COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

JOHN BLAZEY, DIXON BUTLER, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

DIANA SIMPSON, DAREK NEWBY, and BRAD DANIELS, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

Page 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education—Part 1 ......... 1 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education—Part 2 ......... 55 

Office of Science and Technology Policy Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview .......................................................................................................... 107 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Overview ............................................................................................ 189 

National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview ........ 423 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
PART 7—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

JOHN BLAZEY, DIXON BUTLER, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

DIANA SIMPSON, DAREK NEWBY, and BRAD DANIELS, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 7 

Page 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education—Part 1 ......... 1 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education—Part 2 ......... 55 

Office of Science and Technology Policy Fiscal Year 2011 Budget 

Overview .......................................................................................................... 107 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Overview ............................................................................................ 189 

National Science Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Overview ........ 423 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

56–820 WASHINGTON : 2010 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2011 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH 

EDUCATION 

WITNESSES 

DR. OLIVER HILL, VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

DR. ELEANOR MIELE, BROOKLYN COLLEGE 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011. 

Before we begin our initial hearing, a bit of housekeeping. I 

would like to reiterate for the benefit of members of the Subcommittee that it is my intention to recognize in order of seniority 

those members present at the start of each hearing followed by 

members in order of their attendance. This continues the policy we 

had in place last year. 

Turning now to today’s business, in testimony before this Subcommittee last year, it was stated that U.S. graduate education in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, is the 

model for the world and undergraduate STEM education is among 

the best in the world. However, testimony also revealed that K 

through 12 STEM education in the United States is woefully lacking in preparing our students to compete and innovate in the 

changing world economy. 

We learned last year that it is essential for students before the 

age of ten to see themselves as becoming scientists and engineers 

or they will not choose these fields for study when they are older. 

Advances in STEM hold the key to the future economic growth 

of the United States and the essential resource on which this program will be built is today’s children. 

In fiscal year 2010, this Subcommittee added appropriations for 

K through 12 STEM education and STEM teacher preparation to 

the budgets of NSF, NOAA, and NASA with the expectation that 

these funds will be used in part to improve STEM education in 

grades K–6 and that they will contribute to efforts to embed inquiry-based instruction in science education. The fiscal year 2011 

budget request continues many of these investments. 

Our hearing is particularly timely given Tuesday’s New York 

Times op-ed by Susan Engel of Williams College entitled Playing 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

to Learn. In it, she describes an ideal elementary education as follows, and I quote: 

‘‘In our theoretical classroom, children would also spend a short 

period of time each day practicing computation, adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. Once children are proficient in 

those basics, they would be free to turn to other activities that are 

equally essential for math and science, devising original experiments, observing the natural world and counting things, whether 

they be words, events, or people. These are all activities children 

naturally love if given the chance to do them in a genuine way.’’ 

Achieving this ideal is a key goal of our appropriations for STEM 

education. Today and tomorrow we will hear from witnesses who 

have examples of improvements in STEM education that are ongoing. Through their testimony, we will see the effects of federal investments and learn more about the challenges of improving STEM 

education and adopting inquiry-based learning. 

Today we will hear from Dr. Oliver Hill, Virginia State University, and Dr. Eleanor Miele of Brooklyn College. Dr. Hill has helped 

improve math achievement for students in the public schools of Petersburg, Virginia. His testimony will shed light on another point 

in Dr. Engel’s op-ed. She states, and I quote, ‘‘In order to design 

a curriculum that teaches what truly matters, educators should remember a basic precept of modern developmental science. Development precursors don’t always resemble the skill to which they are 

leading,’’ end of quote. 

Dr. Miele has just written a textbook on inquiry and has worked 

with K through 12 teachers to include inquiry in their science 

teaching and to make effective use of their surroundings in New 

York City. 

Thank you both for coming. 

Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we 

will ask each of you to provide a summary of your written testimony which we will include in the hearing record and then we will 

go to questions from Subcommittee members. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our expert witnesses today on science, technology, engineering, and math education starting our hearing schedule for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations cycle. 

I look forward to working again with you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

rest of the members of the Committee because we have such a 

wide-ranging jurisdiction. 

This is an important hearing. I know that looking at the STEM 

money for higher education grants last year that almost 50 percent 

of the STEM money that was appropriated laid on the table and 

no one accessed it. And so the money, that figure could be 50, could 

be 40, again, but a lot of money was appropriated and was not 

used. 

The Committee had a language in their working with Mr. Mollohan that we asked the National Science Foundation to look at 

what programs are working around the country in math and 

science and physics and chemistry and biology with young people 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

and put together a best practices that can go into every school or 

school district in the country. 

But I think even if you fund the money, if you do not have the 

interest and do not have people pursuing it, you know, and so 

when you look at what has taken place. 

So I think that is one of the problems. How do you create the 

interest? We are graduating fewer physicists, Ph.D. physicists 

today than we did in 1956. And the world has changed and physics 

is awful important. 

And I think it is a big issue and so I appreciate you are here for 

your testimony. 

And I thank you, Chairman, for having this hearing and I yield 

back. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Dr. Hill. 

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

Dr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to 

speak to you today. I do think this is an important topic. 

I am the principal investigator on two grants from the National 

Science Foundation to Virginia State University that are studying 

innovative approaches to improve the mathematic performance primarily of minority students in the local Petersburg school district. 

We know that a mathematics background and competence are the 

primary gatekeepers to a STEM career. 

When we started working with the Petersburg district in 2007, 

it was the lowest performing school district in the State. None of 

its schools were accredited. And by 2009, all but two of the schools 

were fully accredited and those two missed it by just a few points. 

We expect all to be accredited this year. 

On standardized mathematics performance, the two schools we 

worked directly with had 127 percent and 74 percent increases in 

scores respectively. 

Our project was not the only thing at work here. For one thing, 

they hired a new dynamic superintendent, which had a big impact 

on the district. But our research indicated the dynamic effect our 

interventions were having on the students. 

The project involved training teachers in the innovative pedagogy 

the Algebra Project and organizing the community around support 

for the schools. 

The Algebra Project curriculum was developed by Dr. Robert 

Moses, who was a recipient of MacArthur Genius Award. The pedagogy helps students connect abstract mathematical principles to 

their every-day language and experience. 

The Algebra Project approach also relies heavily on community 

involvement. With their help, we are in the process of developing 

what we are calling a K through 16 model with Petersburg and the 

University with the idea that we need to make contact with students early and often starting at the kindergarten level and grooming them toward a STEM career. 

This relationship involves programs like dual enrollment courses, 

providing math and science grad students as teachers, providing 

college students tutors, and providing services to students through 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

involvements of departments like psychology, sociology, and nursing because many of the problems that these kids face are not academic issues. 

COGNITIVE TRAINING

One of the most innovative aspects of our project is testing the 

impact of cognitive training on the mathematics performance of 

students. Students coming from low socioeconomic status backgrounds and even many with middle-class backgrounds often lack 

the capacity for abstract thinking required for success in higher 

level mathematics and science courses. This is a major barrier to 

pursuing STEM related careers. 

These deficiencies are usually addressed through content-based 

remediation and tutoring programs, but there have been numerous 

studies documenting the failure of these types of content-based 

interventions to have meaningful impacts on basic skill development or educational achievement, particularly among minority students. 

The approach of direct cognitive training represents a unique 

method of developing the underlying thinking skills needed for success in STEM. This approach is not the usual teaching of critical 

thinking skills which represent fairly high level cognitive processing, but rather builds the basic architecture of cognition by 

training basic cognitive skills such as processing, speed, attention, 

and working memory. 

At one time, it was thought that these kinds of skills were set 

by the time that one reached adolescence, but we now know that 

these skills are malleable even into adulthood. 

We have been using the procedures developed by an educational 

firm called Learning RX which runs cognitive learning centers 

around the country. The data collected in these centers over the 

last few years has indicated tremendous gains of three to four 

grade levels in reading and other cognitive skills after only 15 

weeks of a fairly intense one-on-one intervention. 

We are testing whether meaningful results can be obtained using 

an on-line version of this program that can be administered in 

groups, which would be much more practical in a school setting. 

Our initial data looks very promising. 

This approach has the potential to revolutionize education in 

general and STEM education in particular. We think it addresses 

one of the primary development problems that block success in 

mathematics and science classes, that is weak cognitive skills. 

THE ROLE OF HBCUS

I teach at Virginia State University which is a historically black 

university and I want to speak for a moment about the role that 

HBCUs can play in addressing the under-representation of minorities in STEM careers. 

HBCUs have the students who could fill those majors. VSU loses 

literally hundreds of potential STEM majors each year because of 

difficulties with math. We need to focus more research dollars to 

investigators at HBCUs to develop promising interventions to attract and hold minority students in STEM majors. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

Initiatives targeted to HBCUs at funding agencies like NSF and 

NIH need to receive greater support. And if I could build on what 

Mr. Wolf was saying, one of the difficulties at largely teaching universities like HBCUs is kind of a catch 22. You have to have the 

publication record. You have to have the time to put on research 

in order to attract the federal dollars. We need to have more innovative programs that allow particularly young investigators at the 

HBCUs to have the time to devote to both developing a research 

program and being able to write competitive grants that would be 

funded by agencies like NSF and NIH. But the human capital is 

there both in terms of the investigators and in terms of the students that could be impacted. 

EDUCATION CRISIS

Finally, I would like to say the crisis in STEM education is but 

one facet of the larger crisis in education that we face as a nation. 

We know what quality education looks like. We can look at the curriculum of the best schools in any city. 

And in Richmond, we have a school, Maggie Walker Governor’s 

School, which is one of the best in the nation. If you look at the 

kind of rich programs they provide, this is the kind of curriculum 

that all students should be exposed to. Yet, for too long, we as a 

nation have said it was okay for millions of our students in inner 

cities and poor rural communities to receive substandard education 

with watered-down curricula and poor instruction. This is human 

capital we cannot afford to squander. It could represent untold resources for our country. We need to take the position that quality 

education is a civil right for all children in this country and we 

need to develop the political will to make that a reality. 

So I will be happy to supply more details of any aspects of the 

interventions I mentioned during the period of questioning. And, 

again, thank you for this opportunity. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 56820A.001
7 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 56820A.002
8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 56820A.003
9 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Dr. Hill. 

Dr. MIELE. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to 

speak to you all today. 

I just want to start out by saying that I concur—am I not on? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the light on? 

Dr. MIELE. The light is on. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Maybe you should pull it a little closer. 

Dr. MIELE. Closer to me. Let us try that. Let us make sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Maybe it is not going to come closer. 

Dr. HILL. I think your cord is stuck. 

Dr. MIELE. May I? That one gives feedback. Now you can hear 

me? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah, I can. Is this one not working at all? 

Dr. MIELE. This one is not apparently working. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Dr. MIELE. But we can share. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Dr. Hill, can you pull that cord over a little bit. 

Put you to work here this morning. Just pull it over toward her, 

I think. 

Dr. MIELE. There we go. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Our senior senator in West Virginia, Senator 

Byrd, has a common joke almost every time you speak out in public 

on the campaign trail, the sound system does not work and talks 

about our being able to do lots of things, but not a good sound system. I think we had a good sound system. 

Dr. MIELE. Okay. Now we are on. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Dr. MIELE. And it is in front of me. So I wanted to start out by 

saying thank you. I concur with everything that Dr. Hill said. 

DOING SCIENCE—INQUIRY

Science and math are intimately connected and the skills really 

can be developed in very much the same way. They need to be 

practiced. And we have known for over a hundred years that the 

best way to teach young people science is to allow them to do 

science. John Dewey pointed this out to us and it has been the 

right of every privileged student in private school to have constructivist education and to be doing science. It just has not happened 

in public schools. 

DRIVERS OF CURRICULUM CHOICES

One of the reasons, I believe, is because the culture in public 

schools is very divorced from the culture in higher education. Research is usually not what drives choices. And I actually did not 

say that in my original testimony, but it became very clear to me 

listening to Dr. Hill that that is something we need to think about. 

The choices that are made of curriculum are done at the local 

level and they are decided mostly by teachers and parents. The 

teachers that teach elementary school science are not scientists, 

and they tend to want to teach the way they were taught. And they 

were taught by direct instruction and memorization and that is 

what they fall back on. 

When elementary school teachers are taught to use inquiry it is 

what they want to do, but very often their principals will not allow 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

it. The principals are concerned that wasting time figuring out how 

we know what we know will keep them from learning enough and 

will affect standardized test scores and make the school look like 

it is not performing well. 

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION

It is ironic that some of the classroom where inquiry is allowed 

to happen are the special education classrooms. And I actually 

heard reports of schools where the special education students outperformed the general education students on the New York State 

Assessment of Science Education. 

New York State pioneered using an inquiry-based test. Part of 

the test is a practicum. Students have to read instructions and 

carry out an investigation, collect data, and analyze the data as 

part of their fourth grade and eighth grade assessments. And very 

often these children who have been given the opportunity to do 

science because no one thought they could learn it, actually scored 

higher in it. That was quite an eye-opener for me. 

I also spent some time when I joined the faculty at Brooklyn College looking at the scores of some schools that had been pointed out 

to me as having adopted NSF-funded curricula and having not just 

adopted them by buying them but having adopted them by training 

every teacher to use them and insisting that they were used. In 

those schools, even though they often had minority student populations of over 95 percent and significant numbers of Title 1 entitled students, those students were performing at the highest level 

in math, science, and English language arts. 

It is not surprising to me. When you get to do science, you have 

to write about it and you have to talk about it. Your language skills 

are developed. Your logic skills are developed and you have to use 

mathematics to do it well. So it is sort of a fundamental way to integrate all of the basic scholarly skills. 

I speak, of course, as a scientist, but I believe that scientists also 

need to write and communicate clearly and, in fact, some of us do 

not because when we are not trained in an inquiry way and we 

have to answer multiple choice tests, the way the average undergraduate college science student does, you can graduate without 

being able to communicate. 

So the FOSS and SCIS curricula which were developed actually 

in the 1970s following the initial push to improve science education 

in the U.S. during the space race are excellent curricula for getting 

results, having children learn how to do science. 

I have had a situation where two of my students taught the same 

SCIS lesson to two elementary school classes, one a sixth grade 

class, one a second grade class, the second grade class had used 

SCIS since kindergarten and they outperformed the sixth grade 

class far and away. So the take-home message again is, as Dr. Hill 

said, you have to do this early. You have to do it often. 

Jerome Bruner pointed out to us a long time ago that a spiral 

curriculum in which children return to key science ideas repeatedly 

over the years as developmentally appropriate is the best way to 

build a foundation for advanced science learning in high school and 

college. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

Okay. Unfortunately because these curricula have not been 

adopted city-wide, we still have a situation where the average middle school student is just not prepared to do inquiry. But, as Dr. 

Hill said, it is never too late. 

STEM CAREER CHOICES

In my own classes for early childhood and childhood education, 

these are young people that did not decide to be scientists, they decided to be educators, they are afraid of science, they are afraid of 

math. I can see a transformation in 15 weeks from people who 

were afraid of science and basically have remembered nothing from 

their high school careers to people who embrace it as something 

that they can do and that is worth doing and that they can lead 

young people in doing. 

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF NO INQUIRY

I have seen this. I have been doing this for 16 years. It is not 

likely to change, but I do know that when these young people go 

out to the schools, if everyone else is teaching using direct instruction and a textbook, that is what they will do. 

So how can we break that cycle? We know what to do. We just 

do not know how to get it done. The National Science Standards 

have helped. They have established an understanding throughout 

the science education community of what best practice looks like. 

I would like to see that actually—I would like to see it happening 

in higher education as well. I will hopefully have it when we talk 

about that later on. 

EFFECTS OF NSF FUNDING

But let me say something about what some NSF money has done 

to Brooklyn College. Funding to my predecessors there for the 

Brooklyn plan paid for the development of a series of inquiry-based 

science classes. One of them is called Biology and Chemistry of 

Every-Day Life. We have one in geophysics. We have one in 

paleobiology. We have one in environmental science. It gives the 

students some choice. They take these classes learn to think like 

scientists. 

They also have to take the core classes in gen-ed which are direct 

instruction. Very often when they come into their inquiry classes, 

they do not remember much from their direct instruction classes. 

We have begun a systematic evaluation program over the last 

five years where students complete course evaluations on-line and 

the results for all departments are open to the entire community. 

What I found when I took a look at these results was that students who have taken an inquiry-based class answer the question, 

how much ability to analyze and solve problems have you gained, 

at a level of about 51 percent saying they have gained a lot. This 

compares rather unfavorably to the answers of students in geology, 

physics, chemistry, and biology where one would expect students to 

learn the ability to analyze and solve problems. In those departments, between 16 and 29 percent as opposed to 51 percent say 

they gained a lot of the skill. I think this is rather a good indication that the students themselves have realized that they are 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

learning to analyze and solve problems in inquiry-based instruction. 

When asked how much ability to find and use information on 

your own have you gained, we see similar results. Let me see if I 

have my exact numbers here. Fifty-three percent in general 

science, and we are talking about 800 to 1,000 students answering 

this question each semester, compared to 21 and 26 percent of students in traditional science classes. That includes incidentally undergraduate and graduate students in both cases. 

So what we see is that what we are trying to do is teach students 

to think independently and how to solve problems. And they say 

that that is what we are doing. 

In addition, students in these classes say that they have gained 

a lot of ability to effectively communicate which, of course, teachers 

need to do, but so do scientists. If scientists are going to be able 

to get their message across to the American public, they need to 

be able to communicate clearly. 

So we see that more than twice as many students are saying that 

they have gained a substantial amount of these skills. This happens because their learning is active, not passive. One student said 

this course is interactive. You do not fall asleep listening to a lecture for three hours. Also you learn better when you are doing 

science rather than what you call learning about science. 

USING LOCAL RESOURCES

I would like to move on to some of the work that we have been 

doing more recently with graduate students. About ten years ago, 

I reached out to the American Museum of Natural History. We had 

a crisis of materials for learning science in New York City. And the 

American Museum of Natural History has perhaps one of the most 

amazing collections of real things in the world. It was right there 

and none of our students were getting to use it to learn. And our 

teachers, many of whom come from other cities and other countries, 

were not even aware that it was there. 

So I said any teacher educated in New York City should know 

that this resource is here and know how to use it to teach the 

young people in our city. And Mertz McDonald, who was then the 

Director of Professional Development, agreed with me and opened 

her doors. She agreed to let our teachers come in after the museum 

was closed and use the halls. And it was quite an amazing experience. 

As a result, we developed a course, Science Beyond the Classroom. And as a result of that as well, the Wildlife Conservation Society, also known as the Bronx Zoo, called me and said we would 

also like to have your teachers come and learn with us. 

Similar to our other courses, our students respond that they have 

gained a lot or a fair amount of ability to solve problems and gain 

information. In the case of our most recent course with the zoo, the 

total numbers in those two categories were a hundred percent for 

both. I think that is sort of exciting. 

But what we found out when we evaluated the programs was 

that principals were not allowing teachers to take their students to 

the Museum of Natural History or to the zoo. They thought that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 

was not instructional time. That was for June. That was for fun. 

That was a reward. 

Luckily we were able to show the City Council that there was 

value in this crazy idea of taking kids to the zoo and taking kids 

to the Museum of Natural History. And they funded a project 

called Urban Advantage. 

Urban Advantage invites teachers to come to seven major institutions in New York for training in how to teach using the resources 

of these institutions. They include the zoos, the botanical gardens, 

New York Hall of Science, New York Museum of Natural History, 

and Staten Island Zoo. We go out to the outer boroughs too. 

And what has happened now is the principals have learned that 

this is actually a good teaching tool. They are getting very good resources. Families have learned that their children are excited about 

learning at these places. And the culture is beginning slowly to 

change. So that is very exciting. 

I believe that the museum has actually reached out to a few 

other major cities and some places are talking about doing similar 

projects. That is moving along. So systemic change is slow. 

EXIT PROJECTS AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Another very important thing for us was the idea of exit projects. 

New York City adopted a requirement that every middle school 

student must complete an exit project either in social science or 

natural science. The exit project has to be an individual research 

project. It can use literature research, secondary research, or individual investigation. 

For the first year, I must say the results were somewhat disappointing. A panel of scientists did not find them to reflect the 

processes and procedures and communication methods of science. 

But with a little feedback, we developed what is called a rubric. I 

do not know if you are familiar with the idea of a rubric, but it defines what excellent practice looks like for every aspect of a project 

from the forming of a hypothesis to the collection of data to the literature research to analyzing your results and representing it 

using graphs and charts as appropriate. 

So what we have done is broken down the various skills and said 

what poor practice looks like, what poor performance looks like, 

what intermediate level performance and what exemplary performance looks like. It breaks the secret. 

There was a time when a good student was a student who knew 

the secret of what the teacher was looking for. By making the secret open, we make it possible for every student to achieve excellence and students will. Actually, one student commented that with 

a rubric, you have no excuse for not doing well in a course. So I 

am excited about that change as well. 

NEW COURSE DEVELOPMENT

Our new courses for graduate students have been funded by New 

York State Education Department and by New York City Department of Education. Over the last three years, we have been training our Earth science teachers, and I should say that this is also 

with NSF funding, through the geoscience education grant. We received funding to develop a new teacher education program of 30 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

credits that brings together geoscience and education linking content and pedagogy in every course. This requires, of course, that 

the Geology Department consider this a priority, and we have been 

very lucky to find that the Department was willing to be a partner 

with us. 

In one of our first courses, developed with NSF funding, we 

found that 45 percent of students responded that they had gained 

a lot of ability to analyze and solve problems as opposed to 16 percent overall for the Geology Department. For 55 percent, they 

gained a lot of ability to find and use information on their own. 

So we have been able to change the culture of graduate study in 

the Geology Department and, in fact, the Department has received 

funding through NSF to revise their undergraduate curriculum as 

well. 

So one department at Brooklyn College has said inquiry-based 

instruction is not just right for K to 12, it is the right way to approach graduate and undergraduate education for teachers and for 

all of our students. 

HIGH-STAKES STANDARDIZED TESTING

Okay. I just want to say a few things about some other barriers 

to the use of inquiry in K to 12 and that is high-stakes standardized testing. 

New York City and New York State have begun to change how 

they evaluate students, New York City with the eighth grade exit 

project, New York State with a high-stakes exam that looks at both 

objective testing as well as a practicum. However, for the most 

part, these tests are expensive. They are difficult to grade. They require each student’s test to be individually graded. And I think 

that it would be very helpful if we had very good, well-normed tests 

that actually looked at inquiry-based learning and science process 

skills as well as the tests that we currently have which are looking 

at which facts you have memorized. That is the lowest level of 

knowledge according to Ping’s Taxonomy of Learning, the highest 

level being able to analyze and evaluate material as opposed to just 

recognizing that it is right. 

One method that might be very useful to develop would be an 

electronic concept mapping assessment. Concept mapping was developed by Novak at Cornell University to look at how students 

learn biological sciences. It is now used routinely in many classrooms to help students organize their understanding, and there are 

electronic concept map programs that allow us to see what students can do. It should not be that difficult for a good computer 

programmer to turn this into a high-quality assessment. 

INCREASING UNDERGRADUATE STEM MAJORS

Okay. And one more thing in response to the comments that 

were made earlier about undergraduate science education. One of 

the things that we have discovered at Brooklyn College, again with 

funding from the National Science Foundation through a STEP 

Grant, we discovered that students who did not think they wanted 

to be science majors but who were good at science and math as 

high school students could be redirected to a major in science, including a major in physics, if their freshman year course work was 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 

well supported, including social support as well as academic support. 

So what we have done is we have created learning communities 

where students learn about career opportunities in the sciences 

that they are not aware of as they come into college. And they also 

work with peers in peer-assisted learning to practice the skills that 

they need to be successful in their courses. 

What we found is that over half of the students who were participants in the freshman year choose a major in one of the STEM 

fields even though it was not their original intention. We also find 

that we are retaining virtually all the students who choose a 

science major. And that is unusual. Usually you lose more than 

half of students because of the rigors of the freshman year course 

work that they are not prepared for. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 56820A.004
17 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 56820A.005
18 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 56820A.006
19 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 56820A.007
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 56820A.008
21 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, thank you both. 

Dr. Hill, why don’t you bring that back? 

Dr. HILL. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is this just absolutely not working? It sounds 

like it might be. 

Dr. HILL. It probably needs to be closer. 

Dr. MIELE. Can you hear? No, it is not working. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, we are not far apart, but we need 

it. Is it working? Okay. If you speak closely. And, unfortunately, 

this is so tight that it cannot—okay. I hate fighting with this. 

COGNITIVE TRAINING

But, Dr. Hill, you talked about a reference, cognitive training. 

Dr. HILL. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would like for you just to talk about that a bit 

for the Committee, give us a better understanding of what cognitive training is—— 

Dr. HILL. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And how it—— 

Dr. HILL. And I also would like to contrast that with tutoring 

which is the usual approach to, you know, remediating things like 

math skills. 

So cognitive training, first of all, is not instruction. It is actually 

trying to build the underlying cognitive architecture in the student, 

so you can take a task, there is a famous task in experimental psychology called the Stroop Task where you have letters, I mean, I 

am sorry, words that spell out color names, but the ink of the color 

could either match the color name or could be incongruous with the 

color name. 

You can use that kind of task to teach attention. They have to 

attend to either the color of the ink or what the word is saying. You 

can use that task to train processing speed because as they master 

a certain skill level, you can cause them to do it in a shorter 

amount of time. 

And so you can take any kind of task like that and use it to train 

processing speed, memory. You can give them distracter tasks. 

They have to now have divided attention, sustained attention, selective attention. 

But basically what we are talking about is building the underlying structures of cognition that then allow you to have kind of a 

framework to place abstract concepts like higher level mathematics, for example, or even processes like critical thinking skills. 

It is like you need some basic architecture underlying that in order 

for it to work. 

And this is kind of an innovative approach, but when I first encountered the data from this Learning RX organization, I was just 

stunned at the kind of changes they were getting in 15 weeks. You 

mentioned 15 weeks too. That seems to be kind of an interesting 

number. 

But what we are looking at is the transfer that this kind of training has to things like learning math. And we are finding that even 

measured with imperfect measures like the standards of learning 

test in Virginia that we get tremendous increases after one semester of these kinds of interventions. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
22 

Now, the problem is in the past, these kinds of interventions 

have been one-on-one, kind of in a clinical setting almost. And so 

we are trying to find ways to broaden that so that you can have 

group administration on a computer that is not going to be as efficacious, but we want to see if it is good enough, you know, if we 

can still get some significant results with that because that would 

be much more practical in an educational setting. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Intervention sounds like a remedial process. 

Does cognitive training happen the way you think it should happen 

and when you think it should happen? 

Dr. HILL. Well, it is remedial in the sense that I guess if a person 

grew up in an enriched environment where they were in a home 

where there were many books around and they were having conversations with their parents, these kinds of cognitive skills would 

tend to develop naturally. 

You are talking about kids who come from homes where there 

might be one or no parents around, where their nutrition is inadequate, they get no stimulation, no supervision sometimes, and so 

they are not developing these kinds of skills. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. What I heard you saying is that the examples that you were alluding to happened after a period of time 

when it would have been good to lay this cognitive foundation, this 

framework that you are talking about. 

And so what I am really asking is, how should it happen, unless 

I am misunderstanding what you said—— 

Dr. HILL. Well—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. How should it happen in the normal 

educational process and when? 

Dr. HILL. Well, normally these kinds of processes would not be 

directly dealt with in education other than in the kind of inquirybased learning that we just heard about, which do tend to develop 

thinking skills. 

But what we are saying is that if these skills are not there, it 

is not that there is some critical period that they have to be developed. And even in adulthood, you can start to train these skills and 

get those kinds of results. 

So this has been very encouraging that even if a kid comes from 

an impoverished and stimulus-poor environment that at the middle 

school level or at the high school level, it is not too late to have 

these kind of interventions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is what I meant when I said that it 

sounded like you were describing a remedial process. And by that, 

I meant a process of intervening at a later time in the educational 

process and just forgetting for a second what socioeconomic background somebody comes from. 

Dr. HILL. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you suggesting that the educational system 

should be laying that framework down in the educational process 

at some point—— 

Dr. HILL. Yes, from the beginning. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. In a child’s development? Okay. 

Dr. HILL. These kind of inquiry-based methods of instruction. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And, I mean, we are talking pre-K? 

Dr. HILL. Pre-K. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are talking kindergarten, we are talking—— 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Is that happening—— 

Dr. HILL. No. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Anywhere? 

Dr. HILL. Well, apparently it is happening some places. In Brooklyn, yes. But in general, and can I just piggyback on what was said 

about these high-stakes standardized tests, in Petersburg, for example, where you have a distressed district that has a hard time 

holding on to good teachers, these are just deadly. Their whole day 

is spent teaching to the test. I mean, it is deadly for the teachers. 

It is deadly for the students. And it does not have the outcomes 

that we—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I really think we are convinced that there 

is a problem seriously, I mean, based on this testimony and, you 

know, what we hear. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

THE SUPERIORITY OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But let me ask, Dr. Miele, is there any real debate about the advantages, the superiority, if you will, of inquirybased STEM education as opposed to direct fact learning? Is there 

any real debate about that? 

Dr. MIELE. There is no debate. The consensus of the science education community is this is the right way to teach young people. 

WHO MAKES STEM EDUCATION CHOICES?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then why is it not being readily accepted and 

hearing you all testify here today, it is apparent it is not systemically embraced? 

Dr. MIELE. Because the choices are not made by the people who 

are in the science education community. The choices are made by 

generalists in grades one through six. Principals are typically not 

science educators. They are typically more likely language arts. Actually, we get a lot of people from the humanities. I am not knocking the humanities. They are great. Those people are not aware of 

the special needs of education in the sciences and in mathematics, 

but they are making the choices of curriculum. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So the obvious question is, how is this overcome? 

I mean, if it is consensus among the people who should know, but 

there is this impediment to mainstreaming this kind of education 

in math, science, how is that overcome in the real world? 

Dr. MIELE. One step is to make sure that the standardized tests 

test those skills so that the principals know that their students 

have to learn them. 

Another way is to make sure that some funding for schools has 

to go not to textbooks but to consumable materials for learning 

science. If it was earmarked in the budget that the only thing you 

can spend this money on is either a kit or your own materials purchased and demonstrated to be appropriate for teaching hands-on 

science, and that might just be, you know, vinegar, baking soda, 

and plastic cups, frankly, it does not have to be a sophisticated kit, 

it just has to be the things that have been shown for the last 50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
24 

to 100 years to be effective. If you have to spend some of your 

money on consumables, you have to be doing science. 

EFFECTIVE, ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, we are in the business here of funding worthy programs in a very competitive way. We could fund 

these demonstration projects and the STEM education grant that 

you got from NSF which comes from this Subcommittee all day 

long, and if you did it on a grant-by-grant basis around the country, it would be our great, great, great, great grandchildren by the 

time it got down to them. 

How does this form of education become the accepted model and 

in that way be adapted by educational institutions from K through 

graduate school in a far more expeditious way? How does that happen? Do you need a definitive study from NSF or from the National 

Academy or what? And so we have those? 

Dr. MIELE. You know, at this point, many of the studies show 

mixed results. And it is my belief that the reason they showed 

mixed results is that just because you bought an NSF-funded curriculum does not mean that your teacher used it or used it properly. So you do need truly systemic change, but you also need the 

high-stakes test to match. And we have never had that congruence 

where the high-stakes test was, in fact, one that looked at inquiry 

skills and at the same time, you had an entire discernible region 

that really implemented it. 

If we could have that, it would be helpful. I do think that we 

need more people to be trained as evaluators. There is a dearth of 

high-quality educational evaluators who also understand science. 

So that would probably be helpful. 

We also need to train the teachers that are veteran teachers because our young people coming out know how to do inquiry science. 

I have yet to meet a science educator who does not teach inquiry. 

It is the consensus, but they get out to the schools and all of a sudden, it is not what is happening. 

It is generally believed that you need a minimum of 60 hours of 

high-quality professional development that is truly inquiry based 

with a facilitator who can help you make the transformation and 

a principal who will let you do it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Dr. HILL. Can I add to that also? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Certainly. 

Dr. HILL. I mean, if you look around the country at the schools 

that are succeeding, they are the ones that have some degree of 

independence, you know, usually a charter school or some other 

mechanism they have had to extricate themselves from the educational bureaucracy so that they can try innovative kinds of 

things. 

And just to put in a word for the humanities, I do think that, 

you know, in many of these inner city schools, we have kind of almost eliminated the humanities, you know, things like music, language. Those kinds of exposures at an early age can also have 

transfer to the kinds of critical thinking skills that we are talking 

about at the middle school and high school level. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

And so part of this is budgetary. You know, good education is expensive. And so we are cutting corners wherever we can. We are 

trying to stick to the basics, so to speak, which usually means 

teaching to the test. And it is just a complete mind set that has 

to change. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is why I am suggesting you need some 

seminal study that—— 

Dr. HILL. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. [continuing]. No one can deny the validity of and 

that everybody has to respect and then adopt it. And that is really 

what I was kind of—— 

Dr. HILL. I mean, if you could find a superintendent at a major 

city that would be willing to, you know, implement this evidencebased practice throughout the system and, you know, it could be 

your hard case like, you know, in places like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and demonstrate its efficacy in that environment, 

I think that would be very convincing in other parts of the country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You need a good model. 

Let me call on—— 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

INDIVIDUAL SUCCESSES AND PERVASIVE PROBLEMS

I have some questions. Maybe we will just submit them for the 

record and just ask you, I mean, have we not really done all of this, 

though? I mean, this country is 230 years old. We had the best 

educational system in the world. And now when you look at the 

scores, and I have not looked at them for the last couple months, 

the figures, but we were like 21st or 22nd in math. 

We have so many individual successes around the country, but 

overall there is the problem. And I think, and I do not know that 

it is just necessary funding, it is an attitude and there is something 

wrong. There is something going on that, you know, why are the 

young people here not as interested or scoring as high as they are 

in China or as in Singapore. 

The purpose of the amendment that we offered last year to the 

National Science Foundation is we should know what the best 

practices are now and have every school system in the country 

adopt whatever these best practices are because we have been operating. We have a broad foundation. We have all these different 

groups doing all these studies and research and putting a lot of 

money. And we have the Gates Foundation doing all of this. 

So I would think that we would know now what works and what 

does not work. The question is getting the localities to implement 

and also doing something to make the young people have an excitement about math and science and physics and chemistry and biology and different things like that. 

But why do you think we have fallen behind? 

TEACHER TALENT

Dr. HILL. Can I address that? I think the teacher variable is one 

thing. I mean, for decades, if not centuries, in this country, we had 

a free ride because the best and brightest women would go into 

education because that was the only field available to them. And 

when opportunities opened up for women, we did not replace them 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

in the classroom. We did not raise the salaries to attract the best 

and brightest. We did not raise the prestige level of teachers. 

And so now it is a hard sell to get the best and brightest to go 

into the classroom. And no matter how good the methods are, no 

matter how good the curriculum is, if the teacher is not excited 

about knowledge, if the teacher is not knowledgeable in their subject matter, it is going to be hard for them to convey that to their 

students. 

So we have to find a way to get the best and brightest again attracted into the field of education. 

REWARD OF STEM CAREERS

Dr. MIELE. And I concur 100 percent, but I would like to add that 

we also have to get the message out that careers in science are exciting. As I said, when we showed freshman what you can do with 

a science major, they were shocked. They had no idea. They 

thought they had to wear a white coat and be in a lab. 

But there are many, many careers that are based on a sound 

technology or science major, including careers in law, environmental law, for instance, medicine. I mean, there is quite a long 

list. And when they go out and interview people who did majors in 

physics and chemistry and find out that some of them are entrepreneurs starting green businesses, they say, oh, I could see myself 

doing that and suddenly they want to major in science. 

But what the message has been to the generations for the past, 

I would say, 20 or 30 years of young people who are thinking about 

science is you are going to have to become a lab coat scientist or 

you might as well, you know, go to Wall Street or become a lawyer 

straight, you know, straight from a liberal arts background. 

And we do not actually reward our scientists very well. 

Dr. HILL. And if I can add to that, too. Making them aware of 

the possibilities in terms of salary. I mean, business schools are 

bulging in most universities because kids have the idea if you get 

a business degree, you are going to do pretty well salary-wise in 

your career. 

So I do think it is a matter of getting the information out, getting 

the word out. 

Dr. MIELE. They want to go to medical school. They do not realize that they can do well by doing science. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, you know, we can talk about this forever. 

I remember the movie I saw of the young boy from West Virginia, 

October Sky, and I just think there is something missing. There is 

something wrong. 

DECLINE IN U.S. MANUFACTURING

And, you know, I think the real danger is, and I think we could 

be approaching the point, is that the fewer manufacturing and 

fewer things we do in this country, even if you then create an interest in young people, there will be no place to go. 

If you get on the train in Washington and take it up to New York 

City, if you do not read your book, you just look out the windows, 

the factories are closed. You go through my old neighborhood. We 

had the largest General Electric factory I think in the world. It is 

gone. It is all gone. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 

And if you no longer have the manufacturing base and opportunities, then it will almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy because I 

think some of the young people believe that there will not be the 

jobs even if they get in it. 

GOOD STEM EDUCATION

So I think, you know, the time is now. I think we should have 

enough information. My sense is you have to deal with it in K 

through six. If you lose somebody after sixth grade, maybe it is 

fifth grade, maybe it is seventh grade, you are not going to find 

them again. 

In my area, we have Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the 

best high schools in the country. These kids are creative. They are 

anxious. They are interested. I think we should be able to replicate 

that all over. 

But, anyway, I appreciate your testimony. There is something 

wrong. Anyway, thank you so much. 

Dr. HILL. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the questions, 

if I can, for the record, please. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Certainly. 

Dr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, can I make one other comment about 

funding? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Certainly. 

CHALLENGES FOR YOUNG FACULTY AT HBCUS

Dr. HILL. Since you mentioned it, you know, this Committee, 

that is one of their charges is to go through agencies like NSF and 

NIH to get the funds out there. If we could have some new models 

of funding like I was mentioning earlier for faculty at places like 

HBCUs that do not have the traditional steps for acquiring funding 

because even when NSF has an HBCU initiative, the issue is on 

the other end, on the faculty member having the time to write a 

competitive proposal. And that is why sometimes a lot of money 

stays on the shelf that, you know, could be accessible. 

So if we could think of things like research initiation grants 

where we are giving money directly to HBCUs to fund their faculty 

research, to give them the time, those are where the bodies are, the 

roles models. 

And, again, we have an engineering school that takes in three or 

four hundred kids every fall and we lose two or three hundred of 

them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, maybe some of the other members want to 

talk about that, and then we can talk about it when it becomes my 

turn again. 

Dr. HILL. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for once again leading 

the full Committee by coming out of the gate with the first, to my 

knowledge, the first hearing. The President’s budget has not even 

dried yet and we already are like we did last year into asking some 

good questions of bright panelists. 

Thank you both for being here. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

MATH SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL

There are so many things, and I, too, would like to submit my 

written questions for the record for your consideration, but there 

are just so many things going through my mind. 

Last week, I taught at Alabama School for Math and Science. I 

am from Mobile, Alabama. And our State School for Math and 

Science, which is a residential campus, is in my hometown of Mobile. I did not teach math or science. I taught a class on American 

civics. 

And the graduates from that school have an opportunity to go to 

MIT and Stanford and Harvard and some of the finest schools in 

America with full-ride scholarships. So it is something we are very 

proud of. 

STEM EDUCATION IN RURAL AMERICA

And, yet, I am from a town of 1,200 people in the most rural part 

of Alabama, and I know there are rural parts of West Virginia and 

there are even rural parts of New York, Chairman Serrano, but I 

worry about science education, math education in rural towns because the town I grew up in, I was blessed. I had a very good math 

and science teacher that loved it, knew it, and shared it. 

But in listening to the story of Brooklyn or what is going on in 

our larger cities, I do worry what can we do about making sure 

that our rural educators and our rural science and math curriculums are not being left out because everyone cannot travel to the 

zoo and have an up close and personal experience. Again, we have 

got a science explorium in Mobile. We have got a lot of things that 

a lot of other cities, communities do not have. 

What do we need to do to make sure we do not forget about the 

rural schools in America? 

Dr. MIELE. I would say that the rural schools have things that 

New Yorkers do not have. Those young people actually know what 

a cow looks like. You know, every community has its strengths and 

the real thing, the world is there for all students if they have educators that know how to help them look at it objectively, systematically, and to think about how the world works. 

I really do not think that that is the issue. I would love to be 

able to bring our students, you know, to nature. And for us, all of 

our nature is highly degraded. I mean, we go and look at a forest 

and it is trampled by millions of feet. And the only kinds of animals you see are squirrels and maybe rats. 

I think the issue really is when we talk about good science, it is 

about process. And if you have learned to think like a scientist by 

the time you are 12, you will be able to learn in the formal way, 

what we call the direct instruction. It is not difficult to learn new 

material once you have learned to think like a scientist. But if you 

had not learned to think like a scientist and you have not valued 

that whole approach to knowing the world, then those doors are 

completely closed to you and you are basically thinking magically 

the way a three or four-year-old would even if you are 35 or 50 or 

60. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

EIGHTH GRADE EXIT PROJECTS

Mr. BONNER. Well, Dr. Miele, let me mention or ask you to elaborate. You mentioned in your testimony here something about the 

eighth grade exit project. 

Dr. MIELE. Yes. 

Mr. BONNER. My daughter is in the eighth grade. I hope she 

exits the eighth grade. Tell me a little bit about what you were 

talking about in greater detail. 

Dr. MIELE. I believe it was five years ago, we had—New York 

City, as you know, is big. You know, we have got a million school 

children. Actually, I think it is 1.1 right now. And we had local control. So every community school district chose its own curriculum, 

chose its own assessments. The only commonality was the State 

Regents examinations and periodic tests, standardized tests just for 

promotion. 

But New York City decided that they wanted to do something to 

enforce learning in an inquiry way, so they said, okay, we want to 

make sure our children can think independently and logically and 

the place to look for it is eighth grade on the doorway to high 

school. 

So they instituted the requirement that every student had to 

complete an independent study and it could be in social science or 

it could be in natural science. It had to be one or the other, and 

it required that they formulate a question and figure out how to 

answer it. They could choose to answer it by using literature resources, but they needed to be valid literature resources. They 

could not just take the answers from Wikipedia, for instance, and 

they needed to document what their sources were and why they 

chose them. And they needed to complete usually a tri-fold panel 

for the equivalent of a science or social science fair and to defend 

their work in front of their peers, teachers, parents, and visitors. 

As I said, the first year we really did not know what to look for. 

There was no clear criterion for what excellence looked like. But 

the city decided to bring together a panel of scientists and social 

scientists to provide feedback about what exemplary exit projects 

would look like. 

And they developed a very extensive rubric to support the students and also a multi-step sort of guide to help them figure out 

what do I do first, what is a reasonable question to ask, how do 

I know it is a good question, what is my first step in finding information, where can I go for data if I want to do secondary research 

where I am using a data set that someone else has collected, but 

I want to ask my own question about it. 

For instance, the GLOBE Program provides databases that students can access. Maybe they will take some data from GLOBE 

and maybe they will collect some of their own data and do a comparison. 

So these are the kinds of projects that students are doing in New 

York, and they cannot get into high school without having thought 

for themselves deeply at least once. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. Serrano. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who probably knows something about New York 

education. 

CHARTER SCHOOLS

Mr. SERRANO. A little bit. Thank you again, as Mr. Bonner said, 

for leading us out of the box with the first hearing, especially during what Washington would consider a blizzard. So it is quite an 

accomplishment. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is a testament to our witnesses. 

Mr. SERRANO. That is right. 

Since you have mentioned it, let me just quickly, before I ask a 

couple of questions, including one that comes to mind that I did not 

have planned, talk a little bit about my background. Prior to my 

20 years in Congress, I was Chairman of the Education Committee 

of the State Assembly. Prior to that, I was everything within the 

school system except a teacher. I was a paraprofessional teacher’s 

aide. I was Director of the Title 1 programs at the State Urban 

Education Program. 

So I have a little bit of a background in that area which leads 

me to this question. There is a lot of press, good press for charter 

schools. And I may be the only elected official in New York State 

that has not signed up making glowing statements about charter 

schools. 

And while I understand their success and support their success, 

my fear continues to be that it is just part of an excuse not to attack problems of the public school system and that charter schools 

may become what we, some people who support public education, 

have always attacked in the parochial school, in the private school 

system, which is you will be able to take the better students, show 

better results, and leave behind in public schools those that are 

weak, with parents who are not as mobilized as the ones in the 

charter schools. 

So you see, for instance, in New York City, whether what side 

you fall or not, you see the Mayor closing down 19 schools and then 

upping the amount of charter schools available in the city. And we 

have not figured out yet if that is really a way of just turning your 

back on the public schools. 

So my question is, have we reached the point, especially in the 

inner cities, where it is save yourself if you can and, therefore, 

charter schools serve that purpose and do we run the risk of turning our backs politically and otherwise to the public school system 

more than ever so before? What is the future of the public school 

system in this country if we continue to grow charter schools, to 

both of you? 

Dr. HILL. Well, if I can address that a minute, I think one of the 

roles of charter schools now is to be innovative and to test some 

things that might not have been able to be instituted in the public 

schools, the normal public schools. 

I think you raised a big issue and I think this goes back to what 

I was saying earlier about the need to think of education as a civil 

right. Somehow we have said it is okay for there to be Thomas and 

Maggie Walker Schools in Richmond that offer excellent education, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

but they are not for all kids and that it is okay for the kids in the 

inner city to just to get by with whatever the basics are. 

We need to change that mentality and recognize. I mean, we 

need to think of it in terms of our own self interest, that it is not 

the other kids, the other people’s kids are the ones that are involved here. This is going to be something that impacts us as a nation and get our self interest involved in seeing schools transformed 

in general. 

