testimony, you described a number of programs that could lead to reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. Witnesses have frequently told us that

the Administration’s policy is to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions. What is the

Administration’s position on when it wants to stabilize carbon dioxide and at

what levels?

A10. As a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC), the United States shares with many countries its ultimate objective: stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level

that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. There are a number

of unknowns regarding both climate science and technology, however, which pose

significant challenges to meeting this long-term objective.

Among these is the uncertainty surrounding the timing and magnitude of the

greenhouse gas reductions needed to meet the UNFCCC goal. Climate science has

not advanced to the point where a ‘‘safe’’ level of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations can be elucidated with any confidence. This uncertainty was emphasized

by the National Research Council in its 2001 report to the President on key questions in climate change science. It underscores the importance of the President’s

heightened emphasis on science and technology as the basis for future policy decisions on climate change.

To reduce uncertainty and predict future climate change with greater confidence

requires major advances in understanding and modeling the factors that influence

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, as well as the

feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity to a prescribed increase in greenhouse

gases. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) strategic plan, released in July

2003, represents an unprecedented effort to advance our knowledge of the climate

system. An extensive review of the CCSP plan by NRC concludes that the plan ‘‘articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope’’ and

that ‘‘advancing science on all fronts identified by the program will be of vital importance to the Nation.’’ In FY 2005, more than $2 billion is requested for climate

change science.

The scientific information developed under the CCSP will help inform policy and

define with greater precision the pace and scale of the technology challenge to address climate change. The Bush Administration’s Climate Change Technology Program is working to develop technologies—such as carbon sequestration, hydrogen,

bio-energy, nuclear fission, and fusion—that could fundamentally transform the way

we produce and consume energy. Success in these activities will allow the development and commercial use of technologies that can, over time, decouple energy use

from greenhouse gas emissions. Without these advanced technologies, it is difficult

to see how the UNFCCC goal can be realized. Given the historical rate of technology

189

adoption, the inertia of existing energy systems, and the uncertainties inherent in

advanced technology development, a gradual transformation toward low or near netzero emission technologies is most likely. Should technologies advance more rapidly

than expected, early adoption and accelerated modernization of capital stock could

be possible. In FY 2005, more than $2 billion is requested for climate change related

technology research, development and demonstration.

The Bush Administration also recognizes that while climate change is a long-term

challenge, we must begin to address it now. Two years ago, President Bush set an

ambitious national goal to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy

18 percent from 2002 levels by 2012. This new approach focuses on reducing the

growth of GHG emissions, while sustaining the economic growth needed to finance

investment in new, clean energy technologies. It sets America on a path to slow the

growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and—as the science justifies—to stop and then

reverse that growth. The Administration proposes more than $4 billion in tax incentives over the next five years to spur the use of clean, renewable energy and energyefficient technologies. The Department of Energy’s Climate VISION program and

EPA’s Climate Leaders and SmartWay Transport Partnership programs work with

industry to accelerate use of cost-effective technologies and practices that improve

efficiency and reduce emissions. Internationally, the United States has 13 bilateral

agreements with key industrial and developing countries-representing about 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions-on advanced energy technologies, climate

monitoring and modeling, climate research, Earth observation systems, and more.

Further, we are supporting the U.N.’s Global Environmental Facility to transfer advanced energy and carbon sequestration technologies to developing countries.

Fusion Siting

Q11. Fusion Siting—Although the U.S. is now participating in the ITER fusion

program, the international participants seem to be having trouble deciding

whether to site the facility in France or Japan. Press accounts indicate that political divisions over the Iraq war are behind this fight over fusion. Allegedly

the U.S. is supporting the site of our ‘‘ally’’ in Iraq (Japan), while those generally opposed to the invasion (Russia, China) are supporting France.

Q11a. Is that true?

Q11b. Whether it is or not, when do you expect a decision to be made on the ITER

site?

A11a,b. The allegation is false. The U.S. decision to support the Japanese candidate

host site of Rokkasho was based solely on technical considerations, including site

characteristics, costs to the US and host commitment to the project.

At the December 20, 2003, Ministerial Meeting on ITER, the six ITER Parties

agreed that the two candidate sites at Rokkasho, Japan and Cadarache, France/European Union are excellent sites. Neither Japan nor the European Union has lost

interest in becoming the host site for the ITER project, and neither has budged from

their position of being the best site. Such a situation is not uncommon in the first

round of site negotiations among the highest level negotiators.

On March 12–13, 2004, the six ITER parties met in Vienna, Austria to discuss

the outstanding technical issues surrounding the site selection decision. It is now

the responsibility of the two host candidate sites to seek a resolution on the siting

of ITER. The Japanese and European Union delegations are expected to meet in

March 2004 to discuss next steps regarding their site proposals and how to proceed.