And a lot of times to do that, I mean, Richmond, Virginia is a 

good example, I mean, go back to 1954 when the Brown Decision 

came, you had the school issues were along racial lines, you know, 

in terms of resources. They are separate but equal, so to speak. 

Over the years, that what started out as a racial issue, you 

know, merged with class and other issues and so now it is a much 

more complex problem, but it has its roots back in the days of segregation where it was okay for some kids to get a quality education 

and some kids not to get a quality education. 

We have to find a way to get beyond that and maybe it takes 

shame. You know, we should be ashamed as a country that we 

have allowed this to go on for 50 years. And we need to take the 

hard fixes and not necessarily the easy fixes. 

A lot of times when we find, for example, the minority kids are 

not passing a particular test, we attack the test rather than dealing with, well, why are they not passing that test. Why do we not 

put the resources in there. And the rural kids, the same issue in 

rural communities. 

But I think the distrust of charter schools among those of us who 

kind of grew up in the civil rights era was a remnant of the time 

when public money was going to provide education and private 

academies and the inner city kids were being left behind. 

But I think we have gotten to the point now where we have to 

think outside the box. We have to revolutionize our whole educational system. The whole model needs to change. I mean, it is 

kind of an industrial age model, and we need to have innovation. 

We need to have creativity. We need to free up principals and 

teachers to try innovations and then use evidence-based practices 

wherever we can. 

That was kind of a round-about answer. 

Dr. MIELE. I have a few things to say about that as well. 

I think it is a very sad situation right now that the schools, 

many of the schools that are closing have parents that support 

them. And this to me is a disconnect. When the parents are involved enough to know what is going on in the school and care 

enough to come out and say do not close my school, then it is not 

an issue of the parents that do not care. So there is definitely 

something going on here. 

There are a number of things going on in New York City schools. 

For the past, I think it is probably about 15 years, the reading programs, for instance, have focused entirely on poetry and fiction. 

Students are not really learning to read content. This is one of the 

reasons they come to middle school unable to read a textbook. 

By middle school, as much as I support inquiry education, students should be able to read a textbook. By the time they are 13 

years old, it should not be too hard for them, but that is the situaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

tion that we have because the skills they are developing are not 

giving them the ability to read content objectively, to read it critically, to read it deeply, to understand what are the facts, what are 

the opinions, what is the evidence that supports these assertions. 

There is no system that allows students and parents to really 

truthfully say what are the strengths and weaknesses of the school. 

They know. My own children went to New York City public schools 

and there were good years and there were bad years. And we were 

committed to public education and we rode out the bad years and 

did what we could to ameliorate what educational weaknesses 

there were. 

But my husband and I are college educated and we are educators 

and we could do that easily. It is, in fact, an equity issue. There 

is no way that an immigrant family working two jobs, even if they 

love their children and want the best for them and try to help them 

with their homework, can provide what college educated Americans 

can provide. It is impossible. 

So, yes, the issue, I think, is how can we make all public schools 

truly provide a quality education for all students and not go 

around—and, by the way, the charter schools are inequitable to 

teachers as well. They do not pay them as well. 

Dr. HILL. Right. 

Dr. MIELE. They will hire people who are not certified and make 

use of the fact that they are bright and committed and caring and 

willing to share apartments. 

So what I would like to see is more money going, as I said earlier, to making sure that there are materials of instruction and 

money going directly to the schools for high-quality professional development to teach them to teach with the best practices if they are 

not yet prepared to do that and something that will hold principals 

accountable for best practice in every discipline, not just the one 

that they were trained in. 

Mr. SERRANO. You know, one of my fears—do I have time, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. One of my fears is, and I do not know if it is the 

same in other districts, I am sure it is if we look closely. I get people coming to me, I need a letter of support, I want to open up a 

charter school. I do not give those letters of support out. But I say 

what do you know about schools. And they are usually very active 

community leaders who may be great on some issues, but what do 

they know about schools? 

But under the charter school system, I can open up a charter 

school tomorrow if I get okayed. And if I left Congress, I probably 

would be okayed to open up like ten charter schools. Well, I may 

have the best intentions at heart and I probably have a little more 

background than some other folks, but what qualifies me to open 

up a charter school? 

Then the argument we hear, which is a solid argument, but I 

think it does not speak to this point, is, well, when we had all the 

schools run by people college trained and professionally trained to 

be teachers, administrators, they did not do the job. So let us try 

it now. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

But I see it almost like it has become a business for some people, 

the charter school, either a business for the position they hold and 

so on. So I am still out there like a sore thumb, you know, standing 

out in the community being like the only—I am also the only guy 

saying New York should hold those terror trials, but that is me, 

you know, I do not always go with the flow, but—so that is a concern. 

Now, my last question, which was the one I did have written 

down, kind of ties into that when you spoke about the immigrant 

parents and so on. 

ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

In your studies, Dr. Hill, and I want you to comment on this, too, 

the fact that some children have a language other than English at 

home and, therefore, may or may not be totally proficient in 

English in school, does that add to the mix once again as it supposedly did in the past? 

Now, I had people who spoke only Spanish at home and that was 

not an issue in the 1950s and in the 1960s. It became an issue in 

the 1970s and then it seems to be an issue again. Do you find that 

that is an impediment? What is that situation when a child in class 

dealing with the sciences now, math and science, with another language being spoken at home? 

Dr. HILL. I mean, math and science is hard enough when it is 

taught in your native language, you know, much less when it is a 

second language. But, yes, certainly that is an issue. I mean, there 

are so many kinds of noninstructional issues that come to bear 

here. 

EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON EDUCATION

I mean, when you look at a school district like Petersburg, again, 

how many of those kids come to school with no breakfast, with no 

parent, out all night, dealing with maybe a drug addiction in the 

household, dealing with parents who are incarcerated? There are so 

many issues that are beyond the scope of the teacher, you know, 

what the teacher can deal with there. 

BUILDING STUDENT SUPPORT

So one of the things that we are doing in Petersburg with this 

approach with the algebra project is building community support 

mechanisms for the schools because a lot of times, the kids need, 

they need good instruction, but they need other things as well. 

They need other kinds of social support in addition to instructional 

support. 

And so having those available to the kids in some kind of systematic way is an important thing. Mentoring is important. Having the 

kid connected with somebody that they can talk to, whether it is 

a college student, whether it is an older high school student for a 

middle school kid, but having somebody they can make that connection to that they might not have with family members, and then 

counteracting the effect of violence. 

I mean, we are looking at some neurological studies now about 

the impact on the brain of exposure to violence and it actually, if 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

your brain is affected, it is going to impact how well you take in 

information. And so having some interventions for those kids who 

are the victims of violence both at home and the kind of violence 

that they might see in the street or even in the schools in many 

cases, so it is like an omnibus of needs that are there that need 

to be addressed with these kids. 

Mr. SERRANO. Omnibus is a very tough word to use, you know, 

before the appropriations committee. It brings pain up our back. 

INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION AND ENGLISH SKILLS

Dr. MIELE. The NSF funded SCIS and FOSS curricula had 

shown tremendous ability to improve English language learner 

scores when they were studied in the 1970s in the LA area. And 

from my own experience, many of my students are themselves, 

even though they are college students, are English language learners. 

When you are working with the real world and your job is to observe it objectively, it speaks to you in whatever is your language. 

So that is not a barrier; a textbook does not do that. So if your 

main source of information about science is a textbook and you are 

a fourth-grader from Bangladesh, then you are basically shut out 

entirely. But if you are looking at what objects sink and what objects float and you are measuring their mass and volume for yourself, then you have learned the material for the day. And you may 

not be able to write it down so that your teacher can understand 

it, but you have written it down so that you can. 

So hands-on science absolutely brings in everyone regardless of 

whether they are an English language learner or whether they are 

English proficient. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Jose. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, thank you. I am sorry I was in another hearing. Do I need this? Is it too loud? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You need to use it. 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND PRODUCTION OF STEM PROFESSIONALS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. First thing, let me tell you where I 

am coming from with my questioning. I serve on the Intelligence 

Committee and Chair the Technical Tactical Committee dealing 

with cyber security and a lot of the issues involving science. 

One of our concerns from a national security point of view is that 

China last year graduated over 660,000 mathematicians, scientists, 

and engineers. And I think we, the United States, graduated about 

66,000. 

Now, the good news, our curriculum still seems to be superior, 

but China is gaining very quickly. 

Now, in preparing for this hearing and looking at where you are 

coming from, both Dr. Hill and Miele—is it Miele? 

Dr. MIELE. Miele. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

HOW CAN WE BRING ABOUT CHANGE

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Miele, okay. You are emphasizing that we 

need to change the way we teach science and I agree with you. You 

are advocating for moving away from memorizing facts and figures 

and moving towards more hands-on learning and more accurately 

learning that engages the student to be more inquisitive. I think 

inquisitive is what you were just really talking about. 

My issue is why have we not moved more towards the direction 

of your philosophy and the STEM schools? Is it lack of resources, 

equipment? Is it lack of knowledge on the part of our administrators or people who fund schools which would be elected officials? 

And, you know, we need to address that issue first. 

And how we do address it, I think we need to educate those decision makers why science is so important. I will say this. I know 

that some of our military academies from the year about 2013 or 

whatever will try to have over 70 percent of their graduates having 

STEM education because this is where our country is going, not 

only just in national security, but just what we do every day. 

Dr. MIELE. I mentioned earlier that the problem is the decision 

makers. Who are the decision makers? Who is in power to choose 

curriculum? 

In New York City recently when we sort of centralized the 

science curriculum and developed a new city-wide scope and sequence, principals were told that they could choose one of two approaches to elementary school science. They could either choose the 

Full Option Science System, the FOSS System, or they could 

choose a textbook system with additional hands-on activities suggested at the end of each chapter. 

Who actually made the choice in many cases? The principal delegated a teacher who was free that day to go down to a fair and go 

eeny, meeny, miney, mo with a little slip that said this is how 

much money you have to spend. That is not how you choose curriculum. 

If the city really felt that the inquiry-based approach was the 

most important one, they should have just funded it. They should 

have said this is what we are doing and if you want to do more, 

that is fine, but you must put Full Option Science System on your 

budget for this year or show how you are doing a full inquiry-based 

alternative science curriculum otherwise. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. You know, I think one of the issues 

there is it is just not only the school system. I think you have got 

to get academia, elected officials, the business community all involved. And that will really help move policy forward. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

NSA AND STEM EDUCATION

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I represent NSA. It is in my district. And 

we are trying to develop a STEM program, there are STEM programs within the State of Maryland, but a STEM program literally 

on the campus of NSA and focusing on maybe even late elementary 

or early middle school, looking at a regional type project that could 

really identify these children who have the aptitude. I think you 

have to have certain children who have aptitude in the area of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

math or science or whatever. And one of the things, one of the focuses is to have it as if it was an internship. 

And the culture change of these kids who not only are in a classroom but then could also maybe, as long as you do not violate the 

classified issues, you have these children come to a campus and 

they grow. And they have also become really patriotic in the mission of what an NSA or what a NASA—I mean, we have Goddard 

right up the street on 295, but do this all over the country. And, 

you know, we can look at certain positive programs. I think there 

is a school in Virginia. I know there are a couple schools in Maryland, in Anne Arundel County, places like that that are successful, 

but it has got to grow nationally. 

How would you recommend that we do that? 

THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSPECTIVE

Dr. HILL. Well, if I could say something from your original statement. I mean, I am glad that you are kind of coming from a national security perspective because we need to have that same kind 

of political will that we have around our national security in the 

field of education. 

In the 1950s, when we perceived Russia as a threat and the 

launch of Sputnik as a threat, we put the resources into science 

education and it really paid off. And we need to have that same 

kind of resolve again because it is a national security issue. 

When you have this large number of under and uneducated people, you know, particularly congregating in our inner cities, that is 

much more of a threat to our future security than foreign terrorists, for example. And if we had the same kind of political will to 

find the resources wherever—you know, when we went into Iraq, 

we found the resources. We need to do that same kind of thing, 

find the resources to transform these inner city school districts. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am glad you raised the issue of Sputnik 

because that was very dangerous to our country and the United 

States of America responded by putting a man on the moon within 

12 years. 

And, you know, if you look at where we were then and where we 

are now, it used to be that astronauts were just as popular as NFL 

quarterbacks and that is not the case. So it seems there needs to 

be, you know, a reinvigoration. 

I think part of the policy is that—I think the country is just tired 

of us going back and forth to the space station. We need a goal that 

the country can get behind and bring excitement to these children. 

This is extremely important. 

LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ISSUES

But, you know, one thing I, and I know I am probably over my 

time, I want to raise this issue, one of the issues that you are going 

to find, and I know just when I am trying to work on the STEM 

Program in my jurisdiction is still, it is the politics of the different 

counties, the different school systems. 

If you are going to have a positive STEM Program, you need a 

regional program, regional involving other counties, regional involving the cities, whatever, so you can identify it from a regional. 

And, yet, it seems that there is so much either litigation or policy 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

that it is difficult to get children from one county to another county 

and that cooperation. So there has to be some really strong political 

will. 

Are you seeing that as an issue also, the bureaucracy or standards within school systems and not wanting to cooperate or have 

a regional type program? 

Dr. MIELE. I actually wanted to say a couple of things about that. 

I actually was privileged in the 1960s to participate in an NSFfunded internship program at Columbia University. My junior high 

school science teacher said you are going to go do this and I do not 

care what you want to do on Saturday mornings because you have 

got talent in science. 

So I went to the Columbia Science Honors Program. I later was 

a faculty member there for 16 years teaching students from the region, a 50-mile radius, but, again, that is one of those things where 

NSF type funding works because to transcend the regional political 

power, you have to have something that is outside school hours and 

funded separately. 

THE INNOVATIVE ROLE OF JUNIOR FACULTY

There is another issue with the success of that kind of project 

and that is that junior faculty, the ones who are most likely to participate in innovative programs, such as bringing a high school student into their lab, are the ones who are the most at risk of not 

getting tenure. They need to focus on their research. Risking having a high school student in the lab means their research is going 

to go slower and perhaps maybe even suffer a little mishap because 

you do not have a graduate student. You have a kid taking attention away from your very important research. 

So there has to be some way to protect junior faculty who are 

willing to invest in our young people and willing to mentor them. 

And right now that is not the case. I see again and again junior 

faculty who are willing to work with young people and to pay attention to science education and to work hard on their undergraduate classes to be the best teachers they can, to use innovative 

instruction. Those people do not necessarily get tenure because 

they are distracted. They are distracted. 

I also want to point out that we need a scientifically literate general population in order to make the proper choices for our future. 

So we do need those people who are going to be scientists, but everybody has got to understand the value of science and evidencebased decisionmaking. Otherwise, we are going to be in big trouble. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I do not disagree, but we have to really 

focus on STEM too. 

I know I am over my time. Can I ask one more? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

TEACHING INSTEAD OF RETIRING

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Another issue I think, and you 

raised the issue with me, is the instructors, the teachers. We have 

a baby boomer generation now that is a lot healthier, they are 

working longer, whatever, a lot of retired scientists, rocket scientists, engineers, whatever. And, yet, in order—and who probably 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

can come back and help teach and teach hands on the way it is in 

the real world, not just from an academic point of view. 

And, yet, because of the rules and regulations and because of 

teachers’ unions and all the issues that we deal with, it sometimes 

is very difficult to get those individuals within a system or because 

the school system will say, well, you are not authorized, you know, 

you are not certified, you do not have your master’s degree and this 

or whatever. 

And it seems to me that if this system is going to work and we 

have those resources out there, we have to find a way to develop 

a STEM Program that will be the best it can be and we have to 

have some flexibility as we relate to our contracts with our teachers and whatever. 

And I am not saying, you know, we do away with teachers’ 

unions or anything of that nature. I am saying as it relates to 

STEM, you have to develop curriculum that is going to work. And 

it is just a shame that we have a lot of qualified people that can 

come back and help teach what we need to do in STEM and make 

it exciting because a lot of these individuals are former people who 

worked at NSA who worked on space programs and might have another ten years. 

So if you have any idea on that, that is something we have to 

work on also. 

Dr. MIELE. I will tell you I myself am not a New York State certified teacher. I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Did you hear that? 

Dr. MIELE. I am not a certified teacher. If I wanted to teach—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Neither am I. 

Dr. MIELE [continuing]. I would actually have to go back to 

school and get 18 credits in education even though I have taught 

those classes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Uh-huh. 

Dr. MIELE. So I agree. But I must also say that I know full well 

that I was not prepared with my Ph.D. to walk into a high school 

classroom and teach. I was not. I needed to learn quite a bit about 

how young people learn. And I was—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I agree. 

Dr. MIELE [continuing]. Very, very fortunate to do that sort of in 

my own laboratory because as a faculty member in the Science 

Honors Program, I actually taught high school age students and I 

figured out for myself what worked and what did not. I was surprised to learn that it was completely congruent with the National 

Science Education Standards. When I read them, I went, oh, I 

could have written this. I figured it out by trial and error. 

But, again, I think that we need these alternative pathways for 

current Ph.D. and master’s holders. They do need to spend some 

time learning about—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I agree with you. And you do need standards. You always need the education standards. And I am not saying it is a hundred percent. I am just saying there is a group out 

there, that we have to find a way. We find it in other areas. We 

have people who come back who are retired military and they are 

back working government, whatever. We need to focus on that, 

though. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 

And with the partnership between the teachers and the school 

administrators and these individuals, we should be able to help 

them train them and work as a team together. 

Dr. MIELE. It is a priority. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you for your comments. 

I am sorry. I have to go back to Intelligence and the no window— 

well, we do not have windows here either. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And we are pretty intelligent here. We have got 

all these educators. 

Mr. SERRANO. I agree with you. It is pretty intelligent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Dr. HILL. And I hope you will continue that idea of regionalism 

because I think that has a big impact in most—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And it gives you strength. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I mean, it is the only way to go, no question. 

Dr. HILL. And you get away from, you know, it is okay for those 

kids over there not to have, you know, as long as my kids are okay, 

you know, that is the mentality. 

SKILLS TRAINING VERSUS INQUIRY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me go back to this and let both of you talk 

a little more about skills training versus inquiry. And you used 

that word skills when you were talking about reading and saying 

that, you know, that inquiry is great and wonderful, but kids need 

to be able to read when they get to, and need to have skills to read. 

And, Dr. Hill, you also alluded to that and I am not sure where 

I wrote it down. But just talk to us about the—Dr. Miele, you begin 

and then Dr. Hill. You need skills and inquiry is in your judgment 

essential if we are really going to develop the potential and have 

the result that we—in terms of numbers and quality of youngsters 

coming into math and science and just the general population being 

literate in that. So if you would talk about the balance that exists 

there and how to achieve it. 

Dr. MIELE. I think that in the 1970s, there was a tendency to 

throw the baby out with the bath water. And in the interest of developing inquiry skills, there was less focus on content. It is not a 

true dichotomy. The best way to learn science is to learn the content that the scientific community agrees is foundational to 

progress as a practitioner and the processes that those scientists 

use. 

INQUIRY SKILLS

So what are the skills? What is inquiry? Inquiry means applying 

the basic science skills. The first skill is observation, looking at the 

world objectively, knowing the difference between what everyone 

would agree is happening and what you think about it. I may see 

a flower opening up and think, ah, how beautiful. But as a scientist, what I have to look at is, well, how did the petals separate 

and what is the position of the pistils and the stamens. Does the 

pollen mature at the same rate as the ovary? And I need to know 

these terms in order to discuss it with someone else who is a botanist. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

So there is language and vocabulary that is unique to every scientific discipline. As a biologist, I do not speak physics. I am not 

at all versed in geology. I am learning because I try to talk to my 

colleagues and develop that common vocabulary. But one of the 

first things you learn when you are a specialist in one area and you 

talked with specialists in another area is that you use the same 

words and you mean different things. 

So in order for a student to become truly proficient to enter a 

STEM profession, by the time they are finished with high school, 

they have to know how to look at things objectively. They have to 

know how to measure things and what kind of measurement is appropriate to the task. They have to know how to collect and organize data. They have to know how to analyze that data and what 

the appropriate tools are to analyze any given kind of data. Is it 

qualitative? Is it quantitative? Is it some combination of the two? 

They have to understand the language of their discipline and be 

able to speak it. Well, that takes a long time. And how are we 

going to do it? We are going to do it by starting with kindergartners, maybe even pre-K. In pre-K, we develop basic language. 

What do you call something? How do you describe it? What does 

it do? That is, you know, it is nouns, it is adverbs, it is adjectives, 

it is verbs. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So that is skill training? 

Dr. MIELE. This is skill training. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Dr. MIELE. As a scientist, you are learning. As a scientist who 

is five and looking at a cloud, it is a very different person than a 

NASA or NOAA meteorologist looking at a cloud or an astronaut 

who might be looking from different perspectives. 

That five-year-old is thinking that fluffy white thing looks like 

milk or cotton candy. Well, do you think it might be cotton? Well, 

if I am thinking magically, yes. But if I am thinking about somebody who threw cotton up in the air and it always came down, 

then, no. 

So how do you decide which kind of thinking you are going to use 

when you look at something? How do you develop the basic skills 

of common sense looking at patterns of nature that a scientist uses 

as opposed to the skills that you would be using as a poet or an 

artist? 

You need to practice and sometimes you practice looking at 

things as an artist and sometimes as a poet, sometimes as an objective writer and sometimes as an analyst. When you are looking 

at nature as an analyst, you are applying science process skills. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do you teach it? 

Dr. MIELE. One step at a time. You start with observation. You 

start with recording what you observe, learning to develop language. Just describe this rock, describe it well enough so that your 

rock can be separated from everybody else in the class’s rock. Even 

a group of apples. Can you describe your apple so well that when 

we pile it back up on the table with all the apples we picked—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Dr. MIELE [continuing]. In our class, you get the right one? And 

maybe that means I have to not only be very detailed, but maybe 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 

I have to start doing things like measuring and I have to measure 

accurately. Accuracy becomes important. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So your—— 

Dr. MIELE. So one step at a time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is an integration of skills learning within 

inquiry learning? 

Dr. MIELE. Absolutely. So you do these things and you are integrating mathematics at every step of the way. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me ask you, Doctor. I now remember how I 

would like to introduce you to this question. Robert P. Moses has 

written Radical Equations: Civil Rights for Mississippi to the Algebra Project. And I understand that this is a project that is also in 

Petersburg. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that correct? 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that would suggest that learning the skill 

of algebra is fundamental to creating this infrastructure, if you 

will, intellectual infrastructure for moving to inquiry-based learning. 

I am just curious. How do you teach—— 

Dr. HILL. And both. I mean—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. The fundamentals of algebra 

and—— 

BUILDING A COGNITIVE NETWORK

Dr. HILL. But one thing that the inquiry-based learning does is 

building these cognitive skills. You know, it is like building this 

network of associations. And that is basically how you learn. You 

make new associations and you put them into your network of previously existing associations and your network expands. So every 

time you learn a new fact, your network has to accommodate that 

fact. 

And so if you have an impoverished network, it is difficult for 

new facts coming at you to stick. And just getting new facts does 

not do anything for your network. You have to engage with the material in some kind of way. You have to use this inquiry-based processing or you are using different modalities that make these associations that then lead you to be able to hold on to the facts. 

And so if you just have a fact-based approach, and we see this 

with kids all the time, they get these facts thrown at them, they 

are isolated, they do not see any connection between them. If they 

learn them at all, they are just memorizing them in separate kinds 

of ways. And they do not retain it. You know, they might take a 

class, have a hundred different facts, and one year later, they have 

forgotten all of them because they never were integrated into this 

underlying cognitive structure. 

So the approach that the algebra project takes and the things 

that we are doing with this cognitive training are trying to develop 

the structure and then connect the information to the structure 

and to the processing that is going on, too, because both of those 

things are important. 

And, yes, the algebra project in particular is very good at taking 

abstract concepts from mathematics and connecting them to the evVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

eryday experience of the kids so that they are making these associations, they are making these connections. And these are not just 

isolated facts or facts that are so abstract they have no connection 

with them at all. 

STUDENT MATH ACHIEVEMENT EVALUATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is student math achievement being evaluated 

and do you see any problems with the evaluation instruments in 

general use today? You spoke to that a little bit. If you would—— 

Dr. HILL. Yes. I mean, we are basically, because in order to get 

cooperation from the school districts, we have to tell them this is 

going to impact your standardized test performance because that is 

all they are concerned about. And so we are using those actual 

standardized tests to see what kind of change we get in the performance of these kids after a year. But it is a flawed instrument 

and there are some instruments out there that would be better at 

capturing that process that is going on as you are using inquirybased education and developing these cognitive skills. 

TESTING INQUIRY SKILLS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is what you, Dr. Miele, were speaking 

about when you said that the testing needs to be testing that captures the inquiry-based learning skills? 

Dr. MIELE. Exactly. The testing needs to see if the students have 

the skills, not just the content knowledge, not just facts that they 

recognize, which is the lowest level. 

In the scientific community and science education community, we 

refer to getting knowledge like this as constructivism. You are basically building a house, building a structure of knowledge that includes facts, but the facts are the lowest level. It is the theories 

that you want to get to and it is the processes that allow you to 

build those theories. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do you test inquiry learning? 

Dr. MIELE. Well, one of the things that you can do, I actually 

wanted to talk a little bit about one test that I rather like, the New 

York State Earth Science Regents examination that many people 

feel is sort of a flawed instrument because it does not test enough 

memorization. I think that is ironic because we are so used to 

memorization being the paradigm that when it is not the paradigm, 

we reject it. 

This New York State exam requires students to read a question, 

recognize what the question is asking, which means that they have 

to have the vocabulary to know what the question is about. Then 

they have to go to the back of the exam where there are reference 

tables, find the appropriate reference table, find the appropriate 

data from the reference table, perhaps do a minor algebraic manipulation of it to find the right answer, and then answer a multiple 

choice test. 

You have the efficacy, the very quick and easy method of evaluation of scanning a multiple choice test, but it is a multi-step process. So it is actually looking at what the student can do, not just 

what the student can recognize. 

So it is actually possible to make a standardized test, a simple 

kind of familiar standardized test that can break out these things. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
43 

You can also have a test that asks the student to look at something 

and say, well, what does that measure, what is the appropriate 

measurement there. So it is a proxy for a hands-on measurement 

assessment. 

There are a number of ways that you can create situations in a 

test which will look at process. Can you group things appropriately? Can you look at a chart or a table and collect the right 

data from it to get the correct answer? 

Dr. HILL. Yes. And even with a standardized test, depending on 

how the questions are framed, you can even get higher level 

thought process involved in a multiple choice test if it is not just 

simply recognition memory. You know, you are just recognizing the 

right answer. But if you have to do some kind of processing to distinguish between the alternatives—— 

Dr. MIELE. So I think what we need is developmental and cognitive scientists helping us in test design. Traditionally, these tests 

are designed by practitioners of K to 12 education coming together 

as a group and deciding by consensus what a good question is, but 

we need this higher level of awareness so that we can make sure 

that we are looking at a higher order of thinking in these exams. 

TEST SCORES AND SCIENCE INTEREST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Dr. Hill, are you finding a correlation between 

student scores on State standardized tests and their students’ interest in achievement in science? 

Dr. HILL. No, not at the moment, and mainly because those State 

tests are just minimum standards. They are not really geared toward assessing the person’s creativity or their inquiry skills or any 

of that. So it is almost like minimum literacy in these various 

areas. So, they are not good predictors of who would go on to a career in STEM or in any other area that I know of. 

Dr. MIELE. We have found similar findings with our Brooklyn 

outreach for science and careers. We basically do not have enough 

science majors at Brooklyn College. They all want to be economics 

majors, education majors, or pre-med because they want to make 

money. 

Our students are by and large first generation students to go to 

college and their going to college is their ticket to American success. But they do not know that you can be successful as a scientist, so that is a major problem. We have a disconnect between 

what students think you need to do to be financially successful and 

the various paths to success. 

We have been able to break that by exposing students to career 

opportunities, but again, that is a band-aid approach for our particular little pocket of students. We really need some kind of broader systemic way of making clear to students that science is something that is fun to do that you can be somewhat autonomous, 

independent. You can do something different every day. You can 

make a contribution and you can feed your family and buy a house. 

ARE IMPROVEMENTS READY FOR BROAD IMPLEMENTATION?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are the improvements that you described ready 

to be spread to more schools and school systems, and we spoke of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

this a little bit, but let me give you an opportunity to answer specifically, and what do we need to do so? Dr. Hill? 

Dr. HILL. Yes. There are certainly a lot of evidence-based practices out there that are ready to go. It would take political will. It 

would take an independent principal or some other administrator 

who is willing to implement these things and not worry about the 

immediate consequences to their SOL test performance or whatever 

the standards they are using. 

So, yes, they are ready to go. We just need to create a climate 

in which that could be implemented on a widespread basis. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can you cite specific examples of models where 

this turnaround has occurred based upon inquiry-based learning? 

Dr. HILL. Well, Petersburg is a good example. As I mentioned, 

over the last three years, we have seen their test scores go up. We 

have seen the engagement of the students go up. You know, we are 

in the middle of a three-year project. We will have a lot more data 

in a year-and-a-half from now. But all the trends are in the right 

direction, and we are excited about the possibilities. And a place 

like Petersburg is small enough to be kind of like a little laboratory. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you working in the middle schools? 

Dr. HILL. Primarily the middle schools and the high schools, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And what has been the story with regard to 

scores—— 

Dr. HILL. Well—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. In middle schools? 

Dr. HILL [continuing]. I think I shared with you—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, share it with me again. 

Dr. HILL [continuing]. Some of that data. The middle school that 

we are working with in 2007 had an average SOL score of 39.7 and 

the passing score is 70. And this year, their average SOL score in 

math was 88.86. So there has been more than a twofold increase 

in three years in their math scores in that middle school and similarly in the high school. 

And, again, we have had kind of a three-pronged approach. We 

have had the approach of cognitive education. We have had an approach of the algebra project, pedagogy, and community organization and involvement. And I think it takes that kind of multifaceted approach to really make a difference. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are other schools in Virginia coming down and 

seeing what you are doing and saying we would like to replicate 

this? 

Dr. HILL. Not yet. We are trying to get the word out and hopefully we will. I mean, my appearance here was the result of an appearance on NPR, so maybe the word is starting to spread. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are you working with any kind of innovative 

programs or organizations like the Darden School at University of 

Virginia or any of those? 

Dr. HILL. No. Right now we are only working with two outside 

organizations other than Virginia State University and that is the 

Algebra Project, Incorporated and Learning RX which is the cognitive training organization. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

TEACHER-STUDENT RAPPORT

Dr. MIELE. You know, I want to just mention something else. 

One of the problems that we have with middle school and high 

school is it is the opposite of the problem we have with the elementary school system. There you had specialists. The people who identified themselves as scientists or mathematicians fairly early on 

chose higher education in that area and as a result are not always 

aware of the struggles of the average student when confronting 

these subjects. 

So we very often have a disconnect between the math teacher or 

the science teacher and their students because the math teacher 

says, well, you know, math is cool, it is great, and they have not 

figured out how to convince their students that that is true. 

We have the same problem with our science teachers. And, 

again, because our science teachers traditionally go through a more 

formal kind of education in higher ed, they have not had any inquiry instruction in their college experiences, they are not really 

prepared to teach inquiry and they are not committed to it as an 

approach to instruction. 

So we really need that change at the middle school and high 

school level as well. Middle school gives us some opportunity because we have, many teachers who are moving up from elementary 

school who are elementary school science specialists who really got 

so excited by it that they wanted to teach it at a higher level. And 

they have been able to bring a great sort of elementary school approach to middle school, but with more content understanding. 

Dr. HILL. Yes 

IMPROVING HIGHER ED

Dr. MIELE. I think that we need to get our college teachers also 

encouraging our undergraduates to think about how the discipline 

evolved and how we know what we know and what you need to do 

to get to the next step because myself as a graduate student, it was 

only my last year at college that I was introduced to how we know 

what we know. And that was just a short step. Then I had to start 

figuring out new knowledge myself the next year as a graduate student. 

So we need some changes in higher ed as well and that, I think, 

will allow more people to stay in STEM who think that they might. 

We are losing way too many potential science and math majors in 

their freshman year. 

Dr. HILL. We are working with our math ed people at Virginia 

State in particular to try to put some of this innovative pedagogy 

into their content for teaching math teachers. So that is an issue. 

And I have also found even at the middle and high school level 

that often the math and science teachers, let me think of the charitable way to say this, they are not able to do much more than process facts either. I mean, they are not very inquiry based in their 

background. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did not learn the approach? 

Dr. HILL. They did not learn it that way. 

Dr. MIELE. They did not learn it that way. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 

Dr. MIELE. They are good memorizers. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. Particularly in math, I mean, they can plug in a 

formula, but they are not able to conceptualize the connections and 

what this formula is actually saying in terms of the real world. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can teachers be retaught? Can they be reoriented? Can they be retrained? 

Dr. HILL. Yes. And that is what we are doing with this algebra 

project approach. We are mainly focusing on the teachers and their 

pedagogical skills. 

Dr. MIELE. Sixty hours of professional development that actually 

is inquiry based, actually is active learning. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. Say that again. 

Dr. MIELE. Sixty hours seems to be the minimum for transformation. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You said that before. To re-educate and to educate? 

Dr. MIELE. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are coming to a close. I would like to give 

you all an opportunity for any final thoughts that you would like 

to put on the record for the Committee. 

Dr. Miele, why don’t you go first? 

Dr. MIELE. I think I would like to take this opportunity to speak 

again about the issue of the support for college faculty to make 

sure that these transformations can happen. 

In order for us to have the most robust STEM practitioners at 

the highest level, we need the best instruction at the college level 

and we need to make sure that junior faculty who embrace inquiry 

do not get pushed out by senior faculty who are threatened by it 

or do not see its value. 

I do not know what you can do to protect them, but it is an important issue. 

EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS IN SCIENCE GRANTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, why don’t you help us? We fund NOAA 

and NASA, NSF. We do not fund the Department of Education. But 

in those accounts, how do you think that we could help—— 

Dr. MIELE. Traditionally—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Within that area? 

Dr. MIELE [continuing]. As I understand the—I have been out of 

the pure science grants area for 20 years myself having recreated 

myself as a science educator, but pure science grants have a small 

requirement that there be an educational component. 

If that could somehow be made a little bit more robust, a higher 

amount of the score for the grant actually count for meaningful inclusion of inquiry learning or the quality of their instruction in 

their undergraduate class work, how will this research transform 

their undergraduate class work, that way, it would be a science 

grant, so it would count for promotion and tenure, but it would actually have some meaningful impact on undergraduate instruction. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we will ask our NSF friends when they 

come to testify about that. 

Doctor. 

Dr. HILL. I would piggyback on what Dr. Miele just said. The 

grants process, as I mentioned earlier, is kind of stacked against 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 

young faculty members, particularly at teaching institutions. If 

there are some ways that NSF could come up with some more creative— I mean, they do a lot. I do not want to complain about NSF 

because they have a tremendous amount of science education funded programs. 

But if we could just add another more innovative funding mechanism of, say, a research initiation grant that could be given to a 

new faculty member. I mean, the way it is now the grants are, the 

proposals are evaluated by, you know, peers in the field and so 

they are looking at credentials, they are looking at publication 

record, they are looking at what else they have done. 

And so if we want to get to where particularly the minority kids 

are, which are HBCUs, we need to have some more open kinds of 

innovative funding mechanisms that allow these faculty members 

to develop their program of research. And by necessity, the people 

they would be working with would be minority STEM majors. 

So I guess this would be under the term of research initiation 

grants. If there could be more research initiation grant funding at 

places like NSF, it would be very helpful in this area. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Could be more research initiation grants? 

Dr. HILL. Yes, to allow the researchers where—— 

Dr. MIELE. Research one institutions. 

Dr. HILL. Exactly. Since I guess—and not just HBCUs but Brooklyn College and— 

Dr. MIELE. Yes. Places that are research one are going to have 

a higher opportunity to get funding for their junior faculty to do 

pure research. Those of us who are at institutions where research 

is not the high priority, but education is, our junior faculty are at 

something of a disadvantage. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In the NSF grant process? 

Dr. MIELE. The NSF grant process, yes. 

Dr. HILL. NIH, you know, all the funding mechanisms. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And so what good do we achieve if we address 

that problem at the—— 

Dr. HILL. Well, for one thing, you are kind of bringing together 

research and education because these are the places where the education is going on, where the teacher education is going on. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But they are not the places that generally have 

favorable responses from NSF for grant—— 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. In response to grant—— 

Dr. HILL. Exactly. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Solicitation? 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And so to fix that, it should be fashioned to 

bias—— 

Dr. HILL. And, again, NSF does a good job. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no, no. We are not bashing NSF. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. Another track would be good. 

Dr. MIELE. Integrates research and instruction—— 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Dr. MIELE [continuing]. That would be targeted for nonresearch 

institutions. So the goal is to bring young people into the research 

paradigm. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
48 

Dr. HILL. Because NSF has some programmatic kinds of grants 

for things, places like HBCUs. They do not have the research dollars targeted for kind of start-up type research careers. And that 

is the kind of thing that we need. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I am going to ask you all for the record, 

this is my 28th year and I think 20 probably—anyway, long enough 

on this Committee and I believe every hearing that I have sat with 

NSF, this question of youngsters in America falling behind by all 

kinds of measurements, youngsters around the world with regard 

to math and science education has always been a part of the presentation. 

And, okay, well, what are we going to do about that or are we 

just being scared so we will fund more for NSF? What is going on 

here? After 25 years, there ought to be some really concrete approaches to dealing with the issue, number one. And then there 

ought to be some desired results coming out of it, number two. 

And during that period, not being an expert in the area, but the 

concrete proposals and the desired results have eluded us, I think. 

And so I think it is fair to take the kind of testimony you are giving us and ask NSF, look, let us get down to brass tacks here. How 

do we actually achieve those desired results? 

And so I would like to ask you to in writing, if you would, and 

you have been so forthcoming here to begin with in your testimony 

and your attendance, but to address that question. 

We fund NSF. We do not fund the Department of Education. But 

NSF obviously plays an important role here, particularly at the research level. So how do we work with NSF through the appropriations process to help facilitate the desired results that everybody 

wants as an outcome? 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The written material follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
49 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 56820A.009
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 56820A.010
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 56820A.011
52 

Dr. MIELE. One of the things that I discovered in working with 

the Museum of Natural History and the zoo is that there is no NSF 

funding for formal partnerships with informal science institutions. 

In other words, for a school district to say during school hours 

we want these informal institutions to help us with our State mandated core curriculum instruction, it is only for after school and enrichment. Well, here is this wonderful resource that can expose 

young people to career opportunities in the sciences and, you know, 

all of our major cities have them and many of our college campuses 

have institutions associated with them that can fill this role. Even 

the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, Explorer Scouts, institutions like 

that that have a strong natural knowledge mandate—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well—— 

Dr. MIELE [continuing]. Can help with this. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Maybe the people who—— 

Dr. MIELE. That is a new area that is not funded right now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Maybe the peers that review, and I am not 

interrupting, I want you to hold your thought and I have trouble 

holding mine, so let me say it, maybe the peers who review these 

applications do not appreciate that the importance of those partnerships and—— 

Dr. MIELE. It is actually in the guidelines that you cannot do it 

for a formal partnership. It is only for enrichment and outside 

school hours. So—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I do not know exactly what that means, 

but I am going to ask you to put that in your written—— 

Dr. MIELE. Okay. And one thing I wanted to mention is that 

when we judge ourselves against the international standards, remember that places like China and Russia do not give their young 

children who have talent in math and science the choice of what 

to do with their lives. They are funneled into math, science intensive instruction from the time they are 12 years old. They are 

begun on college level course work much earlier than our students 

and part of that is because they are not given the chance to, you 

know, to be Shakespeare. 

So they get what they are putting in. They are creating scientists 

and mathematicians for its political and social construction. And it 

makes sense for a building economy to force their students perhaps 

into—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They are pushing and we are trying to pull. 

Dr. MIELE. Exactly. Exactly. We are trying to, you know, cajole, 

coax, and we are not doing it very effectively. 

As I say, I myself left a career in science because it was not supported, frankly. It was a difficult, very difficult life writing grants, 

hoping you will get them, exposing yourself to all kinds of dangers 

for the benefit of mankind and not—frankly, I did not make enough 

money as a young scientist to pay for my kids’ childcare and my 

extra travel. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is a dangerous world out there no matter 

what profession you are in. 

Dr. Hill, final thoughts? You do not have to. 

Dr. HILL. Yes. I mean, I think most of the things have been said 

already. Anything you all can do that will bring more funding in 

this area, I think, is great. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
53 

And I think again if you look at our political will as a nation, 

we have not had science as a priority and our funding has reflected 

that. And so anything you can do that would kind of get the word 

out that we need to make this a priority, I think it is important. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, funding is going to be scarce which makes 

your thoughts about this more important so we can focus scarce resources. And we so very much appreciate your appearance here 

today. I thought it was an outstanding hearing, and we look forward to your written statements and any other thoughts that you 

have. 

I know you are working closely with our excellent staff which we 

appreciate your having done in preparation for this hearing. I notice with your eyebrows, you recognized I am right about—— 

Dr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for your testimony here this morning. 

Dr. HILL. Thank you. 

Dr. MIELE. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(55) 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2010. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH 

EDUCATION 

WITNESSES 

DR. JULIE LUFT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

DR. CRAIG STRANG, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Thank you all 

for being here today. And we are starting a few minutes late. 

We ordinarily would not start without the Minority representative, but Mr. Wolf is running a little late, and it is fine with him 

if we start. So we are going to start. 

Welcome. Good morning to the second hearing of the Commerce, 

Justice, Science Subcommittee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, STEM, Education. 

In testimony yesterday, we heard about two examples of STEM 

education activities and today we will hear two more. We also 

learned that development precursors do not always resemble the 

skill to which they are leading and how the environment around 

schools can be effectively used in inquiry-based education. 

Did you not catch that? Yesterday we learned that development 

precursors do not always resemble the skill to which they are leading and how the—to which they are leading and then we also 

learned how the environment around schools can be effectively 

used in inquiry-based education. I will let you think about that. 

Testimony helped us become aware of the challenges to transforming science education and including student activities such as 

devising original experiments, observing the natural world, using 

math and reasoning with data. 

Today we will hear from witnesses recommended to us by NSF 

and NOAA as outstanding recipients of federal education funding 

provided through our appropriations. These witnesses are Mr. 

Craig Strang from the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University 

of California, Berkeley, and Dr. Julie Luft of Arizona State University. 

Mr. Strang has pioneered the development of materials that help 

enable inquiry in STEM education. Dr. Luft has been both a middle 

and high school teacher and an educator of secondary school 

science teachers. Dr. Luft is currently the Director of Research for 

the National Science Teachers Association. 

And thank you both for coming, being here today. Your written 

statements will be made a part of the record and then we would 

invite you to present your oral testimony and then we will follow 

with questions. 

Dr. Luft, why don’t you begin? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
56 

Dr. LUFT. Chairman Mollohan, thank you today for inviting me 

here. I am honored to be here to talk about inquiry-based science 

teacher education. 

As you know and as you stated, I have been involved in science 

education for a long time. I was a former middle school and high 

school teacher and currently I am an academic in an institution of 

higher ed. Specifically I am a professor at Arizona State University. 

In addition to my duties at NSTA, I am also an associate editor 

for the Journal of Research and Science Teaching and I am also an 

incoming fellow for the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science. 

As you know, the National Science Education Standards have led 

the way in our thinking about science as inquiry. This document 

has made it explicit that science as inquiry is a content standard. 

That is something that all students should know about, have the 

abilities to do, and that they should understand. 

And in the standard, it describes specifically what science as inquiry is. It includes among several things being able to ask questions, collecting data, analyzing that data, and sharing those findings. 

In science teacher education, we think a lot about this standard 

and we think of it in two ways. We think of it as a way to teach 

and a way to learn. And our work in this area focuses on helping 

teachers to learn how to teach using this method as well as understanding how students learn in an inquiry setting. 

Now, I know this sounds very simple, but it is really quite complex. And this is where most of my work has been. I have pondered 

how we can better assist teachers in implementing science as inquiry. My current work, which is funded by the National Science 

Foundation, is targeting a unique group of science teachers and 

that is teachers in their very first years. 

So this is what we know. We prepare teachers to teach inquiry 

and we provide wonderful professional development for them to 

support their learning of inquiry. But when they first graduate, 

when they first come out of their teacher preparation program, 

they have no rich support to do inquiry. 

So my premise was what if we intervened in that period and actually gave them very rich support what would happen. And NSF 

funded me to find out. 

I followed 120 teachers over three years, the first three years, 

and we found out that with rich support to teach science, these 

teachers actually enacted more inquiry. And what we are finding 

out now as we go into the fifth year of this study, it is being sustained. 

So this research is really important in that it gives new insight 

into how teachers can develop their practices and how we can 

strengthen them and how we can sustain them. 

From this research, we found in addition to that conclusion that 

science induction, and that is what we call it, support is critical. 

We have also found that teachers have great advances in how 

they understand how students learn in these first few years. In 

teacher preparation, we focus on that. But when they actually hit 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
57 

this classroom, their understanding of how students process science 

takes incredible leaps and bounds. 

So this work has been critical. It has allowed me to work with 

several federal agencies. And I am hoping to continue this work. 

And in thinking about that, I was thinking about some key suggestions I might have for federal agencies. 

First off, I think it is really important that this work, as work 

of a lot of my colleagues, that we think about how do we translate 

this or support this work so it can go into practice. We know this 

now. We found this understanding, but how do we actually put it 

in the hands of people who can use it. 

I think there is also the potential for funding agencies to think 

about long-term support. We are beginning to understand more 

about how teachers develop their practice and how students learn, 

and these are going to be projects that require a lot of financial 

support to really get at some very important understandings. 

And, finally, I think it is really important that we just continue 

our support for research in science education. 

So I want to thank you very much for having me here today. I 

hope we can continue to talk about some of these issues, and I am 

looking forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
58 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 56820A.012
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 56820A.013
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 56820A.014
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 56820A.015
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 56820A.016
63 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Dr. Luft. 

Dr. Strang. 

Mr. STRANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify 

about the importance of inquiry-based science education and thank 

you for supporting the role that NOAA, NSF, and NASA play in 

improving science education. You can be proud of their work that 

improves the lives of young people, provides assistance to teachers, 

and strengthens our workforce. 

If I leave you with one message, it is science agencies must play 

a leadership role in the improvement of science education. Achieving science literacy for all Americans and preparing future scientists requires direct involvement from today’s scientists. Science 

agencies must have the mandate and funding to devote significant 

resources to science education. 

I am Associate Director of Lawrence Hall of Science, University 

of California, Berkeley. LHS is a national leader in the development of K–12 inquiry-based science and math instructional materials. One in five children in the U.S. uses curriculum materials developed at Lawrence Hall of Science. 

I am also Director of a NOAA Office of Education sponsored 

project, the Ocean Sciences Curriculum Sequence for grades three 

through five. This grant created a partnership between the LHS 

Center for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence and Rutgers University to provide students with inquiry-based experiences in ocean 

sciences. These materials will become the most widely used elementary ocean sciences curriculum nationwide. They were developed by science educators, scientists, and educational researchers, 

tested by the developers in local classrooms in Berkeley, then field 

tested by 70 teachers nationwide to ensure their effectiveness and 

broad applicability. We are now analyzing the very positive field 

test data to revise the final version of the materials. 

My written testimony provides more information about those materials, including our evidence of their effectiveness. But this 

project would not have been possible, however, without previous 

strategic investments by NSF and NOAA to build on and change 

the landscape of science education that has made a project like 

mine possible. 

For most of my career, marine education has resided at the distant margins of K–12 science education. Understanding the ocean 

is critical to the health of our planet. Climate change, ocean acidification, extinction, hurricanes, tsunamis dominate the news. California alone has a $43 billion ocean economy. Yet, ocean topics are 

idiosyncratically missing from national and state science standards. 

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported that the absence 

of ocean sciences in schools has resulted in a generation of Americans ignorant of the importance of the ocean, placing our economy, 

environment, and national security at risk. 

So in 2002, the NSF Division of Ocean Sciences invested $3.5 

million to establish a national network of Centers for Ocean 

Sciences Education Excellence or COSEE. I am the Director of one 

of those centers. 

COSEE has coalesced and elevated ocean sciences education by 

engaging scientists and science educators in mutually beneficial 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
64 

partnerships. Ocean scientists themselves believe that education is 

so critical they now devote their research dollars to the endeavor. 

In the early days of COSEE, we first began to discuss creating 

an ocean literate society by infusing more ocean topics into the K– 

12 science education standards. 

Then in 2004, the NOAA Office of Education made a strategic investment, just tens of thousands of dollars, to convene meetings between leaders of COSEE, NOAA, National Geographic Society, the 

National Marine Educators Association, and College of Exploration 

to define ocean literacy and the few ocean concepts that should be 

in K-12 science standards. 

The result was the publication of this brochure that describes 

seven big ideas that all twelfth graders should understand about 

the ocean. This ocean literacy brochure is a transformative consensus document. There have been nine conferences in three countries devoted to it. It has resulted in the publication of a high 

school textbook, another high school course, several museum and 

aquarium exhibits, including here at Sant Ocean Hall at the 

Smithsonian, several lecture series and web sites. Several states 

have incorporated some ocean concepts into their standards as a result and this is the new context that has been created for the development of our ocean sciences curriculum sequence. 

NOAA and NSF funding brought coherence and prominence to a 

once marginalized domain of science education. Their involvement 

ensures that science education keeps up with the fast-moving world 

of scientific discovery. 

Public understanding of science leads our young people to be creative, thoughtful decision makers and is a key to the improvement 

of our environment, economy, and quality of life. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the Committee, and please continue to support science education within 

NOAA, NASA, and NSF. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
65 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 56820A.017
66 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 56820A.018
67 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 56820A.019
68 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 56820A.020
69 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 56820A.021
70 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 56820A.022
71 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 56820A.023
72 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 56820A.024
73 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 56820A.025
74 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 56820A.026
75 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 56820A.027
76 

SUPPORT FOR INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. Thank both witnesses. 

Today we are really focusing on and learning more about STEM 

education, the status of STEM education. Yesterday I asked one of 

the witnesses, ‘‘Is there any credible debate out there as to the benefit of inquiry-based education to teach STEM courses?’’ And the 

answer was no. 

And then it became clear as the hearing went on, when you 

talked to the witnesses, that while there may not be a debate at 

some level about the superiority of inquiry-based education for 

these disciplines, there certainly was a lot of difficulty in migrating 

that technique out through the real educational systems across the 

country, which seems to be a bit of an irony or at least a tragic 

problem. 

If there is really no debate that inquiry-based education is by far 

the superior way of teaching young Americans about science, then 

why is it not being embraced universally across the school districts 

of the country? 

Dr. Luft. 

Dr. LUFT. You know, that is a really good question. We do see 

that there are more and more good inquiry curricula that are being 

put in schools, but I think you have to realize that this curriculum 

costs money. And schools, especially right now, are making choices 

about what they are going to fund. Over the years, they have made 

these choices, too. So it is acquiring the curriculum; it is also supporting the curriculum. 

So for the teachers that I work with in the Phoenix area, many 

of them have the FOSS kits, but some of them are in districts that 

may not have a science coordinator who can help provide professional development for the teachers to support them in using these 

kits appropriately. If they get the kits, learning how to use them 

in ways that are really conducive to developing understanding is 

critically important. 

I think another concern on the teacher education end, which I 

am comfortable to speak about, is that we really need to work in 

the science education community on who knows this. We need to 

work to help our teachers understand how to use the kits when 

they go into the schools. But sometimes there is a disconnect between the materials and supplies we have at the University versus 

what is in the local schools. 

So while there is great curriculum, that curriculum varies by district, and it also is supported in ways that are not equivalent. Some 

districts may be able to or have a science coordinator and other districts may not. So supporting that enactment is very difficult. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I would like to get down to the detail of 

that a little later. 

But, Dr. Strang. 

Mr. STRANG. Mr. Strang. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. 

Mr. STRANG. It is okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is Dr. on your card there. 

Mr. STRANG. Oh. Well, I appreciate the honorary degree. 

Mr. SERRANO. We give everybody titles. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 

Mr. HONDA. No money, but—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Dr. Mollohan. 

Mr. STRANG. I agree with everything that Dr. Luft said and I 

think resources and money are certainly an issue. 

But aside from the current budget crisis that, for instance, California schools are in, I think there is another issue that is just as 

profound with the implementation of inquiry in our science programs and that is the issue of instructional time, not so much 

money. 

We are finding in school districts across the country, but especially in California, that even after the adoption of the FOSS Program or other inquiry-based materials that because of the emphasis on accountability and English language arts and mathematics 

at the elementary level, that elementary science programs have 

been virtually dismantled. 

In the San Francisco Bay area, the Lawrence Hall of Science did 

a study in 2008; we found that the average elementary school 

teacher in the eleven Bay area counties spends about an hour and 

15 minutes a week teaching science. And we know that most of 

that time is spent in grades four through six or four through five. 

So we figure that at the K through two or K through three levels, 

teachers are spending maybe 30 minutes a week teaching science, 

and you cannot do inquiry in that amount of time. 

So while we know, and I think most teachers today understand 

the importance of inquiry and the difference in student understanding when they present concepts using inquiry versus when 

they present them through other direct instruction methods, even 

though teachers understand that, they are in this constant conflict 

over managing the time of their instructional day. 

SUPERIORITY OF INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If I might. The witnesses yesterday made that 

point that inquiry-based, while most people, and you just said 

while most people acknowledge inquiry-based, is superior, in effect, 

you said that. In spite of that testimony yesterday and just for purposes of discussion here, I really wonder about that and that seems 

to be a real threshold question to me. 

As much as people are ringing their hands about America being 

behind in teaching math and science, if everybody believed, that 

there was this consensus out there that inquiry-based education is 

the way to go, then I do not know that we would be having difficulty developing materials here at NOAA and all the other places 

materials are being developed and trying to get it out on a onesie 

and twosies basis from bright people who are working hard and 

really trying to pull the kind of organizations together to get the 

curriculum and get the teachers taught and then actually support 

them in the field. I do not think we would be having so much of 

a problem about that. 

So my question really goes to the premise that everybody believes that inquiry-based education is a superior way to educate 

these young people in science. 

Mr. STRANG. I think that there is a growing consensus about inquiry and the effectiveness of inquiry, but alternatively, science 

education is not a priority. So there are many school districts in 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
78 

California that are telling us, well, we would have adopted FOSS 

in the last science adoption year, but we knew we could not do it 

justice and it is expensive and if we are not going to use it, why 

would we pay for all those kits? So we just bought the textbooks. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY-BASED STEM INSRUCTION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, if everybody agrees that inquirybased education is the way to teach science, then we ought to be 

about how does the Department of Education migrate inquirybased education like that throughout the country if that is how we 

ought to be teaching science to youngsters. 

Dr. LUFT. So I think this is again a complex problem. We can 

agree. And I think if you talk to teachers, we agree that science 

as inquiry is incredibly important, but there are factors that really 

bear down and constrain the teaching of inquiry, no matter how 

much we know or how important it is. 

And you are right. The testimony yesterday really hit on this 

hard that the testing and the accountability has constrained the 

teaching of science as inquiry. 

At the secondary level, I have walked into science classes to 

watch teachers teach, but I have been told the science class is canceled at the secondary level to prepare for testing. The kids were 

getting skills to take the test, so we are losing a period of time. 

This is huge. 

But the other piece is communities. I think when we have lost 

a lot of funding for the professional development of teachers, when 

that funding went away, teachers did not have the support or the 

communities to constantly be thinking about their practice and enriching that practice. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. We will follow-up. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pursue this 

a little bit more. 

How is it that we define inquiry and why is it only confined to 

STEM and why do we focus only on children when it is the teachers that teach? 

Are we focusing enough time on the teachers to be able to do 

that across the curriculum instead of just focusing on STEM, because you have instruction and content, process and concepts? You 

have deductive, inductive approaches, too, but process seems to be 

where inquiry is. 

So I was wondering, combining all these questions in one, do you 

have some sort of idea what it is that people see that is going on 

because I really do not see a constraint. 

Dr. LUFT. So I think you are asking me two questions—that is 

what I am hearing. I think you are asking me what is it that 

makes science as inquiry unique. First off, that—— 

Mr. HONDA. I am asking you what is inquiry? 

Dr. LUFT. What is inquiry? 

Mr. HONDA. What is teaching inquiry? 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. I mean, if a teacher cannot teach it, how can they 

expect it? Are we sure that the teachers are being instructed on 

how to do that? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
79 

And if it is only done in four and five, it seems to me that K 

through 8 seems to be a strand of instruction when you do inquiry 

because we ask our youngsters to check for understanding. We inquire, and that is something that youngsters can mimic from teachers when we do that. Am I off base or what? 

Dr. LUFT. Do you want to—this is—— 

Mr. STRANG. Yeah. Well, there is a variety of—— 

Dr. LUFT. There is a variety—— 

Mr. STRANG [continuing]. Directions here. Yeah. 

Dr. LUFT. So I think that we are really trying to, if I understand 

this, I think we are really preparing our teachers to do science as 

inquiry. And in the research that I do, what we really see is that 

it is constrained when they first go into the school. 

When they graduate from preparation programs, I think they 

know and they understand what science as inquiry is and they 

want to practice this. But when they first hit the schools, they can 

be constrained in the environment if there is not adequate support 

or if their other colleagues are not engaging in this. So it is not— 

it may not happen for teachers. 

Mr. HONDA. It seems to me that through any subject matter, one 

can use the inquiry method and teach youngsters by modeling that. 

And it is not only— unless you are asking— trying to teach the scientific method in going through those steps and then you do the 

observation, note taking, and then you—— 

Mr. STRANG. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. You still can do that, I think, in other instructional 

areas where—in an integrated approach to a curriculum and teachers get together trying to figure out how we are going to get this 

as an outcome. 

And I understand time on task, but I wonder whether we really 

use enough time to teach and to rest assured that we are, in fact, 

agile enough to understand how to use this in other curricular 

areas. 

Mr. STRANG. Right. So I will respond with an example. I think 

there are many things that are unique about inquiry in science, 

about science inquiry. And at the same time, we are doing quite 

a bit of work at the Lawrence Hall of Science right now trying to 

understand the relationship between science inquiry and literacy 

skills. And we think about good thinkers in language arts classrooms as being inquirers into text and inquirers into ideas. So 

there is some overlap there. 

We are in the process of developing a new set of materials that 

I think by the time of the next round of science adoptions will be 

available on a large scale. The new program is called Seeds of 

Science, Roots of Reading and it explores the synergy of the integration between science and literacy and how students very consciously and directly thinking about the similarities and differences 

in how they investigate phenomenon versus how they investigate 

text and ideas. 

Mr. HONDA. So you are saying that there are these skills that 

build upon each other? 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. There is a hierarchy of skills in inquiry? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
80 

Dr. LUFT. That is right. And that there is a curricular economy 

in integration that could help to overcome some of these instructional time issues that are such a challenge at the elementary 

level. 

So we have students that are doing investigations in their 

science class and reading text, reading student reading books that 

are written in such a way that they elaborate the concepts that the 

students are investigating and teach reading skills at the same 

time. 

Mr. HONDA. But you are assuming that they are using a textbook 

as a guide rather than a teacher’s insights in understanding the hierarchy of these skills and incorporating that as she or he teaches 

and leads youngsters through a process? 

Dr. LUFT. Yes, absolutely. So teacher preparation and professional development and the skilled nuanced teacher are essential, 

but also good materials that allow a teacher to follow along 

through a teacher’s guide that embodies inquiry is also very important. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, that is my point, Mr. Chairman, that if the 

teachers only depend upon the textbook and they are not taught to 

have the insights and integrate within themselves that skill and 

understanding of where youngsters are and how to move and 

weave this thing, we may not be paying enough attention to where 

the problem really lies. And it is us adults assuming that we can 

teach to those things because a scientist is skilled in what they do. 

And we just all of a sudden understood the contact between physical and biologic kinds because we are able to get down to the nano 

scale. We have other inquiries that we start to develop, but the basics are still there. 

I challenge what you guys are saying about instruction and only 

gearing inquiry to the area of STEM. 

Dr. LUFT. Maybe I can take another—so science as inquiry is 

very unique to science and it is different. Mathematics is problem 

solving. And in mathematics, a student in math would never be 

able to look at a phenomena as an advanced mathematician does 

and create the formulas or the proofs that are needed to explain 

the mathematics. But in science, we are really interested in understanding the natural world. And it is about making explanations 

about that natural world using argument, using evidence, collecting data, and these are unique pieces to science as inquiry and 

they are not necessarily transferable to some of the other areas by 

the nature of the content with which they are associated. 

Mr. HONDA. But is not math a language of science? 

Dr. LUFT. Math is. 

Mr. HONDA. It is a tool of science. And, I mean, if you want to 

get that way, you can send a youngster through a neighborhood 

and over time, they can figure out the facts and say every time I 

go down the street, I am going to get hit, so I have to figure out 

another way of getting around it. 

Intuitively they have ways of looking at a problem and solving 

it and we just have not figured out how to transfer some of 

that—— 

Dr. LUFT. Right. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
81 

Mr. HONDA. [continuing]. Just trying to have us reshift our 

thinking. And then, Mr. Chairman, if I could just close with this 

one comment. 

We have something like a little over $2 billion invested in I think 

120 STEM education programs by 12 agencies, none of which are 

coordinated. Do you think that—you know, I have a bill called 

ESTEM where we asked ourselves to gather all this information. 

We have a repository where we can take advantage of the information that is gathered by all these grants and research. 

Is that a need as far as having a place where we can go and get 

the information that has already been figured out but never been 

shared or coordinated or have some cohesion about what we have 

already? 

Mr. STRANG. Well, coherence is good. So the more coordination 

that can be achieved through the science agencies, the better. And 

different science agencies are engaged in different fields of scientific discovery and so have different new material that gradually 

should become part of the science education curriculum nationwide. 

So there is a role for the separate agencies to be exploring and 

discovering in their respective domains. And then, of course, education efforts should be coordinated with the goal of coherence. And 

we are hoping that the common standards, the common core will 

help to achieve some of that coherence in the near future. 

But a lot has changed in the world of science discovery since the 

National Science Education Standards were published in 1996. So 

clearly we need some updating of what we think students should 

know and understand by the end of twelfth grade. 

Mr. HONDA. So we do not have anything that does that right 

now? 

Mr. STRANG. Correct. 

Mr. HONDA. Do we need one? 

Mr. STRANG. One what? 

Mr. HONDA. To do that function that you just described. 

Mr. STRANG. One agency or one what? 

Mr. HONDA. Way. I mean, should we spend some time to do that? 

Is it worth the time? 

Mr. STRANG. Sure. I mean, I think that coordination is important 

and that the discoveries that are coming out of NOAA and NASA 

and NSF have to be looked at in the context of what are the salient 

ideas that kids need to know in order to have access to these new 

discoveries as adult learners. 

Mr. HONDA. I would ask if you would not mind just reviewing 

that bill and see if there is a—just getting your reaction, professional reaction. 

Mr. STRANG. Of course. 

Mr. HONDA. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

A recess we have. I apologize to the panel. It is part of the process here. We have about five votes and a recommit which means 

we are probably recessing for about a half hour. 

Mr. STRANG. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And we will be voting down there and so thank 

you for your patience. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
82 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

ASSESSING STUDENT INQUIRY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. We will continue 

the hearing by calling up Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 

say, Berkeley, we have a witness from Cal, I mean, where are the 

standards, Mr. Chairman? What, what—sorry, it is the Stanford in 

me coming out. But I was reading your written testimony, and 

plainly if you look at the map here you can see that the land is 

far more than 30 percent. I mean, look at that. Just look how big 

Antarctica is. It could not possibly be less than 50 percent land. 

Thank you both for coming today. I concur completely with the 

thrust of your testimony in terms of inquiry-based teaching. And 

when I think back about my high school years in particular the lessons that stand out to me were very inquiry-based, were very kind 

of innovative and not rote memorization. I had a wonderful teacher, for example, who gave us a test, a pop quiz that was impossibly 

difficult. And we were all in a panic because it was horribly impossible. And we were failing it. And then he revealed afterwards that 

this was the same exam they gave African Americans in order to 

qualify to vote. It was the polling exam. And it was a very clever 

way of teaching us that the exam was meant for them to fail. And 

it was a lesson I remember to this day because of the innovative 

way it was taught. I mean, had they just said memorize the fact 

that they used to require African Americans to take this test because they wanted them to fail and not be able to vote, I would 

probably never have remembered that. But at one point he would 

assign more and more homework and more and more homework. 

It got impossible to do and we got together as students and protested. And he was teaching us about collective bargaining. It was 

really quite wonderful. 

And the question I have is, you know and I think this is pertinent in light of the fact that we are looking at reforming No Child 

Left Behind. There are some laudatory goals in No Child Left Behind. We want ways to measure student achievement. We want to 

be able to compare school to school. We want parents to be armed 

with information so they can say to schools similarly situated 

socioeconomically, et cetera, why is one doing so much better than 

the other? The parents at the school not doing so well can say why 

are our kids not doing as well? How do you measure achievement 

in an inquiry-based learning environment? If you are not teaching 

to the test, how do we measure, how do we hold accountable? What 

are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. STRANG. Well, there are assessment tools available that look 

at the requisite inquiry skills and I think those tools are available. 

And again, the question is are the results of those assessments, 

when we look at them and find out how students are doing, are 

those results valued compared to results of content knowledge, understanding, and even more importantly reading and math skills? 

So I think the tools exist. They are a little bit more complicated 

to administer. They are more like performance tasks, and open 

ended constructive response items on assessments. They tend not 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
83 

to be multiple choice, scannable tests. But they certainly exist and 

are available for school districts that want to use them. The question is, what is the value of using them if nobody cares what the 

results are? 

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Mr. SCHIFF. It has always been considered a strength of education in the United States, and maybe part of our culture also, 

this propensity we have to kind of question things, not do things 

by rote, think outside the box. It has been a competitive economic 

advantage for us vis a vis other countries that have turned out 

much greater numbers of college graduates. How have we been 

able to do that? Are we doing less of it now because we are, you 

know, sort of teaching to the test, and going to a more rote system? 

What are other countries doing? Is China teaching with an inquirybased system, or Japan, or Germany, or India? How do we compare? Are we losing our advantage? 

Dr. LUFT. I think the U.S. education system is the best in the 

world. And it gives a lot of graduates, we can say this at the university level, people come from all over the world to study in our 

system. So this system is amazing in its commitment to every student in this country. And we have to realize when we think broadly 

not all countries are committed to every student. So that is something to always keep in mind. 

But I think one thing that is really promising that we are doing 

in terms of even coming more to a consensus about what we should 

be teaching in science is we are working to really identify some 

core standards. And I know the common core is coming up, it is up 

in English and mathematics, they are working on that, this is 

promising. And what it brings forward to science are the key ideas 

and the central ideas that are really important that we need to 

come around. So we are not trying to teach a lot of things; we are 

teaching the very few important things really well. And when we 

look at other countries, that is what we see. We see some very clear 

expectations of what students are to know and opportunities for 

those students to learn. But when we do look at other countries 

too, I want to stress this, in some of the countries we do not see 

as much inquiry as we are really promoting here. And I think the 

value behind inquiry is the innovation that it gives this country to 

be on the front edge of the ability to solve problems and to really 

think outside the box. This is something that this country has always been dedicated to. And I think our curriculum really supports 

that. And I am encouraged greatly by thinking about the common 

standards. I think that will really help move us along greatly. 

Mr. STRANG. I will just add that at the Lawrence Hall of Science 

at U.C. Berkeley we have a fairly constant flow of visitors from 

Japan, China, Singapore, et cetera. Countries that all score higher 

than the United States in the international assessments of math 

and science. And they are coming to the United States, and to California, and to Berkeley in particular, to learn about inquiry. And 

they are scoring high, their students are scoring higher on their 

tests. But their students are not engaged in science, and not continuing in science at the secondary level. So they are coming to us 

to learn about this sort of magic of teaching kids how to think, and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
84 

how to get excited about the natural world, and how to investigate 

and puzzle through problem solving and answering their own questions. And I think many of those countries are superb at implementing science education programs, but not very good at designing science education programs. And I think the United States is 

exactly the opposite. We have this sort of cutting edge, brilliant 

thinking about the design of programs but we are very challenged 

at implementing, as we are hearing about today, and providing this 

inquiry-based opportunity for a large population of students in 

school districts and states all over the country that have different 

standards and different assessment tools, etcetera. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

IMPORTANCE OF STEM EDUCATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work that you 

are doing that we are talking about today I think is among the 

most important things we can possibly do to help strengthen the 

country in the future. I completely agree with the Chairman about 

inquiry-based education. And am delighted to see the support that 

the Committee and the administration have for strengthening the 

existing programs at NOAA, and the National Science Foundation, 

and NASA to help teach teachers to do a better job of teaching 

science and to strengthen these programs at the district and the 

state level. My only concern is to be sure that if states or districts 

accept the money that we are not imposing national standards on 

them. I am a big believer in education is not under the Constitution under the tenth amendment, it is reserved to the states. And 

that would be my only concern, Mr. Chairman. I am just delighted 

that you have called this hearing and very, very supportive of this 

work and this effort. Thank you, sir. 

STANDARDS OF LEARNING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the witnesses. I have introduced legislation in support of common core. 

And I think that the fact that the states and the governors have 

gotten together and have agreed that there really is not any difference, you know I represent Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but 

there is really no difference in algebra in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and algebra in Philadelphia, Mississippi. I mean, there are 

really, you know, through a number of analyses we know with a 

certainty that most of our children do not get the higher order 

math in the order that they need to receive it to, by direction of 

the College Board twenty years ago, about where the sequencing of 

these courses should come. But that is really not happening. It is 

not happening in Pennsylvania, or in West Virginia. It is not happening in Texas. 

I mean, so the fact that children do not, the fact that children 

do not achieve as well as we would like them to is not really new. 

In fact, when the Nation at Risk study came out in the 1980’s it 

talked about the dearth of our young people being able to pursue 

rather science or math. Most of our children in this country are not 

taught math and science by a teacher who majored or minored in 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
85 

the subject matter. And it is impossible for one to transmit information that they themselves do not have. And I have spent a lot 

of time looking at some of the challenges, and you know, states 

have been wrestling with this. The common core, I think, gets at 

this in a way in which even me and my colleague from Texas can 

agree since this is a state-driven initiative by individual states who 

have gotten together to say that we really need to, I think it was 

President Nixon who said it was a national imperative, that we 

really do need to make sure that our young people gain an ability 

to critically think and analyze. 

So I want to thank the Chairman. He has done a great deal without notice over the years to promote science and math through the 

work of this Subcommittee. And there is more that we need to do. 

And we have problems all the way throughout our system. We have 

almost, I mean I do not want to be overly dramatic, which is the 

way it is done here in Washington, but there is a significant absence of native born Americans pursuing terminal degrees in math 

and science. So that when we talk about, if we looked at the National Nuclear Security Agency, who are handling our nuclear 

stockpile, as these people are checking out, that is retiring out, and 

some 80 percent, 85 percent of the workforce is leaving in the next 

decade, in terms of young people pursuing nuclear physics, and 

some of these other, you know, needed disciplines, there is going 

to be no one to even hire that meet the security requirement of 

being an American citizen to be able to do this work. 

So we have to do something. The idea that education is a local 

prerogative, and that people can decide how dumb they want their 

children to be, and it is no concern to us if they do not want to provide an education, no that is not true. And that is why in this 

international competition economically we are getting our clock 

cleaned by nations that have really devoted themselves to driving 

math and science through to their young people. And many of these 

countries, you know India has got a billion people. So, you know, 

if we have got a much smaller population, and there is some who 

would like us to have even less of a population, you know, in terms 

of immigration issues, then we are going to have to be a lot smarter if we are going to compete. You know, and then China has got 

even more people. And they are ramping up their education system. 

So, you know, when Japan was out-competing, out-producing us 

in engineers, you know, a couple of decades ago, people said, well, 

it is a much smaller country. You know, it does not really matter, 

and so on. Now China is out-producing us in the production of engineers and it really does matter. You know? And it really will have 

an impact. 

So I just want to thank you for the work that you are doing. And 

I want to thank the Chairman for putting a focus on this at the 

very front end of the work of the Subcommittee as we go forward. 

Because when we talk, when we are out on the floor talking about 

jobs it really starts with the work that you are doing. That if we 

do not do something about this it is impossible for us to be competitive economically and to have the job base that we want to have 

in this country. So thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
86 

SPREADING INQUIRY-BASED INSTRUCTION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, thank you, Mr. Fattah. We talked a little 

bit earlier about if there is a consensus among those who really 

think about these things that inquiry-based STEM education is the 

best way to proceed. How do you get a broad based consensus, and 

then how do you get broad based implementation? And is that the 

crux of the challenge we face? Dr. Luft. 

Dr. LUFT. I think it is two-fold. You know, we have to get the 

information out there. And I think teachers really do agree, again 

I want to stress it, they do agree that science as inquiry is a great 

way to teach but they feel incredibly constrained. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Now you are talking about teachers out in the 

field? 

Dr. LUFT. I am talking about teachers out, and teachers that I 

prepare. So I work very closely and monitor a lot of what happens 

in teacher preparation. So across the continuum: pre-service teachers, new teachers as well as experienced teachers. And I think they 

are excited about inquiry and what it offers. But I think, again, 

they are very constrained by sometimes the, as we have talked 

about extensively about here, is the testing that is imposed on 

them to meet those standards. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So what are the impediments? Testing? 

Dr. LUFT. Testing is a big one. I think also having the fiscal support for getting the materials into the classroom. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Materials? 

TEACHER’S CHALLENGES

Dr. LUFT. Having some personnel that can actually support 

them, which would be important. Professional development programs that are extensive, so we know, actually the research is pretty compelling that we are looking at threshold hours, they said 

sixty yesterday, the data I have seen has said eighty. There is some 

effect, but then when you push up to 160 you start to really get 

an effect of using inquiry. So—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is retraining the teachers? Reteaching 

the teachers, 180 hours you are really—— 

Dr. LUFT. Professional, extended professional development. Yes, 

yes, I think you are right. Training the teachers. And it is really 

giving them deep opportunities to learn the content but to also 

work with their peers. So some of the more compelling work that 

is coming out is talking about teachers in communities. So as 

teachers work together to examine students’ work they can really 

see what they are doing, and they can make decisions about what 

they need to do in the curriculum to enhance the work that they 

are doing in the classroom. And schools are set up, though, not to 

give teachers this kind of time. Schools, by the very nature of their 

construction, do not give teachers enough time to sit and reflect 

and really understand what their students know. I mean, to do 

that these teachers would have to pore over the work. They would 

make judgments about the work, and they would say, well what 

am I going to do next? And schools do not allow that, because they 

start at 7:30 in the morning, and these teachers are with these students the entire time until they go home. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
87 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you really have to do that outside the classroom, and probably outside the school year in some sort of retraining program, and materials and—— 

Dr. LUFT. But, but yes—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. The money to do that, and 

incentivize teachers to actually come into those programs. 

Dr. LUFT. So you are—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You probably have to work with stipends. 

Dr. LUFT. So you are giving them another, I just want to be very 

clear about this, you are giving them a second job on top of their 

current job. And I think all of us in our profession, we have, I have 

opportunities, my university says, Julie, we want you to get some 

training. We are going to give you two weeks off to go get that. You 

know? Because it is that important that you bring it back to us. 

And I think we have to think—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that two weeks off paid? 

Dr. LUFT. If it is affiliated with my work—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Sure. I mean—— 

Dr. LUFT [continuing]. They will work with me on it. Yes. Yes. 

I can work my schedule. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think you have to be unapologetic about that, 

to tell you the truth. 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. Yes. No, no. But I am paid by a taxpayer. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Because there are a lot of teachers out there 

that they only time they have to relearn is during the summer, and 

they have got a lot of things to do in the summer. 

Dr. LUFT. And it gets worse. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If this is important. 

Dr. LUFT. Absolutely. And it is worse than that. So these guys 

not only want to improve their practice, they are working with kids 

and they cannot get the time off during the day to think about it. 

But say they want to go to a conference to meet with other people 

who are excited about what they are doing. They cannot get the 

time off from their district to go to these conferences because the 

district cannot give them time because they do not have enough 

subs. So the very barriers, the very barriers that are in place are 

keeping these teachers from doing the work that they want to do 

and need to do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Assuming we have got all the right 

things—— 

Dr. LUFT. These pieces, yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. You should be doing. Mr. Strang. 

Mr. STRANG. Yes, so I think our schools are set up in a way that 

we assume that once a teacher is ready to teach that all they need 

to do is just teach. And none of our jobs are like that, and we are 

expected to grow, and continue learning, and to interact with our 

colleagues and our peers on a regular basis. And it takes up a lot 

of our day each day. And I think we need to rethink the learning 

and the teaching environment. If we are expecting kids to engage 

in inquiry, then teachers need to be engaged in their own inquiry, 

and adult learning, and extending their own practice in the same 

way that they are expecting their kids to. 

And I think there is a tremendous amount of evidence that even 

with extended teacher professional development, teachers’ beliefs 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
88 

and understandings, their knowledge and beliefs, change long before their practice changes. And this is true of all of us, but we observe it very clearly in teacher professional development. That 

teachers take the pre- and the post-survey. They tell us that, oh 

my God, this is changing my life. I am going to, you know, I get 

it, I understand, I am never going to teach the same way again. 

And we go back into their classrooms a month or two months later, 

and we observe their lessons, and they are teaching the same way 

they did last year. 

So this is the sort of ongoing professional development that Dr. 

Luft is talking about, where teachers need to be trying something 

out in a scaffolded, structured environment, gathering student 

work, bringing it back, sharing it with colleagues, watching video 

tapes of themselves teaching, observing their colleagues teaching, 

and really thinking, how do I know what my kids are learning? 

How do I know what is in their heads? And when I find out what 

is in their heads, what is it that I can do to make them turn this 

way rather than that way? And at what point in my lesson could 

I have asked a different question, or provided additional experiences, gone back to observing the phenomenon, etcetera, that could 

have overcome that potential misconception that is building in my 

kids’ heads? And I think, you know, that is challenging, thoughtful 

work, not to be taken lightly. And it is not just going to a workshop 

and coming back and, oh I get it, I am different now. It is just as 

hard in a teaching setting as it is in any of our professional lives, 

to actually change our practice. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sounds like some really good elements for a 

demonstration project you all are coming forth with, here. 

TEACHER PREPARATION IN SCIENCE

Mr. STRANG. Yes. And I want to also just comment on something 

that Mr. Fattah said about the importance of having people in 

schools teaching science that have some background in science. 

And that is a challenge at the secondary level. It is almost an impossibility at the elementary level. 

Mr. FATTAH. At the elementary level it does not exist. 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. And I think this notion of attracting our best 

and brightest science students into the teaching profession is very 

important. And there are many high quality programs, like Dr. 

Luft’s at Berkeley. There is the Cal Teach program that is a teacher preparation program that attracts science students in particular 

into the teaching professions. There are examples of those things. 

But broadly across the country there is still a phenomenon in 

science departments in universities that scientists, faculty, consider 

it a failure if their graduate students go into teaching. That is considered second, or third, or fourth class. And I think that this reflects the view of the American public of the teaching profession. 

And that part of our job also is to elevate the teaching profession 

and make this a desirable, noble job for teachers to pursue, for students to pursue from all different disciplines. 

STEM EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You all, I bet, interact with the Department of 

Education? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
89 

Dr. LUFT. I have. I have had projects that have been affiliated 

with the Department of Ed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the Department of Education doing in 

this area? 

Dr. LUFT. I mean I think this, you know—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But I mean to facilitate the national adaptation 

of inquiry-based learning, and the teaching the teachers that needs 

to happen in order to accomplish that? And getting the materials 

out that need to accomplish that? 

Dr. LUFT. I think one of the—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which I want to get into a little bit. 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. I think one of the big initiatives that just, I mean 

you did form, their Math and Science Partnerships were moved to 

the Department of Ed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry, what? 

Dr. LUFT. The MSPs, the Math and Science Partnerships were 

moved there. So that has been their responsibility, to try to cultivate and support these partnerships. But I think the work, and 

it is very good work, it is very important work, but I think the coordination that is coming from the science community, or the efforts that are coming from the science community, NSF, those are 

the pieces of work that are really at the heart of the matter of the 

materials and of the professional development opportunities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why is Education not doing this? I mean, they 

are the ones who would know this before we would know it, supposedly. 

Dr. LUFT. Are you talking about the Department of Education? 

Or are you talking about educators? Or—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am talking about the federal government. We 

are an Appropriations Committee, and at the end of this I am 

going to ask you for some suggestions, guidance on funding. And 

maybe doing a demonstration. 

How you would like to see that happen. We are going to invite 

you to help us with that. But right now I am asking you, why is 

the Department of Education not, if there is that consensus out 

there among the thinkers, and it is not being readily, or quickly, 

integrated into the educational system in these areas, STEM areas, 

across the country, what is the Department of Education doing 

about that? And why, are they doing it well? Or are they not doing 

it well? And if they are not doing it well, why not? 

Dr. LUFT. Their work is different. I mean, I think—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Department of Education? 

Dr. LUFT. Well, they have the MSPs and they have the IES 

grants, the institute grants which develop research, and they are 

looking for degrees of scale-out in terms of implementation. But 

when you go into in a separate, so somebody who has worked, you 

know, remotely with some of those projects and been involved on 

them, it is not the level, it is, there are different types of projects. 

I think when you go to NSF you have an investment in curriculum 

materials, and the development of curriculum materials. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But I am actually talking about changing the 

culture. You would think that it is ubiquitous, it sounds like. They 

would have to go in and really change the—— 

Dr. LUFT. But they are not. It is not there. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
90 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean, some national symposium, or some national study that would redefine how science and math should be 

taught in education. It seems you would have to deal with it at this 

level. Because we are down here doing model projects to prove out 

what has already been proven. Because you have told me, and the 

last panel told the Committee that inquiry-based education is the 

way to go. So if that is an established fact among the thinkers then 

it seems to me the next problem, the real thing that has to happen, 

is to get it down to it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, let them answer that, John. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Maybe a little help on this? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, let me ask them to help first. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And then I will get right to you. 

Mr. STRANG. Well, I think this gets back to some of my earlier 

comments about first of all, sort of a disconnect in priorities. That 

despite the fact that we know what works in science, science in 

general is not a priority in our education system. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh my gosh. That shocks me because, and I said 

this yesterday, that every year the National Science Foundation 

comes up here and reports on the status of education in America. 

Science, our students are always behind, as Mr. Schiff and Mr. 

Fattah pointed out, always behind the world in that. I just have 

to—— 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. At least as it is presented to us 

through NSF—— 

Mr. STRANG. Right. So—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. It sounds like it is a problem. 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. And so, and my earlier comments were that I 

think that the science agencies, NOAA and NASA and NSF in particular, need to play a lead role in—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Bingo. 

Mr. STRANG [continuing]. In getting—— 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG [continuing]. Science education out there in schools. 

That we cannot expect educators with no background in science to 

be promoting and implementing and disseminating—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Ah. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is the key. 

Mr. STRANG [continuing]. High quality science education strategies. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Department of Education? 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is what I was going to—— 

Mr. STRANG. And I think that, you know, I go into elementary 

schools in California where the school principals are telling their 

teachers, do not open that science kit until your reading scores are 

raised. 

Dr. LUFT. That is right. 

Mr. STRANG. And all the research points to the fact that if they 

open the science kits, the reading scores would go up. But they are 

telling their teachers, ubiquitously, across the board, science is not 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
91 

a priority. It is not a priority until your math and your reading 

scores are up above this line. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, that is interesting. 

Mr. STRANG. Because we get hit over the head if the reading 

scores are not up. It gets published in the newspaper. 100 percentile, 100 percent science scores do not help us a bit when the 

scores get published in the newspaper. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, No Child Left Behind ought to hear this. 

John. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is 

the point I wanted to drive home. You are exactly right. That the 

key is that the National Science Foundation, NOAA, NASA, but 

particularly NSF need to be the lead on this. And when you get 

professional educators—— 

Dr. LUFT. That is right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Educrats, as I like to call them, in 

charge of this they screw it up because they do not understand how 

important it is. And the root of the problem, Mr. Chairman, I think 

is, one of many bills that President Bush pursued that I voted 

against and opposed, in his last, second to last bill, remember Bush 

pushed a bill that transferred responsibility for science education 

from the National Science Foundation to the Department of Education. 

Dr. LUFT. The MSPs, that was the MSPs. 

Mr. STRANG. That was the MSPs. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It passed the House. I opposed it. I do not know 

what happened, I guess it passed in the Senate. Sometimes you 

lose track of these things. That is the root of the problem. And that 

is what they are testifying about, is at the Department of Education they are just typical bureaucrats. They do—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. John—— 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Not have their priority right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. You do not have to be disparaging. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I will be nice. But, I mean, NSF, we need to seriously—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is President, President Bush. 

Mr. CULBERSON. By President Bush, unfortunately, this is one of 

many things he did that I voted against. And we need to get it back 

and NSF needs to be the lead agency. That is the root of the problem. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, that is very interesting. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this could be a major breakthrough. 

I think I heard my colleague say that these federal agencies should 

put together a national science curriculum? 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, no, no, be the lead to—— 

Dr. LUFT. Lead—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Oh, I am sorry, I did not hear that—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. With incentives, as I heard the Chairman say. 

We need to do it through incentives. But NSF clearly needs to be 

the lead, Mr. Chairman. And whatever we can do to undo making 

the Department of Education the lead and put NSF back in charge, 

they would work wonders. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. LUFT. It competes with everything. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is that correct? 

Dr. LUFT. That is absolutely—— 

Mr. STRANG. I think there are some studies, some actual cross 

site analysis of the Math and Science Partnership programs that 

were run by NSF compared to the Math and Science Partnership 

programs that were run by the Department of Ed. And across the 

board, the NSF run programs had stronger outcomes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, that is the root of the problem, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Did you get that study down? What study is 

that? 

Mr. STRANG. I can send you a citation? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Please do. 

Mr. STRANG. Let me make myself a note. 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes, let me just, I am sorry? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, Mr. Fattah. 

SCIENCE TEACHER CERTIFICATION

Mr. FATTAH. You know, all joking aside, I just want to make sure 

that the record is clear. I mean, as long as we understand that at 

this point in time, at the pre-high school in our country, none of 

the teachers are even subject certified for the most part. 

Dr. LUFT. That is right. 

Mr. FATTAH. So that in terms of science and all that, in terms 

of our international competitors they are so far ahead of us by the 

time our kids show up at high school. And then in many of our 

both urban and rural areas, and you can go to great, you know, 

states like my own, you can go to Texas, you can go to West Virginia, there are schools that do not have, they do not have science 

labs. You know, the Washington Post had a front page story a few 

years ago, it said that, you know, they focused on one school inside 

a city, and one school right outside the city, in walking distance literally across the county line. And they described one, and they said 

one of them had a science lab, and it had, you know, microscopes, 

and it had, the whole science faculty had advanced degrees in 

math. And the school had, you know, just, it was a wonderful story. 

And then they talked about this other school. And it did not have 

any working equipment. It had no lab of sorts for kids to do experiment and so on. And nobody had to guess which school was inside 

the city and which school was in the suburbs. And you did not even 

have to think about which city, because we know that exists all 

over our country. And so, you know, we should not be, it is intellectually dishonest for anybody to be surprised when our kids do less 

well when we test them under these various testing schemes. Because we know that we are giving them less of everything we know 

they need in terms of learning. So that at the end of the day, you 

know, that is the challenge that we have. That if we want to do 

differently we are going to have to act in a much different way. 

And it will have to be a scale. 

And the Chairman is right. We know what works. You know? It 

is just a question about whether we are going to decide that we are 

prepared to do to make sure that children are exposed to quality 

teaching, and, you know, and a rigorous curriculum. Because that 

will require an investment. And sometimes the tradeoffs between, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
93 

you know, tax cuts and investing in education politically are more 

instantaneously rewarding than, you know, it takes a kid, you 

know, seven years at Penn to get a Ph.D. in math. So if you are 

starting to worry about this kid in preschool, all the way up to 

there, you know, it is a thirty-year pipeline. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, if the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. FATTAH. And, you know, we do not have the patience for that 

in Washington. You know, we do not, it is hard for us to see that 

far. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I really do share, if I could, Mr. Chairman, very 

briefly, I really want to help you with this. This is, I think, as important to our national security as any investment we make in 

intercontinental ballistic missiles, or nuclear submarines. Investing 

in science education, and getting NSF back in the drivers seat I 

think. I want to help any way I can, Mr. Chairman. I am with you. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I welcome that offer for help, particularly 

from the gentleman. I just want to point out it is going to cost 

money. 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, I am there. Science education, I am there. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, that is great. 

Dr. LUFT. It is the most important thing we can do. 

Mr. CULBERSON. As long as there are not national standards. 

Mr. FATTAH. Bipartisan—— 

Dr. LUFT. There are national standards—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. As long as there is no national curriculum, I 

should say. 

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Let me, I would like to explore, thank you, 

thank the gentleman. We will count on it. I would like to explore 

just a couple of topics here quickly. Materials, we have a lot of materials that are produced by, or do we? Do we have a lot of national 

textbook material production folks? Or is that pretty well concentrated? And are they embracing inquiry-based education in the 

curriculum materials that they are producing for school systems? 

Mr. STRANG. Well there are many textbook publishers that develop and publish and distribute textbooks. There are really only 

a handful of instructional materials developers that embody inquiry-based science methods. So that is a smaller subset. 

There is the Lawrence Hall of Science and Education Development Center, TERC in Boston, BSCS, there is—you can count them 

on one or two hands. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That do inquiry-based materials production. Is it 

a comprehensive across all the topics you would teach in these 

areas and for the various grades? 

Mr. STRANG. They are—go ahead. 

Dr. LUFT. Oh, no, go ahead. 

Mr. STRANG. Well they are developers of comprehensive curriculum materials, they are also sometimes the same developers 

also produce supplemental or enrichment materials or modular materials that can be inserted into other programs. So the range is 

available, and there are comprehensive materials K through 12, life 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
94 

science, Earth science, physical science that are available for large 

scale adoptions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, doctor. 

Dr. LUFT. I concur. I mean, I think that is—there are the materials there, it just becomes—as you get into the secondary level the 

materials issue becomes a little bit more complex because sometimes you need more advanced materials in order to run the investigations. 

So the limiting factor, I mean, you are talking about—you could 

be talking about microscopes or using advanced equipment. So 

sometimes just doing some really important investigations are 

more—require more materials. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Uh-huh. Well the same, if these—Prentice Hall, 

that sticks in my mind. Is that a—— 

Dr. LUFT. That is a publisher. 

Mr. STRANG. Textbook publisher, yeah. 

Dr. LUFT. Textbook publisher. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Of academic, yeah. Produce materials and 

brought them down to a middle school and said we have a whole 

new set of this inquiry-based and then we have the traditional 

things you have been buying for years, and gee, you know, we are 

selling books so we will sell you either group. But that isn’t available is it? I mean—— 

Dr. LUFT. The problem isn’t—I mean, I don’t want to—the materials are an important piece of this, but the problem is the support 

that goes on with it. You know if I buy the materials that is 

fine—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do I teach? 

Dr. LUFT [continuing]. But how do I really teach using those materials is a key piece, and districts don’t have money or they don’t 

have the person who is knowledgeable to support the use of those 

materials or the teachers. 