(191)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

192

193

194

195

STATEMENT OF

DR. CHARLES CASEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

DR. DAVID EISENBUD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY

DR. CATHERINE A. PILACHOWSKI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY

DR. HELEN QUINN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

DR. JOHN STEADMAN, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE OF THE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS

ENGINEERS—USA

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gordon and Members of the Science Committee, we thank you

for the opportunity to submit this testimony. We also wish to express our appreciation for the strong support this committee has shown for science and technology

over the course of several decades. The legislative actions this committee has taken

during the last few years have raised the visibility of science and engineering substantially within Congress, we believe, to the great benefit of American society.

Sadly, we cannot provide such praiseworthy comments about the President’s FY

2005 budget request for the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering. After

a decade during which federal investments in these disciplinary research programs

stagnated, with a consequential loss in purchasing power of 20 percent or more, the

Administration’s FY 2005 budget request does little to address the problem. Should

Congress endorse the President’s overall set of budgetary priorities and adopt the

President’s proposed funding levels for science, math and engineering, the decadelong decline will accelerate. It will place in even greater jeopardy America’s science

and technology leadership, already under increasing challenge by nations in Europe

and Asia.

Discovery and innovation have been key to America’s economic growth for more

than half a century, accounting for more than half the increase in the GDP since

World War II, according to economists. The impact of science and technology on our

standard of living has become even more pronounced in recent years. As the Chairman of this committee noted last week, ‘‘We need to remember that the decade of

unprecedented economic growth that began in 1992 and that lasted into this new

century was a result of previous investments we had made in science and technology, particularly in areas such as information technology and the health sciences.

If the current recovery is to be sustained, we need to invest now in R&D. A healthy

investment in R&D is the only way to ensure that our economy will continue to create jobs over the long-term.’’

We would add to this several other observations. First, we can no longer take for

granted the supremacy of American science and technology on the world stage that

has served our nation so well for more than half a century. For a number of years,

Europe and Asia have been investing heavily in their scientific infrastructure and

their science education programs, and they are now challenging our nation’s S&T

leadership. Second, for several decades, we have relied heavily on a pipeline of foreign talent to bolster our scientific and engineering workforce. Heightened security

policies in the aftermath of 9/11 combined with growing R&D opportunities elsewhere in the world are now causing many foreign scientists and engineers to

rethink their choice of the United States for pursuing their education and career

goals.

We believe that the President’s budget request for the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering place the future of our nation at great risk, economically

and militarily. The constriction in these federal accounts come at time when our nation faces significant R&D challenges. Sustaining real economic growth, as we have

noted, requires continued investments in science that lead to discovery and innovation, according to many economists, among them Michael Boskin, Alan Greenspan

and Robert Solow. In a risk averse, competitive global environment, where corporate

time horizons are measured in months, rather than years, the Federal Government

must be the dominant investor in long-term research.

The Federal Government also has the responsibility for keeping our nation secure.

Science and technology are key to maintaining our military capabilities and keeping

our homeland safe. The Defense Department increasingly looks toward civilian research programs for discoveries and innovations that can be translated into military

hardware. The Department of Homeland Security also relies on the federal investments in long-term civilian research for advances that will lead to technologies

needed in the war against terrorism on American soil.

The R&D enterprise also faces the challenge of making America energy self-sufficient. That challenge was captured in the Hydrogen Initiative proposed by the President last year. The elusive goal of weaning our nation off foreign sources of oil will

196

be achieved only through scientific discovery and innovation. Such investments

must be made across the energy arena in the physical sciences and engineering,

since it is impossible to predict where breakthroughs will occur.

Providing our nation with a high-tech workforce of world-class quality represents

still another challenge for our nation’s R&D enterprise. It is an essential component

for keeping America competitive globally. As we already suggested, our nation is

failing in that challenge. For more than a decade, we have witnessed a decline in

the number of Americans seeking advanced degrees in the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering. To meet the shortfall, we have become reliant on a pool of

foreign talent. We have reaped great benefits from the flow of scientists, mathematicians and engineers from other countries, but in the process, we have exposed our

nation to the adverse consequences when the flow slows or stops.

Data on foreign applications to our institutions of higher learning suggest that the

flow is indeed slowing. Entry into the United States has become more difficult, and

nations, such as China and India, have invested in their scientific infrastructure,

making it possible for many students to receive their training at home. Today,

China and India also offer substantial career opportunities for scientists, mathematicians and engineers, opportunities that did not exist even half a decade ago.

As Great Britain and Australia have increased their science and engineering recruitment efforts, they, too, have become significant destinations for young researchers from around the world. America’s dominance of the science and engineering

playing field is being seriously challenged.