And we know this too, that teachers can have access to great materials, but they can be used in ways that aren’t productive. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So this has to start back in the education— 

teacher education. 

Dr. LUFT. It has to—you have to hit it all the way through. I 

mean, you have to always make sure that if you want good science 

instruction you have really got to make sure that you support it 

when teachers are in schools, and this is having teachers have access to how to use the materials. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Dr. LUFT. Just buying the materials, anybody is happy to sell the 

materials, but supporting the materials so the teachers really take 

that, and studying—it is working with the materials to uncover 

student’s understanding so that we know what to do next. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Dr. LUFT. That is a very powerful piece. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So it really is a cultural issue. It is all these 

threads have to be changed in order to—— 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And it has to be coordinated in 

order to shift. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
95 

Dr. LUFT. You are right; in pre-service it is very important that 

we support these teachers and help them understand how to use 

the materials. I mean, that is a big piece of it also. 

Mr. STRANG. Right. And providing teachers with a consistent 

message all through their educational career. 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG. Including their professional development. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG. And as a practicing teacher, you know, there should 

be, I would hope, some unity in the message that they are receiving 

about these different methods. 

The other thing that I just wanted to mention is that when you 

talked about Prentice Hall saying well we have two sets of materials, the traditional and the inquiry, it is a little bit more complicated than that, because the nature of the development of those 

materials is very different. And while a textbook publisher can take 

the most recent set of standards from any particular state and develop a textbook very quickly that addresses everyone of those 

standards, the development time line for inquiry-based materials 

might be three years and require a significant investment in the 

design and development because they are research-based, they are 

applying educational research and pedagogy, they are extensively 

pilot tested, field tested, revised and field tested again before they 

hit the market, and textbook publishers are not typically set up to 

do that kind of development. That is why we depend on NSF and 

NOAA and NASA to support the design and development of those 

materials and then we establish relationships with publishers for 

the distribution. But without the initial investment from the 

science agencies the materials would never be developed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for getting that on the record, that 

is very important to this Committee, because we are interested in 

supporting that. But it does make the point that materials is development and integration and support for its integration is a real inhibitor to moving in this direction. 

Dr. LUFT. But also providing—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Correct? 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG. And the support. 

Dr. LUFT. And the support. But I think what would be really 

great is if NSF did some of this originally was when they developed 

these materials—and I know that you work with curriculum agencies or with the textbook companies to do the dissemination—but 

it would be really fantastic if NSF would help develop these materials and also help put them in schools. So if we bypass some of 

the people who are selling them, but having the people who are developing them really working with teachers to help them put them 

in schools that would be fantastic. And originally that was done a 

long, long time ago that was part of the initiative 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where was that done? 

Dr. LUFT. In the—at Sputnik. It was an outgrowth of Sputnik. 

They actually had the people who were developing the materials 

were also supporting to put them in schools. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I guess there is an example out there that we 

could go look at. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
96 

Dr. LUFT. It is a historical example. But now we move through 

textbook publishers. You may or some do or some don’t, but the 

idea there is this long-term investment even beyond the development of the materials so that it can get into schools and with 

teachers from the people who had envisioned how they were to be 

used. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So who would do the support? I know who would 

develop the materials, that is the textbook people. If there were a 

demand out there they would spend the three years developing the 

materials, but who does the support and where do the resources 

come? And obviously that would take a lot of re-teaching and retraining. How do you teach this material? So whose responsibility 

is that? 

Mr. STRANG. Well when—I will speak for my institution at the 

Lawrence Hall of Science. When we develop materials we assume 

that the development and publication of the materials is the first 

half of our job. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG. And we are very deeply involved in the support of 

the implementation of those materials. So we establish professional 

networks around the county, centers around the country that are 

supporting the local implementation of our materials. And the leaders of those centers come to Lawrence Hall of Science and go 

through days or sometimes weeks worth of professional development with us. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that supported by the marketplace or the educational systems in each state or county, or do you have a grant 

that is supporting that all the way through? 

Mr. STRANG. Our involvement is typically supported by grants, 

typically NSF. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Ah. 

Mr. STRANG. And—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are—I am sorry to interrupt you. Let me 

just understand each piece and you remember what you were going 

to say, if you will. 

So you have the grant that helps develop the materials, and also 

as an academic institution supports the integration of those materials into the classroom—— 

Mr. STRANG. That is right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Which really involves teaching the 

teachers and bringing the teacher back for more education, and 

then an ongoing—they could pick up the telephone and say gee, I 

got this problem, you can say—— 

Mr. STRANG. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. This is the solution. That is the 

kind of system you are talking about. 

Mr. STRANG. Absolutely, absolutely. And it happens in a couple 

of different ways. Probably many more than that, but two that I 

will mention. 

One is that we receive grants to do the development, and then 

we receive grants to conduct professional development related to 

the materials that we have developed. 

When we are developing the materials, I mentioned a couple of 

times, we go through this extensive field testing process and we 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
97 

have partnerships with school districts around the country that are 

very eager to field test our materials because they know that typically they are pretty good, and at the end after the field test they 

are going to be interested in implementing. And by going through 

the field test they are building support within their district at the 

earliest stages for these particular materials. 

So teachers that have field tested the materials are very invested 

in continuing to use them and they get their name in the book as 

field test teachers and there is some status that goes along with 

that they work. And we listen to the teachers that are field testing 

and they can see their comments and feedback reflected in the final 

drafts. 

The other way that that support happens other than the field 

test and the subsequent grants for professional development, are 

that in—we chose very carefully the publishers that we establish 

partnerships with, and the publishers make commitments to school 

districts that when they purchase the materials there is a certain 

amount of professional development that will be—that will accompany the purchase of the materials, and then the publishers contract back with us to go deliver the professional development. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You pay them to do it. 

Mr. STRANG. The publishers pay us to do it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, oh, okay, I see. I see. 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I see. So the grant to develop it and then you 

have the—they make the commitment and you are subcontracted. 

Mr. STRANG. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you have anything to add to that? 

Dr. LUFT. I think Lawrence Hall of Science is an exemplary 

model in how it should work, but in a lot of instances there are districts that don’t get that kind of support. 

So when I look in the Phoenix metropolitan area there are some 

schools that I know participate in this, but there are many schools 

and science teachers that I work with that just don’t have access 

to this. So I don’t know. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, I guarantee you. 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. Because this is fiscally intensive, it just doesn’t 

happen. I mean, it is just not that common. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well and that is the question, which is what I 

am saying. How do you scale these proven materials, techniques, 

how do you scale that up on a national level? So how do you? 

Mr. STRANG. Well we went through—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have to incentivize somebody. 

SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES

Mr. STRANG. Yes. We went through sort of a generation of NSF 

supported systemic initiatives, statewide systemic initiatives, world 

systemic initiatives, urban systemic initiatives, et cetera. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That was about 15 years ago wasn’t it? 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. And they were across the board; generalizing, 

pretty successful. And when the funding stopped the fidelity to the 

implementation started to decrease. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, but as you point out, the science agencies, 

you know, simply proving out. They are the ones that understand 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
98 

the science and so you could only expect them to prove it out, they 

are not going to be sustaining. At some point the state educational 

systems have to pick this up. 

Mr. STRANG. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. They are spending money on science, so obviously it didn’t work, because it didn’t take. 

Mr. STRANG. That is right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And why didn’t it take to make systemic initiatives? It wasn’t mature enough? Your program wasn’t mature 

enough for it to be recognized as the way to go, or it wasn’t—— 

Mr. STRANG. Oh, I think many of those programs used FOSS in 

the early generations of FOSS, and I think—you know, it is a good 

question. I don’t have a simple answer, but I think that there are 

a lot of policy issues that impact schools. 

So I get back to, you know, we invested all this time and money 

in purchasing the materials, even in doing professional development, being part of the systemic initiative, and now we are told 

that the only thing that matters is our reading and math scores. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So are you suggesting that No Child Left Behind 

is kind of overtaken with this? 

Mr. STRANG. I think there were unintended outcomes to No Child 

Left Behind—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Excuse me for interrupting. Are you all telling 

the authorizing Committee who is reconsidering re-authorization of 

No Child Left Behind, are you telling them this—these problems? 

Dr. LUFT. We are working very hard on doing that on all fronts. 

I mean we are in academics, we are at the National Science Teacher’s Association meeting. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about the chairman of the Committee that 

is dealing with this? 

Dr. LUFT. We would be—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Here. 

Dr. LUFT [continuing]. Happy to meet with them and tell 

them—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, no, I know you would, I am just wondering 

if you are. 

Dr. LUFT. And you have a lot of teachers in this room who would 

probably be happy to meet with him and tell him, too. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well and the members of Congress that are on 

that Committee, that is where it all starts. You really have to get 

in. 

PERSONNEL TURN OVER

Dr. LUFT. You are getting at another fundamental issue here 

that is really problematic too. I mean, we can have the USIs and 

the rural and urban systemic initiatives were important, but teachers don’t stay in the same place the whole time, and neither do administrators, and neither do science specialists. So if you put a lot 

of resources into help a community develop inquiry, and I was in 

a district that did, but when the superintendent left, when the 

science coordinators were done away with, when teachers moved to 

new schools you have lost the momentum to teach in those settings. So this isn’t just something where it is one shot in the arm. 

You know, you have to kind of keep having boosters in this. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
99 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I mean it would be a bad strategy to 

embed the ideas in people. You need to embed the ideas in the system. 

Mr. LUFT. But the problem is that the system is always fluctuating in education, and that is—we have superintendents who 

leave if they don’t work with the board, we have principals that are 

moving, you have science coordinators who are—so it is how do we 

get right the curriculum that is in there and get the sustained professional development for the teachers that they always enact this? 

NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG. And I think also when the National Science Education Standards were published in 1996 subsequent to the AAAS 

benchmarks for science literacy there was a huge emphasis in both 

of those documents on inquiry-based science education. When the 

National Science Education Standards were published in 1996, it 

called inquiry the central strategy of science teaching, and that 

supported the benchmarks for science literacy that was previously 

published by AAAS. 

So there was wide recognition, and as I think Dr. Luft said, the 

inquiry was considered content, that this is, you know, this is important for kids to learn, this is as important as any of the concepts. 

STUDENT ASSESSMENT

When assessments of student learning were developed most of 

the assessments focused on assessing student’s knowledge of 

science concepts, because it is easier to assess. So one of the problems is if you are assessing—are we assessing—it is always asking 

the question, are we assessing the things that we care about, or are 

we assessing the things that are easy to assess? 

Dr. LUFT. Right. 

Mr. STRANG. And there is a huge difference and disconnect there 

that we measure the things that are measurable or cheaply measurable, and that is fine, but we then have to have some way of paying attention to the things we care about that may be more challenging or more expensive to measure. And it is not that it is not 

possible to measure them, it certainly is possible, but—— 

Dr. LUFT. It is expensive. 

Mr. STRANG [continuing]. It is more complicated and more expensive. 

Dr. LUFT. I was actually fortunate to build on this. I was actually 

fortunate to be in graduate school when they were developing performance assessments that they were going to scale for national assessments, and that is if you really want to get at student understanding, performance assessments are fantastic, but they are difficult because you have to figure out what it is you want to test, 

but you also have to think about what is the test that you are 

going to issue. And in science it becomes confounded by the content. 

So there was some original work actually done out of California 

to create some performance assessments that they were looking at 

that they were doing to disseminate broadly so teachers could do 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
100 

these assessments in class. The beauty behind this assessment is 

it provided information that was formative so that teachers could 

know what to do next, but it would also let you know where students were. So it provided more information than just the score on 

the test, it gave information to a lot of people about how students 

learned and what teachers could be doing. Those are the rich assessments we need to go after. Those assessments are incredible. 

And the reason I think our project kind of came to a halt, they 

are expensive to enact, they are expensive to calibrate, you have 

to keep updating them to get people to give them, that is a whole 

other problem. So it is an expensive business if you want to have 

a really good assessment that does the right kind of things. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So is that an ongoing assessment process that it 

is so expensive and so hard to do, or is that just proving out the 

system? 

Dr. LUFT. That is a great question. It is not that it is—the ongoing process is, say if I am going to give a performance assessment, 

I am going to have to have somebody give that assessment in multiple classrooms, but then not only that, I have to score these assessments. And these assessments, performance assessments, can 

be scaled by a rubric, which just states the criteria in where the 

student is, or it can be, you know, some kind of checklist that you 

are looking for. But there has to be some accounting of what the 

student is actually performing or doing, and those—just watching 

that and gathering that data is very expensive, because it costs 

people; it is people time. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well then that is very sad. Because when you 

get down into Webster County, West Virginia, which isn’t in my 

district, you get down to Webster County, West Virginia, they are 

not going to have a lot of money to do that. So if that is true, you 

can’t work around that, and that is—and I am not quite understanding what you are saying, but if that is crucial—I am not quite 

sure what you are saying with regard to this point. If that is crucial for implementing inquiry-based education then that is very 

sad, because that will be a real stopper when it gets down to the 

local level if the school superintendent who has scarce resources 

has to come up with 2× times how much it costs to test. 

Mr. STRANG. Right. 

Dr. LUFT. Well, I think the issue is this. If you want science’s inquiry the question, and what we are trying to hit on really hard 

is, that it is how you chose to assess it. And how you chose to assess it is ultimately going to drive how it is enacted. 

And you are right, to have the kind of assessments if you want 

to look to see how a kid is observing, how they are handling this 

kind of information, the assessments that they develop to do these 

kinds of things cost a lot of money. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that part and parcel of inquiry—based education for science? A significant increase in the cost of teaching and 

testing and everything that is involved with it? 

Mr. STRANG. So when we develop materials now we build into 

the instructional materials an assessment system, curriculum embedded assessments that provide teachers with information about 

student learning for the purpose of informing their own instruction 

and practice, not for the purpose of grading kids. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
101 

Dr. LUFT. Right. 

Mr. STRANG. Which is a very different purpose. So when we talk 

about assessment we need to talk about what is the purpose that 

this assessment is being used for? 

So we build in these curriculum embedded assessments that help 

teachers to get at student thinking. Where are they in the conceptual development? And we call—there are certain embedded assessment, and then at certain points in the units we have what we call 

juncture assessments. They are assessments that we want teachers 

to administer to assess the culmination of students’ understanding 

of a particular concept. And they are junctures because we think 

if kids haven’t generally acquired a certain understanding of the 

concept the teacher shouldn’t go on. They should go back and find 

opportunities for re-teaching and providing additional experiences. 

So these juncture assessments are important in the continuity of 

a unit of instruction. 

Part of the problem is that our curriculum embedded assessments do not necessarily provide teachers or school administrators 

with predictions about how kids will do on their standardized tests 

at the end of the year. They are completely misaligned. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We had some testimony here yesterday that 

there were dramatic improvements. Some people were trying to 

make the point—and I more understand what they were trying to 

do—they were trying to make the point gee, inquiry-based, it will 

result in better test scores on the standardized tests, and that is 

questioned I guess, but there was some testimony that—— 

Dr. LUFT. No, it—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean it was just hopeful testimony. 

Dr. LUFT. They said yesterday that you could develop instruments that would measure—that would be measurable. That you 

could develop strong multiple choice. 

And I think what you are getting at is where the community is 

in this. I think there are psychometricians or people who develop 

tests that say that they can do it, and I think there are people who 

look at student learning and teacher learning and they say this is 

a little tougher than that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I will tell you, if you are going to move 

this—just thinking about it as a public policy matter—if you are 

going to move in this direction then you are going to have to have 

some sort of work around these two hard of things. Because they 

can’t be too hard to do this or it won’t happen. 

Mr. STRANG. Agreed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you got to have some work around. 

Dr. LUFT. Right, right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And it sounds like testing is one of the work 

arounds. 

Dr. LUFT. I think that would be a great place for a lot of work 

to occur. 

Mr. STRANG. Right. And for starters, good assessment, bad assessments aside, or assessments of what we care about and assessments of what we don’t care about aside, again, at the elementary 

level those standardized tests that kids take in fifth grade in 

science don’t really move the needle on the school’s academic performance index. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
102 

So even if the kids are scoring incredibly high on their science 

test doesn’t really help the school administration. 

Dr. LUFT. Right. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But then it would be understood in this re-authorization I would think. 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. 

Dr. LUFT. There is one more kind of consequence about this that 

I just saw for the first time this year that deals with testing, and 

it is again working in schools which have been very fortunate to 

do, is that the most important thing we can do is build the capacity 

of our new teaching workforce. Right? 

So this year I was charged with placing teachers in schools. And 

in one of the schools we wanted to put I know very good inquiry 

teachers who were doing great things in a science area that is 

being tested. I said, I would like to put some student teachers in 

there. And the teacher was very clear with me saying, I can’t take 

the next generation of teachers because I need to make sure that 

I—these kids, my students hit and do well on that test. 

I have never seen this happen before, but we are being locked 

out now in teacher preparation because of the pressure to achieve 

on these tests. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you know, you are telling that to us and 

we really value that and appreciate your doing that, and as soon 

as I hear that I think about gee, this person over here better hear 

that, and that is the person that is fashioning this legislation, and 

I guess the education—Department of Education who is advising 

them of what they ought to put into this. 

Dr. LUFT. Good teachers don’t want to take the risk to build the 

next generation of teachers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well that is another really difficult problem, I 

know. 

Well, we are drawing to the close of the hearing, and I would like 

to invite you all here in a summary fashion, and you can talk as 

long as you want, but in a summary fashion we are an Appropriation Committee, and we are trying to seriously look at this issue. 

You both have expertise, so as we look at this issue we would like 

for you to give us advise about how we should be thinking about 

applying the scarce dollars that we have to have the maximum 

benefit to achieve the results that we are all—that are implicit 

here. So, Mr. Strang. 

Mr. STRANG. Thank you. Well let me just start by again thanking 

you and the Committee for inviting both of us here, and it is a 

pleasure and honor to have the opportunity to share some of this 

information and hear about your work and some of the challenges 

that we are all facing together in this endeavor to improve student’s abilities to think critically and make their lives better by understanding how the natural world works. 

And I guess, you know, one of the things that-this issue of policy 

constraints is huge, out there in the day-to-day lives of teachers 

and school principals and school superintendents, and so I think we 

have talked about that a lot, and I just want to emphasize that no 

amount of curriculum development or teacher professional development or teacher preparation can really overcome those policy constraints that teachers and schools are under. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
103 

The other thing that I want to go back to and reemphasize from 

my comments is again the importance of the science agencies in 

leading the effort to improve science education, and there are many 

reasons for that that we have talked about, and I want to say again 

that agencies like NOAA and NASA and NSF in addition to having 

great expertise and understanding of the endeavor of science and 

how to teach science and how to expose kids to the process of 

science and scientific habits of mind and scientific ways of thinking, in addition to that they are out there making discoveries every 

day, and those discoveries need to have a pathway into the curriculum at the earliest levels of a child’s educational career. And 

without the involvement of NOAA and NASA and NSF things like 

ocean science, like climate change, like atmospheric science, like 

earth system science will never really get out there to kids. We are 

still teaching in many school districts early twentieth century 

science that is divided neatly into biology, chemistry, and physics, 

and the world of science doesn’t work that way anymore. 

So NOAA in particular has recently been allowed to play a larger 

role in science education. Because of their location in the Commerce Department I understand that they had been prohibited 

from supporting education for many years, and there is some shift 

in that direction. And with a very small amount of money in a very 

short time NOAA, combining efforts with NSF has changed my professional world in a way that is hard to explain to you sitting in 

a Committee room, but ocean sciences education as a community 

and as a field has advanced a generation’s worth in the last five 

years, and I think there is no underestimating the value that 

NOAA and NASA and NSF have added to the endeavor of science 

education. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well that is a good endorsement, for we have 

education accounts in all these, and we want to support them, and 

that statement is very helpful in justifying our support for it. 

Dr. Luft. 

Dr. LUFT. I just want to thank you first off for inviting me here 

today, and it has been great. I work with teachers, I work with 

teacher educators, I work with principals, I work with superintendents, and I know that at each level everybody would like inquiry 

implemented. 

I also want to say we are, and everybody I have talked to, we 

are encouraged by this Administration’s dedication to science education, and we cannot say thank you enough. It is cool. Science is 

cool again. 

So what I would to say though is NSF has been invaluable in my 

work, and they have been invaluable to work of a lot of my colleagues. NSF has focused in on transformative work, and that is 

where they have put the emphasis for a long time, and I think that 

is very important, but I also think in addition to doing transformative work it is important that you think about what happens 

to that transformative work. 

So it is important that NSF not only be supported for more research and science education, we are just on the cusp of understanding how students learn really complex ideas. We are at the 

point where we really are starting to understand what is working 

with, we know what works a lot in PD, but we are getting at some 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
104 

really good novel ideas and we need to kind of keep pushing for 

that. We need more resources for this kind of work. 

NSF needs to be encouraged to continue a research to practice 

trajectory. They do a lot of great work, and how is it going to make 

a difference in the lives of teachers? And that is not only science 

work, but that is work in science education. The new understandings that we have in science education are critical, and we 

have to have—teachers have to have access to this information. 

I think as you heard, it was a great example of the potential of 

a long-term support program. NSF typically is a PI. We reapply for 

grants every three to five years. And it would be great, our colleagues, my colleagues in science have long-term funding. They 

know that their resources are coming year after year for 15 to 20 

years, that they can really invest in solving a problem and trying 

to meet the needs. 

I don’t know what the answer is for education, but I know it 

would be nice to know that I can walk in for a lengthy period of 

time knowing that I can do some development work and get it all 

out within the same long-term funding cycle. So it would be a little 

bit novel, but it would be a nice approach. 

And I think finally the last piece that I think is important is 

there has to be just ongoing consistent funding to the science agencies for work in science education. It is difficult to come back with 

budgets that are reduced or when programs are moved out. The 

M’s piece was a great example. It would be great to make sure that 

we have a consistent line of funding that is dedicated to this issue. 

Again, thank you, and it has been an honor to be here. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well it has been an honor to have both of you. 

When you talk about long-term studies, talk to that a little bit 

more. 

Dr. LUFT. Long-term support is really critical. So I can think of 

it in a lot of different venues. We are just starting to understand 

how students learn complex ideas and how these ideas should be 

sequenced in order to really optimize student learning. 

So is there some place where something should be learned before 

something else, and how do these things build so that students 

have coherent knowledge? We are just getting into that. 

And for those of us who do research around these issues, I need 

to re-apply every few years. You know, I have to say this is what 

I am doing. I can’t say I am doing more of the same for long. I have 

to say what is it I am doing that is different sometimes, and that 

degree of difference has to be really well discussed. 

So wouldn’t it be great if somebody knew that for ten years I 

could work to really crack this problem? Or wouldn’t it be great if 

a curriculum developer, as we have heard, knew that he could not 

only—they could not only develop the curriculum, but they would 

be responsible for targeting, you know, over 10,000 schools? I mean 

to have that consistent push would be really powerful. And that 

puts—that to me is what we are talking about when we are talking 

about long-term funding. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are suggesting that the original solicitation should provide and make a commitment for resources for a 

ten-year effort. 

Dr. LUFT. For some projects, yes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
105 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Dr. LUFT. I think not all projects merit that, but I think the potential of some of these projects having that kind of—you could be 

powerful things with that kind of support. 

Mr. STRANG. And the support obviously can and should be contingent on demonstrating performance. 

Dr. LUFT. Performance. 

Mr. STRANG. Yes. 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG. So it is not just a contract for ten years regardless, 

but I think that when warranted—— 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. STRANG [continuing]. That that sort of ongoing funding 

would make a huge difference. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well finally I would like to invite each of 

you to submit those and any other recommendations, you know, 

flesh them out that you would have for the Committee as we consider—as we mark up our bill. So just submit in writing what you 

have said just now here at the summary—— 

Dr. LUFT. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And what would you like to see. 

Dr. LUFT. It is a big decision. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not saying that we can do it—— 

Dr. LUFT. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. I am just saying we would like to 

see if. There is no commitment. 

Thank you all very much for your appearance here today. 

Dr. LUFT. No, thank you. 

Mr. STRANG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We very much appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. STRANG. Thanks. 

Dr. LUFT. Thanks. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(107) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET FOR SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

WITNESS 

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE ADVISOR 

OPENING STATEMENT—CHAIRMAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Good afternoon. 

Welcome, doctor. Welcome everybody to the hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011. 

Today we will cover the budget status and future prospects of U.S. 

research and development. Our witness is the President’s Science 

Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Dr. John P. Holdren. Dr. Holdren, this is your first appearance before this Subcommittee, and we have much to discuss. And we 

would like to especially welcome you to the job and to the hearing. 

Based on considerable evidence, real growth in the United States 

economy, in excess of population growth, is primarily the result of 

the innovations and new technologies that result from public and 

private investments in research and development. Accordingly, we 

are in the midst of a ten-year doubling in funding for NSF, NIST, 

and the Department of Energy Office of Science as contemplated by 

the America Competes Act. This doubling was accelerated by $18.5 

billion added to the fiscal year 2009 appropriation for R and D in 

many agencies as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. Those funds have gone to increase grant funding across all 

areas of science and to various science infrastructure investments. 

Within the Subcommittee’s purview the budget request for fiscal 

year 2011 continues the planned doubling for NSF and NIST with 

roughly 7 percent increases over the 2010 enacted levels. While 

this doubling was authorized in the America Competes Act, that 

authorization was only through fiscal year 2010. The budget 

strengthens climate observing and research through significant increases for NOAA R and D, including equipment and development 

for polar orbiting satellites, and NASA Earth science missions and 

research. While funding for planetary research has increased, funding for other areas of NASA science is essentially frozen. While our 

climate related activities are a higher priority, all of NASA’s 

science contributes to the nation’s science enterprise just as much 

as does funding for NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science. 

In fiscal year 2010 this Subcommittee supported an increase to 

NSF education programs focused on hands-on, inquiry-based instruction in grades K–12 and in K–12 teacher preparation. Earlier 

this year, in hearings which we held, we heard testimony from 

those who work in this area. They provided examples of successful 

efforts in improving science, technology, engineering, and math 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
108 

education, STEM education, evidence of the benefits that result 

from federal investments made through NSF, NOAA, and NASA. 

For decades the science and education communities have stated 

that inquiry is essential to effective STEM education. And yet, it 

remains rare in K–12 and college teaching. It is high time to 

change this. 

Given the critical role of science and technology in the future 

prosperity and international leadership of the United States, we 

look forward to hearing from Dr. Holdren on the state of U.S. 

science and technology, its position relative to other countries, and 

its future needs and prospects. 

Dr. Holdren, before I ask you to summarize your remarks, and 

your written statement will be made a part of the record, I would 

like to call on Mr. Culberson for any comment he should like to 

make. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf 

of Ranking Member Wolf, Frank would like to present his statement in person. So I want to reserve the right to allow Mr. Wolf 

to make his opening statement in person. He will be here very 

shortly. He is at a funeral at Arlington. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Certainly. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are welcome. Dr. Holdren. 

OPENING STATEMENT—WITNESS

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. It is really a privilege to be here today to talk about 

the research and development and the STEM education components of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget. As you noted, Mr. 

Chairman, I submitted a written statement as well. 

The administration is working hard to keep the nation on the 

path out of recession through recovery and into a new era of revitalized growth. That of course means sparking job creation to get 

millions of Americans back to work. It means building a new foundation for a long term prosperity that will reach every American 

family. And a crucial element of that effort is the targeted investments that we are making in science, technology, and innovation 

that will lead to new products and services, new businesses and industries, increased American competitiveness, and high quality 

sustainable jobs. Our strategy includes investments in fundamental 

and applied research and development that will lead to better technologies and the jobs that will go with them for advanced manufacturing, for clean energy, for healthcare, for environmental protection and remediation, and for national and homeland security. And 

it includes increased use of public-private partnerships to speed up 

innovation and get the results more rapidly into the marketplace. 

It calls for exploration and discovery from the depths of the oceans 

to the frontiers of space, expanding our knowledge of our world and 

our universe while igniting the curiosity and ambitions of our 

young people. And it includes a focus on STEM education that will 

support and sustain, rather than stifle, that curiosity so that we 

can cultivate the next generation of innovators along with the technology savvy workforce that competitiveness in the 21st century requires. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
109 

Obviously we need the continuing support of the Congress, and 

importantly the continuing support of this Committee, to get it 

done. But if there is one message I most want to convey in my comments today it is that the investments in the President’s R and D 

budget are at the very core of America’s future strength. So I am 

certainly looking forward to working with all of you to make sure 

at this very important time in our history, when competition 

abroad is growing and the stakes are ever increasing, that we put 

America on a path that keeps this nation great for our children and 

grandchildren. A path that is built on scientific evidence, on technical progress and prowess, and on a nation of people who are inventors, innovators, and makers, not just consumers. 

Let me give you a very brief bird’s eye view of the fiscal year 

2011 R and D budget, and then elaborate on a few highlights. The 

President’s 2011 budget proposes a record $61.6 billion of investment in civilian research and development, not including facilities 

and equipment. That is an increase of $3.7 billion or 6.4 percent 

over the 2010 funding level. Those increases are counterbalanced 

by some reductions in defense development funding, such that the 

combined defense and non-defense R and D budget would be $147.7 

billion. That is just two-tenths of a percent above the enacted 2010 

level. If you adjusted for projected inflation it would be a cut of 

about nine-tenths of a percent. I think this is a smart R and D 

budget, one that is fiscally responsible overall with some important 

targeted increases where investments today can do the most good 

for us tomorrow. 

Among the highlights let me first note, as you did Mr. Chairman, 

that the 2011 budget reflects the President’s commitment to double 

the budgets of the National Science Foundation, the DOE’s Office 

of Science, and the NIST laboratories. The President’s plan for 

science and innovation, and the America Competes Act, as you 

noted, identified those three agencies as key to the fundamental research that underpins our future prosperity. And fundamental research which the private sector will never do enough of because the 

risks seem too high and the returns seem too far in the future. 

Last year this Congress and this administration worked together to 

put those agencies back on a doubling trajectory that had faltered 

in the previous administration, and the fiscal year 2011 maintains 

that trajectory with a 6.6 percent increase for their combined budgets. 

I want to highlight as well some of our goals within the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which plays a 

vital role in supporting research on the earth’s oceans, atmosphere, 

and marine habitats. The NOAA budget of $5.6 billion is an increase of $806 million over the 2010 enacted level. That is going 

to allow NOAA to improve weather and climate services that protect life and property, invest more heavily in restoring our oceans 

and coasts, and to ensure continuity of satellite observations of 

weather and climate that are crucial. 

I want to emphasize some recent progress in that latter area. 

The large increase in the NOAA budget reflects in part a new architecture for the National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS, which is a tri-agency program, 

NOAA, DOD and NASA, that has had a troubled history. Since last 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
110 

August OSTP has led an Executive Office of the President task 

force that, in close cooperation with those three partner agencies, 

has been investigating various options for how to place the 

NPOESS program on a pathway to succeed. Earlier this month the 

three agencies announced a plan to restructure the program—a 

plan reflected in the 2011 budget. And under this plan there will 

be a division of satellite acquisition but the three agencies will continue to partner in areas that they have successfully shared in the 

past, including the ground systems and the data management. I 

want to assure the Committee that OSTP will continue to be engaged in overseeing the transition to the new structure of this critical program. 

A number of other items in the R and D budget, I think, are 

worth highlighting, including support for activities in the next generation air transportation system, NextGen; the added billion dollars in the National Institutes of Health to speed discovery of new 

treatments and cures for cancer and other diseases; the added support for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, 

for research in high priority areas such as night vision, cybersecurity, enhanced GPS, and force protection; the more than 25 percent 

increase in funding for environmental health and safety studies 

under the National Nanotechnology Initiative; and the significant 

increase in support for the multiagency U.S. Global Change Research Program mandated by Congress to improve understanding 

of climate science, expand global observing systems, and develop 

science-based resources to support policy making and resource 

management. 

I want to focus on two other areas before my time is up. The first 

of those is NASA. Our space program in the United States represents not just a grand and inspiring adventure of exploration and 

discovery reaching outward into our universe, but it is also an indispensable platform for observing what is happening on the Earth 

below. It is a crucial element of our communications infrastructure 

and our geopositioning capability. It is a source of new products, 

services, businesses, and jobs whose potential is barely beginning 

to be tapped. The fiscal year 2011 NASA budget proposes a science 

and technology centered restructuring of this country’s space exploration program. It will invest in American ingenuity to enable us 

to do things in space that are more useful, more exciting, and more 

affordable then returning astronauts to the moon surface fifty 

years after we did it the first time using essentially the last century’s technology. 

The new approach, which adds $6 billion over the next five years 

for NASA, includes a vigorous technology development and test 

program that will begin to reverse decades of underinvestment in 

NASA in new ideas. It will extend the life of the International 

Space Station, likely to 2020 or beyond, thereby increasing the 

number of U.S. astronauts who will be working in space over the 

next decade. It will support the development of private sector capabilities to lift astronauts into low Earth orbit and it will shorten 

the duration of our reliance solely on Russian launchers for that 

purpose. And by investing in new game changing technologies it 

gives promise of getting our astronauts to deep space destinations 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
111 

sooner, faster, safer, and cheaper than what could realistically have 

been achieved under the old approach. 

Finally just a few words about STEM education, which you also, 

Mr. Chairman, mentioned in your opening remarks. The President 

has been emphatic about his commitment, which I share, to increase the participation and the performance of American students 

in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology, aiming to improve our performance in comparison with other nations from the 

middle of the pack to the top of the pack over the next decade. The 

2011 budget would invest $3.7 billion in STEM education programs 

across the federal government, including a $1 billion investment in 

improving math and science education among K–12 students. That 

is an increase of over 40 percent in that category. The impact of 

those investments is going to be magnified by the Educate to Innovate Campaign launched by the President late last year to motivate 

and inspire young people to excel in STEM fields. This campaign 

has already mobilized over $500 million in financial and in-kind 

support from companies, foundations, universities, and nonprofits. 

In addition to those investments the 2011 budget provides an additional $1.35 billion in funding for Race to the Top, a Department 

of Education program which provides a competitive advantage to 

states that commit to a comprehensive strategy to improve STEM 

education. 

The investments in R and D and in STEM education proposed 

in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget reflect his clear understanding of the importance, the critical importance, of science, technology, and innovation in addressing the most compelling challenges our nation faces while respecting, at the same time, the 

need for overall budgetary restraint under difficult economic conditions. It is a budget intended to keep this country on a path to revitalized economic growth, real energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better health outcomes for more Americans at 

lower costs, strengthened national and homeland security, and continuing leadership in science and in space. I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of the President’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget proposal into a reality, and of course I will be 

pleased to try to answer any questions the members may have. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
112 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 56820A.028
113 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 56820A.029
114 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 56820A.030
115 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 56820A.031
116 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 56820A.032
117 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 56820A.033
118 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 56820A.034
119 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 56820A.035
120 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 56820A.036
121 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Dr. Holdren, Mr. Wolf has arrived and I am 

going to let him make his opening statement. Then I will pick up 

with my questioning, and then I will yield to Mr. Wolf to follow 

with his questioning. And then we will proceed in the order of 

members’ arrival here today. After which I will be turning the 

chair over to one of the ranking members because the EPA administrator is before the Interior Committee and I need to appear 

there. 

Mr. Wolf, I yield to you for your opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT—RANKING MEMBER

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for not 

being here. I was at a funeral at Arlington Cemetery and I just got 

back, so I do apologize. 

I just want to make this clear because of your important position. 

Last October the Augustine Commission issued a report entitled, 

‘‘Seeking a Human Space Flight Program Worthy of a Great Nation.’’ The proposal this administration has submitted for NASA to 

abandon the Constellation vision and strategy leaves the program 

worthy of a lesser nation than the United States. You are proposing the most radical change to NASA’s mission and program 

since its inception, and yet the President has been silent, and the 

White House has been silent since the release of the budget. 

You may recall that in August 2008, then candidate Obama told 

an audience of 1,300 people in Florida, ‘‘Here is what I am committing to: to continue Constellation.’’ This is a notable reversal from 

the President that will have a devastating, I believe, impact, the 

consequences for decades for the future, for the future of young 

people, for the future of this country. 

Based on the little information that was provided to the Congress, it appears that this plan was hastily developed without proper vetting from NASA’s scientific and human space flight experts. 

Over the last week I have heard from a number of Apollo astronauts and NASA leaders. I would like to share with the Committee, and with you, just a few of the initial reactions and submit 

their full statements for the record. 

Former NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin wrote, ‘‘I believe 

this budget request advocates a strategy that is frankly disastrous 

for the U.S. human space flight program.’’ He added that this proposal clears the way for the Chinese dominance in space. China, 

which has thirty-four Catholic bishops in jail, hundreds of Protestant pastors, spies against us every day, will literally take the lead 

with regard to this program. 

Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo flight director and former 

Johnson Space Center Director said, ‘‘The U.S. space program is in 

great peril if the President’s budget proposals are enacted.’’ 

Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham wrote, ‘‘This budget proposal,’’ he said, ‘‘accelerates America’s downward spiral toward mediocrity in space exploration.’’ 

Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt 

wrote that this proposal would ‘‘cede the moon to China, the American space station to Russia, and consign liberty to the ages. Other 

nations would accrue the benefits—psychological, political, economical, and scientific—that the United States harvested as a conVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
122 

sequence of Apollo’s success forty years ago. This lesson had not 

been lost on our ideological and economic competitors.’’ 

Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke said, ‘‘We cannot afford to lose 

our leadership in space. The Constellation program must be continued.’’ 

And perhaps most notably, I received a letter from Burt Rutan, 

the X prize winner who flew the first private commercial craft into 

space in 2004, who ardently opposes this budget proposal. He said, 

‘‘An observer might think that I would applaud a decision to turn 

this important responsibility over to commercial developers. However,’’ he said, ‘‘he would be wrong. Two years after Neil and Buzz 

landed on the moon, America led the world in awarded PhDs in 

science and engineering and math. Today we are not even on the 

first or second page. The motivation,’’ as you were just speaking 

earlier, ‘‘the motivation of our youth is the most important thing 

we do for our nation’s long-term security and prosperity. NASA’s 

role in that can be as critical as it was in the sixties if the taxpayers fund true research and exploration.’’ 

Manned space flight and exploration is one of the last remaining 

fields in which the U.S. maintains an undeniable competitive advantage over other nations. To walk away is shortsighted and irresponsible. By killing the exploration program in favor of a vaguely 

defined ‘‘research and development program,’’ you are guaranteeing 

that the Chinese, the Russians, and others will be closing the exploration gap. We will be dependent on the Russians in the short 

term for rides to the International Space Station, and worse, we 

will be forced to play catch up to the Chinese and the Russians in 

the future. The Chinese, who are aiding and abetting the genocide 

in Darfur, and the Russians, who have more of bad things that we 

all know through history. When that time comes I fear that the 

U.S. will no longer have the resources or the political support to 

relaunch our human space flight program. 

James Lewis with the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies said he sees this decision ‘‘as a confirmation of America’s 

decline.’’ In the interim our space flight and manufacturing base 

will wither. We will be forced to spend far more to recreate our current capacities at a later date. 

The editors of ‘‘Space News’’ argued similarly that this could 

have a devastating effect on the U.S. propulsion industrial base, 

endangering DOD launch operations. This also has very serious national security implications. Alternative commercial vehicles will 

not be available much if at all sooner than the Ares I rocket. 

Worse, these alternative contractors have no experience in manned 

space flight and the safety measures necessary. 

As Norm Augustine said, ‘‘Space operations are among the most 

demanding and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans.’’ 

NASA’s workforce has forty years of experience, having learned by 

tragedy and success. The Constellation program contractors have 

been working on these issues for seven years. As a result of your 

plan, at the end of this decade we will only have a few years of 

flights to the International Space Station followed by a fleet of low 

Earth orbit vehicles with nowhere to go. Worse, you will have no 

exploration vehicle system to go beyond the Station. Above all, the 

budget proposal leaves NASA with no clear exploration mission 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
123 

goal. An agency with no vision or leadership will slowly decay. It 

will no longer be a place for our nation’s best and brightest to 

work. What we need is a NASA with vision, expertise, and support 

to maintain and grow our competitive advantage in space exploration. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I just yield back and I thank you. 

NASA—CONSTELLATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, thank you Mr. Wolf. Dr. Holdren, because 

I am going to have to leave. I am going to give you an opportunity 

to, in a relatively uninterrupted way, speak to the question of 

NASA’s decision to revamp its exploration program, to essentially 

cancel Constellation and to move forward as proposed in your 

budget. I note that prior to your commenting, we were all excited, 

I think, those of us who are interested in space exploration, when 

President Bush announced what he described as his Vision for 

Space Exploration. The problem with that was not the expression 

of the vision. The problem was in the funding of the programs that 

were necessary to fulfill it. So really what started as an expectation 

ended up being a considerable disappointment as the program fell 

behind in many different ways and was, as a result of incredible 

underfunding and at the recommendation that we probably would 

have to be spending $3 billion, $4 billion more a year on it. Not 

to catch up, but just to keep the Constellation program going. 

I say this not making judgment about the administration’s proposal, frankly. But in fairness, noting where this administration 

found itself after its election. It proceeded, I thought, extremely responsibly by calling on Norm Augustine to head a review commission. We all have confidence in Norm Augustine because of his 

service to the country and his considerable industrial experience. 

The Augustine Report, which was the beginning of NASA’s and the 

administration’s review of the exploration program, came essentially to the conclusion, certainly implied the conclusion, that is reflected in the President’s budget request. 

The failure of President Bush’s vision because of his lacking in 

the application of adequate resources is measured in a number of 

different ways. The gap that increasingly grew between the termination of the space shuttle and the coming online of another transportation system for U.S. human access to Station, I think, is probably one of the most glaring measurements of the failure of President Bush’s space exploration program. 

So it is, I certainly recognize, and I think most members of this 

Committee who work so closely with the science accounts, understand how inspirational a grand vision of space exploration can be, 

and how it can drive the decision making of youngsters to go into 

science and to go into research. We saw that certainly with Apollo. 

But it has to be real, and it has to be not only articulated but it 

has to be supported with resources. And if not, then it is in fact 

a hollow vision. 

Again, that is all not by way of passing judgment on the administration’s request, or its proposal, for exploration in and of itself, or 

in regard to Constellation. But simply to put in perspective this 

issue as I invite you to comment on it, as I say, in a fairly uninterrupted way which might be your only opportunity to comment on 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
124 

it in a fairly interrupted way. Not only on this Committee, but you 

can expect when you come up to have to flesh out the rather skinny 

presentation that we have with regard to the President’s proposal 

at this time. There is, as you know, an awful lot of interest in this, 

and concern as expressed by the Ranking Member. Dr. Holdren. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you. Well, certainly there will be more opportunities and there will be more detail forthcoming. And I know 

the Administrator is going to be up on the Hill tomorrow testifying. 

But as NASA has more time to pull all of the details together there 

will certainly be a lot more detail forthcoming. 

But let me start by saying that as the Ranking Member’s comments indicate, there is certainly a difference of opinion in the 

space community about whether this is a good idea or not. The 

Ranking Member mentioned, as you did Mr. Chairman, the Augustine Commission. Well Norm Augustine has strongly endorsed the 

new proposal. He says ‘‘By making a significant investment in creating commercial capabilities to take humans and cargo to low 

Earth orbit, overseen from a safety standpoint by NASA, this will 

drive competition, lower costs, open new markets, and make space 

more accessible. Similarly, by allocating the technology resources 

highlighted in our report as being necessary it will be possible to 

lay the foundation for travel beyond low Earth orbit, including destinations such as the asteroids, the Lagrangian points, Mars’ 

moons, and Mars itself, as well as revisits to our own moon.’’ 

The key point is that what the administration’s plan is aiming 

to achieve is not a retreat from the exploration of space, not an 

abandonment of human space flight, but an approach to doing it 

that invests in advanced technologies to do it better, to do it cheaper, to do it faster, to do it safer, and to do it in a way where we 

can match the mission to the resources. I think a goal of being able 

to operate successfully in deep space is more important as the guiding light for the program than any one destination. And our goal 

is to be able to operate in deep space, to be able to reach a variety 

of destinations to deploy the technologies that can do that in an effective way. 

Buzz Aldrin, the first person to set foot, second person to set foot 

on the moon, after Neil Armstrong, also endorsed it. He says, ‘‘the 

truth is, we have already been to the moon some forty years ago. 

A near term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on 

developing key cutting edge technologies to take us further faster 

is just what our nation needs to maintain its position as the leader 

in space exploration for the rest of this century.’’ 

So obviously, there are differing views. We could get in warring 

quotations probably for a long time. But there are a lot of prominent folks, including the folks on the Augustine Commission, Sally 

Ride, the first U.S. woman in space, who strongly endorse the program. Obviously there are differing views. I think some of those 

differences are going to shrink as the details come out and people 

have the chance to discuss them in a variety of forums. 

I would point out that we were already going to be dependent on 

the Russians no matter what we did the moment the decision was 

made. And it was made in the Bush administration. I think it was 

made correctly, that we needed to retire the shuttle in 2010. Now 

under the new plan we have provided a budget to fly out the maniVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
125 

fest into 2011 if that is necessary, to do it prudently and safely. 

But whatever else we did, we were going to have a period of dependence on the Russians to lift U.S. astronauts into low Earth 

orbit. 

We think under the new proposal that we will be able to shorten 

that period below what it would likely have been in Constellation. 

The Augustine Commission conclusion was that Constellation 

would not be able to take astronauts to low Earth orbit until 2017 

or 2018. That would have been after, under the program of record, 

the International Space Station would have been crashed into the 

ocean in pursuit of savings to pay for Constellation. The Augustine 

Commission characterized the Constellation program as 

unexecutable. And they concluded that if Constellation were funded 

in a manner that could return U.S. astronauts to the moon before 

2025 it would cost between $45 billion and $60 billion more between 2010 and 2020 than what was programmed under the 2010 

guidance. 

So we had a big challenge already with the Constellation program, in terms of being able to go where the original vision called 

for it to go, when it called for it to go there, as again you pointed 

out Mr. Chairman in your remarks. And the administration’s task 

was to find a way forward for the space program that would maintain U.S. leadership in space, that would maintain the capacity to 

explore above Earth orbit, that would make it better and cheaper, 

and that would do it within the bounds of something that we could 

afford in difficult financial times. 

I could say more but I think it probably would be better to have 

some back and forth. 

NASA—HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There is this woe that this is a real threat to our 

human exploration of space. That is going to be a concern. That the 

United States has just relegated itself to second place in that area. 

Speak to that. How does President Obama’s way forward with regard to human exploration, access, when we get back with our own 

transportation system, one approach versus the other. Speak to 

this whole concern of human, USA human access to space. 

Dr. HOLDREN. By extending the International Space Station we 

are ensuring that there are going to be more U.S. astronauts in 

orbit over the next decade than there would have been if we had 

crashed the Space Station into the ocean in 2016. That is point one. 

Point two, in terms of deep space exploration, in terms of getting 

humans beyond low Earth orbit, we think the way to do that is 

with better technologies. We think NASA has been underinvesting 

in advanced technologies for decades. And the result is that we 

were talking about going back to the moon, and imagining we could 

go beyond someday to Mars, with chemical rockets very much like 

those that we had in the sixties and seventies. We need to do better if we are to take astronauts as far as Mars and the only way 

we are going to do it is with better technology. The only way you 

are going to get that better technology is making investments in 

developing it. 

We have a whole range of technologies that we are able to pursue if we wind down Constellation, and take better advantage of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
126 

the very large sums of money that were going into that program, 

which were considerably more than foreseen at its inception. That 

makes available money to do research on advanced heavy lift propulsion, advanced deep space propulsion, on orbit refueling and 

fuel storage, a variety of technologies that can make it practical 

and affordable for U.S. astronauts to go into deep space. If the Chinese and the Russians keep on with a trajectory that is based on 

the old technology we are going to leapfrog right past them with 

an approach that invests in American ingenuity to do better. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. Again, I am sorry to have to leave 

the hearing. I have asked Mr. Ruppersberger if he would dedicate 

the rest of the afternoon, and he was kind enough a while ago to 

say that he would do that. I would ask that he come and take the 

chair and call on Mr. Wolf. 

NASA—CHINA AND RUSSIA

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many have characterized 

this proposal as ceding leadership in manned space flight to other 

nations. Charles Krauthammer wrote that, ‘‘Decades from now 

there may be a robust private space industry,’’ but to quote he said, 

‘‘in the interim space will be owned by Russia and then China.’’ 

What are the implications of abandoning Constellation at the same 

moment that other countries, particularly China, are setting specific space exploration goals? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Administrator Bolden and I wrote a letter to 

the editor of the Washington Post indicating that we disagreed 

with Mr. Krauthammer on virtually all of his conclusions. I do not 

think we are, as I have indicated, I do not think we are ceding 

leadership in space to the Russians and the Chinese at all. As I 

said, I think we are going to develop technologies that are going 

to maintain American leadership in space. Advanced technology 

has always been our strength in this country and it will continue 

to be our strength. And I think that will apply to deep space as 

much as it has applied to other domains. 

If the Chinese are able to get back to the moon fifty years after 

we did it, I do not think that demonstrates anything about Chinese 

leadership. We were there in 1969. We went back five more times 

into the 1970’s. Anybody who thinks that the Chinese lead because 

they get there fifty years later should talk to Neil Armstrong and 

Buzz Aldrin. We are going to stay ahead of them because we are 

going to have better technology than they do. 

NASA—CONSTELLATION

Mr. WOLF. Was the decision to scrap Constellation fully considered from a national security perspective? And was the National 

Security Council part of the decision making process? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, the process that we ran in the White House 

after we received the report of the Augustine Commission included 

the National Security Council as well as the Office of Management 

and Budget, OSTP, and of course it continually included NASA 

with the folks at NASA continually in touch with the national defense community as well because they have many overlapping interests and responsibilities. So the short answer to that question 

is yes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
127 

NASA—JOB LOSSES

Mr. WOLF. What do you anticipate as the impacts of this decision 

on the workforce, civil service and contractors? And how many jobs 

will be lost and when? And what measures do you plan to take to 

minimize the impact to job losses and the negative impact on the 

industrial base? 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, the job losses are obviously a very important concern. They are important to everybody. They are important to the Congress. They are important to the President. This is 

not a time in which we would lightly entertain job losses of any 

sort. We knew we were going to be in for job losses in connection 

with the shuttle program as soon as the shuttle was retired. There 

was no option that would have avoided significant losses in the 

shuttle program as soon as the shuttle had retired. 

We think this plan does more to mitigate those losses by creating 

opportunities. It is going to create opportunities, as I have indicated, in heavy lift propulsion, in advanced space propulsion. We 

have a plan to invest considerable additional resources in the Kennedy Space Flight Center to upgrade its capabilities to make it a 

launch center for the 21st century, to increase its capacity to support the increased number of missions we are going to have. We 

are going to have more robotic missions. We are going to have an 

increasing number of commercial missions launching from the Kennedy Space Center. 

With respect to the jobs in Alabama, the Marshall Center, which 

has tremendous expertise in rocketry, obviously, is going to lose 

some jobs when Constellation is wound down. But it is going to 

gain some jobs in heavy lift propulsion research and in other advanced technology research in which the capabilities there are unmatched anywhere. This is a consequence. Anytime there is any 

change in direction you are going to have some jobs lost in some 

domains, other jobs gained. We are making every effort to maximize the number of jobs that will be gained by the changes in this 

program. 

Mr. WOLF. So what is the number of jobs? The question was, 

what is the number of jobs? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do not think anybody knows exactly, Congressman, what the number of jobs will be. All of those analyses have 

a little bit of slop in them. 

Mr. WOLF. But you must have looked at—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah, we have—— 

Mr. WOLF. So tell us what you—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We have looked at job losses. I think we are looking at something like 5,000 job losses in Florida. And we think we 

will be able to restore at least something in the range of 1,700 to 

2,000 of those with programs that we have already identified. And 

those are the jobs we were going to lose in the shuttle program 

anyway. The number of jobs at risk in Alabama, there are 2,500 

civil servants employed at Marshall. Some of those jobs will presumably be lost but many of them will be retained because of the 

additional research and development efforts that will go on there. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
128 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. [Presiding] Okay, I think on the list I am 

next. And then John, I think you are. I want to get into three areas 

continuing some of the questioning on the Constellation, get into 

NOAA, and then the final is the restrictions on imagery resolutions 

for commercial satellites. There is a big concern there and I think 

that if we do not look at that more thoroughly that France, Germany, Spain, Italy are all talking about doing what we do right 

now and it looks like it is another ITAR. So I would like to get into 

that. 

NASA—CONSTELLATION

But let us get back to the Constellation. What you are, and we 

want to do what is right for America. And, you know, the administration is there, we want to work with the administration. But, you 

know, right now this came out of nowhere from where we are sitting, those of us who deal in the space program, whether it is intelligence, defense, or this Appropriations Committee. And we talk, 

the concept sounds great. The fact that we are putting a lot of 

money into research and development, and we have not done that 

for a while. In fact, if you look at, I think, the failures of our space 

programs, things that really are still classified, we cannot talk 

about all of them. A lot of it is because we took a lot of money away 

from research and development and testing and the things that 

needed to be done. You can have a major contract with one of the 

big boys, whether it is Northrup, or Boeing, or Lockheed, you know, 

all the big corporations. And they would have these contracts, and 

then they would do the research and development along the way. 

It would be over price, over time, and half the time the bird would 

be so big because every three-star wanted everything on it and 

nothing was going to happen. So I think your concept is good. 

My concern is that it is happening very quickly without a plan, 

the way we see a plan. And we need to have a plan. And then let 

us evaluate that plan. You look at this county, some people feel 

that if you control the skies you control the world. When Sputnik 

came out we responded as a country in eight years and put a man 

on the moon, and that really helped us do the research and development to get us where we are now as being dominant in space. 

But as you know, we have had a lot of failures. And that is what 

I am sure you are focusing on now. But I am worried about the details, and doing something too quick, too soon. It almost reminds 

me of the healthcare bill. And, you know, when you, when you are 

focusing on something as important as our national security, and 

where you are going to be going, I feel the commercial is very important. I feel in the area of defense and intelligence we have been 

way behind and we have lost money where we could have one, four 

satellites to one because of the traditional ways that the, I call it, 

not out of disrespect, but kind of a joke, the old bulls, admirals, 

and generals, or whatever. And just wanting not to take the risks 

that maybe we took when we put a man on the moon years ago. 

NASA—MARS

But where the concern is, and I am going to ask you this question, is it our intention to put a man on the moon again? Or a man 

on Mars again? Is that the administration’s intention? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
129 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think in short yes. Mars, everybody agrees I 

think Mars is the ultimate destination. We are not ready to put a 

date on that. There was no date, by the way, on going to Mars even 

in the Constellation program. But yes, Mars is the ultimate destination for human space flight beyond low Earth orbit. The President has not abandoned that. Administrator Bolden has not abandoned it. We will ultimately put people back on the moon, when we 

are ready to do interesting things with them on the moon surface. 

The problem with the Constellation program is that we would at 

most have been ready to put U.S. astronauts in the vicinity of the 

moon around 2028, according to the Augustine Committee. And we 

would at that time have not had the capability to put them on the 

surface, because we would not have been able to pay for the lander 

under the budget that was foreseen. 

We will go back to the moon and we will ultimately get people 

on Mars. But when we do it we will do it in a way that makes 

sense, a way that we can afford, and a way that is safer for the 

astronauts. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The way the administration, the perception 

at least from my perspective, is that, ‘‘Well, we are going to go 

where we need to go in space, but we are going to let the commercial side take more control.’’ And I do not have an issue with that. 

And some, as I said before, in defense with some intel. But if you 

are going to put a man on the moon, commercial has not had the 

research and development. They do not have the capacity at this 

point to put a man on the moon or Mars. And by the way, why that 

is relevant, too, is because our younger generation, I feel, is not 

going to space anymore because these programs are out there forever, it takes forever to go where we need to go. And, you know, 

that is, the younger generation really needs to be more active and 

we need to focus more in this area of space. 

Also, we need to get the country excited. Because people are 

tired. They are just not used to having, let me say it this way. In 

the old days, an astronaut was as popular as an NFL quarterback. 

These days that is not the case. And I think the country just is not 

excited about going to the Space Station and back. 

I am going to get back, though. What is the plan? I mean, I am 

hearing theory but I am not hearing detail. And until you have detail, and we are sitting here as appropriators, and we are worried 

about national security. And, you know, it is such a big decision on 

where we go and how we are going to develop our space and 

science, and how we are going to control the skies. I am worried 

we are going too quickly on this thing. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay, let me respond on a couple of points. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So educate us. 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, I want to be clear. We are not proposing to use commercial to go to the moon or to go to Mars. The 

proposal is to turn over the most straightforward part of the task, 

which is lifting cargo and astronauts into low Earth orbit, to public-private partnerships in which the private sector plays a bigger 

role than it has played in the past. And what has basically changed 

here is the acquisition model. We have relied on the private sector 

to build the technologies that take our astronauts into space from 

the beginning. The Mercury capsule was built by McDonnell. GenVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
130 

eral Dynamics launched it with an atlas converted from an ICBM. 

Rockwell International built the space shuttle. What is changing is 

the acquisition model, where the idea is we will buy the service and 

the private sector, investing substantial amounts of its own money, 

but also some government money at the outset, will deliver that 

service. But the technology that we have been using to take U.S. 

astronauts into space has always been built by the private sector. 

At the same time, by turning over more of that task of lifting 

cargo and astronauts into low Earth orbit to the private sector we 

are going to free up NASA’s resources to do the more demanding, 

tougher, cutting edge jobs for which NASA is uniquely suited. 

NASA is going to have—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Give me an example? 

Dr. HOLDREN. NASA is going to have the responsibility for developing in-orbit refueling capabilities. NASA is going to have the responsibility for the development of advanced heavy lift capability. 

NASA will have the responsibility for developing the advanced 

space propulsion engines that can get us more rapidly to destinations like Mars. If we try to use chemical rockets to go to Mars we 

are going to have our astronauts out there for so long we are going 

to have a big radiation exposure problem. We need to do this in the 

right way, and the right way to do it is advanced technology. And 

NASA is the operation that is going to bring us that technology. 

We are not turning the whole space program over to the private 

sector by any stretch of the imagination. 

You are right to ask for more detail. This plan awaited, first of 

all, the completion of the Augustine report before the administration was even going to consider in any detail what the options 

were, and which option it was going to choose. It wanted to have 

the Augustine Report. We got the Augustine Report. We set up an 

interagency process in the White House to consider the findings of 

that report, to consider and develop and cost out the options. NASA 

was involved in that. NSC was involved in it. We in OSTP were 

involved in it. We presented a wide variety of options over a period 

of time and we ended up with a decision. This is not a decision that 

was reached without a lot of input from folks in NASA. It was not 

a decision that was reached without input from the private sector, 

from our experienced contractors who are not all, by the way, small 

operations. The Augustine Committee had an exceedingly open 

process in which they talked with virtually everybody, visited the 

major space centers, and so on. But the details do still need to be 

fleshed out. 

NASA has been working on that very hard ever since the decision was made to go in this direction, I think you will be seeing 

from Administrator Bolden, and others from NASA who will come 

up here, the fleshing out that you rightly want before you reach a 

conclusion about whether this is a viable pathway. I have seen 

enough to believe it is. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. There are other, I will get to other questions in another round, so John, I do want to say this, though. One 

of the focuses that I feel has to be looked at is the DOD, intel, and 

NASA collaborating a lot more. And a lot of times DOD and intel 

to an extent hold their satellites close to the vest when it is not 

necessary. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
131 

Dr. HOLDREN. I know that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And we need to open that so that maybe 

a defense satellite or an intel could be used by NOAA, or whatever. 

That is something I would hope you would focus on. John? 

NASA—AUGUSTINE COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Holdren, I heard you say just a moment ago that your 

plan, you were waiting for the Augustine Commission Report because you would not think of releasing this until they had their report, right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Of course. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you developed this plan before you had even 

seen the Augustine Report, did you not? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I beg your pardon. I said—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is what you said. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. We were waiting for the Augustine 

Report to look at the options. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I think that was what you said. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, excuse me, sir, but that is not what I said. I 

said we were waiting for the report—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, I think that is what you just testified. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. So we could see, we were waiting for 

the report so that we could see how it characterized the different 

options. We had not decided—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. You were not even thinking about this and 

planning this before the Augustine Commission released its report. 

Are there any memos, any discussions at your office, at the White 

House of cancelling Constellation before the Augustine Commission 

released its report? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would have to go and look to see if there was 

any consideration of that. We knew, sir, from many other sources, 

from many other analyses, that there were very serious criticisms 

out there about the viability of the Constellation program. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I know, I was wondering what you—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. So it would be surprising if nobody involved in any 

of these discussions had mentioned those analyses. But certainly I 

can assure you no decision had been made about what course—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. A decision had been made but you were waiting 

to move until, I heard you just testify you were waiting, you would 

not have announced this before. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We would not have had anything to announce before—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But you were already contemplating this. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, we would not have had anything to announce. 

Believe me, the President did not know what he wanted to do. We 

did not, in the early phases, even have a new NASA administrator. 

NASA—CONSTELLATION

Mr. CULBERSON. Let me also ask you, if I could, excuse me because our time is so limited, I also heard you just say that you contemplated, this was developed with the input of NASA deputy administrators and, you know, you talked to folks out in the field. Yet 

the field center heads, who are your best experts, Mike Coats who 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
132 

is a prince, he is Director of the Johnson Space Center, these men 

and women are the best in their field. And these field directors, the 

directors of the field centers, your associate administrators and 

field center heads were not even told of the final details of the plan 

to cancel Constellation until just a couple of days before its release. 

They were not consulted with. 

Dr. HOLDREN. They were consulted early in the process and during the process about the options, the characteristics of different 

possibilities. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is not a direct answer. Your testimony was 

you consulted with NASA directors and associate administrators, 

and it is a fact that your associate administrators and your field 

center heads said they were not told about the decision to cancel 

Constellation until a couple of days before the announcement. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman, with respect you are not distinguishing between consulting them during the process of developing 

a decision—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well you said consult them about options. I am 

talking about the cancellation. You are attempting to cancel Constellation, right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. They were not consulted, were they? 

Dr. HOLDREN. They were consulted in the whole process. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Did you tell them you were going to cancel Constellation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We did not tell them until we told them, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Did you ask them what they thought about cancelling the Constellation program? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I could not tell you who talked to which director 

when about the possibility of cancelling the Constellation program. 

The Augustine Committee met with all of those folks. 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, no, no, you, I am not talking—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We were obviously contemplating a wide range of 

possibilities. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. Forgive me, because our time is so short. 

I am not talking about the Augustine Commission. I am talking 

about you and your office, and the folks that sit behind you that 

work for you. Did you or any of your staff consult with and ask any 

of the field center heads, or any associate administrator at NASA, 

what is the impact on American leadership in space if we cancel 

Constellation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I did not ask any center director that question. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. My assumption is that folks in NASA did. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Your assumption? You are a scientist, you do 

not assume. You know what that stands for. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I could not tell you whether any members of my 

staff talked to those particular people or not. I know their 

views—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Were taken into account in developing 

the Augustine Report. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
133 

Mr. CULBERSON. Their views were taken into account? They were 

not told of the cancellation until two days before the announcement. 

Dr. HOLDREN. This is a different question. The question of when 

people get told about a decision, and what consultations go into the 

decision are two different questions. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The reason for the question, Mr. Chairman, is 

very important. Because Dr. Holdren has testified, you just said 

flat out that your plan is going to reduce the gap. You are going 

to be able to reduce the gap, we are not going to have to rely on 

the Russians for as long. I heard you say that. And that is a statement which you as a scientist, I am confident, do not make statements unless you have got verifiable facts that you can back that 

up. You did not clearly consult with or ask any of the field center 

heads what will be the gap, how long will the gap be if we cancel 

Constellation and turn this over to the private sector? And since 

that conversation did not occur, you have no basis to make that 

statement from field center directors. 

And let me also drive this point home. How many, I want to 

know how many private contractors you visited with, or asked their 

opinions. You say that you can shorten the gap with the private 

sector. Did you or anyone from your office ever meet with Boeing, 

or Lockheed Martin, or ATK about what the effect on the gap will 

be if we turn it over to the private sector guys. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would have to ask the people in my office whether they did. But the basis for that statement was the Augustine 

Commission Report, which said that there was a considerable probability that the private sector could start putting U.S. astronauts 

in Earth orbit by 2016. And the Augustine Committee view was 

that Constellation would not be able to do it until 2017—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Someone from your office did? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Sir, I cannot tell you who all people in my office 

talked to. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Now certainly—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have a very energetic and dedicated staff. They 

talked to a lot of people. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The Augustine Commission looked at a lot of 

different options, and that was one of them clearly. And the statement, though, you made though, that we are going to shorten the 

gap if we follow this proposal you have laid out, on what do you 

base that? Who—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I base it in part on the Augustine Committee Report, which concluded that that was a likelihood. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. Let me, if I could also finally, Mr. Chairman, because I know we are short on time, ask Dr. Holdren, you 

directed the administration has essentially as I know has told 

NASA to go ahead and begin to start winding down, get ready to 

shut down Constellation, right? You have already sent out those orders? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Number one, I have not sent out any orders. 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, the White House, the administration. 

Dr. HOLDREN. To my knowledge, and I have seen a letter that 

Administrator Bolden wrote in response to a letter from Congressman Alderholt and some others. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
134 

Mr. CULBERSON. And me. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The NASA Administrator has not sent out any orders to contractors to start cutting things down. They are complying with the law, they are asking, because the President’s proposal is to wind down Constellation, they are asking what it would 

cost to do so. That is a different thing than saying stop work, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is because we 

put in this Committee, and we did so quite properly, put into statute language, Mr. Chairman, that says that none of the NASA 

funds provided herein for prior years shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project, or activity of the 

architecture for Constellation, nor shall any funds be available to 

create or initiate a new program, project, or activity unless such 

program, termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations act. 

Now that is statute. You cannot in any way alter or change or 

Man Launch Space Program because that is our job. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Without the consent of the Congress, that is absolutely correct. 

Mr. CULBERSON. NASA can’t use one nickel of the money appropriated from this Subcommittee to change, alter, or in any way the 

Man Space Program. 

NASA—AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

And I would say I share everyone’s concern on this Committee 

that we—you are proposing surrendering Little Round Top. You 

are surrendering the high ground to the Chinese, to India, to our 

friends and foe alike, and it is something America has never done 

in its history, and I am frankly embarrassed. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I don’t agree with that characterization, sir, 

with all respect. We do not intend to surrender leadership. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am mortified. Embarrassing and mortifying 

that America would—our American President would voluntarily 

surrender leadership of the world in science and space exploration 

and surrender the high ground to our enemies is mortifying, embarrassing, and unacceptable. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Sir, that is not what we are proposing to do. We 

are proposing to maintain U.S. leadership with what has always 

been our strongest suit, which is advanced technology. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I think one thing the statute did say, it did 

give the right to modify, I believe. Is that correct? I just heard that 

from staff. That is the statute. Mike, do you have any questions? 

We have 332 who have not voted. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we leave and come 

back I will reclaim my time when we get back. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

NASA—COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. HONDA. The question I have is I guess the choice between 

going commercial, privatization of space exploration versus the government doing it in terms of advancing technology and looking at 

new technologies. 

When we are looking at turning over the task of space exploration in lower orbit, open it to commercialization or commercial efVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
135 

forts are we giving up our position on creating new technologies? 

Or what role do we play in terms of developing new technologies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well first of all the proposed plan greatly increases the investments we are making in NASA in developing new 

technologies. New technologies for heavy lift, new technologies for 

propulsion in deep space, new technologies for refueling in orbit. 

We think we need a range of new technologies to make human exploration of deep space practical, and it is our intention to develop 

those. 

The increased role of the commercial sector in this plan is confined to an increased role in lifting cargo and astronauts into low 

Earth orbit, and we think for that task that the rapidly developing 

commercial space flight sector can make a very important contribution. 

Mr. HONDA. So you are saying that we are dividing our responsibilities that we will do the things that they need to have in order 

to put their payload up. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well again, they already have rockets, they are designing additional ones. 

Mr. HONDA. I understand that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. They have already been building rockets for our 

program. 

Mr. HONDA. I am not trying to argue with you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I know, I am trying to answer your question. 

Mr. HONDA. Saying that we are going to be developing the technology for them to use to put their payload up. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We have already done some of that. They already 

have some of the technologies they need. It is an ongoing interaction. It is going to be a partnership. It always has been. 

Mr. HONDA. Will the partnerships increase in terms of them having a greater role—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. And bear the expense of putting up the 

payload? 

Dr. HOLDREN. And they are expected to be willing to do that because they will have customers other than the U.S. government. As 

again they already do in putting up communication satellites and 

so on. 

Mr. HONDA. For us to recoup the investment we make, what responsibilities will with they to pay back into the coffers? 

Dr. HOLDREN. You are now exceeding my competence. I am not 

an expert in the kinds of contracts that will be developed for this 

purpose. 

Mr. HONDA. No, but there has got to be some sort of a basic concept of we invest the money, they take advantage of it and make 

money, and where does that enrichment go to in terms of—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well part of the enrichment goes to maintaining 

U.S. leadership in space, because it frees up—— 

Mr. HONDA. Well if you look at—I understand that, you know, 

we did that with technology in terms of IT and—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Sure, we do it across the board. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. Other areas, but very little of that 

money that we put into it comes back to public education, postgraduate work where we lead in that. And if we are going to conVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
136 

tinue to lead that and if we have that confidence that we are going 

to be able to do that we have to find other ways to be able to, you 

know, sustain that in the long term. 

Our Congress, every time we talk about other countries, we talk 

about them as if they were folks who are not going to be playing 

as a team. Are we looking at working with Russia and China and 

Japan and the other countries who are going to space as partners? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We do that already, sir, to a very substantial extent. We have up there the International Space Station which we 

are extending to 2020. 

Mr. HONDA. Yeah, but we—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We have got Russians up there, we have Japanese, 

we have Europeans. They are helping to provision the station. 

Their launchers are taking cargo to the Space Station regularly. 

That will continue to happen. There are lots of respects in which 

we do partner with other countries to the Space Station regularly. 

That will continue to happen. There are lots of respects in which 

we do partner with other countries to get these tasks done in concert. 

Mr. HONDA. And we do that and then we withdraw our partnerships at times don’t we? And so—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think—— 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. My concern is being consistent in our 

partnership and our commitment, but also being consistent and— 

I am trying to say it way that I am not going to offend my colleagues—but we seem to criticize or put them out there as if, you 

know, they are going to be or constant enemies, and our congressional move the past few years where we disallowed our companies 

to work overseas to do the launching, we lost of lot of market share 

in the world. And so you know, we either do it right and be consistent, and you know, if Congress went off on one end or the other, 

that somebody’s got to say, you know, let us just be consistent 

about this thing. You know, we are very schizophrenic about our 

global relationships, and I think that we need to do some work in 

that area too. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would agree with that. There is obviously a longstanding tension between competition and cooperation in a lot of 

these domains, and you have to decide when you are going to cooperate and when you are going to compete. We are doing a lot of 

cooperation in space. 

Mr. HONDA. Right. And I don’t think that we have a problem understanding that because we do that in Texas, we do that in California in terms of, you know, the technologies. Is we have to be 

able to do that with come confidence with other countries, and at 

the same time they have a problem with us too I am sure, because 

they have a history from their point of view, and using a minimum 

of understanding that we deal up right now just in the area of global warning, we end up sharing the IPs and not fight over it. 

I guess the other thing we need to do if we are going to move 

into this arena is to start looking at how we talk about and how 

we treat our relationships as we move forward in the technology. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I agree that is important. I do think we made 

our partners very happy by extending our commitment to the space 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
137 

station rather than saying for reasons of our budget we have to 

crash it into the ocean in 2016. 

Mr. HONDA. Real quick question. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We are going to have to adjourn the meeting temporarily—we will come back. There are three votes, two 

after this, then we will come back. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It will probably be about 20 minutes. 

NASA—SATELLITES

Mr. HONDA. So let me just finish my question though. At Lockheed, which is one of the contracts, they are developing some satellites for our Constellation Program, correct? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We have ten more votes. 

Mr. HONDA. And my understanding is that they are going to 

have to stop at a certain point, but we will have approximately four 

satellites up there to continue our mediums to put up satellites so 

that we have an increased efficiency and geo positioning and controlling kinds of things that we control with these satellites both 

commercial and military. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Right, those aren’t part of the Constellation Program. 

Mr. HONDA. They are not? 

Dr. HOLDREN. They are not 

Mr. HONDA. Then why is TSAT, I understand that TSAT is going 

to be set aside or we are not going to be funding it beyond a certain 

date, and they are already working along those—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure what the connection is between the 

satellites you are talking about and Constellation Program. 

Mr. HONDA. Does anybody else know? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Those are separate. The Constellation Program 

consists of the Ares 1 rocket for lifting crew and cargo into low 

Earth orbit; the Ares 5, which is a heavier rocket; the Orion Crew 

Capsule; and the Altair Lander, which was intended ultimately to 

land on the moon. But there are no satellites in the Constellation 

Program. 

There are a whole variety of satellite programs that are very important that we are continuing to fund. 

Mr. HONDA. So TSAT has nothing to do with this then? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah. 

Mr. HONDA. Then can you help me understand why the future 

funding of that is going to be on hold where the next generation 

they are looking at to be able to produce the system that we have 

out there and increase our dominance and control of the technology 

and satellite and geo positioning? And maybe I can get a response 

back in writing. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah, this is a military satellite, but I would have 

to get back to you on the details. I am not familiar with the TSAT 

Program or what’s happened to its budget. So I would have to look 

into that, sir, and we could get back to you. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Aderholt? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
138 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, we have two, five-minute votes 

after this, and my question is going to take a little longer. Could 

we just recess for just for about five or ten minutes and then—— 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, if you don’t mind, Mr. Aderholt, I have got a 

short question. Maybe I can get that in now. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well then I just defer. Go right ahead. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I will go vote and then I will come back. Okay. 

NASA—PLANETARY SCIENCE PROGRAM

Mr. SCHIFF. Super. Mr. Holdren, I wanted to ask you about the 

Planetary Science Program. The President’s budget does a great job 

of funding earth science missions and continues funding for current 

planetary science missions, but it doesn’t do much to move future 

planetary science missions into the formulation stage, in particular 

the outer planets flag ship mission to Europa is not moved into the 

formulation phase. The budget mentions that NASA is waiting for 

the results of the Planetary Science Decadal Survey before formulating the mission, but this mission was recommended in the last 

decadal and has been ready to begin development for several years, 

so that seems just another delay, another excuse for delay. 

Those of us that have been strong supporters, but don’t understand why we continually—it gets approved by one decadal and we 

got to wait for another decadal, and why isn’t NASA funding the 

development of an outer planets mission in 2011? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t have the answer to that off the top of my 

head, it is another one I will look into and get back to you. I am 

not sure what the answer is. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay, I appreciate if you would get back to us on 

that. That was the only short question I had. 

Let me start with the next one and we will see how far we can 

get. 

NASA—HEAVY LIFT CAPABILITY

The new budget discusses heavy lift, but not with a lot of detail. 

The only time line mentioned is a vague statement that we should 

have a new heavy lift first stage engine by 2020, developing a vehicle will then take many more years leaving us without a heavy lift 

capability until 2025 or 2030. All though the commercial space 

flight companies are making great progress they don’t have plans 

for heavy lift. 

What would be necessary to get us a heavy lift vehicle by 2020 

to move up the timetable, and can the technologies outlined for development using funds currently devoted to Constellation reduce 

the size of the heavy lift launcher we might need? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me take the last question first. Certainly some 

of the technologies that are going to be explored under the new 

plan can reduce the need for heavy lift. For example, if you can develop and demonstrate in-orbit refueling then the need for how 

much mass you have to put up at one shot can be reduced and you 

can have a smaller heavy lift capacity than you would otherwise 

need. 

There are a variety of other advanced technologies that can effect 

that. For example, if you get advanced space propulsion that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
139 

doesn’t need as much chemical fuel to go where you are going you 

can again reduce the amount of mass you have to put up there. 

There is no very specific timetable beyond the general goal you 

mentioned in part because we don’t know until we start reinvesting 

in technology how fast we can make progress and what the most 

attractive possibilities will be that could be converted into real 

operational systems. So obviously this is something that is going to 

be revisited continuously after the research that we have been neglecting for so long gets back under way. Obviously the sooner the 

better from the standpoint of our capacities to explore deep space. 

But you know, I have to remind everybody that we wouldn’t have 

really had the Ares 5 ready to go, according to the Augustine Committee, until the late 2020’s in any case. I mean, we were looking 

at a shortfall in heavy lift capability under the old program, not 

just under the new. 

NASA—VISION

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you a broader question in terms of the 

vision behind the NASA Human Exploration Program. In particular the moon, while it was somewhere we had gone before was 

still a goal that caught the imagination of the American people and 

the plan to get there had goals and time lines. The President has 

not been explicit about the long-term goal of all the research that 

is set out, the research and development work that is going to 

Mars, and that is a serious concern. 

Is this plan the faster way to get us to Mars? And if so, why 

hasn’t the President made that case? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think we will be hearing from the President on 

this. I can’t give you a date, but it has been the President’s intention to speak up on this topic. As you know he has had his hands 

pretty full on some other topics, and I think they don’t want to put 

too many out there at once, but we will be hearing from the President on space policy and what his vision is. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I think that is really vital. There is a lot of 

concern here, as you can tell, with the direction of the Space Program and with, you know, the loss—the potential loss of our leadership in this area that has been the source of great pride for the 

country and innovation and technology, and if there is a good case 

to be made for why this advances those goals it really will need to 

be made very forcefully. 

I mean, I represent an area that is very heavily involved in 

robotic exploration—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Right. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. And the budget is very kind to robotic 

exploration, but I also have a great support of the Man Space Program and share the concerns about the degree and length of time 

in which we will be reliant of the Russians or anyone else for that 

matter, the degree to which turning our Space Program into an 

international program will result in—potentially result in delays 

and loss of American leadership in this area, and I think we would 

really benefit if we made clearly articulated vision about where our 

Space Program is going and how this is the best direction to get 

there. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
140 

I mean, I am obviously mindful of the budget realities and have 

lamented over the last several years that our aspirations and our 

policies far out stripped our capacity to pay for them, so I have 

never envied the task of reconciling those two, and I know if you 

had your way you would have the President focused on this all the 

time, but he obviously has a lot else on his plate as you mentioned. 

I am going to head down, and we probably won’t have other 

members back before this series, so we will recess then until the 

conclusion of these votes. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Good. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Good afternoon. 

NASA—CONSTELLATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Dr. Holdren for being here today and 

for your testimony. And no one envies your job that you have and 

certainly we all appreciate it, it is a very difficult job that you have 

and what you are doing. 

I would want to mention a little bit about just the overall, and 

from in recent years the entire discretionary budget requested average just under $1 trillion. President Obama’s budget request average over $3 trillion of course that is not counting the stimulus. 

Our hope was that NASA’s request would include realist dollar 

amounts for human exploration. 

The Augustine Commission suggested two to three billion per 

year for any of the human space flight options to be realistic. The 

current plan that is before us flushes away $9 billion invested in 

the Constellation, commits U.S. taxpayer to at least two billion 

more dollars to shut down these programs, and provides a top line 

increase of slightly more than $1 billion per year for five years. It 

terminates the only launch and capsule program which have been 

guided by NASA’s safety criteria to the level of being human rated 

by NASA. This plan abandons any open of astronauts actually 

going anywhere beyond the station for at least 20 years. 

I am aware of the OMB statement of NASA’s mission, I am getting ready to go to Mars, but these science projects should be 

worked on at the same time as the launch systems like Constellation which will actually get us somewhere. 

My first question is regard to the speed that NASA is shutting 

down the Constellation, even though the commercial options for 

human space flights are not ready at this point. Fixed costs of 

launching Ares 1 would be about $1.2 billion a year, any launch 

system is going to have that high of cost or higher. The marginal 

costs are costs per rocket would be about 120 million for Ares 1, 

plus about 50 million for Orion Capsule. The latest estimate for the 

Completed falcon 9 is about $130 million. 

Meanwhile we should note that the original March 2006 contracts NASA sign would the two companies which won COTTS contract called for three demonstration flights by the fall of 2008 

showing the ability to deliver cargo to the International Space Station, almost four years later we are still waiting on that first flight. 

The transfer of human space flight missions to commercial companies only goes against number one, 2005 and 2008 Space Act 

bills, 2008 Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel reports, 2009 AeroVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
141 

space Safety Panel report, and even the Augustine Commission, 

which I know you referred to earlier, has recommended a back-up 

launch plan. 

The intent of Congress was clearly that NASA would continue 

these programs until Congress made a decision on the President’s 

proposal. 

Isn’t it a big risk for our Space Program for NASA to be aggressively canceling and freezing all Constellation contracts which were 

on schedule to be awarded this year? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, Congressman, I believe we are 

talking about the fiscal year 2011 budget here. This is the President’s proposal for what he would like to do in 2011, which obviously is going to be before this Committee and other committees of 

the Congress. 

As I understand it, and I read your letter to the NASA administrator and I read the response from NASA. As I understand it, 

NASA is not terminating these contracts at this point, it is not in 

violation of the statute to which you refer here, and it is not 

NASA’s intention, certainly not the Administration’s intention, to 

violate the statute. 

We know we need to work with Congress if we are going to execute this change in approach in NASA’s Human Space Flight Program and we would plan to do that. There is no intention to violate 

the law and I don’t believe the law is being violated. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So it is your position then that they are not canceling or freezing any of the contracts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. My understanding is the understanding embodied 

in Administrator Bolton’s response to your letter. I don’t know anything that would contradict that at this point. I must say that contract law and contract management is not my field of expertise—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Uh-huh. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And so I am relying here on what I 

read in these materials and what the administrator and his staff 

tell me, which is that they believe they are in compliance with the 

law. And the intention is to work with the Congress to implement 

the change-in-direction for the Human Space Flight Program, putting a heavier emphasis on the development of new technologies, 

as has been outlined in the Administration’s fiscal 2011 budget. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So based on the knowledge you have been given 

and if they were to ask your advice on it you would advise them 

not to cancel or freeze any contacts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. My advice first of all would be to comply with the 

law. 

NASA—COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes. Okay. The two Space Act bills passed by 

Congress in 2005 and 2008 supported some commercial space flight 

development, but never to the point of eliminating our primary 

launching capsule plans. NASA has spent $500 million on the 

COTTS Program. NASA’s budget adds another $312 million, which 

is an additional 60 percent on top of the 500, and then another 500 

on top of that in fiscal year 2011 for the commercial crew, and then 

billions more. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
142 

Was there a market study which showed that multiple rocket 

companies can survive without continued taxpayer support? And 

can you tell us just how many jobs are created in the first two 

years and how many jobs are lost? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is my impression that there have been a number of market studies, presumably some of them done by these 

companies or by their investors about what the prospects for commercial space industry are. I am not personally familiar with those 

studies, and I can’t tell you what particular studies say about the 

number of jobs. I have seen an estimate that something like 1700 

jobs could be associated with the early phase of the growth of a 

commercial space industry as envisioned in the President’s proposal, but again, this is not—I have to tell you, not my domain of 

expertise. The economic assessment and the jobs assessments, 

there are other folks who have looked at that much more closely 

than I have. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So you are not real sure about whether there has 

been any studies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am sure there have been market studies. I mean, 

these folks aren’t crazy, they are not investing their own money, 

as many of them are, without having done some studies to determine that there is a market. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You are just not aware of any that you yourself—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. But I am not personally—I haven’t read those 

studies, I am not familiar with them in detail. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. But I would be happy to get back to you on—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Sure. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. What exists. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. If you could that would be very helpful if you 

could check into that and find out and let me know all about that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I guess we will start another round, so I 

guess I will start the round. We won’t have any votes that is for 

sure. 

NASA—INTELLIGENCE

I asked you when we had a conversation at the White House if 

you had seen or heard of this report that the Select Committee on 

Intelligence had done about the Space Program. We’ve had a lot of 

failures, and for one year the Technical Tactical Committee of the 

Intelligence Committee did a year investigation, hearings with all 

the majors, commercial NRO, the DNI really was our partner, and 

then we wrote a report, and I assume you haven’t seen the report. 

And the only reason I—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. This one. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well you see it now. But why I want to 

raise this, because—and I said how we were caught by surprise, 

and a lot of what happens in relationships between administrations 

and Congress is because a lack of communication and not the right 

person knowing who where is doing what. But here you have a report that deals on a lot of the issues that you are talking about, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
143 

more on defense and Intel, but because of the failures we had, and 

yet the transition team of course would sit down and go over it and 

most of that information doesn’t go where it needs to do. 

But you know, I think that that is why when you have people 

that—like a Committee or an Appropriations Committee that we do 

NASA’s budget, and in Intel you have an authorizing Committee 

and you do all the research and development. 

It is important I think that you or your staff at least read these 

kind of reports or see if they are out there when you are dealing 

with Congress, because we really understand the problem I think 

where you are going, but now the issue is do we agree on how you 

fix it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And again, you started out this hearing 

about money, we know we have to deal with the issue of money. 

There is not enough money around to take care of DoD, Intel, and 

NASA, and NOAA all together, so there has to be some changes. 

Your concept clearly of research and development is where we 

need to go, but don’t think Russia and China aren’t out there also. 

I mean last year China graduated 606,000 mathematicians, engineers, and scientists. We are about 66,000. 

The good news, and I want to ask you this question, I have been 

told our curriculum is still superior, but it is not—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is, but the gap is narrower. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The gap is clearly narrowing. And I think 

the anxiety you hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle 

too, and I have the same anxiety, when we in fact make a really— 

a bold move, when we take almost like a drastic move in saying 

all of a sudden we are going to do away with a lot of these programs, you have a lot of industrial base that have jobs there and 

a lot of minds that need to be—make sure that they are corrected 

to other areas. I am just concerned that it is going too quick. We 

want to do what is best, but I am concerned it is going too quick. 

I think commercial, as I said before is very positive and we need 

to do a lot more of it, but you know, I am not sure on how much 

we can do to get where we need, and if we step back and we allow 

Russia or China to control the skies I think we have problems. 

NASA—SATELLITES

I want to get into two other areas. The one area that I want to 

discuss is the—and I think this is your field by the way, or you 

have a lot of say over this, and that is the restrictions on imagery 

resolutions for commercial satellites. 

You know ITAR, and by the way in this report we talk about 

ITAR, how we before ITAR we controlled 73 percent of the space 

industry, we are at 27 percent now, and it is slipping, and we got 

it passed in the House, now we have to get something done in the 

Senate, and hopefully we can do something with respect to ITAR. 

But I see the same analogy here that we are so restrictive on imagery resolution for commercial satellites. And France, Germany, 

Spain, and Italy are all building satellites that have current resolution capabilities that we can’t do it because we won’t let our people. 

And I would hope that you would look at this so that we can be 

competitive. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
144 

Congress passes way too many laws, and a lot of these laws have 

unintended consequences, and I think this is exactly what happened in ITAR, and I think it is happening here. 

So could you give me a commitment that you will evaluate our 

restrictions on imagery resolutions for commercial satellites? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Have you looked at it already? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. We have started to look at that. The 

Administration is looking very carefully at the whole ITAR and the 

larger export restrictions domain. We know we have problems 

there, and my own view is that it is possible to make some considerable improvements that will benefit both our security and our 

economy. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And of course you have to balance the security. But you know, ITAR has taken ten years just to get something 

out of the House, and we did it in a bipartisan way, now the Senate is sitting on it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I mean, you know—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We need the Administration to step up for 

ITAR right now. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And I think you are going to see that. 

But on the specific question you raise about the resolution of 

commercial imagery, yes, we are looking at that. We know there is 

an active global market in imagery, we monitor those developments 

closely, we understand their issues related to what our government 

will allow that are problematic in that domain, and we expect to 

be reviewing and updating the Administration’s position on that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And that is probably going to be soon? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. I have no problem giving you the assurance 

you want, Congressman, that yes, we are looking at it, we will be 

looking at it, and sooner rather than later. We are already looking 

at it. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. The other issue is weather satellites. 

Now we know probably you need usually one boss, that is a problem when we had the DoD and I think—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. NASA, NOAA, and DoD. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You know, not any real boss and you need 

one boss, you need a plan, whatever, I mean that is just basic management. And then I think you all made a decision to give the 

weather satellites over to NOAA and then they canceled the satellites. And even though we know we have two satellites in the 

barn, so to speak, they are older satellites. 

But my concern about the cancellation of the satellites, again, 

something happening rather quickly, there is a lot of research and 

development and there is a lot of technology that exists right now 

that is almost ready to go, because this project has been out there 

for a while, and with NOAA coming in and saying well we are canceling the project that we were working on, that I am afraid we are 

going to lose millions, if not billions of dollars, a lot of research and 

development that has been there, and it is a move that I am concerned about. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are not canceling things there. We are splitting the responsibility for acquisition between the morning and the 

afternoon orbits in these polar orbiting environmental satellite sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
145 

tems so that the DoD is responsible for acquisition for the morning 

orbit, and NASA and NOAA responsible for acquisition for the 

afternoon orbit, but we are not terminating the work that has been 

going on on the instruments, we are not losing that investment. 

Those instruments are going to fly, they are going to continue coordination of the data streams and the ground station. 

A lot of the problems with that program have been in the acquisition stage, and we think we’ve got an approach—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. By the way, that falls to space too, is that 

true? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah, yeah. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Sorry. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We think we’ve got an improved approach to that. 

It is a tough problem in which one is looking in a way for the least 

bad solution because there is no ideal one. They all have some liabilities, but we are certainly not terminating these capabilities, we 

are not terminating the instruments. We are going to finish those 

instruments, we are going to fly them. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In preparation for this hearing today we 

just got this information, but I would like to know what is our plan 

for future satellites? Are we going to rely on your opinions more? 

Where are we going? The two that we have in the barn are I believe rather old, I mean they don’t work at least. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well those are the ones that DoD has in the barn. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Right, okay. Now where is our plan for 

weather satellites? Do you have a plan for that down the road? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well in short yes, we do have a plan for weather 

satellites. And again, the origin of this program was the realization 

that the needs of the DoD and the needs of NOAA in terms of 

weather satellites overlap quite a lot, and the theory was that since 

these needs overlap so much why not combine them into a single 

joint operation which would meet the needs of the civil sector and 

the military sector at the same time? Now that turned out in practice to be a lot harder to execute I think than anybody imagined 

when it was thought up in the ’90s, in part because of the different 

acquisition models of these agencies, their different degrees of risk 

tolerance, and differences in their missions—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Uh-huh. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Which were greater I think than folks 

were imagining when they put this together. 

But the fact that we are separating now part of these particular 

missions doesn’t have any implication for conceding leadership in 

weather satellites and earth observation satellites to other countries. 

We are for these particular polar orbiting satellites relying on the 

Europeans for what’s called the mid-morning orbit. We have been 

for a long time, we will continue to do that because they are making the observations and making the data available that we need. 

But you know, we have a robust program of weather and climate 

monitoring satellites and we are going to keep one. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. Okay, who is—Frank are you next? 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
146 

I don’t think I am going to ask really many questions, but I think 

there is a degree of secrecy or urgency that has been connected 

with this decision. 