High-tech American industry, which is global in character, has already recognized

the opportunities that exist elsewhere and has begun to outsource some of its activities offshore. At the recent World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland, John

Chambers, Cisco Systems chief executive, made this point: ‘‘The jobs over time will

go to the best educated places with the best infrastructure and the most supportive

governments. How you create an environment where the jobs stay is going to be the

key element.’’ We believe that strong federal investments in basic research and the

science and engineering infrastructure are prerequisite to a secure future for a hightech American workforce.

Since the end of World War II, federal science and technology policy-makers have

endorsed the concept of a multiplicity of agency support for long-term research.

Today, the Department of Energy, NASA and the National Science Foundation

dominate the federal civilian research portfolio in the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering. Collectively, these agencies have seen their budgets flat

lined for more than a decade, during a time when the GDP has increased substantially and our nation’s dependence on technology has grown commensurately. This

investment approach contrasts sharply with the doubling of the budget of the National Institutes of Health that took place during the five years ending in FY 2003.

Congress recognized the policy imperative for addressing the portfolio imbalance

and the shortfall in funding for the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering

when it passed the NSF Authorization Act of 2002, which President Bush signed

into law that December. The act authorizes the doubling of the NSF budget over

five years. Both houses of Congress also agreed to authorize an effective doubling

of the budget for DOE’s Office of Science and included such language in H.R. 6. And

on October 16, 2002, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

(PCAST) strongly urged the White House to address the funding needs for the physical sciences.

Yet, the FY 2004 presidential budget request, which the President submitted last

year, did not reflect any commitment to such an initiative. The FY 2005 request

similarly ignores the policy recommendations and authorizations for the physical

sciences, mathematics and engineering. The President’s budget would cut funding

for the DOE’s Office of Science by 2.0 percent, and, once the Math and Science Partnership transfer is taken into account, it would only increase funding for the NSF’s

Research and Related Activities account by 2.8 percent. Collectively, the NSF’s programs that cover the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering would increase by 2.2 percent, not enough to cover inflation. In the case of

the DOE, the Presidential request provides no headroom for any congressional earmarks, which last year totaled almost $150 million, suggesting that overall spending

on the Office of Science’s research activities could fall even further, unless Congress

alters the President’s request.

Even at a time when the Federal Government faces large deficits, we believe that

we must make the investments that safeguard the future of our nation. The President’s proposed budget for the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering falls

short of the mark in almost all cases. The NASA budget offers one exception, but

even there the news is not uniformly good.

197

While the Office of Space Science is slated to receive an increase of just over four

percent—which we applaud—we note that some of the programs not directly tied

to the President’s new ‘‘Exploration’’ initiative will be delayed or reduced significantly. The new ‘‘Beyond Einstein’’ initiative, for example, will have two of its key

missions, Constellation-X (an X-ray spectroscopy telescope mission) and LISA (a

laser interferometer mission) deferred under the President’s plan, and other missions designed to study the high-energy universe will experience budget cuts or be

eliminated. Likewise, severe reductions in some solar research programs could have

long-term adverse effects on Earth-based installations and orbiting satellites, as our

ability to predict solar storms ceases to improve.

On the positive side, we note that the new budget line entitled Lunar Exploration

will allow further study of the lunar environment and enable the development of

a sample return mission from the lunar south pole, where we now suspect water

ice exists. We also commend the Administration for its budgetary commitment to

improving in-space propulsion through the use of nuclear technology that will be

needed if we are to explore the furthest reaches of the solar system.

Mr. Chairman, we conclude with a few comments about the context of the President’s budget request for the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering. The

White House press releases and the budget briefings have made it clear that for FY

2005, the Administration considered only a few activities to be of such national importance that they merited increases above the 0.5 percent baseline. These are defense, homeland security, education and space. (We have already commented on the

NASA budget and will not dwell on that any further.)

We now consider proposed research budgets in the context of the other three priority areas. The history of the past half-century bears ample testimony to the importance of the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering for our military capabilities and for our extraordinary successes in defending freedom throughout the

world. We have no doubt that our future defense capabilities will also be so reliant,

as will our ability to defend our homeland against terrorism. In the case of education, we strongly believe that our 21st century workforce will become increasingly

oriented toward science and technology. Recent analysis shows an extraordinary correlation between federal support for research and the number of American students

willing to pursue careers in the sciences, mathematics and engineering.

In light of these obvious connections, we find it very disturbing that the President’s budget request continues to under-fund research in the physical sciences,

mathematics and engineering. We hope that the Science Committee concurs, and we

urge you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of this committee to communicate our testimony to other Members of Congress. We hope that as the House of Representatives

develops its budget plans for FY 2005 it will make the critical investments in physical science, mathematics and engineering research needed to foster our nation’s

continued leadership in economic and technological growth.