I just saw this press release here and it says, ‘‘Attorney General 

Eric Holder didn’t consult the Department of Homeland Security 

before he made plans to try alleged September 11 mastermind 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York city, Homeland Security 

Secretary,’’ Janet Napolitano said Wednesday. 

I think the same thing is really happening here. I voted against 

the stimulus package, but there were some members, and I thought 

it made some sense that asked the Administration, particularly 

with some of the funding that went into areas that then create jobs 

to have taken some money out of the stimulus. I believe there were 

some members of Congress, I don’t know how many, that sent a 

letter down. Perhaps some voted for the stimulus, perhaps didn’t 

vote for the stimulus, and I know that the Administration has been 

critical of people who—and I have gone to for ribbon cuttings for 

any stimulus money because I didn’t vote for it, and I would never 

go to a ribbon cutting. But there apparently were a number that 

said you ought to consider it. 

NASA VISION

Secondly there is really a concern that there really isn’t a goal, 

there really isn’t a vision, there isn’t anything that kind of captures 

your imagination the way that President Kennedy did about putting a man on the Moon. 

I have a whole series of questions that I will submit, but it 

doesn’t appear to me that you really have a goal. It doesn’t appear 

to me that you have a vision that you can capture. And you were 

talking as I came in about the STEM grants. You know, 50 percent 

of the STEM funding last year as laid on the table was not 

accessed. We are losing the young people because there is not that 

imagination, that interest, and everything else. We used to be number one on all these test scores and now we are dropping, we are 

dropping, we are dropping. 

And I think before you do anything, I am going to oppose what 

you are trying to do. I have talked to Dr. Griffin, I have talked to 

a number of other people, some just call me out of the blue. To me 

I think it is an abdication of America’s leadership. The thought of 

having to abdicate leadership to the Chinese, and your viewpoint 

on China and mine are totally different. The President wouldn’t 

meet with the Dali Lama, similar to President Ford, wouldn’t meet 

with Solzenitzen, and you know, but to have the Chinese impact 

us that way, and I think what this means is they are probably 

laughing about this in Beijing. 

But I think you needed a public aspect, you needed to bring some 

of the best minds together. Iron sharpens iron. Bring them together 

to have a public discussion as to where we go. I am not going to 

say everything you have said is right, or everything you said is 

wrong, but it was sort of a surprising decision, and the NASA people have called me. 

One of the interesting things about my district, my district is 

Northern Virginia out into the Shenandoah Valley. When the Administration was going to secretly move terrorists from GuantaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
147 

namo Bay and put them in Northern Virginia I had asked Eric 

Holder about it, they refused. Finally people from different agencies, three different agencies called and told me today the Administration are moving the people. So a lot of the people that work in 

NASA and even some that maybe work right where you are, live 

in my district, some go to my church, so everyone that is called felt 

that this was done in a very, very poor way. And so whatever you 

do you need to bring people together of all different viewpoints. 

I stipulate you certainly are not a bad person. I mean, I don’t 

think that you are trying to destroy the program, but bring everyone in together—and you didn’t do that—and as a result of that 

there isn’t any plan, there aren’t any ideas, and your people are becoming demoralized. I talked to a person the other day who was 

down at the space shuttle launch and they said the administrator 

in NASA told the people, and now you have done a great job, you 

won’t be around next year because you are all going to be gone, but 

you have really done a great job. That’s, demoralizing. Here you got 

a person who has been with NASA, dedicated, working the hours 

that they work, done what they have done, maybe have one kid in 

college, another kid, you know, getting ready to go into college and 

you just tell them you are out, you are gone. 

Now this isn’t a jobs issue for me. I don’t represent Alabama, I 

don’t represent Texas, I don’t represent Florida. I represent the 

Northern Virginia area, and so I just think the way you have gone 

about it has a degree of arrogance, and I think you are going to 

have a problem. 

I am going to do everything I can to stop this and to see if there 

is a way to kind of look at this thing in a different way. 

With regard to that I am not going to ask you other questions. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. John. John. 

NASA VISION

Mr. ABNEY. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I as a Houstonian 

do not physically represent NASA, and my passion and support for 

the Space Program stems out of a personal passion for the sciences. 

I have been an amateur astronomer, was a nerd in high school, 

bought myself a telescope when I graduated from high school, great 

passion about my support for the sciences, medical scientific research, and NASA for the technological benefits, but as Mr. Wolf 

has just so eloquently said, NASA sparks vision and hope and inspiration in young people where no other government agency can. 

It is probably the only federal function other than our military, God 

bless them, the young men and women that go into the Armed 

Forces have a great deal of zeal in their hearts and excitement for 

the mission that they have and it inspires a lot of young people to 

go in the military, the work that our men in uniform do. 

NASA inspires young people to go into the sciences and mathematics, and to engineering and is the one agency frankly among all 

of the federal government that has a highest level of public approval, support, and it is a fact no matter what you, you know, said 

or how you couch it in terms of you consulted with NASA administrators or with the center directors about options. The center directors were not told in advance that the Administration’s number one 

consideration was to cancel Constellation. It was done very poorly 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
148 

as Mr. Wolf says, and these are wonderful good people who I honestly—I don’t have—I have got maybe a few jobs in my district 

from NASA, I am on the far west side of Houston, and this is really 

a personal passion for me. I feel as the members of this Committee 

do that our investment in the sciences and NASA is a viable part 

of our strategic. 

I support strongly what Mr. Ruppersberger does in his committee, and how important those intelligent assets are in orbit, how 

critical it is that we preserve that lower orbit capability at an absolute minimum, and if the Administration were, Dr. Holdren, to succeed in canceling the Constellation Program, what space vehicle as 

we sit here today is capable of carrying humans into space and how 

soon? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well first of all, Congressman, let me clarify a couple of things. The first is I too was a nerd. I have two MIT degrees 

in aeronautics and astronautics, my senior class project at MIT, 

which I loved, was to design a man to Mars mission, and we did 

it. Class of 1965, 300 pages. And so I understand everything you 

are saying about the importance of NASA, its inspirational effect. 

I was one of the kids who was inspired by the need to respond 

to Sputnik in 1957, I was at the beginning of my high school years 

at that time, and so I completely relate to that set of views. 

Nothing about what we are doing is intended to run down NASA, 

to retreat from U.S. leadership in space. I understand we have a 

disagreement about the right way to do it, but you need to understand first of all that we think we have an approach that will help 

NASA inspire again. 

I don’t know if you knew about the event last October 7th, Astronomy for Kids on the White House lawn—— 

Mr. ABNEY. But your intention is not what’s at issue here. The 

point is what the effect of what you are doing is you have—you are 

proposing to cancel the Manned Space Program. There is no other 

way to look at that. If you cancel Constellation the only man ready 

rocket in the U.S. inventory today is Ares, it just was tested, it will 

be land ready very soon, that is the one rocket we’ve got. Burt 

Rutan, who is opposed to what you are doing, succeeded in doing 

this, only as Alan Shepard did. He just went up and down very 

quickly. So—— 

NASA—MANNED SPACE PROGRAM

Dr. HOLDREN. I understand that, but—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. And other than Ares what other rocket—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Ares—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Please answer my question. Other than Ares, 

what rocket as we sit here today is ready within how many years 

to carry humans into orbit? 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all Ares is not ready. Ares would not be 

ready until 2017 or 2018 in the judgment of the Augustine Committee. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am not asking about that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well the point is it is not right to say ‘‘well, we 

have Ares’’ as a bird in the hand and you are only offering birds 

in the bush. Ares is out there too. Ares is 2017 or 2018 if everything goes well. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
149 

Mr. CULBERSON. It has been tested successfully and it is already on path and we’ve spent $3 billion dollars, Mr. Ruppersberger, I 

know we all on this Committee we spent $3 billion getting that 

rocket ready and it is on track, it is over budget, and it is a little 

behind schedule, these things are complicated. But other than 

Ares, if we take Ares as you propose to do, you cancel Ares, what 

rocket as we sit here today is ready to carry humans into space and 

how soon? 

Mr. HOLDREN. None are ready to carry humans into space today. 

No U.S. rocket is ready to do that today. 

Dr. CULBERSON. So which one as you sit here today will be 

ready? 

Dr. HOLDREN. On that time scale we could have a Space X rocket, we could have a Boeing rocket, we could have a man rated 

Delta 4, we could have a man rated Atlas 5. The short answer is 

I don’t know which one is going to succeed. 

One of the merits of the American system is when you turn the 

private sector loose and say we have got this task and you are 

going to get to compete for success, we will have a success. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I got a little excited last time because this 

upsets me, this upsets me a lot. But there it is, gentlemen, it is 

speculative. There is no rocket ready to take the place of Ares. The 

gap is going to be five years. I wish there were no gap. And I was 

appalled when the Bush Administration’s vision turned out to be 

a press release and they didn’t give this Committee the money we 

needed, and we know it, you know how it came about. It was infuriating and it under funded NASA, short all those wonderful employees with mortgages as Mr. Wolf so correctly pointed out. I 

mean you have got kids in college, you have mortgages, you have 

worked your heart out designing a new rocket and you were just 

told a month ago by the new administrator we are behind you, the 

Administration is behind you, Constellation is full speed ahead, 

and then two days before the announcement it is canceled. 

Can you imagine how that rips their heart out of their chest? 

What you have done to those wonderful people, those engineers, 

God bless them, and scientists and astronauts. Set those jobs aside, 

those are vitally important jobs that are important for America’s 

future, but we have no other rocket members of the Committee. 

There is no other rocket ready. There is not even one on the horizon, it is all speculative. The one rocket we have that is being tested and is over budget and behind schedule is Ares, which you are 

proposing to cancel. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is way over budget and it is way behind schedule and we think there are other options. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But you don’t even know what that would be. 

And we can’t afford a gap, we can’t afford a gap of one year much 

less five years, and then what are you going to do with the gap? 

NASA—CHINA

Let me ask also something I know was mentioned by Mr. 

Ruppersberger, I heard you say earlier that the Chinese might help 

us get to the International Space Station. And I just read an article, members, that Mr. Ruppersberger I know as a member of the 

Intelligence Committee read, probably the same alarm that I did, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
150 

that the Administration is considering inviting the Chinese to come 

participate and help us in our Space Program? Now that has never 

been done, because the Chinese space program is a military space 

program whose primary purpose is designed how to better target 

their ICBMs on American cities and take out our satellites. So I 

am very concerned. 

Would you please tell the Committee what the Administration is 

doing to expand the cooperation of the Chinese in our Space Program, since they have never been allowed before any where near 

our facility? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t think there are any plans that I know of. 

The only thing I know of is that Administrator Bolden did go to 

China, and about the same time the President went to China, he 

certainly had some conversations with leaders of the Chinese space 

program about areas of potential cooperation. There were no agreements reached. This was a very exploratory discussion. I wasn’t 

there. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well certainly for me I know and the members 

this Committee—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. John, It is already happening. The Chinese 

have cyber attacked NASA on a regular basis. 

Mr. CULBERSON. They do and recollects it is a real concern. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Not that we let them do it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. It is a real concern that I share with my 

good friend Mr. Ruppersberger from Maryland that Chinese are not 

our friends and particularly when it comes to space, and they are 

using that technology to better target their ICBMs and take out 

our satellites. The high ground today is low earth orbit in outer 

space. 

And again, it is just not acceptable to me or this Committee, I 

am quite confident that we are going to surrender the high ground 

of outer space. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are not going to surrender it, sir. 

Dr. CULBERSON. You have already surrendered it, sir. You are 

proposing to cancel Constellation and you just testified there is no 

rocket ready to replace Ares. 

Mr. HOLDREN. That doesn’t amount to surrendering space. We 

have huge capacities in space. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And we have them in the military sector and in 

the civil sector, and we are not going to surrender our leadership. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I would like to hear from Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. The arrogant facial expressions of your staff behind 

you is unbelievable. You particularly, you. I mean, I don’t care who 

you work for, but the arrogance of it I have some pretty tough 

questions, I am not going to ask them. You too. I wish I had a camera taking your facial expressions. I think you really bring a degree 

of arrogance here that it is just offensive. I yield back. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay, my turn. One of the issues that I 

think that we are dealing with here today is we don’t have enough 

information, it came too quick. You know, those of us who work a 

lot in this area just did not—we were just surprised where we are 

going, but we want a road map and we want a plan and then we 

want it justified. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
151 

I think some of the things about this program, and let me try 

to—and some of this is classified so I won’t get into it. You know 

the major program that was canceled about three or four years ago, 

it was one of the majors, it was one of our big satellite programs 

over budget and whatever, and what happened, why that was canceled is because it was way over cost, over budget, and it got to the 

point you keep putting more money into it what are you going to 

get out of it number one? And you know, some of the things that 

we wanted to get out of that program weren’t going to happen, so 

we had to re-evaluate because there was only a certain amount of 

money. 

Now I assume as you talk about Ares, there is Ares 1, but then 

there is the one we are focusing on now that John is focusing on 

or whatever. And it is my understanding that the cost of that, if 

you move forward the way it is now are in the billions and billions, 

and that we still—it might be a black hole that we are not sure 

if we can produce. 

Wait one second, I will get you. But is that where you are coming 

from on your focus on Ares? I mean, changing—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well that is certainly an important part of it. Ares 

which originally was expected to cost four and a half billion dollars 

is now expected to cost something like 18. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Right, okay. I didn’t know if that was classified, whatever, it probably isn’t, okay. But go ahead, John, yeah. 

Mr. ABNEY. Very quickly if I could. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Mr. ABNEY. The reason the cost gets so high is because you are 

trying to go to Moon and Mars, and my focus here is I think we 

need as a Committee to stay focused on we have got to preserve 

the ability to go to lower earth orbit. That is far less expensive and 

far more doable. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would think that we are there more on 

the lower orbit, I think the major concern with the Space Program 

though, if you were involved with Sputnik, the reason we are as 

good as we are now is because we responded to Sputnik and we actually created rocket science as people who research and development. And all that we did to get to the Moon helped us dominate 

where we are now and we are losing that dominance, and that is 

where I am sure—I applaud you for evaluating where we are and 

what we are doing, I am just worried that we don’t have enough 

and that we are not sure. And we want to work with you, because 

it is all end game in the end. What’s right for our country, our national security. And I will work with you, but you know, you have 

got to work with us. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, we will, and we want to get the leadership 

back. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We need a lot more information. You know, 

Augustine has one report. There are people on both sides. And I 

tell you, I haven’t been sold yet today, myself. I am willing to work 

with you, but I mean, I just want to get some experts and hear 

these different points of view before I decide where to vote—you 

know, what to do with this program. 

And again, I am worried we are going way too quick when you 

are dealing with the national security that is at stake. Because if 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
152 

it is the wrong decision then we could really put ourselves in a real 

bad position. We need to be dominant in space. 

One thing about it, do you have launch? Is that in your capacity 

too, the launch issue, launching? The ability to get the satellites 

up? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I mean in the Office of Science and Technology policy we are responsible for advising the President on every 

aspect of science and technology that affect—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would like you to look at it, because in 

my opinion—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. His positions. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER [continuing]. We are behind France in 

launch and maybe another country too, and whenever I hear the 

United States is behind and for a lot of different reasons, but you 

know, there is a consortium with one group, you have other issues, 

there are certain satellites that should have gone up by now that 

were canceled because we couldn’t deal with it. I really hope you 

focus on the issue of launch, because it bothers me when the 

United States is not number one in that arena. 

John. Frank. 

Mr. WOLF. No, I am fine. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Is that it, all the members? Okay, well 

thank you for being here. I think if anything we learned today it 

is the issue of communication. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yeah, I agree. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And you know, we have got to get some of 

our people to advise us and whatever of pulling that together, because it is a really big issue. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We will try to do better with that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I really understand the cost. You know, 

DoD, Intel, NASA all together, we don’t have enough money for everyone. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Meeting adjourned. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
153 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 56820A.037
154 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 56820A.038
155 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 56820A.039
156 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 56820A.040
157 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 56820A.041
158 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 56820A.042
159 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 56820A.043
160 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 56820A.044
161 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 56820A.045
162 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 56820A.046
163 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 56820A.047
164 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 56820A.048
165 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 56820A.049
166 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 56820A.050
167 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 56820A.051
168 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 56820A.052
169 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 56820A.053
170 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 56820A.054
171 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 56820A.055
172 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 56820A.056
173 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 56820A.057
174 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 56820A.058
175 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 56820A.059
176 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 56820A.060
177 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 56820A.061
178 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 56820A.062
179 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 56820A.063
180 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 56820A.064
181 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 56820A.065
182 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 56820A.066
183 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 56820A.067
184 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 56820A.068
185 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 56820A.069
186 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 56820A.070
187 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 56820A.071
188 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333/501 here 56820A.072
(189) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010. 

NASA (NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION) FY2011 BUDGET OVERVIEW 

WITNESS 

MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NASA 

CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Mr. Wolf is at another hearing and he has asked that we move 

forward. And he should be here shortly. 

Good afternoon. Welcome to this hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Justice, and Science for fiscal year 2011. Today we will 

cover the budget status and future direction of the U.S. Space Program, and our witness is Retired Major General Charles F. Bolden, 

Jr., NASA Administrator. 

Welcome, General Bolden. 

In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked the world by launching Sputnik and challenged the U.S. with its superior capability. President 

Eisenhower responded by forming NASA. And by 1960, the U.S. 

had launched the first weather satellite, the first data relay satellite, and the first navigation satellite. The first commercial communications satellite, Telstar, was launched in July of 1962. 

Confronting the Cold War challenge of the Soviet Union, President Kennedy said, ‘‘I believe this nation should commit itself to 

achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on 

the moon and returning him safely to Earth. No single space 

project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more 

important for the long-range exploration of space and none will be 

so difficult or expensive to accomplish.’’ 

In 1969, NASA delivered on his vision and U.S. superiority and 

technology, especially missile technology, was on clear display for 

all to see. The cost in today’s dollars is almost a hundred billion 

dollars. 

This amazing era of accomplishment continues to dominate the 

vision of NASA both within and without, but hard realities should 

be recognized. NASA employment peaked in 1967 and NASA pioneered reduction in force, RIF, procedures for the federal government. Over 10,000 people who had worked their hearts out getting 

us to the moon were out of job. NASA’s budget peaked in 1966 at 

over 24 billion in today’s dollars. Using Apollo Program capabilities, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz flew. But from the summer of 1975 

until the spring of 1981, the United States did not, could not fly 

an astronaut. 

In answer to the question of what to do, President Nixon supported the start of the Space Shuttle Program. By the time it flew, 

the first U.S. Space Station had fallen to earth due to lack of fundVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
190 

ing and the resulting lack of capability to boost Skylab’s orbit. The 

money was not made available to build a new orbiting lab as proposed, so the Shuttle had no orbiting lab to shuttle to except for 

the Russian Mir, which it visited multiple times. 

In January of 1984, President Reagan challenged NASA to 

achieve a permanent man presence in space and the International 

Space Station Program began. The initial cost estimate was $8 billion and no one expected it to be 25 years and $40 billion before 

construction was complete. 

In 1984, the Shuttles were new. No investment was begun to replace them until 2004—too late to prevent a gap in U.S. astronaut 

launch capability. 

Today it is not the early 1960s. Then a trip to the moon was a 

science fiction dream. Today Star Wars and Star Trek are based on 

a dream of interstellar travel and galaxy-spanning federations or 

empires. In Kennedy’s time, rocketry was a major hallmark of national technological achievement. Today U.S. achievement is evident in creation of the internet, invention of the iPhone, production 

of the fastest super computers, and sequencing of the human genome. The Soviet Union is no more. Our shooting wars are with 

those who oppose modernity, not those who challenge us in a rush 

to the future. Competition with China is more a matter of innovation, intellectual property, manufacturing, and resources. 

In this contemporary context, faced with the need to set the future direction of the Human Spaceflight Program, the President 

has formulated a program that shifts from plowing ahead with new 

development programs driven by return to the moon to a focus on 

government development of new enabling technologies with the 

eventual goal of landing astronauts on Mars. 

Exploration beyond low Earth orbit will be vigorous, but for a 

time, it will be achieved through the use of robots. Commercial provision of astronaut transport to the space station is proposed, and 

the life of the space station is extended until at least 2020. At the 

same time, NASA’s programs in Earth and space science and aeronautics are strengthened. Education programs are continued, and 

the Kennedy launch complex is slated for modernization. 

So today we find ourselves at another pivotal point for the Space 

Program. Like Presidents Nixon and Reagan, president Obama is 

committing the nation to human spaceflight as a continuing endeavor, but this commitment is part of a balanced effort within a 

constrained budget. Frankly, many of us yearn for the Apollo-like 

vision of the 1960s, but is that the approach that best serves our 

nation’s interests? 

Mr. Administrator, there is much we need to learn about this 

major change in the direction of our Space Program. Following my 

remarks, we invite you to summarize your testimony, which will be 

made a part of the record. 

We just had a vote called. We have 12 minutes and 38 seconds 

to vote and I am going to invite you to make your remarks. Administrator Bolden. 

ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN’S OPENING REMARKS

General BOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear today to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
191 

discuss the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA. I am 

grateful for the support and guidance of the Subcommittee and I 

look forward to working with you on enactment of the President’s 

bold new direction for our Agency. 

I want to say up front that I understand the Committee’s concern 

that details, such as our justification documents, have been slow to 

reach you. I apologize and ask your attention to the details of this 

historic change in NASA’s direction. Very soon, we will be announcing program office assignments needed to carry out the President’s 

vision and challenges to NASA. Other details will become available 

in the coming weeks. 

Since the introduction of the budget, many have asked what the 

destination is for human spaceflight beyond low-earth orbit under 

the President’s plan. NASA’s exploration efforts will focus not just 

on our moon but also on near-Earth asteroids, strategies, and the 

planet Mars and its moons. For me, the ultimate destination in our 

solar system at present is Mars. While we cannot provide a date 

certain for the first human visit with Mars, it is a key long-term 

destination. We can identify missing capabilities needed for such a 

mission and use this to help define many of the goals for our 

emerging technology development. 

The right investments in technology will allow us to map out a 

realistic path to this destination and continues to inspire generations of school children, just as it inspired me many years ago. 

Growing up in Columbia, South Carolina and watching Buck Rogers go to Mars with ease each week from my seat in the balcony 

of a Carolina theater. 

PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is $19 billion, including an increase of $276 million over the enacted 2010 

level. Longer term, I am pleased that the budget commits to an increased investment of $6 billion in NASA’s science, aeronautics, 

and enabling technologies over the next five years compared with 

last year’s budget. All of us at NASA appreciate the President making NASA such a high priority at a time when budget realities dictate reductions and freezes for other worthwhile programs. 

With the President’s new visions, the NASA budget will invest 

much more heavily on technology research and development than 

recent NASA budgets. This will foster new technological approaches, standards, and capabilities that are going to enable the 

next generation spaceflight, Earth-sensing and aeronautics capabilities. 

These investments will produce additional opportunities for U.S. 

industry and spur new businesses such as a recently announced 

partnership between NASA and General Motors to build an advanced dexterous humanoid robot, R2. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM TERMINATION

As the Constellation Program has ended in an orderly manner, 

I want to thank all of the NASA employees and contractors who 

have worked so hard on the program. Their commitment has 

brought great value to the Agency and to our Nation and they will 

continue to play a pivotal role in NASA’s future path. Many of the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
192 

things NASA has learned from the Constellation Program will be 

critical as the Agency moves forward. 

However, as the Augustine Committee concluded, the Constellation Program is on an unsustainable trajectory. To continue on our 

current course, at best we will probably not be able to fly our astronauts to the moon until sometime after 2030. But to accomplish 

that task, we would have to make even deeper cuts to other parts 

of NASA’s budget, terminating support of the International Space 

Station early, and reducing our science and aeronautics efforts. 

Further, we would have had no funding to advance the state-of-theart in any of the technology areas we need to enable us to do the 

things in space. 

The President’s proposal to end Constellation enables us to 

present a fiscal year 2011 budget that includes: A flagship technology development and demonstration program with our international and commercial partners and other government entities, 

to demonstrate critical technologies, automated rendezvous and 

docking, and closed-loop life support systems. Heavy-lift research 

and development that will investigate a broad scope of research 

and development activities to support development, test, and ultimately flight of a heavy-lift launch vehicle sooner than projected 

for the Constellation Program as assessed by the Augustine Committee. Robotic precursor missions to multiple destinations in the 

solar system in support of future human exploration, including 

missions to the Moon, Mars, and its moons, Lagrange points, and 

near asteroids. Significant investments for the development of commercial, crew, and further cargo capabilities. In concert with our 

international partners, extension of the utilization of International 

Space Station to 2020 or beyond. Pursuit of cross-cutting space 

technology capabilities led by the newly established Office of the 

Chief Technologist, to spawn game-changing innovations to make 

space travel more affordable and sustainable. Climate change research and observations, which will enable NASA to substantially 

accelerate and expand its Earth science capabilities, including a replacement for the orbiting carbon observatory. Aeronautics research and development, including critical areas of Next Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen, green aviation and 

safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace. Education initiatives, including the recently announced 

Summer of Innovation Pilot Program to inspire middle-school students and better equip their teachers for improved classroom performance in STEM-related courses. 

We understand that many concerns are being expressed about 

the budget, but I believe it is the right vision for NASA. I look forward to continued discussions with you and our authorizers about 

the concerns and how we might solve them. 

Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for inspiration throughout our history—our work gives people an opportunity to imagine what is barely possible, and we at NASA get to 

turn their dreams into real achievements for all humankind 

through the missions we execute. 

This budget gives NASA a roadmap to even more historic 

achievements as it spurs innovation, employs Americans in exciting 

jobs, and engages people around the world. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
193 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support and that of this 

Subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you 

or other members may have. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
194 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 56820B.001
195 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 56820B.002
196 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 56820B.003
197 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 56820B.004
198 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 56820B.005
199 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 56820B.006
200 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 56820B.007
201 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 56820B.008
202 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 56820B.009
203 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 56820B.010
204 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 56820B.011
205 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 56820B.012
206 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 56820B.013
207 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 56820B.014
208 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 56820B.015
209 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 56820B.016
210 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 56820B.017
211 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 56820B.018
212 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 56820B.019
213 

ASTRONAUT HEALTH RISK

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Administrator Bolden. 

Let me let the Subcommittee’s members know we are into a vote 

where we have five minutes, five and a half minutes left for the 

vote, 386 members yet to vote. I intend to begin my questioning. 

We will recess during the vote and then come back and continue. 

Thank you. 

In testimony last month, you stated that today you could not in 

good conscience send astronauts to Mars given available technology. What health risks confront astronauts as they venture beyond low Earth orbit? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, the primary health risk is radiation exposure. Secondarily is just the long duration spaceflight 

with less than one G. But the radiation is the long pole in the tent. 

It is the one we do not know how to overcome just yet. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. To what extent do these risks pertain equally to 

flights to the moon, to asteroids, to Lagrange points, to Mars? 

General BOLDEN. To most of the flights in the near Earth area 

such as the Moon, the exposure is not as long as it is going to 

Mars. The trip to Mars today is about eight months. It is significantly outside the Earth/Moon system and so the exposure to radiation is longer and more intense. A trip to the moon is two, three 

days, and so we do not find ourselves confronted by that threat as 

much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What technologies are needed to enable astronauts to survive missions to asteroids and Mars? 

General BOLDEN. If I had the ability to snap my finger and do 

two things, I would develop much more capable in-space propulsion 

systems that would cut the travel time, the transit time from Earth 

to Mars at least in half and more, if possible. The second thing I 

would do would be to find some material that can sufficiently 

shield orbiting or transiting crew/members from the threat of radiation without adding untenable weight to the vehicle. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The President’s budget request is predicated on 

the cancellation of the Constellation Program. Why is this drastic 

step proposed? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, there are a number of reasons for the cancellation of the Constellation Program and it has nothing to do 

with the people in the program who are exceptional engineers, scientists, and researchers. But it has a lot to do with the status of 

the program. When I became the Administrator, we were severely 

behind schedule and significantly over the amount of money that 

it would take to complete it. I think by the Augustine Committee’s 

estimate, it probably would have taken another $45 to $60 billion 

dollars to complete it. In order to invest money in research and development that would enable us to get vehicles to put people on the 

surface of the moon or to transit to mars, the Constellation Program would have pretty much sucked up all of the funds that we 

could have used for research and development. So for a number of 

different reasons, it was not the right path for us to take. It was 

on an unsustainable path. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
214 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, billions have been invested in Constellation. 

General BOLDEN. Sir—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that a waste or are we wasting billions? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, we invested good money in Constellation 

and we have received incredible returns. When I look at some of 

the technologies that come out of the Constellation Program, and 

it is everything from just the way we process vehicles or the way 

we would process vehicles, some of the technologies like the robotics I mentioned, R2, the dexterous robot, that is a part of the Technology Demonstration Program that was a part of Constellation. 

A lot of the human research that we do today, actually some of 

the research that is conducted on the International Space Station 

comes from expenditures that were a part of the Constellation Program trying to help us find better ways for humans to survive the 

trips that they were going to have to make, Rovers that are present 

that we could use today to go to the moon which have changed my 

mind about the need for permanent habitats. While not a direct 

part of the Constellation Program when it started, the funding for 

the Rovers and the research actually came out of the exploration 

system in the Constellation Program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, those are some of the benefits coming out 

of the Constellation Program. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

LOST CONSTELLATION PROGRAM BENEFITS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But there are those who are saying that those 

benefits aside, not going forward with Constellation is a waste because perhaps you are throwing away those benefits, but you are 

throwing away a lot of other investments, a lot of other progress, 

or is there a waste in going forward or are both correct? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, as I mentioned before, I would not call it 

a waste, but I would say going forward with the Constellation Program as it exists today, going forward with the program of record 

puts us on an unsustainable trajectory considering the economics 

of today. 

We would probably not get to the moon with a human until after 

the 2030s. I am convinced that with the technologies that we can 

develop, we will get there much sooner. We could not go to Mars 

probably not in my lifetime to be quite honest. I am convinced that 

given the opportunity to expend some funds on research and development, technology development, we can actually do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I am one that totally subscribes to the idea 

that President Bush announced a great vision and then did not 

fund it. But we are where we are. So why would we not just stretch 

it out, keep the investment, stretch out the investment, and not 

throw away the accomplishments up to date? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the reasons that 

Constellation has grown the way it has is because that was the 

technique used. We stretched out the investments. You made the 

comment about the cost of the Space Station Program, that it was 

envisioned to be, $8 billion when proposed by the NASA Administration under President Bush or President Reagan and it ended up 

costing $40 billion plus. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
215 

What was not said in your statement was that the International 

Space Station, if I am not mistaken, is the third or fourth iteration 

of a space station and that resulted from stretching the program 

out and rewicking it looking for a better way to do it. I just could 

not in good conscience advise the President that we should follow 

that same course with the Constellation Program. Constellation 

today, the program of record today is a lunar-centric program. It 

has us trying to get Ares I that would take us to the International 

Space Station, take us to low-earth orbit, and then Ares V would 

come somewhere along the road. That would be the vehicle that we 

would use to go beyond low-earth orbit. The Ares V would get us 

to the Moon and it would get us there without a way to get down 

to the surface of the Moon. Altair, the landing vehicle, had not 

been funded. We were about to do some studies on it, but we had 

whittled away at the Constellation Program and had gotten ourselves in a situation that was essentially unrecoverable. 

ARES I

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, elaborate on that. Why wouldn’t Ares I, 

why shouldn’t it become the basis for the U.S. astronaut transport 

to the space station? 

General BOLDEN. Well, sir, in my opinion, Ares I is a very costly 

program that keeps us in the same paradigm that we have been 

since the earliest days of human spaceflight here in the United 

States with a huge infrastructure. That is in terms of facilities, 

people to run those facilities. We think that we can actually get 

away from that way of operating by utilizing the commercial entities that already build the vehicles for us and already operate the 

vehicles for us as they do in Shuttle today. 

My vehicles today are commercial vehicles. Every Shuttle is a 

commercial vehicle built by a commercial vendor that will probably 

participate in the building of the commercial next generation vehicle. The only difference is the acquisition strategy used to operate 

that vehicle. 

And today we buy shuttles. Well, we bought at the cost of about 

$2 billion a copy. In tomorrow’s paradigm, I am not going to buy 

a vehicle, but I am going to use the vehicle produced by an American corporation in terms of, what do you call it, my idea is that 

we lease it and then we use it to fly a NASA crew to the International Space Station to do a mission. 

The operation of that vehicle is primarily done just as it is today 

by USA with the Space Shuttle. It will be done by the vendor that 

owns the vehicle. The mission control center will be done just as 

it is today probably with Shuttle and the International Space Station. The people in the mission control center will be partially those 

from the company that built the vehicle and partially from NASA 

engineers and flight controllers. 

Again, in my way of thinking, the operational concept, which has 

not been developed yet, but I will have a large part to play in what 

it ends up being, in my operational concept, the Flight Director is 

still a NASA person, the one NASA person that you can count on 

being in the control center. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are not suggesting that Ares costs any 

less or any more than developing the technology and doing it comVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
216 

mercially? You are suggesting, I think I am hearing you suggest 

that the savings is in the operations; is that correct? 

General BOLDEN. I am suggesting that the production—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do we have a comparable development cost—— 

General BOLDEN. I do not—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Going commercial versus Ares? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I actually think the development costs, which we pay in part through the amount that we pay 

for seats, I think the development costs will actually be somewhat 

less than Ares I. That is something that it is too early to say, but 

I do believe that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, what is the basis of that belief? 

General BOLDEN. The basis of the belief is that the technology 

today, you know, it—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are pretty far down the road with Ares. 

General BOLDEN. With Ares? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, we have quite a way to go. You know, we 

just finished the—— 

COMMERCIAL ORIENTED APPROACH

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, does not commercial approach have as far 

to go or even further? 

General BOLDEN. They have as far to go in one respect, but they 

are getting ready to actually test fly the vehicle here next year. In 

fact, we are going to test fly two of those vehicles. 

Another potential source of commercial is the Atlas V and the 

Delta IV and those vehicles have been flying for quite some time. 

So for cargo to orbit, they are ready right now. If the companies 

that own them, if ULA decides that they want to enter the competition—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The cargo—— 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. That will be another round. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. But cargo transport is not the defining goal 

here. It is—— 

General BOLDEN. Sir, the defining—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Human transportation. 

General BOLDEN. The defining goal is commercial transport of 

crew to orbit. And we are at the same stage of development whether it is Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Taurus in terms of certifying them for 

spaceflight, for human rating. There is an involved process of 

human rating that we would have to go through with any vehicle. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are going to have to recess. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I understand. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We will return afterwards sometime. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will resume. 

I am going to have a couple continuing questions with regard to 

costs and timing of these two different approaches. 

I believe your testimony up to this point was that you think the 

cost of a new commercial oriented approach would be less than pursuing the Constellation Ares approach; is that correct? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I do. I went back and thought 

about it after you went out. When I last asked my folks how much 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
217 

it would cost us if we were to try to fly Ares, for example, Ares I, 

it turns out that it is about four billion to four and a half billion 

a year just for Ares I. The primary reason for that is there are $600 to $700 million 

dollars alone just in the infrastructure that is left over right now 

from the Shuttle era. We need to phase out all of that if we are 

going to gain the cost savings that I anticipate we can do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about if you used a different upper stage 

and a limited capability crew module, one not capable of transit to 

the moon? Would that be an acceptable approach and would that 

bring the cost comparison in line or would that give Ares a cost advantage? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, are you asking if—let me make sure I—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you used a different upper stage, would the 

cost of Ares be significantly reduced through the use of a different 

upper stage and a capability of just going to the moon? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, the Ares I is—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. Station. 

General BOLDEN. Oh, to go to station, the problem there we 

found was that in order to design and build a crew vehicle, it ends 

up being what some people call an Orion light. I am certain you 

get visited by the commercial entities every day and some of them 

will tell you that they would like to use a readily available expendable launch vehicle, an EELV with an Orion light. 

Orion light is a vehicle that carries crew, but we would not send 

it anywhere outside of lower-earth orbit. So, you know, we end up 

having to design and build different vehicles for low-earth orbit 

than you do for the lunar and Mars missions. And it all—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How is the commercial approach and the technologies and capabilities that are going to be developed there different? 

General BOLDEN. Because the commercial vendors will develop 

their own—for example, if I name Space X, for example, their capsule is Dragon and it has the ability to cargo and crew with—you 

look at orbital, theirs is Cygnus. If you talk to ULA, either of their 

partners, Boeing or Lockheed Martin, they would probably use 

something like an Orion light. So the vehicle in which you carry 

the crew is going to vary by who the vendor is. 

One of the things I would like to do is help them use some of 

the research and development money that we have to help build a 

common crew module that can be interchangeably used on a number of launch vehicles. We cannot do that today. Today everything 

is tailored. Everything is individual. 

One of the reasons that it costs so much or when we talk about 

the 21st century range, that concept, it is because everything is 

unique today. I cannot put an Orion vehicle on an Atlas or a Delta 

or a Space X vehicle, and I would like to help the commercial entities design a single crew module because it is good for us to train 

in. 

We do not have to train crews for multiple crew modules. That 

can be used interchangeably on any launch vehicle. We can not do 

that today or we have not done that today. But those are the kinds 

of things that you would be allowed to do with the President’s 

budget when we talk about research and development. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
218 

HUMAN LAUNCH CAPABILITY TIMING

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Moving from cost to timing, what is the fastest 

path to restoring U.S.’s human launch capability, Ares, commercial? 

General BOLDEN. It is my belief right now, Mr. Chairman, that 

the fastest path is the one that I helped the President propose and 

that is to go to the commercial entities to allow them just to qualify 

their vehicles first for cargo to low-earth orbit, to the International 

Space Station. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. All right. You are describing in your testimony 

a kind of faster, better, cheaper. 

General BOLDEN. No, no. I—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not in—— 

General BOLDEN. You will never, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not in the way that has been understood. 

General BOLDEN. You will never hear me say faster, better, 

cheaper. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, it sounds like it is going to be faster. It is 

going to be a better way of doing it and it is going to cost less when 

they say it like that. 

General BOLDEN. Well—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is what you are describing. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. If it works out that way, that 

would be—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well—— 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. that would be incredible. But—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is my question. What is your feeling 

testifying here today about it working out that way? 

COST OF ASTRONAUT FLIGHTS TO LOW EARTH ORBIT

General BOLDEN. My feeling is that it will be cheaper for NASA 

to get to low Earth orbit on a commercial vehicle. Also, I do believe 

that we will get to the International Space Station quicker than we 

could with Ares I just because of where I found the program when 

I came in. 

In terms of getting to the Moon, which is really NASA’s ultimate 

goal, it is getting to the Moon and Mars, we cannot do that right 

now if we continue to march with the Constellation Program. That 

is my concern. 

I really want to get NASA back into the exploration business and 

free us up from the day-to-day responsibility for operations of activities in low Earth orbit. That is critical and we will have oversight of that. But there is a big difference between oversight and 

day-to-day operations. And I want to get us—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is where you see the savings, the cost 

savings—— 

General BOLDEN. I see the cost savings—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Managing these systems, the—— 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. In managing the systems and getting away from having to maintain the infrastructure, the things 

that we have to do today. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
219 

OBJECTIONS TO THE BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Financial Times, the March 18th issue, 

there is a, and I know you read this, feature story, the Pull of 

Gravity. You are smiling already. And some of those who are expressing concerns about this program. I have a couple quotes here 

I would like you to respond to. 

The President’s proposal, opponents of the President’s proposal 

from, and now I am quoting, from both political parties say the decision to turn from Constellation to the approach reflected in your 

budget jeopardizes national security, prestige, and commercial interests at a time when other countries are boosting their own space 

programs. 

What is your response to that? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I disagree with that. I do not think it jeopardizes our national security. In fact, in my conversations with the 

national security representative if it is all the way from Secretary 

Donnelly, the Secretary of the Air Force, to General Kehler, to General Carlson, we all agree that going the commercial route is the 

best thing for the country. I think if you talk to any of us, we will 

tell you that. Is it risky? Yes, it is. But it is risky to go to space. 

U.S. LEADERSHIP

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Further in the article, I would like you to respond to this, the article makes the point that NASA would pursue 

new technologies that could eventually take astronauts beyond 

earth orbit to places that humans have never visited such as asteroids or the moons of Mars, your argument, but there is no clear 

headline destination and no timetable for going further than the 

hundred billion dollar space station which has been assembled over 

the past 15 years as a collaborative venture group among the U.S. 

and its partners. 

Is that the problem here, that you are not really articulating a 

vision that inspires or you are rolling it out piecemeal or why is 

this not grabbing a lot of people? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, my attempt to articulate a vision was to answer the question that everybody said. If you are not 

going anywhere, you are not going anywhere. We are going to Mars 

eventually. That is the destination. 

As I have told everybody, I wish I could tell you the date certain, 

but I do not have the capability of getting there just yet. That is 

what I need time to put into place, the capabilities that will allow 

us to get there. 

It is very important for people to understand we are still going 

to be, Americans are still going to be very active aboard the International Space Station for another ten years, thanks to the budget 

that has been proposed by President Obama. 

In the article, it talked about national security and leadership. 

It is really important for people to understand that the International Space Station today is what allows us to lay claim, 

uncontested claim to international leadership in the world in 

human spaceflight. 

I Chair something that is called the International Space Station 

Heads of Agency. It is an organization of five people who represent 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
220 

the five partners in the International Space Station, Russia, Japan, 

Canada, the European Space Agency, which is 15 nations that Mr. 

Dordan has responsibility for, and the United States. The Chairperson of the Heads of Agency is the United States. It is not questioned by anyone. 

In our last meeting a little bit more than a week ago in Tokyo 

where we all endorsed extension of the utilization of the International Space Station, the statement was made by the Russian 

counterpart that the leadership of the United States is greatly appreciated and they hope that that would remain the case. 

It is because we are the acknowledged leader. Everybody realizes 

that the International Space Station would not even exist today 

had it not been for us. Everybody wants to partner with us. That 

is something that our international partners make very clear every 

time I talk to them. 

So it is very important that we not shrink from that, but that 

we also, as the President himself says, we have to take bold steps. 

We are a bold nation. Sometimes people confuse bigness with boldness. I am sorry. Sometimes you lead not by being out front where 

you are very visible, but you lead by being influential and being 

able to get people to do the things that you need to do. We do that 

every single day on the International Space Station. 

When there is an issue, whether it is in a Russian module or a 

Japanese module or the European module, everybody comes to us. 

We pull the teams together in Houston whether it is by internet, 

by telecon or by video telecon or whatever, and the solution is 

made right in Houston. 

So I cannot give a better example of leadership than that. I wish 

I could vocalize it better. We are the acknowledged leader in the 

world in human spaceflight. Unless we choose to say we are, that 

is not going to change. 

GENERAL BOLDEN’S EXPERIENCE

Mr. MOLLOHAN. General, how long were you in the Astronaut 

Corps? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I was there for 14 years right in the middle 

of my 34 years in the Marine Corps. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How many Shuttle flights did you participate in? 

General BOLDEN. I flew four and my first flight ended ten days 

before we lost Challenger. And my next three came in the wake or 

in the aftermath of Challenger when I realized that it was so important that we do what we do that I remain a part of the program. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACTS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would suggest you had some insights into 

these issues. 

A final question here. In our report last year, we included this 

provision ‘‘provided, none of the funds provided herein and from 

prior years, shall be available for the termination or elimination of 

any program, project, or activity of the architecture for the Constellation Program, nor shall such funds be available to create or 

initiate a new program, project, or activity unless such program 

termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriation Acts.’’ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
221 

There is some concern that or some question about whether that 

provision is being strictly complied to. Can you speak to that question? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, that provision is being strictly 

complied to. We have not terminated nor cancelled any contracts 

in the Constellation Program. We have not directed the slowdown 

of anything in the Constellation Program. I have authorized the 

cessation of procurement activities, five different activities that 

were in the process of going through competition to become contracts and I have explained that to members of Congress before. 

They were decisions that I felt were prudent because they had to 

do with downstream Constellation type projects. 

One of them was construction of the processing platforms at the 

Kennedy Space Center. We would not have gotten to that in 2010 

anyway. So, I just stopped the procurement activity that would 

have gotten that contract. 

Another one was for what we call an Eagle contract. It is the 

ground support. It is all the engineering and everything at the 

Kennedy Space Center. I on the recommendation of Bob Cabana, 

the Center Director at the Kennedy Space Center, terminated the 

efforts on that because his advice to me was, if we compete this 

contract and it is won and we do not have a budget that funds a 

follow-on program, I am going to have people out of work because 

they will be working under a contract that is not funded. 

And there are three others that I could mention that we stopped 

because it—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, with regard to that one, could anybody 

fairly consider that to be a termination? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. That was not a termination because we 

did not have a contract. So all of the existing Constellation contracts their work is still being fulfilled. 

I did ask people please do not expand the scope of any work, 

please do not go out and begin any new work because I am not authorized to do that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. In regard to the decisions that you have referenced here in answer to my previous question or with regard to 

any decisions you might have made that could be construed as 

being covered by my question, have you consulted lawyers in making those decisions? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I consult my Office of General Counsel before every decision and frequently we consult lawyers from other 

organizations which I have learned is not always, and I do not say 

this meaning any slight about attorneys, but—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Of course. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. As a general rule when I ask for 

multiple opinions from multiple organizations’ attorneys, then I get 

multiple answers. So I do count on my General Counsel who I consider to be an incredible attorney and his team. So the advice was 

that I was not in violation of the 2010 Joint Appropriations Act and 

I do not believe I have done any of that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So based on your—— 

General BOLDEN. In fact, the GAO is about to undertake or has 

already initiated an investigation into just those things. It will 

allow me to have an outside organization assess that I have not 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
222 

violated the law, that I did not violate the direction of the Congress. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So with regard to these questions and those decisions, you feel, your testimony is here today that you have made 

all of them in compliance with the law based upon the advice of 

your lawyers? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL FOR SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I apologize for not being here at the outset. I was Chairing 

a hearing on Human Rights and Religious Freedom in Vietnam, so 

hopefully the questions will not repeat. 

But I talked to a lot of people about this. There are two things. 

One, everyone thinks you are a fine person. So I think if there were 

a vote on that, you would win a hundred percent. 

The other side of the coin is that not many people that I have 

spoken to, some who have interest because of jobs, but others who 

just care about the country, do not agree with the Administration. 

Some of the comments. Former NASA Administrator, Mike Griffin, said I believe this budget request advocates a strategy that is 

frankly disastrous for U.S. human spaceflight. 

Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo Flight Director and former 

Johnson Space Center Director said, ‘‘the U.S. Space Program is in 

great peril if the President’s budget proposals are enacted.’’ 

Apollo 7 astronaut, Walter Cunningham, said ‘‘the proposal accelerates, quote, accelerates America’s downward spiral toward a mediocrity in space exploration.’’ 

Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator, Harrison Schmidt, 

wrote this proposal, ‘‘would cede the moon to China, the American 

Space Station to Russia, and assign liberty to the ages. Other nations would accrue the benefits, psychological, political, economic, 

and scientific, that the United States has harvested as a consequence of Apollo’s success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been 

lost on our ideological and economic competitors.’’ 

Apollo 16 astronaut, Charlie Duke, said we cannot afford to lose 

our leadership in space. 

Then it goes on. I will not go through them all? I will just ask 

unanimous consent to submit them for the record. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Letters can be found following QFR responses.] 

I have a series of question. The first is, the President’s proposal 

for space exploration has not been embraced by many members of 

Congress. There are some that have. But overall, it has not. 

I made an effort to solicit the views, positive or negative, of space 

exploration experts, former astronauts, and former Administrators. 

And I have done it in a very intellectually honest basis. I would 

call them and say just tell me, and I could off the record sit down 

with you and tell you who, what do you actually think. Some were 

astronauts, but some were not. Some were in the program. Almost 

no one has an involvement with regard to jobs. 

And one of the most frequently heard criticisms is that there is 

no set mission goal. And what are the goals of the new program 

and what time table will these goals be achieved? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
223 

General BOLDEN. Sir, the primary goal for NASA with the President’s new program is to be able to put humans on Mars in the 

foreseeable future. As I have explained before, the difficulty in 

doing that and the reason that I cannot give you a time certain is 

because we lack certain technological capabilities to do that. That 

is what is the basis for the technological development programs 

that I would like to put in place, so that we can develop those technologies and the capabilities that will allow us to do that. 

The reference you made to the group, and I did look at the document and I appreciate your giving me that before, they are very 

learned people, but I contend that the paradigm that they use is 

the paradigm of the Cold War when we had a defined enemy. So 

it was a matter of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. 

We did not do anything in partnerships at that time. It was the 

United States against if we need to. That is not the paradigm 

under which I have grown up, in my 34 years in the Marine Corps. 

Today we do international partnerships and we will not be able to 

go to Mars, we will not be able to go back to the Moon unless we 

are able to team with our international partners. 

The International Space Station which right now is the focus of 

any hope to be able to go beyond lowearth orbit. That is an international effort. So, I think they remember the way it was when we 

had a defined enemy and you could state that, okay, we are going 

to beat that enemy to a certain finish line, if you will. 

People talk about losing out on the race to the Moon to China. 

That is impossible. We already won the race. There is no race to 

the Moon. We won it. Whenever any other nation gets to the Moon, 

they will find six flags and all six flags will bear the colors of this 

nation. They will have a different number of stars depending on 

when they were there, but, they will be United States flags. 

As I tell people all the time, they will probably, because the moon 

surface does not get disturbed like ours, they will probably walk in 

some footsteps. Those footsteps will be the footsteps of the 12 

American astronauts who first set foot on the Moon. So there is no 

race. We have won that race. 

Mr. WOLF. A lot of the—— 

General BOLDEN. There is no backup leadership. We are the designated leader. 

Mr. WOLF. A lot of the individuals I am referencing, and I will 

send you the letters, too, are not in that category. They are younger people, younger than you, some of the best minds in the country, 

a vast array of people. And they say basically the same thing. And 

I am going to share everything I have with you so that there is no 

surprises. 

WORKFORCE CONCERNS

The Shuttle Program is being closed down at the end of this 

year. NASA was already faced with the difficult task of 

transitioning the Shuttle workforce into the Constellation Program. 

Now you are proposing to terminate the Constellation Program at 

the same time. 

What do you anticipate are the impacts of this decision on the 

workforce, both Civil Service and contractors? How many jobs will 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
224 

be lost and what measures do you plan to take to minimize the impact of job losses and the negative impact on the industrial base? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, as I think everybody knows, the Obama 

Administration is not the Administration that brought about the 

closeout of the Shuttle Program. We have been working on that 

since 2004. 

While I was sad to see it come, it was time. We have learned a 

lot of lessons in going through the Shuttle transition process. So, 

we think we know how to transition as we close down a program. 

So, while we were going to be able to transition a portion of the 

Shuttle workforce to the Constellation Program and this has exacerbated that somewhat, we think we know how to transition a 

workforce to a new program. And as I mentioned earlier, it is my 

hope that we will be able to announce the programs that we would 

have as follow-on under the President’s proposed budget. 

CENTER JOB LOSSES

Mr. WOLF. Well, how many jobs do you foresee being lost? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I will get that information for you for the 

record because I do not want to—you know, we know that in the 

Kennedy Space Center area from the Shuttle Program, it was probably going to be in the neighborhood of 5,000, but then we were 

going to get some that we would transition to Constellation. But I 

will get the definitive numbers for you for the record for each of 

the centers affected. 

WORKFORCE TRANSITION

NASA is assessing the workforce implications of the FY 2011 budget request. 

While more precise workforce projections are not likely to be available before the 

submission of the FY 2012 budget request, the Agency believes it will be able to 

support delivery of the next Workforce Transition Strategy update—with updated, 

by-Center estimates for the Space Shuttle and Constellation programs and parametric estimates for new work, reflecting the President’s proposed budget—by this 

August. In May, the Agency plans to deliver an update on its workforce transition 

efforts that will focus on employee assistance and related activities. While the May 

document will not include workforce projections, it will reflect the significant ongoing transition activity that has occurred since the July 2009 edition of the Workforce 

Transition Strategy as NASA has continued to work towards the retirement of the 

Space Shuttle, and will set the stage for the August edition of that report. 

LEADERSHIP IN HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Many have characterized this proposal of 

ceding leadership in manned spaceflight to other nations. Charles 

Krauthammer wrote that decades from now, there may be a robust 

private space industry, but ‘‘in the interim, space will be owned by 

Russia and then China.’’ 

What are the implications of this, because we also have seen that 

the Chinese are very aggressive? And you say that we have won 

and we have, but the opportunities for ceding that leadership, because once you are ahead in the race and fall behind and somebody 

comes up, what are the implications if China gets back to the 

moon—gets to the moon before we return? Do you see any implications? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I do see implications to it, but they are not 

necessarily bad. You know, if the Chinese choose to go to the moon 

while we are trying to go to Mars and we are able to develop the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
225 

technology necessary to do that and we reach both destinations simultaneously, which we could, you know, it depends on how long 

it takes them to get there, then I would say once again—— 

CHINA AND THE MOON

Mr. WOLF. But you were mentioning going back, you said, to the 

moon and then to Mars. Assuming you are going back to the moon 

and China is going to the moon, who gets there first the next time? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, the next time? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I do not intend, it will sound trivial, but 

I do not think it matters who gets there. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, it does to me. It does to me. And I think it matters, with all respect to a lot of Americans. I mean, it may not with 

you. And, believe me, I admire your service, so I want to make that 

clear. But it does to me. And I think it does to a lot of young people. We are trying to increase math and science and physics and 

chemistry and get excitement. And people do not sign up to get the 

autographs of the Land Rover. They line up to get the autographs 

of the astronauts. So I think it does. 

Somebody said the other day astronauts are the only people that 

people stand in line not knowing who they are just to get the 

names, the autographs of people they do not even know. They do 

not do that with other people. So it matters to me and I think it 

matters to a lot of others. 

But based on that question, who do you think gets there first the 

next time? Do we get back to the moon before China or does China 

get to the moon before we get back to the moon? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, because of where we are technologically in 

comparison to them, I think we get back first. If I am allowed to 

carry out the vision of President Obama and as supported by the 

2011 budget, I think we stand a pretty good chance of getting to 

the Moon much quicker than we would have with the Constellation 

Program. 

PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL

Mr. WOLF. The President’s proposal seemed to take NASA workforce by surprise. To what extent was this new plan developed and 

vetted and refined by the NASA scientists, engineers, and managers who represent the country’s best qualified experts in space 

exploration? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, for months prior to the budget 

being announced, I had worked with my senior staff. But development as a general rule happens at the—is an iterative process. 

When we prepared our inputs, then there were participation among 

all my senior staff in providing the input for the budget. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, that is not completely what we hear when we 

talk to someone. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Wolf, if I may—— 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, sir 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. The data that we put together for 

submission for a budget does not mean that, it is like any budget. 

Everybody puts in what they want and then you go negotiate and 

you get out maybe not everything that you asked for. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
226 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I understand. For five years, I worked for a 

Cabinet Secretary, former Congressman Roger C.B. Morton. And 

when big decisions were made in a particular area, if it dealt with 

national parks, the National Park Director would come in, the park 

superintendents would come in. It was an in-depth kind of consultation before the Secretary just rolled something out. 

And the centers most impacted by this decision, Kennedy, Johnson, and Marshall. So I guess directly were the Directors of those 

centers part of the team making the decisions on the new proposals 

and, if not, why not? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, all Center Directors as well as all of my 

Mission Directorate Associate Administrators were involved in all 

the deliberations that we made prior to my going in and meeting 

with the President and working on the budget with him. 

But as I said again, everything that you propose does not always 

come out the other end. I think the budget that we got is the best 

budget for the nation and the best budget for NASA. It essentially 

represents what I recommended to the President. 

REVIEW OF THE NEW PROPOSAL

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I just will have one other on this round, Mr. 

Chairman. I appreciate that. 

After talking to a number of these people, and I appreciate the 

conversation I have had with you, in light of the widespread opposition, and I think you would acknowledge there has been some 

fairly widespread opposition, on March 11, I and several other 

members wrote to you asking you to assemble a team of NASA experts to conduct a 30-day review of the new proposal tested for 

ground truth and suggest possible alternatives and modifications 

within the current proposed budget. Will you be conducting this review? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Wolf, we are constantly reviewing everything that we do. And I think you will find when I respond to your letter, that we have looked long and hard at ways 

to—for example, the one question you asked about, ensuring continuous American access to low-earth orbit, we continue to look at 

that in hopes that we would be able to find a way to do that. We 

are unable to do that. So that will be a response that I will give 

to you. I am working on your response. 

Mr. WOLF. So are you looking then? Or have you looked and decided not to? The request was to take 30 days because the President is going to go down to Cape Canaveral on April 15th. When 

something is rolled out then, then you are going to have kind of 

a fairly significant complication. 

Is there an effort to develop, and I do not know if the word is 

compromise, but is there an effort to look at this thing again and 

compromise? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, my intention is to continue to 

work with the Congress. I know that the President is going to work 

with the Congress. 

But I think in your letter, if I remember, you asked if I were 

looking to develop a plan B and there is no alternative plan. There 

is no alternative budget. I stick by the budget that I helped the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
227 

President develop. So if the question is am I developing a plan B, 

there is no plan B. 

Mr. WOLF. And what if it is rejected by the Congress? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, it is my intent to work diligently to find 

a solution to the differences that we have on the different parts of 

the budget. I think, and I hope I am not being presumptive, but 

I think with the exception of the portion of the budget that deals 

with the cancellation of the Constellation Program, we are probably 

in unanimous agreement that we have an incredible budget. So my 

intent is to focus on work with the Congress and I know that that 

is the President’s intent. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I guess I could take that as a, yes, we are going 

to try to accommodate and work or I could take it as it is and I 

am uncertain. 

It troubles me, as you know, I do not support what you are doing, 

some parts are positive, but I am already getting calls and hearing 

that some of the companies and our lobbyists downtown, former 

members of Congress, people who really are working on this not 

necessarily for America but to make a profit. And that is, I guess, 

the way this process works in this town. 

But are you open to other ideas or is it just the way it came out? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, personally I am open to any 

ideas that come through my organization. I constantly challenge 

my Center Directors and all of my employees to help us determine 

better ways that we can do what we do. 

We have a budget that has been proposed by the President. As 

I said before, I think it is an incredible budget. I think it gives us 

great opportunities. And I think within the constraints of the budget, we are going to find a way to get America to mars in due course 

and we are going to develop the technologies utilizing the funds 

that hopefully will be appropriated in that budget to get us there 

quicker than we would have been able to do under the program of 

record, under the present Constellation Program. 

So that is my focus. And I really want to work with this body 

to make sure that we are able to do that. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

U.S. SPACE PROGRAM

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yes, first I know that your position as Administrator, you have the President’s budget and, you know, there 

are issues there. Once he puts out the budget you are going to have 

to defend that budget. I want to say I respect your role as Administrator. And one of the reasons is because you were an astronaut 

and you understand the business, and that is important. 

My concern is that if you look at the history of our country, and 

how we evolved to be number one in space, it all started really I 

think with Sputnik. And when the Russians came out with Sputnik 

we were concerned they were going to control the skies. And we got 

together as a country, our American ingenuity, our education, and 

we put a man on the moon in twelve years. 

Since that time, though, we have had a lot of failures in the 

space program. We have lost billions of dollars and we have had 

to cancel other programs. And the issue of canceling a program is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
228 

very serious when you have had a lot in it but you cannot keep 

throwing bad money, and you have to have, if you are a leader you 

have to make certain decisions and prioritize. 

My concern is the way this was done, because I think it has happened way too quick. When you read about it in the paper, and 

those of us who deal in space and deal with, whether it is military 

intelligence or NASA. And I am concerned that we do not have the 

road map. That we all of a sudden have a plan, and because of the 

fact that we have 25,000 jobs at stake, we are competing with Russia and China, I think it could put us at a disadvantage. 

So I want to ask you a couple of questions. The first thing, you 

have said that you feel that clearly we are number one in space at 

this point. But I think you also, do you feel that there are a lot of 

challenges that we have ahead of us? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I think there are definite challenges that 

we have ahead of us and they would be there if we had no competition. 

HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. All right. One of the challenges that I am 

concerned about is launch. It is my understanding that we have 

not, are not where we need to be with respect to launch, that probably Russia and China are ahead of us as far as launch capability. 

And I think this is something we really have to focus on. And I 

hope that you have certain priorities that you are focusing on the 

launch issue. There is a lot, whether it is resources, whether it is 

management, but it is something I think that we have to deal with 

it. We have had too many cancellations that seem to we are going 

down the wrong road on launch. Do you have an opinion on that? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, you and I have talked about this 

in the past, as I have with several other members. This is an area 

of concern for all of us who are involved in the national security 

arena or space access arena. Just as recently as last week I was 

involved in a video teleconference with the space related agencies 

in our government, led by Secretary Donley, the Secretary of the 

Air Force, and General Kehler, General Carlson and me. The issues 

that we discussed included the need for a broad national launch 

system that will put us back where we need to be. We are too reliant right now on old systems, and that is one of the reasons that 

I try to reemphasize the importance of President Obama’s budget. 

Because in that he has challenged me to find state-of-the-art propulsion systems, both for leaving the planet but most importantly 

for in space propulsion. So that we can get to the places like Mars, 

and asteroids, and the Moon, much quicker than we can do today. 

NASA’S BUDGET

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. All right, I understand that. I want to get 

back to the President’s budget again. I think that when you have 

such a large program, so many jobs at stake, our national security 

at stake, you really have to focus on where your priorities are. But 

you have to work with the group. And what I mean by the group, 

the DOD. You have to work with intelligence. You have, with 

NASA where you are. You also have to work with Congress. And 

I feel that there needs to be more of a balance that has not ocVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
229 

curred yet. I think by moving so quickly, and having to be here to 

defend, I think that we ought to really take a couple of steps back 

and evaluate where our priorities are going to be as far as jobs, as 

far as money. 

And I agree with you on the commercial issue. We have not, because we had more money than anybody, that is one of the reasons 

why we are superior in space. Europe is doing very well with commercial. They are getting a lot of the same pictures that we are 

getting. They are getting a lot of same information that we are getting. So we have to make sure, if we can have four satellites to one, 

that we really explore commercial. But commercial will not get us 

to the Moon, commercial will not get us to Mars. And this is why 

I am concerned that based on the President’s budget at this point, 

that if we, if we are taking man, we are really not focusing on 

space involving the ability to get a man to the Moon or to Mars, 

it is almost as if we are having a mile race to China and we are 

giving them a half-mile head start. 

We know the money that China is putting into their space program. And I think if we are going to collaborate, and we are going 

to work with these other countries, that we have to be stronger so 

we have the leverage to work with them. And I would like your 

opinion on if you feel there is a way of flexibility to work with us, 

to make sure that we can reevaluate and we can help you put together a plan so that we have all of the entities, American entities, 

whether it is military, intel, that is coming together. Because I 

think right now you are going to spend a lot of time defending a 

budget when maybe we should spend more time on how we can be 

successful in the future in our space program. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I appreciate that and that is exactly what I intend to do. I want to go forward, and I do not want 

to stop, retrench, go back and look at something. Mistakes that I 

have made, I have made, I cannot correct that. If I were to go 

through the budget roll out again I would not do it the way I did 

it. I would listen to some of these people sitting behind me who advised me that this is the way we usually do it. I thought I was 

smarter, and I have apologized for that before. 

HEAVY LIFT PROPULSION R&D

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me give you an example of what I 

would mean, though, why we have to reevaluate. Heavy lifting propulsion R and D. Fiscal year 2011 budget for heavy lifting propulsion R and D, it looks like you are spending $5 billion over the next 

five years. Now, your budget proposes $3 billion over the next five 

years for a heavy lift vehicle. This is not adequate funding for a 

heavy lift vehicle development program and will require a top line 

increase in NASA’s budget. Now, in those five years are we going 

to build, test, or fly anything? And with these funds it looks like 

we are only going to study. We have, we have done a lot of study 

and research, and we need to do the testing and the research. But 

there comes a time when we have to make a move. Now, I am 

going to ask the question. In those five years are we going to build, 

test, or fly anything? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, it is my hope that we will build, test, and 

fly things in this coming period. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
230 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What will that be, then? That we are going 

to test? 

General BOLDEN. Well sir, the reason—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Based on this budget? I do not see that. 

General BOLDEN. Well the reason that I have asked that we be 

allowed to take an opportunity to look at what is available in current technology and where we think we can go is so that we build 

smartly. We design and we develop smartly. I think there are better capabilities than we presently have today, and I want to make 

sure that when we build and test a rocket that it is the best we 

can do. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. No question. 

General BOLDEN. I think we can get there within the constraints 

of the present budget, and then, we will certainly be required when 

we get ready to really start going to Mars—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Getting back to my question, though, if 

Constellation is canceled, and I hope we can look and reevaluate 

that. Maybe there are a lot of things that need to be canceled within that program, but the whole program being canceled I believe 

is too quick. But let me ask this. And I do not know where my time 

is, Mr. Chairman. But with Constellation being canceled, should we 

not be looking to make sure we are pressing forward with good 

heavy lift capabilities? I do not see it with a $3 billion over five 

years. I do not think we can get there with that. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I have asked my, one of the things that we 

are doing with the teams that I know everybody is not happy with, 

but one of those teams is a heavy lift launch vehicle team. They 

are assessing what will be required for us to, as speedily as possible, develop a new heavy lift launch vehicle that will get us where 

we want to go. So I think when we finish that work we will be 

ready to proceed to develop what the nation can be proud of. 

CYBERSECURITY

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. My time is up? Oh, I have got to get into 

cyber, too. Because that is another area that we have to deal with. 

And we know, and it is not classified, that we have had, that NASA 

has had a lot of cyber attacks, especially from China, throughout 

the years. And, you know, a lot of what we do in space deals with 

a lot of issues, some that we cannot talk about. But, you know, how 

we, commercially, our national security, and whatever. Where is 

NASA now as far as the focus on cybersecurity? Are you working 

with NSA, since NSA has jurisdiction over the .mil. What is your 

plan for cybersecurity? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I brought in a new Chief Information Officer shortly after taking over as the NASA Administrator. And she 

knows that that is probably her number one focus. We have actually begun to work with other agencies and other organizations 

that have had perhaps not as many hits as we have had but more 

severe intrusions. We are trying to learn lessons from them so that 

we can restructure ourselves. 

One of the things we could not do, or did not choose to do before 

I became the Administrator, was devote the funds necessary to 

strengthen our cybersecurity—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
231 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Are you working with NSA to protect these 

networks? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I will get back to you for the record. 

CYBER SECURITY

The NASA Chief Information Officer is working closely with members of the intelligence community and Department of Human Services on matters related to cyber 

security. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay, well then you do not have to—— 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Do not want to say specifically the 

agency that we are working with. Not that I do not want to, I do 

not want to tell you that we are working specifically with NSA if 

I do not, and I do not know that we are working specifically with 

which organizations. But I will get that information to you. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay, the final question is about Constellation being canceled. You talked about going to Mars maybe in 

twenty years, and maybe that, we are not sure where our priorities 

are. It seems to me that is a long way off, and that we need to 

maybe refocus our priorities and our goals. But I think at this 

point if we just, one year Constellation is there, the next year 

maybe a loss of 25,000 jobs, that if we do not reevaluate where and 

what we can take out of Constellation, if it is going to be canceled, 

where we are going to put these jobs, where we are going to get 

the best. You know, China and Russia are Communist countries. 

They can order the smartest people in that area to work wherever 

they make them work. We cannot. So I really would hope that you 

would reevaluate that twenty years, because I cannot see a goal 

twenty years out with canceling Constellation. I think we have to 

work up to that. 

So I am just saying we are going to work with you. You are going 

to get a lot of accusations, and there is emotion just like the 

healthcare emotion and, you know, everything else. But this is so 

serious to our country and our national security. And I think you 

are the right person in the right place, by the way. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, if I may? I share your concern 

about having a target that is twenty years away, and trying to tell 

the American public that, ‘‘Just wait twenty years.’’ That does not 

get it, and I say that. What I have told my leadership team, and 

everyone in the NASA workforce, all 18,000-plus of them, is that 

if we cannot do something that gets people’s attention preferably 

every year, but every other year, then we are going to be lost. I 

really believe that. 

And what the President’s budget allows me to do is to launch 

smaller test flights of technology. I do not have to have a specific 

vehicle to launch a technology test. I can use anything. I can put 

something on one of these commercial vehicles that is going to the 

International Space Station. I can fly it on a commercial vehicle 

that is doing their own thing, taking tourists around the planet. I 

can fly it on a suborbital vehicle. I can, that is the way we do 

things today. We put more than one payload on a satellite. Or we 

put a payload on somebody else’s launch vehicle that has nothing 

to do with what we are trying to do. That is what the money for 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
232 

technology development is going to allow me to do. Because we cannot, we cannot just fly, twenty years from now. We have got to be 

doing things that are causing us, or allowing us, to get incrementally to where we want to go. And that is exactly what I want to 

do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Visclosky. 

HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE CAPACITY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, 

thank you very much for your time. And in many ways you have 

answered the question I am going to ask you and that is about lift 

capacity. I serve on a Defense Subcommittee as well and we are 

very concerned as far as launch capabilities. You had mentioned 

your meetings with the Air Force, and you had talked about crew 

modules, and cargo. As you are looking ahead, is it your anticipation that you are going to use something along the lines of the 

evolved expendable launch vehicle? Or will there be a new system 

in place as far as launch capabilities? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, if I understand your question correctly, for 

a heavy lift launch vehicle my intention would be that that would 

be a newly developed system. We can use the EELVs for any number of things. We can use them for getting to low Earth orbit. We 

can use them for getting satellites to orbit. But that would not be 

my vision, that we would use that as the nation’s heavy lift launch 

vehicle to try to get us to Mars. And that is simply because in 

the—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am not talking, I am sorry, I am not talking 

about Mars. I am talking about just this country’s base launch 

abilities. And are you as you pursue new launch capabilities for 

NASA, you mentioned Air Force—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY [continuing]. Are you working—— 

General BOLDEN. My desire is to—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Put out of your mind human space flight. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I understand. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. There are needs for a heavy lift launch vehicle 

for national security purposes. So, my intention is to develop in coordination and consultation with the other space agencies that 

need that capability, so that we build a nationally usable heavy lift 

launch vehicle. The same thing with propulsion systems. I want to 

be able to develop the first stage engines that can not only lift a 

NASA crew and cargo that is going to go to Mars, but will be able 

to lift something for the national security apparatus. Or even the 

commercial entities can use it on a vehicle should some business 

entrepreneur decide that he or she wants to fly something to the 

Moon. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you are hopeful you would see that flight 

within five years? If I understood your answer to the gentleman 

from Maryland? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I do not think I said we would have a 

heavy lift launch vehicle in five years, no sir. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Okay. Do you have an estimated time? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
233 

General BOLDEN. My desire would be to get us on a trajectory 

where we can realize a heavy lift capability by, within the next ten 

years or so. That is what we show on most of our forecasts if we 

are able to expend the funds the way—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you are in consultation with DOD? 

General BOLDEN. I am in consultation with DOD and the intelligence communities also. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And you believe you have enough money in the 

2011 budget to pursue that? 

General BOLDEN. I have enough money in the 2011 budget to 

begin the pursuit, yes sir. 

ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION

Mr. VISCLOSKY. A more philosophical question if I could. And this 

is the first time I have had a NASA hearing. I believe the agency 

does an incredible amount of good work with unmanned exploration of space. Do you have a list at NASA of projects and proposals for unmanned exploration that we simply do not have money 

on because of the cost of keeping a human being alive in space, 

that are being unmet? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I could give you—— 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would take, I guess, an approach different from 

colleagues—— 

General BOLDEN. I could give you a long list of those that existed 

while we were trying to sustain the Constellation program. As I 

have said before this panel, before this Committee and others, Constellation itself was on an unsustainable trajectory to getting where 

we wanted to go in human space flight. While doing so it was sucking all the oxygen out of the room in terms of support to aeronautics research, science research, and the like. That is no fault of 

the people involved. That is just a fall out of the funding that went 

to the program over the last ten years. I just do not know how to 

explain it any better. 

But in the 2011 budget I think you will see, I would love for us 

to be able to talk about the ninety-some odd percent of the 2011 

budget that is really, really good. And it is the increase in spending 

on Earth science, climate science, planetary science, pulling missions forward that we, that came out of the decadal surveys by as 

much as a year to two years. When we start flying these missions 

in, I think, 2013, 2014, there is going to be a string of missions 

that we could not honestly say we would be able to pull off—— 

HUMAN EXPLORATION AND ROBOTICS

NASA is continuously engaged in the study of potential future missions and 

projects. The Agency is guided in this process by national needs and priorities as 

well as by scientific priorities as established by the National Academies of Sciences. 

The sets of meritorious and exciting robotic missions identified by the National 

Academies inevitably exceeds the available resources. NASA considers a balanced 

program that includes both human exploration and robotic exploration to be essential to America’s future in space exploration. Robotic and human exploration are 

mutually supportive and interdependent. NASA’s FY 2011 budget request reflects 

an appropriate balance between these two critical activities. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
234 

FY 2011 PROPOSALS

Mr. VISCLOSKY. And let me ask you one final question, setting 

aside human space flight and setting aside Earth science, what are 

some of the things you would, under the proposed 2011 bill, be able 

to do that you would not have been able to do? 

General BOLDEN. Under the 2011 bill in the field of aeronautics 

we are going to do, I think there was recently the FAA authorization bill passed that put a significant plus up in the FAA budget 

for Next Generation Air Transportation Systems. We are vital cogs 

in the wheel in producing that system. I would like to be able to 

get to the 2011 budget because it has a significant amount of 

money that we are going to be able to put into the NASA portion 

of the development of next year. When you look at green aviation, 

or when you look at other types of things in the field of aeronautics, that is all covered in the 2011 budget where the aeronautics budget had pretty much shrunk to about half of what it 

used to be over the last eight or ten years. 

Those are the things that I am very excited about—— 

PLANETARY SCIENCE

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Any additional programs in planetary science? 

General BOLDEN. I beg your pardon, sir? 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Any additional programs in astrophysics or planetary science? 

General BOLDEN. We have some that we are now hopeful that we 

can fly that were doubtful before. The one that I like, because it 

goes to a place called Europa, where we think that it is an ice-covered moon of Jupiter that we think has a huge ocean beneath it. 

Where there is an ocean there is a possibility of some type of life. 

So for a planetary scientist, or a life scientist, that is exciting. 

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NASA’S ROLE

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you 

for your service to the country and your leadership at NASA. We 

all admire you immensely and just continue to hear great good 

things about you. I especially appreciated, Mr. Chairman, I think 

your line of questioning was right on target, Mr. Wolf’s. And particularly I want to follow up on Mr. Ruppersberger’s and Mr. Visclosky’s line of questioning. I think the questions they asked are 

right on target. 

The concern we all have as part of our job as members of this 

Committee, as members of Congress, is to protect the nation’s national security interests and NASA’s role in preserving America’s 

national security is vital. That ability to have a heavy lift vehicle, 

the manned space program, there is just no substitute for it. 

HUBBLE REPAIR

Hubble could not have been repaired, the initial problem with 

the mirrors, the final, the other two repairs. I think you actually 

flew on one of the, did you fly on one of the repair missions? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
235 

General BOLDEN. I put the flawed telescope into orbit. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You were on the first one, then, that fixed the 

spherical aberration problem with the mirrors? 

General BOLDEN. I, when I left it we did not know it. But a couple of weeks later when we started to check out we discovered we 

had what was called a spherical aberration. And that is all I am 

going to say, because somebody told me that but I cannot describe 

it. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is right, you were on that. And I do not 

think a robot could have done that, could they? 

General BOLDEN. I also worked on the National Academy of 

Science Committee to save Hubble. And we thought we could support NASA’s intent to develop a robotic mission to Hubble. When 

I talk about the necessity of technology development, at that time 

in 2003, 2004, when I met, although it was our firm intent to find 

a robotic method to go and service Hubble the technology was not 

there at the time. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right, it had to be a manned mission. 

General BOLDEN. It had to be a manned mission. And—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. And so many other ways. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. We were able to convince the incoming NASA Administrator Mike Griffin that it was worth the 

risk. 

THE HIGH GROUND

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. The problems you encounter in space, 

whether it be the deployment of a solar panel, or whatever has 

happened before, you have just got to have human beings in space. 

And that is an absolutely essential part of America’s national security. And space is the high ground today, is it not? That is the high 

ground. 

General BOLDEN. It is the absolute high ground. Going back to 

your point, robots can do almost everything. But today they do not 

reason, they cannot. Although they are very good, we build dexterous robots. I think you and Congressman Wolf hopefully saw R2 

in a recent visit to the Johnson Space Center? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

General BOLDEN. R2 can do amazing things, but R2 cannot 

think. 

EUROPA MISSION

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. Well your, and I was glad to hear the Europa mission. Mr. Visclosky is right, how important that is that 

NASA also maintain world leadership in exploring the outer planets. And those are now of necessity robotic missions. The Europa 

mission in particular, the highest priority of the decadal survey, because Europa has more liquid salt water than the Earth even. And 

we know it has got heat, there is almost certainly volcanic vents 

and life. Very exciting mission, look forward to seeing that blossom 

and develop and fly. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
236 

HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH AND HUMAN CAPSULE VEHICLE

But Mr. Ruppersberger asked and Mr. Visclosky a very, very important question, and I cannot see it either, they are all as concerned as I am, about the heavy lift capability of NASA that we 

just do not see it in the budget. And I would say to Mr. Visclosky 

and Mr. Ruppersberger, the letter that Mr. Wolf sent you in asking 

how within the existing budget can we preserve the ability to have 

a manned capsule and heavy lift vehicle within the existing budget? That question we asked I think would give us the fall back, if 

you do not want to use the word compromise, position that we are 

all looking for. So you will be able to answer that question within 

the thirty days? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, it is my intent to get your response, a response to Congressman Wolf in the very near future. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So within the timeframe Mr. Wolf gave you? 

General BOLDEN. In that timeframe Mr. Wolf—— 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION

Mr. CULBERSON. Super. That is critical. Because, Mr. Visclosky, 

Mr. Ruppersberger, I know members of the Committee, members 

of Congress, and I, we have only been able to find one member of 

the House that supports the President’s budget proposal. And we 

need to make sure we will as a nation preserve America’s leadership in manned space exploration. And the key is to find a reasonable middle ground, and that letter will help us do that. How 

many—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, may I make one, please? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

General BOLDEN. Because the tone of your comment, I want to 

make sure that everyone understands, I am not developing a Plan 

B. There is no Plan B. There is no alternative budget. But I am 

trying to answer the Congressman’s letter—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. That is right. We will do that. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Within the constraints—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. Of the President’s proposed budget. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. The President—— 

General BOLDEN. As long as everybody understands that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The President has made a proposal and we will, 

yes sir. I wanted to ask you, General Bolden, the President’s budget was announced on February 1st. How many days before that did 

you first hear that the Constellation program was going to be canceled? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, that particular piece is what they call predecisional. I am not, I think it would be inappropriate for me to 

talk about the date on which the President, I was notified—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well what I am really driving at, though, is that 

the, the decision to cancel Constellation was a surprise? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, because of the way that I chose to roll out 

the NASA budget, and I did not go through the normal process of 

getting with members of this Committee, or other members of ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
237 

gress several days before the budget was announced, then it was 

a surprise to the world. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It was a surprise to you? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, no sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And a surprise to, certainly a surprise to the 

center directors. And Mr. Wolf is right. We, Mr. Wolf has talked 

with all of them. I have talked extensively with Mike Coats, who 

I just admire. He is a national treasure, take good care of that 

man. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It was a surprise to everybody. Because the Augustine Commission said that the Constellation program was 

unsustainable because of inadequate funding. And the reason we 

are in the box ring today is because of inadequate funding from the 

Bush administration Office of Management and Budget and failure 

to fully fund the vision that was laid out prior to the election in 

2004. So that is the dilemma. It is not that there are any inherent 

flaws in the Constellation program. The Constellation program is, 

was on track, had a successful test flight? Right? It was on track? 

It was inadequately funded. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is the problem with Constellation. 

General BOLDEN. I wish I, I honestly wish I could say that it was 

a singular problem of funding. Funding was the principal driver in 

causing the Constellation program to be unsustainable. But the 

Constellation program as it is had been downgraded to the extent 

that it, as I mentioned earlier, it had denigrated to, or degraded 

to a lunar program. And it was a lunar program without a lander. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

General BOLDEN. Those decisions, while they had to be made because of insufficient funding, they put us in a situation where we 

almost could not recover. 

COMMERCIAL ASTRONAUT LAUNCH

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you. Thank you. And if I could, Mr. 

Chairman, I will be as brief as I can because I understand they 

have called a couple of votes, you said earlier, General Bolden, in 

your testimony at the beginning that essentially what you envision, 

and I tried to write this down accurately. What you are envisioning 

is that NASA will, you will no longer buy vehicles, NASA will lease 

them. And the operation will be by the vendor who owns the vehicle, correct? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. And ‘‘lease’’ is my term. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I understand. 

General BOLDEN. The acquisition strategy has not been decided 

yet. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, yeah—— 

General BOLDEN. But that is the closest thing I can, lease it as 

opposed to getting it as a taxi. I differentiate it between the taxi 

service and getting the vehicle that becomes mind for a period of 

time. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
238 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. The analogy, the concern that I think we 

all have as members of Congress is, can you imagine the United 

States government having to lease the USS Harry Truman from 

Northrup Grumman? If Northrup, imagine if Northrup Grumman 

owned the Harry Truman, and we had to lease it, or ask permission to take it to the Persian Gulf. That is really what you are talking about. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I do not, I appreciate the analogy. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Or the nuclear subs. You know, General Dynamics. Imagine if we had Mr. Visclosky go to the General Dynamics and lease a USS Texas, for example. That is really near and 

dear to my heart. There is a big problem there. 

SPEECH BY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR GARVER

And then finally Mr. Chairman, let me point this out because I 

know time is short, but the, and I do not know if the Committee 

is familiar with this, and I am going share this with you. Lori 

Garver gave a speech on March 10th to the American Astronautical 

Society. And I, this was dumbfounding to me. The statute creating 

NASA, Congress’ direction to NASA, and the nation’s direction, is 

that NASA’s job is, ‘‘to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.’’ Lori Garver told the 

American Astronautical Society that NASA’s priority are to fight 

poverty, promote world peace and societal advancement, and protect the environment. I, this is, I think, she says and I will quote 

it directly. She says, ‘‘The President’s budget will enable NASA to 

align with the priorities of the nation, and these key national priorities that I am referring to are economic development, poverty, 

hunger and jobs, international leadership and geopolitics, world 

peace, education, society advancement, environment, future of the 

planet, and humanity.’’ And I would suggest to you that Ms. 

Garver has completely lost sight of the core mission of NASA, 

which is to preserve and protect America’s leadership in manned 

space, manned and robotic space exploration to pioneer the future 

in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. 

To go where no one has gone before and explore new world. And 

that is NASA’s mission. It is, NASA’s mission is not fighting poverty, world peace, and protecting the environment. Those may be 

subsets or spinoffs. But I, you know, Ms. Garver’s, I will make sure 

my colleagues see this. This is very disturbing. Were you aware of 

this? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is your vision of NASA that NASA’s number 

one job is to fight poverty and world peace? Surely not. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman I, know Lori incredibly well and 

I know that Lori knows what the mission of NASA is. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, this is what she told the astronomers 

at—— 

General BOLDEN. I do not think she questions whatsoever what 

our charge is and what our mission is under the National Space 

Act and the subsequent appropriations acts. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Would you please talk to her and get, I mean, 

this needs to be retracted. This is not acceptable. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
239 

Mr. CULBERSON. You do not agree with this, do you? 

General BOLDEN. NASA’s mission as established by the National 

Space Act has not changed. NASA’s mission, is still what it is. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So you disagree with Ms. Garver? You disagree 

with this speech? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, that is the first I have seen that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I will share it with you, make sure you see it. 

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Was Ms. Garver asserting that that was the sole 

mission of NASA? Was she asserting that was the sole mission of 

NASA? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. The speech was to the—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, I’m not asking you, was she asserting that 

was the sole mission of NASA? 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. Yeah, these are their national, these 

are NASA’s, aligning with the priorities of the nation, and here are 

the priorities. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I did not hear that was the mission of NASA. 

My question is, was she asserting that was the sole mission of 

NASA? 

Mr. CULBERSON. She lists all the other things they are doing as 

spinoffs. Yes, sir. This is their lead role. This is their lead mission. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So you are saying she said in that speech that 

those are the sole missions of NASA? 

Mr. CULBERSON. The sole mission? This is NASA’s mission. Yes, 

sir, this is NASA’s mission. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. The word mission is not, but it is clear that is 

what she is saying. I mean, it—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Ah, thank you. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. Just to gentlelady Garver, I 

guess there are a lot of visions that we have of projects that we 

get involved in. And it is probably her vision that ultimately all the 

things that we do scientifically and socially, it is for ultimately 

world peace, and getting along with each other, and creating international cooperation. Not unlike the Spaceship Enterprise, hm? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I think if we are allowed to take 

her speech in context I think it would be the same thing that I do. 

Anybody that has heard me speak knows that the most passionate 

part about anything I say is about education. 

Mr. HONDA. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. That is not NASA’s primary mission. And I am 

criticized by some of my predecessors and some of my contemporaries because I focus, I put big focus on education because I 

think it is critical for this nation. I think that NASA has a responsibility to partner with the President in trying to pull our nation 

out of its, now if you want to talk about leadership, we are twentysomething in the world in math and science. We have got to be the 

leader there. And I think while that is nowhere in NASA’s mission 

statement from the National Space Act, I do not think, it is incredibly critical that we play a role in that. I just think we need to look 

at Lori’s comments in context. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Excuse me just one minute, would the gentleman suspend for a minute? We have six minutes to finish this 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
240 

vote, which means we have some more minutes. I plan to go past 

the voting time. And we have three members, including Mr. Honda 

who is now questioning, and then any second rounds. If we cannot 

finish before, which is perfectly fine, I intend, if the Administrator 

is able, to return after the vote for further questions. I just wanted 

to let the members know that. 

NASA’S MISSIONS

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

continued comments regarding science. Because I, you know, one of 

the things that would, we could think about reestablishing is a 

independent office, like the old Office of Biological and Physical Research. But I think in the last few years that I have been here we 

have been trying to keep the A and the S in NASA, you know aeronautics and space. So I think after the shuttle disaster things got 

a little bit disarrayed and confused. And then I think that the way 

NASA was being administered in terms of its mission, its budget, 

and everything else like that, it seemed like we sort of tried to find 

out why. I think that it caused a lot of confusion. We lost a lot of 

good scientists and good contractors on that way. 

It feels like the administration, it feels like the administration is 

trying to refocus and capture what we have, what we inherited. 

And it seems like the piece that the Constellation, that is left over 

from the Constellation is that piece of the heavy lift portion. And 

I heard you say that you did not cancel any contracts, you just 

said, ‘‘Let us stop and figure out where we are going to go from 

here.’’ And it feels like that, that might be part of the piece that 

the Augustine Commission was looking at when they said that you 

all ought to look at some of the different options we put out there. 

And some of them are, I guess it was suggesting a flexible plan so 

that you have options and in using some of the different options 

you might be able to catch up and recapture the lead in the space 

exploration. 

You stated very clearly that the vision was not necessarily staying at the Moon but going to Mars. And in order to do that we have 

to probably bring back the issues around human biology in space 

and the other things that were cut out. And a lot of things were 

cut out, I think, to support the old Constellation program. And I 

think we lost a lot of pieces in there. And I think, it feels like you 

are trying to look at how do we piece it back together so that we 

have a coherent program so that we can move forward? Would you 

like to comment on that? 

General BOLDEN. I would be happy to comment on that. NASA 

can walk and chew gum, and we can keep many balls in the air. 

As you said, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

the aeronautics have suffered. Through no fault of any of my predecessors, but we just did not have the funding to support a robust 

aeronautics program. President Obama in the 2011 budget proposal 

is giving us significant amounts of money to rebuild our aeronautics program, to put money into colleges and universities so 

that we can get researchers who will want to do research in aeronautics and basic science in any number of things. 

We talk about inspiring kids, and Congressman Wolf have talked 

about this a lot because he does it with a school in this area. Kids 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
241 

have got to have someone to whom they look up. While I agree they 

will stand in line to get the autograph of an astronaut they have 

never heard of, but they make decisions about what areas of study 

they are going to go into based on the professors and what they are 

doing when they get to college. Today in colleges and universities 

across the country we are not putting sufficient money in for research and development. President Obama’s proposal for 2011 will 

allow me to put money back onto college and university campuses. 

I think professors are going to be doing robust research and development that is going to help us do the things that we have talked 

about, help us get a better heavy lift launch vehicle, and kids are 

going to want to be with them. 

Some of them, hopefully some few, will want to be astronauts. 

But most of them are going to decide that they want to go to graduate school, and that they want to become a professor. That is just 

not happening today in the fields of science and engineering. Most 

of our students are turning to business. Not that it is bad, but we 

need scientists and engineers if we are going to continue to lead 

the world in technology. 

RETAINING CONTRACTOR EXPERTISE

Mr. HONDA. Just very quickly, given what you said, and I think 

that is the right direction, and the uncertainty that we are faced 

with right now, what is it that we are going to be able to do to hold 

the contractors and the experts that we have currently and not lost 

them because of the uncertainty? What is it that we can provide 

them so that they hang in there until things become more clear? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I have a two-headed workforce. 

I have civil servants and then contractors. And it is the second 

head of my workforce, it is the contractors that I am concerned 

about. Because in going away, in phasing out the shuttle program, 

we were going to lose some of those jobs. We were trying to find 

ways to help them transition either into another program in NASA 

or to the civilian workforce in the fields of science and technology. 

We have another challenge now in that we have decided that it is 

best to cancel the Constellation program and move on to something 

that will enable us to do the things we want to do much sooner. 

So it is incumbent upon me to work with the contractors and help 

them find ways that we can transition as many members of the 

workforce as possible to our follow on programs. But we will not 

be able to place everyone. So it is incumbent upon me to work with 

them to find transition programs where we can try to get them into 

other jobs in the high technology community. Because that is the 

way the nation has to go, if we are going to remain the leader. I 

pledge to all of them, I meet with the CEOs and the leaders of 

these companies on a regular basis, and I have asked them and 

told them, I want to be a partner with them in finding ways that 

we can find employment for their people. That is not going to be 

easy. But I am not the only aspect of American society that is going 

through that right now. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. General, we are going to recess. Are you able to 

stay past 4:00? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
242 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I am able to stay until you are ready to 

go home. This is my day today. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There are several other members that have 

questions. Mr. Wolf may have some more. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I can stay as long as you all can stay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

General BOLDEN. I can stay longer. I am a Marine. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we will see. 

General BOLDEN. Thank you, sir. 

[Recess] 

HEAVY-LIFT TECHNOLOGY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will resume. I am going to ask a 

few questions before we get some other members back. General, 

you had some questions with regard to heavy lift. Let me ask, what 

are the challenges in heavy lift technology, and to what extent are 

the technology requirements dependent upon the ultimate mission? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, the principal challenge in any launch vehicle is mass. My exploration systems associate administrator has 

shown me a chart that he has that shows you historically as we 

have progressed in space exploration we have been able to get the 

mass of the vehicles down. So that is one of them. That may be just 

in the material that we use to construct the rocket. We now have 

something called ‘‘friction stir weld.’’ It is a means by which we put 

components together that makes them much stronger, but it is 

much less weight than in the old method where you applied molten 

metal to a joint. Friction stir weld just takes two pieces of material 

together and it uses pressure and heat, and it bonds the material 

from its own composition instead of adding something to it. So they 

tend to be much lighter weight. We use it quite a bit now in the 

external tank and in some of the other, and it was actually developed for the dome of one of the Constellation modules, but that is 

just a technique that came about from Constellation. 

So propulsion is the big challenge. And I was having a discussion 

over here, whereas I am not, to be quite honest I am not real confident that we are going to find any revolutionary type of propulsion to leave the planet. You can take much less weight with you 

if you are able to develop propulsion systems that can be refueled 

on orbit, or if you go to Mars, you can dramatically reduce the 

amount of weight you have to take to the planet if you have a way 

to get in situ material, material that is there, like methane. So, if 

you develop a LOX-methane engine that can be refueled on the 

Martian surface because you have developed a method to take 

methane from the planet, then you reduce the amount of weight required for a heavy-lift launch vehicle. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which speaks to the last half of my questions. 

The rocket is the substantial part depending upon the mission, and 

the design of it? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Schiff. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CANCELLATION COSTS

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here, Mr. Administrator. You have a very tough job. And in many 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
243 

respects I think the job your predecessors had was easier because 

we had the vision, we did not have the resources, but we were content to suspend belief. But we have to come to grips with the financial realities. 

There are three things I would like to ask you about. One is, I 

know one of your colleagues testified, the President’s Science Advisor, that he was not sure what the cost would be of canceling Constellation. That it was a very substantial sum, the attorneys were 

still trying to figure that out. Are the contracts written in such a 

way that the taxpayers can get, if there is a major change of direction like this, taxpayers can get their money’s worth in the sense 

that the contractors can be redirected to do the R and D, or other 

work, that will be useful in building the program and the launch 

capability, even if it is not building Constellation? Doing the R and 

D? Do we have the flexibility to do that so that we are not just paying liquidated damages? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, that is one of the things that I 

have asked each of the tiger teams or the teams that are looking 

into the Constellation program. One of the things that we do want 

to determine is, are there contracts either in existence or contracts 

that we were considering that can be transitioned to a new program so that you do not go through termination liability, you do 

not go through a lot of the other things that, where you incur cost 

because you are completely doing away with a program. We are not 

there yet. I wish I could tell you today that we have answers in 

all these regards. But that is one of the things that we are looking 

at. How can we take advantage of what we have in Constellation 

that we may want to use as a part of another system? And just 

transition that over to the other system? There are methods to do 

it, but I would really mislead you if I tried to describe them because I am neither informed nor educated on them. 

ARES V AND HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

Mr. SCHIFF. Well I would think that it would have three benefits. 

The first is making good use of the taxpayer dollars, not just paying damages. The second is you maintain a lot of those jobs. And 

then the third is that you maintain the skilled workforce. So I 

would hope that we would maximize the degree to which we do not 

pay damages but rather put the contractors to work in a new direction, if that is the course we head in. 

What kind of a budget would you have needed to have to go forward with let us say the Ares V, to go forward with the heavy lift 

capability? And let me give you the context of my question, which 

is it would be, I am sure, very advantageous to the Defense Department, to our intelligence agencies, to have access to our satellites. 

If we have a malfunction in a satellite, or we have aging components in a satellite, it would be of a great, you know, probably ascertainable value to DOD and intel to be able to say, ‘‘Okay, we 

have the proprietary capability to get to that satellite to make repairs.’’ And we could probably project that into the distance, however long it would take us to develop that capability. So to the degree that, you know, we may not be able to redirect the workforce 

that is working on Constellation, and have to pay damages, if you 

take that sum and you invest it in a proprietary capability, let us 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
244 

say an Ares V kind of capability, if you take a DOD investment, 

or an intel investment, and what it would save them from seeing 

satellites that malfunctioned or aged out, and have the capability 

to be repaired, does that get you close to the budget that you would 

need to go forward with the proprietary capability? And how much 

time does that shave off of the current plan that you have developed for heavy lift? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I asked about this because I 

thought it would be much less if we kind of picked and chose. Just 

to do Ares I would be in the neighborhood of $4 billion to $4.5 billion a year, on top of the President’s budget proposal. Say we wanted to do that and do all the science and technology development, 

the aeronautics increase, and everything else. The Constellation 

program in 2011 had it, were it to go on, you are probably talking 

up to $5.9 billion over and above. I cannot really say that we would 

be able to get where we want to go any faster, even having spent 

that amount of, if we were to spend—— 

Mr. SCHIFF. How is that, though? I mean, if we decide that, you 

know, Ares V is the design we want to use, and we just start the 

development of Ares V, how can that possibly take longer than 

doing R & D on other potential lift technologies, settling on a new 

technology, developing that new technology, how could that possibly be quicker than developing Ares V? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I think the biggest thing would 

just be the fact that we would not be able to—let me ask a question 

here because I want to make sure I understand your question. You 

are saying if we decided that we were going to put the money into 

Constellation to develop Ares V, and not add any, just take money 

the way we could find it? If that is the question you asked, without 

putting an additional $5.9 billion on top of the program, what we 

would find would be that we would have a heavy-lift launch vehicle 

with no capability of putting people on the surface of the Moon or 

on Mars or anywhere else because we would have expended all the 

money on the vehicle itself. We would find that we are back in this 

conundrum that the Augustine Committee found us, where money 

was really not the only problem. It was a significant problem. But 

it was not the only problem because we had allowed the program 

to deteriorate to the point that if you threw all this money down 

here, it was not that we had things waiting to be built. 

For example, one of the procurements that I stopped was a study 

for the Altair, the lander. The Constellation had not been allowed 

to go that far because of the shortage of funds. So, we would have 

found ourselves having to go from scratch to do the studies on development, and design and development of a lander for them. 

EUROPA MISSION

Mr. SCHIFF. Let me ask you about one other subject matter area. 

The budget does do a great job of funding Earth science missions, 

and continues funding for current planetary science missions. It 

does not, however, move future planetary science into the formulation stage. In particular, the outer planets flagship mission to Europa is not moved forward. The budget mentions NASA is awaiting 

the results of the upcoming planetary science decadal survey before 

finalizing the mission, or formulating the mission. But this mission 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
245 

was recommended in the last decadal. My understanding was that 

NASA had also endorsed Europa, and to be followed at some later 

time by Titan. So why are we kicking this can down the road 

again? I mean, how many decadals do we have to have recommend 

Europa? And if this was ready to begin development, why are we 

not moving forward? Why the delay? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I will have to get back to you 

with the details. But as I think you had discussion with Ed Weiler, 

with my Science Mission Directorate Associate Administrator. I 

went back and talked with him after I consulted with you, and I 

think it is a matter of making it a priority of the agency when the 

decadal comes out, and list it where we think it is going to be listed 

in terms of priorities. I think you are familiar with the tier system 

that they use. I do not know why it did not rank high enough in 

a previous decadal, but I will go back and ask the question. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well I mean it has always, I mean, it did rank very 

highly in the last decadal. And Mr. Culberson is not present at the 

moment, another big advocate of Europa. But last year, and I think 

the year before, we went through kind of a similar permutation. 

And NASA finally kind of made a decision, let us do Europa, let 

us do Titan next. Now it seems we are stepping back from that. 

And if you could get back to me I would like to—— 

General BOLDEN. I will do that. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. I would like to see this—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. Us move forward with this, and not, you 

know, punt it again, and go through another kind of soul searching 

about it, that it enjoys such support in the scientific community. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I will get back to you. Because I got excited 

about it after having talked to you and Ed Weiler, and again, because I am just a Marine I did not realize that Europa had what 

it has. And that is pretty exciting, as I said to somebody. 

EUROPA

As you noted, NASA takes its priorities for its science missions from the National 

Academy of Science’s decadal surveys. These surveys involve the broad scientific 

community and peer review to delineate the highest priorities for future missions 

and research targets for the next decade. The Europa-Jupiter System Mission was 

identified by National Academy in the 2003 Planetary Science Decadal Survey as 

the highest priority flagship planetary mission. Because of this, NASA recently initiated discussions with the European Space Agency (ESA) to significantly increase the 

potential science return from this mission as a possible joint mission. NASA’s budget over the past several years was fully subscribed by the Planetary Science missions in development, and did not afford the initiation of any flagship missions. 

NASA FY 2011 budget request does not include funding for the Europa-Jupiter 

System (EJSM) mission, as NASA is awaiting results of the NRC Planetary Science 

Decadal Survey before setting a budget priority and pace for this future Outer Planets mission, vis-a`-vis other Planetary Science programs. However, funding is included in the FY 2011 budget request to continue to invest in technologies to mitigate several key mission risks that a Europa mission would encounter, such as technologies for radiation-hardened science instruments and components necessary to 

survive the harsh radiation environment in which this mission will operate. NASA 

and ESA have cosponsored three instrument workshops, with a fourth and final 

workshop scheduled for July 2010 to help prepare the science community to design 

these radiation-hardened science instruments. NASA will fund the conceptual study 

and preliminary analysis for this mission and initiate a two-step instrument selection process, all of which would significantly reduce the cost risk for this future mission. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
246 

NASA’s ability to move forward with any major Outer Planets mission is also dependent on the availability of Pu-238 needed to power this mission. Pu-238 has provided power for 26 different missions that NASA has flown over the years, most of 

which would not have been possible without the radioisotope power sources that require this particular fuel. Both the Department of Energy and NASA requested $15 

million in their FY 2011 budget request to restart the nation’s ability to produce 

this critical isotope. 

ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY (OCO)

Mr. SCHIFF. Last item is OCO. I am glad the decision has been 

made to do OCO again. Do you know what the planned launch date 

is for OCO? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, we are looking at 2012, I think. And I will 

get back, I will make sure that I enter it into the record, the official 

launch. But I, as my memory serves me, I was hoping we would 

be able to turn it around real quickly, but I think it is 2012. 

MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY (MSL)

Mr. SCHIFF. And finally, any progress report on MSL, on the 

Mars program? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, the reports on MSL are all good. You are 

very well aware of the fact that we were in the doldrums a couple 

of months ago because we had problems with titanium, which is almost everything on the vehicle. We had problems with actuators 

that we did not know whether they would even last. According to 

what I have been briefed, all of the actuators have now been 

cleared, the titanium has been cleared, and I think we are on target for a 2011 launch date for MSL. We even have, as you may or 

may not know, there is always a good side to every bad thing that 

happens to you. The delay has actually allowed famed director 

James Cameron, who is actually a scientist of a sort. He has a 3– 

D camera system that is going to allow us to bring down real time 

images of Mars unheard of before. The development of the camera 

just did not come along to make the original launch date, because 

of the delay they have been able to do it, and we can really swap 

out the camera now. So, instead of having two mono cameras we 

are going to have a real 3–D camera. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I hope you get a cameo out of it. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

General BOLDEN. And I just got something that says the projected launch date of OCO is February of 2013, so I was in error. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Aderholt. 

COST ESTIMATE OF ARES I AND ARES V

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thank you for 

your service and as has already been said by several members on 

this Subcommittee you have a fine reputation and everyone agrees 

that you are certainly someone that people hold in very high regard. I know sometimes we may disagree with some of the things, 

so you know, do not take any of this personally. It is all, we just 

sometimes have different opinions on some of these issues. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
247 

AUGUSTINE COMMISSION COST ESTIMATES

There is a strong reason to question the dollar figures that were 

produced by the Augustine Commission. Can you provide the Committee the Ares I and the Ares V cost estimate NASA had last 

spring, they had estimated last spring? And also provide the Committee with a written, detailed explanation from NASA as to how 

operating Ares I would cost $4 billion a year? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I can provide that for the record. I will be 

glad to do that. 

ARES I AND ARES V COST ESTIMATES

Ares I operational costs, if the systems were completed, would be an estimated $3.6–4B per year, which equates to the estimated annual operational costs for two 

crewed flights to the ISS following successful completion of the IOC, currently targeted for March 2015. However, this estimate assumes that NASA has received full 

funding to fully complete development of the Ares, Orion and associated support elements prior to IOC. (Note: NASA does not currently believe an IOC of 2015 would 

be achievable, given the impact of several FY 2010 appropriations actions, including 

the FY 2010 Continuing Resolution.) 

NASA recognizes that there is often confusion with regard to publicized flight cost 

estimates associated with the Ares projects, largely because those estimates often 

include different assumptions. One key point of confusion, for example, comes from 

the fact that the Ares I and Ares V share significant fixed costs for vendor production base and sustaining engineering, since both vehicles would use similar solid 

rocket boosters, upper stage engines and avionics. Therefore, there are two ways to 

consider the cost of an Ares I flight—one, where the Ares I fixed costs are lower 

because it is assumed that certain fixed operational costs would be shared with the 

Ares V, and another, where the Ares I fixed costs are higher because the current 

shared-cost scenario is not assumed. 

In general, NASA does not budget by flight, but rather by fixed and marginal 

costs expected on an annual basis. The fixed cost (i.e. prime and non-prime support 

labor, costs of facilities) would be the cost that must be incurred whether one rocket 

or multiple rockets are built. In other words, the fixed cost is absorbed by the first 

annual flight and is not counted again that year. The marginal costs, on the other 

hand, are those costs that can be cleanly attributed to the production of one unit, 

and that cost is generally the same, unit by unit. So for each subsequent annual 

flight, NASA adds on only the marginal cost, given that the fixed cost has already 

been absorbed into the first. It is important to note, however, that NASA’s formula 

of calculating the cost of an Ares I flight (or subsequent annual flights) does not 

include the project costs for the associated support elements, such as ground operations, mission operations, EVA and program integration. Those costs would be book 

kept under their respective project lines. 

With regard to the cost per flight, NASA currently estimates that both Ares I and Orion account for $69M each in marginal costs for a flight unit, thus totaling $138M 

in marginal costs for each flight since each flight would be assumed to have a capsule and a rocket. However, the fixed cost per flight would vary based on whether 

Ares I and Ares V shared operational costs were assumed. 

For example, the FY 2010 budget request assumed that Ares I and Ares V would share some operational costs—approximately $700M per year, which would, in turn, 

equate to lower fixed costs for the Ares I. Therefore, under that scenario—which 

was provided to Congressman Aderholt’s staff in November 2009—the total cost for 

the first flight would be $919M ($781M in fixed cost plus $138M in marginal costs) 

with each subsequent flight costing $138M extra in marginal costs, as outlined in 

the chart below: 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND ORION WITH 

ARES I AND ARES V SHARING OPERATIONAL COSTS 

[Dollars in millions] 

FY08 

Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion) ................................................................................................................................. * 781 

Marginal Cost for 1st flight ..................................................................................................................................... 138 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
248 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND ORION WITH 

ARES I AND ARES V SHARING OPERATIONAL COSTS—Continued 

[Dollars in millions] 

FY08 

Total cost for first flight .......................................................................................................................................... 919 

Marginal Cost for 2nd flight .................................................................................................................................... 138 

Total cost for 2 flts per year ................................................................................................................................... 1,057 

Marginal Cost for 3rd flight .................................................................................................................................... 138 

Total cost for 3 flts per year ................................................................................................................................... 1,195 

* Note: This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also excludes fixed costs for supporting elements. 

However, if the assumption is that Ares I and Ares V would not share operational 

costs, it is equally true to say that the cost of an Ares I flight is nearly 

$1.6B—. Under this scenario, all operational costs would be carried by Ares I— 

which would account for an approximate $700M increase in the fixed cost for Ares 

I. Thus, under this scenario, the total cost for the first flight would be $1.461B in 

fixed cost plus $138M in marginal costs, with each subsequent flight costing $138M 

extra in marginal costs, as outlined in the chart below: 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND ORION WITH 

ARES I CARRYING ALL OF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS 

[Dollars in millions] 

FY08 

Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion) ................................................................................................................................. * 1,461 

Marginal Cost for 1st flight ..................................................................................................................................... 138 

Total cost for first flight .......................................................................................................................................... 1,599 

Marginal Cost for 2nd flight .................................................................................................................................... 138 

Total cost for 2 flts per year ................................................................................................................................... 1,737 

Marginal Cost for 3rd flight .................................................................................................................................... 138 

Total cost for 3 flts per year ................................................................................................................................... 1,875 

* Note: This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also excludes fixed costs for supporting elements. 

NASA is unsure about the source of the number cited since there are similar figures often used, albeit with different assumptions included in each. However, judging by the hearing exchange, it seems the question derived from a discussion about 

how much it would cost to keep the Ares project running in FY 2011. If that is indeed the question, then, in order to understand the cost of the Ares I project, it is 

important to understand the full cost of the Constellation Program. Based on the 

FY 2010 budget request, NASA estimates it would cost $5.4B in FY 2011 to continue the full Constellation Program, including Ares I and Orion development and 

testing, and all supporting elements (ground processing facilities, mission control, 

program integration etc.) which together would lead to an Initial Operational Capability for two crewed flights to the International Space Station per year. Of the 

$5.4B figure, the Ares I project was estimated to cost $2.1B, with Orion costing 

$1.8B, and other Constellation supporting elements equating to about $1.5B. 

The FY 2011 budget request transitions away from the Constellation Program. 

Therefore, under this assumption, if NASA were required to continue only the Ares 

I project, the cost to do so would be about $4–4.5B in FY 2011—which would pay 

for the project elements and also include the full cost of all supporting elements outlined in the FY 2010 budget request, such as ground processing facilities, mission 

control, program integration etc. Without these supporting elements, the Ares I 

could not fly. This scenario also assumes that Orion would be cancelled, so closeout costs for Orion were factored into this estimate. (Note: Without an Orion, this 

scenario would not provide an IOC capability.) Additionally, it is important to remember that under the FY 2010 budget request and its five-year runout, the Constellation Program as a whole was expected to begin ramping up work in FY 2011, 

and in doing so, was expected to also begin assuming additional Shuttle infrastructure and workforce costs in addition to increased development costs, currently estiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
249 

mated to be $600–700M. Therefore, those costs are factored into the continuation 

cost estimate. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And the reason I mention that was because the, 

you know, my staff was given the numbers of Ares I, the operation 

cost at $1.3 billion. 

General BOLDEN. That is per flight. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. So you are saying—— 

General BOLDEN. I do know that, I do know that the $1.3 billion, 

$1.6 billion, and when I talk about things that shocked me, because, I wanted to use an Ares type vehicle as a test vehicle. And 

when I asked the question how much would it cost me to fly, not 

an Ares I but that kind of vehicle, then the number given me at 

the time was $1.6 billion per flight. It seems like an extreme number to me, and I am still looking. So I will be glad to provide you 

with the information for the basis for that number. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well the reason I say that is because this is the 

response from NASA and it says total cost for three flights in a 

year is $1.1 billion. 

General BOLDEN. I will go back and double check my numbers, 

and then get back to you for the record, sir. 

ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT

Mr. ADERHOLT. If you could, yeah, give us some explanation on 

that. Because there is some difference, a big difference in the 

amount of money that is in there. It is, it has been rumored that 

NASA is about the send the prime contractors of the Constellation 

program letters which remind them of the Antideficiency Act, and 

telling them that NASA is under no obligation to cover termination 

costs beyond appropriated funds. I just wanted to, is that correct? 

Or—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I think most of the contractors 

are fully aware of what is in their contract. They realize that they 

are obligated by their contract to reserve funds that would be needed for termination liability. One of the things that I have asked be 

done is that we go out and get estimates from the contractors as 

to what their estimate on termination liability will be. And then 

that will determine what type of action that we take. I do not think 

we have seen more than a couple of the contractors that have said 

they have a significant problem. And in that case, it may be necessary for us to have the contracting officers talk with them about 

their obligation under the contract as opposed to ours. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So you are saying there is no, no letter is about 

to go out like that? 

General BOLDEN. There probably are letters going out to some of 

the contractors who say that they thought it was our responsibility. 

There probably are. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Was this the direction of OMB? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir, that was my direction, because under 

the Antideficiency Act, I hope I am wrong, but I am legally liable 

if I allow a company to spend more than I have to pay them, I go 

to jail. So, I am very serious about wanting to be around for my 

three granddaughters. So on advice of counsel, it was felt that we 

should at least remind people of what is in their contract. And you 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
250 

would think that that would not be necessary. But in some cases, 

it may be necessary. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Certainly I can appreciate the going to jail aspect 

of that. So what do you think the contractors will do in response? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I don’t even want to conjecture on that. 

But, I hope that they will take it as, responsible direction. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Is there similar letters that are going out to contractors about the shuttle program? 

General BOLDEN. To my knowledge, we have no letters that are 

going to any of the shuttle contractors, because as I mentioned before, we have a very well developed transition plan for shuttle that 

covers termination costs and everything. That is pretty well known. 

So I will get back to you if I find that I am incorrect. But I think 

shuttle is in pretty good shape in terms of termination. 

TERMINATION LIABILITY

Termination liability letters are not being sent to Space Shuttle Program contractors. The Shuttle contracts are not being terminated—they are being concluded as 

the fleet flies out the remaining manifest. Plans for the safe fly-out and retirement 

of the Space Shuttle have been underway for several years, and were initially developed in 2004. Space Shuttle contractors have, therefore, had sufficient time to plan 

for contract closeout activities. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. If you could get back on it, it would be 

great. 

General BOLDEN. And it is not—I don’t even know if it is termination. I will get back to you, because I don’t think it is termination in the case of shuttle. That was an orderly phase out from 

2004 to 2010 agreed upon by everyone. 

So I will get back to you to make sure that I am not giving you 

misinformation. But, I am certain that is not a termination activity, so we don’t run into the same problem. 

ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT PROSECUTIONS

Mr. ADERHOLT. The Antideficiency Act in itself, predecessor statutes have been in existence for about 120 years, do you know how 

many people have been prosecuted under it? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I do not. But I was told that there have 

been some. And that if I did not want to be among the few, then 

I should take it seriously. I can find out for you, sir. And I will 

make—— 

ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT

NASA does not have specific information as to prosecutions under the 

Antideficiency Act. NASA is required to and intends to comply with all laws, including the referenced provision of the FY 2010 Appropriations Act. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We were told that there is none that have 

been—— 

General BOLDEN. Under Antideficiency Act? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is what we have been told. Now, again, we 

will—maybe you need to check the record on that. That is according to a book, The Antideficiency Act Answer Book that was published back in 2009, that—a book by William G. Arnold. But, again, 

we—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
251 

General BOLDEN. If that is the case, there are two of us I know 

in NASA who would be—although as Congressman Wolf mentioned, we could be the first. But Doug Cooke, my Exploration Systems Mission Director, and me, we would be very relieved to find 

that nobody uses that Act. I am told that it has been around. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, we will certainly need to verify that. Of 

course, like I said, this is—this was something that was written. 

And, of course, as you know anything that always is published is 

not always true. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Congress has not specifically told NASA not to 

terminate those programs. And yet in the case of Constellation you 

can hardly be blamed for the Antideficiency Act’s actions since Congress has specifically told you not to terminate these programs. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

The rumor was that the head of contracting at NASA was in the 

process of explicitly inserting a clause in the Constellation contract 

to advise the contractors that NASA would cover termination costs 

but was told to stop last fall. Is there any validity to that? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I will have to get back to you on that. I 

do not know the answer. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But you could check that and let me know? 

General BOLDEN. I can find out. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. And so I make sure that I understand the 

question, did the contract manager—did the COTaR issue a letter 

advising them—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Explicitly, yes, sir, in a clause in the Constellation contracts by the contractors that NASA would cover contract 

termination costs but was told to stop. 

General BOLDEN. I will get back and get that information for the 

record. 

CONSTELLATION—ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT

That is not correct. There was no direction to stop processing this clause in the 

fall of 2009. In fact, this clause was inserted in the Boeing Avionics and Upper 

Stage contracts on January 21, 2010, and January 25, 2010, respectively. Upon 

learning that the President’s proposed FY 2011 budget request on February 1, 2010, 

proposes to cancel the Constellation Program, the Head of Procurement at NASA 

determined that NASA would not pursue adding this clause to other NASA contracts. 

The activity that was ongoing relative to a termination liability clause during this 

time period was the investigation by NASA personnel as to whether to incorporate 

into NASA procurement regulations a special termination liability cost clause similar to the one utilized by the Department of Defense. These types of special termination liability cost clauses generally delineate that potential termination liability 

costs will not be funded on the contract; the identification of funds to cover potential termination costs; and the maximum amount of termination liability 

under the contract. Incorporation of such a clause into NASA procurement regulations is not imminent. 

ARES V COST

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. We have heard a lot about inflated numbers, about how much it will cost to complete the Constellation Program, including the heavy lift of Ares V, which I mentioned. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
252 

My understanding is that NASA’s estimate in the spring of last 

year for developing Ares V was about—that by 2020 through the 

first part of Ares V, the cost of development plus production costs, 

would be $16.5 billion. 

If Ares I is not completed, which means we could not benefit 

from the way the two programs were designed to use some of the 

same technology, then the fact would result in a cost of Ares V of 

about $27 billion. 

Our staff were told last Friday by the CFO that the cost of developing a heavy lift rocket would be $30 to $50 billion. What engineering data would you—have you obtained since the spring of 

2009, which leads to the incredibly inflated figure of $50 billion? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I will have to get back to you for 

entry into the record. I was not aware of that figure. 

HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

NASA has not established a formal cost estimate for Ares V, nor has NASA established a formal cost estimate for a similar heavy-lift capability. Additionally, no additional engineering data has been obtained to influence these cost estimates. However, the Agency has developed rough, preliminary estimates for Ares V costs—estimates that vary based depending on which assumptions (i.e. schedule, budget year, 

shared costs etc.) are included in an estimate. Therefore, comparing one cost estimate against another can lead to a misunderstanding if the assumptions are not 

standardized or fully understood. 

With regard to the $30–50B figure cited by NASA’s Chief Financial Officer, NASA 

would like to clarify that those numbers are most closely related to the Ares V 

project and are rough cost estimates, based on varying assumptions. Based on preliminary Agency estimates, NASA anticipates that the Ares V project costs, through 

2020, including development and early production, would be $27B—similar to the 

$30B ballpark figure cited at hearing. The $50B estimate cited is comparable to 

Ares V costs, including development and early production through 2025—again, if 

Ares I were cancelled. However, none of the aforementioned estimates include any 

of the supporting elements required for launch, such as ground facilities, mission 

control, and program integration, or any payload. Those costs would be additional. 

(Note: Ares I and V share substantial development and fixed costs such as shared 

hardware, which must be considered in any estimate for one vehicle without the 

other. Therefore, if Ares I were continued, Ares V project costs through 2020, including development and early production would be around $16.5B. 

With regard to cost estimates for heavy-lift, it is difficult to provide an accurate 

estimate given that this estimate would depend on type of vehicle chosen and its 

capabilities, among many other things. Such an estimate also would depend greatly 

on the phasing of funds available. However, NASA believes that cost savings could 

be realized by developing a heavy-lift vehicle that could be used by multiple users 

(EELV, commercial, other Government agencies.) As such, multiple users of the 

same vehicle would likely lower the overall lifecycle cost through higher production 

rates. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. That is all I have for right now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Fattah. 

NASA BUDGET INCREASE

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Bolden, I am very pleased to have you before the 

Committee, and your extraordinary record of achievement, and 

leadership now of one of the finest agencies in the government. I 

think that NASA brings a great deal of inspiration to Americans 

because of the work that is being done and that has been done. 

I just want to walk through a couple of things. You know, we 

have a major deficit in the government now and a national debt 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
253 

that is growing. There is a lot of discussions about cuts in programs. 

But in terms of NASA, it is true for the record, that this is an 

increase. This request is an increase in your budget. Is that accurate? 

General BOLDEN. That’s correct, sir. 

ASTROPHYSICS

Mr. FATTAH. Now one of the areas that I have some interest in 

is in astrophysics, your observatory program, because it really I 

think is kind of like at the vanguard of creating the dynamics 

under which further exploration, even human exploration, could go 

forward under. 

So you have a request for over the allowance in astrophysics. Is 

that for your existing 14 observatories and what else? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I will get back to you for the record with 

what the funds are specifically identified for. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. There is a number of different projects and programs. And I will get that to you for the record. 

ASTROPHYSICS

In Astrophysics, NASA is discovering how the universe works, exploring how the 

universe began and developed into its present form, and searching for Earth-like 

planets. The Agency’s Astrophysics Theme has an integrated strategy, supported by 

the 14 operating missions noted, plus a robust research program, and 10 flight 

projects in various stages of planning and development. 

The overall increase in the FY 2011 NASA budget request for Astrophysics (as 

compared to the FY 2010 request) is due primarily to the selection of the Gravity 

and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS) Explorer mission, funded with a transfer from the 

Heliophysics budget to the Astrophysics budget. The Explorer Program is shared by 

the Heliophysics and Astrophysics Themes, and the Heliophysics Theme transfers 

budget to the Astrophysics Division when an Astrophysics Explorer mission is selected. The FY 2011 and FY 2010 budget request and runout for Astrophysics is 

below. 

[Dollars in millions] 

FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 

FY 2011 NASA Budget Request ............................................... 1,076.3 1,109.3 1,149.1 1,158.7 1,131.6 

[Dollars in millions] 

FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 

FY 2010 NASA Budget Request ............................................... 1,120.9 1,074.1 1,042.7 1,126.3 1,139.6 

The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,076.3M for Astrophysics. The 

golden age of Astrophysics from space continues, with 14 observatories in operation. 

Astrophysics research, technology investments, and missions aim to understand how 

the universe works, how galaxies, stars and planets originated and developed over 

cosmic time, and whether Earth-like planets—and possibly life—exist elsewhere in 

the cosmos. The NASA Kepler telescope has discovered five exoplanets, ranging in 

size from Neptune to larger than Jupiter, demonstrating that the telescope is functioning as intended; additional discoveries are anticipated in the coming months and 

years. NASA’s newest space observatory, WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Explorer), has 

captured its first look at the starry sky and its sky survey in infrared light has 

begun. Radio astronomers have uncovered 17 millisecond pulsars in our galaxy by 

studying unknown high-energy sources detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space 

Telescope. 

The Hubble Space Telescope is operating at its peak performance thanks to the 

very successful servicing mission last year by the STS–125 crew. The Herschel and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
254 

Planck missions, led by the European Space Agency with NASA as a partner, were 

launched in 2009 and are returning remarkable scientific results. In FY 2011, NASA 

will complete most of the development of the NuSTAR mission and prepare it for 

launch. NASA will also begin developing the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism 

(GEMS) mission recently selected in the Explorer small satellite program. The 

James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continues to make good progress in development toward a 2014 launch. Flight hardware for the many JWST subsystems is 

being designed, manufactured and tested, including the 18 segments of its 6.5-meter 

primary mirror; and the mission-level Critical Design Review for JWST will occur 

this spring. The SOFIA airborne observatory successfully conducted its first opendoor flight test in December 2009—a major milestone toward the beginning of early 

science operations this year. 

The NRC is conducting a new Decadal Survey in astronomy and astrophysics, 

which will set priorities among future mission concepts across the full spectrum of 

Astrophysics, including dark energy, gravity wave, and planet-finding missions. The 

‘‘Astro2010’’ Decadal Survey is expected by September. 

MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION EFFORTS

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. And I also want to commend you for the requests related to the education efforts in middle school and the 

budget is $445 million. 

The Chairman has been quite supportive of NASA. And the Subcommittee always follows his lead. So I am sure that you will have, 

after a detailed examination, a very favorable consideration for 

your request. 

SPACE SUMMIT

And I want to thank you for your great leadership. Now the 

President is coming to host a summit of sorts, a space exploration 

process. Is there anything you can tell the Committee about what 

is expected? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, it is still in the works. It is in the early 

stage of planning. It is intended to be a space conference to be held 

in Florida where the President and members of Congress will participate. 

The primary purpose for the President, is to allow him to provide 

his vision to the nation and the world actually. Also to allow him 

to have an opportunity, which he has not so far, to at least see 

some of the facilities at the Kennedy Space Center and hopefully 

talk to some of the workers and the like. 

Mr. FATTAH. Has there been an occasion on which this has happened in the past to your knowledge that—— 

General BOLDEN. There have been visits to the Kennedy Space 

Center—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Walk-throughs, right? 

General BOLDEN [continuing]. By past Presidents. I don’t know 

that there has ever been a President who has taken the opportunity to travel there to have a conference on space. I know there 

has never been a President who has had the challenge of trying to 

promote exploration and human space flight at a time that is more 

challenging fiscally. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well the fiscal challenge is obvious. And that is why 

the Administration really ought to be commended inasmuch as 

making a submission that would call for an increase in exploration. 

So I want to commend you, and OMB, and the Administration 

for seeing the importance of exploration. And, again, I am interested in the details on the astrophysics program. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
255 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I will get that for you and get it to you 

personally. And then make it an entry for the record. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. Wolf, do you have any questions? 

HEAVY-LIFT CONTRACT

Mr. WOLF. I do, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When do you see NASA issuing a contract for heavy-lift system? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I don’t have a date, because I 

have a heavy lift launch vehicle team that is looking at the path 

that we should take to get there. I can tell you that we are probably years away from identifying a specific architecture, because 

the architecture on which we settle will be greatly dependent upon 

what we learn from the technology development efforts that we are 

going to do using the International Space Station, using other vehicles, and using some of our research. So the architecture itself 

won’t be defined until we find out what capabilities or what technological capabilities we have today, which are different from what 

we had when the Constellation Program was originally envisioned. 

SHUTTLE WORKFORCE TRANSITION STRATEGY REPORT

Mr. WOLF. Fiscal year 2008 Appropriation Bill requires NASA to 

issue a report on shuttle workforce loss every six months. NASA 

has not updated this report for nearly a year. When will that be 

updated? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, we are going to actually provide a preliminary report this coming May that will not be the full workforce report as required. We hope to have that one completed by August. 

And, again, I must take the blame, because that particular report, as you all asked for, is supposed to give a detailed estimate 

in terms of numbers of people and the like and how we plan to 

transition them. 

When I came in to my position, things were in flux, and we just 

did not feel that we had enough facts about where the workforce 

was going to be down the road given the questions about NASA’s 

direction. That is why we did not provide one recently. But hopefully it will be available in August. 

Mr. WOLF. I don’t think there is a criminal penalty for that one 

I don’t think. But the Chairman’s done a lot of good work on prison 

reform. Well, if you could, I think it is important. 

General BOLDEN. If there had been a criminal penalty for that, 

I probably would have had to suffer the penalty, because I just did 

not have the information to adequately put together the report, and 

we are working diligently to try to do that in August. 

Mr. WOLF. How long has it been since there has been a report? 

When was the last report? 

General BOLDEN. I think the last one, when I looked a couple of 

days ago, I will get back to you for sure. But it was—we did one 

in 2009 I think. I will look and try to find it. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
256 

PRIMACY IN SPOKE

And, sir, may I offer an apology to you. It has bothered me. 

When I responded to your question on China in the moment, it 

does make a difference to me who is first. And I think in my exuberance I said something that I didn’t mean. You know, it is important that we be first all the time. I am extremely competitive. And 

so I apologize to you for making what was a flip statement to be 

quite honest. 

Mr. WOLF. Well let me ask unanimous consent that your apology 

be taken and you go back and we take out what was said the first 

time, Mr. Chairman, if we can. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, I think we should do that. 

General BOLDEN. I appreciate that. But I should have spoken—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that 

the first comment be taken out. And you give me your position for 

the record. You submit it for the record. 

MOON—UNITED STATES VERSUS CHINA

The United States is and should be proud of being the first and only nation to 

land a human on the Moon and should we choose to go to the Moon on a priority 

basis, because of where we are technologically in comparison to China, I think that 

the United States would get back there first. However, the President’s vision for 

space exploration enables a set of stepping stones that I believe will take us further 

and faster into space, allowing us to reach a range of destinations including lunar 

orbit, Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, the moons of Mars and eventually 

Mars itself. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We will look at that carefully and excise it as 

appropriate. 

CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTINUITY

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If part or all the Constellation Program ends up being restored by Congress, can we be 

assured that the actions you are taking this year will not unnecessarily hamper or delay the continuity of the program? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Pardon me for yielding. I have a 5:15 meeting, 

which I have to attend. Mr. Wolf, I would like to extend my appreciation for the General testifying here today, for his hard work and 

that of all his employees. And we look forward to working with you. 

I will leave you to the tender mercies of Mr. Wolf. And I will 

yield the Chair to my good friend and colleague Mr. Fattah. Thank 

you very much for your testimony today. Mr. Wolf, thank you for 

yielding. 

Mr. WOLF. To repeat, if part or all the Constellation Program 

ended up being restored by Congress, can we be assured that the 

actions you are taking this year will not unnecessarily hamper or 

delay the continuity of the program? 

General BOLDEN. Well, sir, I can assure you of that. In fact, the 

only action that we have taken that I mentioned earlier in stopping 

procurement activities that would have brought us to a contract 

competition, those are all procurement activities that can be restarted at any time. So there would be no break. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
257 

CONSTELLATION CLOSEOUT COST

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Your budget describes tiger teams that will assess workforce procurement and other closeout issues over the coming months. If these issues have not yet been fully assessed, what 

confidence do you have that 2.5 billion is an accurate estimate of 

closeout costs? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, that is the best estimate that we could 

come up with. And as always, you are hoping that you have made 

a very conservative estimate and that it won’t be anywhere close 

to that. 

We looked at past program closeouts and we looked at what was 

in the Constellation Program. There are other factors that were 

taken into consideration that I don’t remember. But I can get that 

back to you. But I am hoping that that is a conservative number. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, you asked about the Workforce Transition 

Strategy Report. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

General BOLDEN. The last time we sent one was in July of 2009. 

PLUTONIUM-238 PRODUCTION

Mr. WOLF. July of 2009. I recently talked with Steve Squyres, 

the lead scientist on the Mars Rover Program. He had serious concerns about the President’s new plan. But also raised another area 

of concern with solar system science and exploration. And that is 

the availability of plutonium-238 to power a spacecraft. 

I understand that the fiscal year 2011 budget includes funding 

to restart plutonium-238 production. Can you describe the need for 

this, how much money is in the budget, and whether other alternatives exist, and what the plan is for restarting the production? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, we have as recently as this past week been 

involved in discussions with OMB, the Department of Energy, on 

what is the actual future need for plutonium-238. We have agreed 

that we will pay a portion of whatever the cost for that production 

is. We really are just interested in getting the production restarted. 

And I think the other question you asked was when would we 

start and how much would we pay. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

General BOLDEN. And those answers I will get for the record. 

PLUTONIUM-238 PRODUCTION

NASA has always worked with the Department of Energy (DOE) to acquire the 

plutonium-238 we need to fuel the radioisotope power systems that enable many of 

our most demanding planetary missions. DOE and its predecessor agencies have the 

legislative mandate to ensure the national needs for Pu-238 are met and they have 

been producing radioisotope power systems for nearly fifty years. Radioisotope 

power systems uniquely enable missions that require a long-term, unattended 

source of heat and/or supply of electrical power in harsh and remote environments. 

These systems are reliable, maintenance free, and capable of producing heat or electricity for decades. The plutonium-238 in these units serves as the source for generating heat and electricity. 

In the past, Pu-238 was produced at DOE’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, using reactors that are no longer operating. The last operating reactor was 

shut down in 1996. After DOE stopped producing Pu-238, DOE made use of its limited, existing Pu-238 inventory to supply power systems to user agencies. Beginning 

in 1992, this inventory was augmented by Pu-238 purchased from Russia for peaceVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
258 

ful applications to fuel power sources that provide heat and electricity for NASA 

missions. However, the agreement to purchase this Russian material was recently 

defaulted upon by the Russian government. Although DOE is pursuing a new agreement under new terms with the Russians for this material, such an arrangement 

will always be a risk to NASA missions. DOE plans to return to Russia in May 2010 

to attempt to negotiate a resumption of planned purchases from Russia to continue 

to fill the gap until U.S. domestic production can be restored at a rate that will meet 

our future national needs. 

It is imperative that the funding requested in the President’s FY 2011 budget request for restarting domestic production of Pu-238 be approved by Congress. Specifically, $30M is included in the President’s request, evenly divided with $15M in the 

DOE’s budget request, and $15M in NASA’s budget request. It is planned that DOE 

and NASA will share in the capital cost of reestablishing a domestic production capability. Although NASA is expected to be a primary user of Pu-238 produced in 

the near future, this capability will also be available to support future national security applications, if needed. DOE’s share in the capital costs is consistent with the 

Department’s mission to maintain a national capability for a range of potential Federal users. 

In short, a new Pu-238 production capability is required to maintain Radioisotope 

Power Systems as an important national capability. Because of dwindling stockpile 

of existing Pu-238, and the long lead-time associated with reestablishing a domestic 

production capability (as much as 6–8 years), DOE is working, in coordination with 

user agencies, to reestablish Pu-238 production at a rate sufficient to support both 

NASA and potentially other missions. Based upon NASA’s requirements, we believe 

that a production rate of 1 to 2 kg per year is sufficient for the foreseeable future. 

This rate can be accomplished using known technology and similar existing National 

Laboratory capabilities to produce and separate Pu-238. 

This approach minimizes the necessary startup investment, and provides the most 

rapid initial production of Pu-238, which is necessary to meet NASA’s mission requirements. 

DOE and NASA are preparing a restart plan that will provide additional details. 

We expect to provide that restart plan to the Subcommittee in the near future. 

DOE and NASA are also working together to ensure needed purchases from Russia are completed to ensure an adequate supply of Pu-238 to avoid delaying future 

NASA missions, including a major Outer Planets Mission. This additional plutonium 

is necessary to retire any mission risk due to the schedule of re-establishing U.S. 

production capability in meeting mission requirements. There are no other alternative materials or energy sources appropriate for deep space missions other than 

purchasing Pu-238 from Russia or restarting domestic production. The potential impact on future missions from delay in restarting domestic production is, NASA believes, what Dr. Squyres may have been referring to. 

NASA has requested FY 2011 appropriations language that instructs NASA to 

partially fund restart of DOE production infrastructure and direct all the necessary 

NASA to DOE funds transfers. NASA recommends that Congress provide this direction in the FY 2011 appropriation and has submitted as part of its FY 2011 budget 

request proposed appropriations language that would accomplish this. This inclusion 

will avoid inadvertently creating additional National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA) review requirements and/or litigation risk by requiring a discretionary 

NASA funding decision to support this project. Formal arrangements to be established under an existing DOE/NASA memorandum of understanding (MOU) would 

also need to be consistent with this approach. If approved, NASA will work closely 

with DOE to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken to ensure a timely restart 

of domestic Pu-238 production. 

Mr. WOLF. And whether other alternatives exist. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, one of the alternatives that we are trying 

to avoid is buying it from Russia. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Yes, I would agree with that. 

On education, I congratulate you on identifying education as important. Well, let me go back to the Squyres issue too. Have you 

spoken to Steve Squyres since 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I have not, and I was not aware of his concern, but that has not been an issue with us. We understand what 

amount of plutonium-238 is necessary for us, and that we have 

looked at our programs and future projects, and what we have statVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
259 

ed we need is sufficient for the programs that we have on the 

books. I was surprised that someone feels that we need more. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, he had some serious concerns. I would also suggest there are about four, or five, or six people, which I am not 

going to give you. I can give you off the record. But I really think 

it would be helpful for you just to call. I mean, you know, everyone 

has—you know, when I try to make a tough decision on something, 

I try to call people who don’t necessarily agree with me. But I just 

want to kind of honestly get their best wisdom. The Bible talks 

about wisdom and the judgment of wise men. 

I had a conversation with him. He is someone I think you ought 

to talk to about this and about the overall program. But I learned 

a lot from him. 

I know you are busy. But I think just to have a conversation with 

him on the phone or the next time he is Washington. You know, 

he comes in here periodically. Just to sit down and just to get four 

or five people like that together. 

But about the plutonium-238, because he expressed some deep 

concerns. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I will go back and review it with my directorates, and also talk to Mr. Squyres, and then get back to you, because I was not aware. I am not aware of any shortage that we anticipate. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. And we wanted to give you a letter but maybe 

we won’t. We will just wait to hear from you. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

EDUCATION BUDGET

Mr. WOLF. On the education, I appreciate your identifying education as an important priority for NASA. Shortly after you came 

aboard, you came to talk to me about your Summer Innovation Initiative. And I think one of the greatest benefits of NASA to our society is the inspiration and excitement it provides for young people. 

Yet the budget request for education is actually a reduction of almost $40 million to 21 percent from the current level. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, in the budget that I received, we had a $20 

million annual plus-up. You are the second person that has said I 

have a reduction in my budget. I will go back and check for the 

record. But I think someone may have been looking at grants from 

the Department of Education. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. English said that it went from 180 to 140, which 

was actually a reduction. 

General BOLDEN. I will go back and double check and then get 

back to you for the record. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. If we could do that and then let us know. 

Mr. Chairman, I have just one or two other questions. We will 

submit the others. 

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentlemen yield for a second? We have an 

answer on the education budget. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. FATTAH. It is an increase over the request that was made 

from last year. And it is down from what we actually appropriated 

last year. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. So there are a number of plus-ups. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
260 

Mr. FATTAH. No. These are not—they are separate. They made 

a request last year. 

Mr. WOLF. The overall level was plus-up. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. That is the answer I just—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well he is from Philadelphia. 

Mr. FATTAH. And so is my Ranking Member. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. And the former Chair of this Committee and also 

a big booster of NASA. 

BUYING RUSSIAN LAUNCH SERVICES

Mr. WOLF. After the retirement of the shuttle, you will need to 

buy flights from Russia to deliver the crew to the station. Have you 

secured the necessary agreements with the Russians? And to combine the next question, what are the costs, and how do the costs 

compare with those in previous agreements with Russia? Do you 

have an agreement, and what are the costs, and how do the costs 

compare? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, the existing contract right now I think it is $51 million, which includes training and transportation. It is a 

lot of different things. I will have to get back to you for the record 

as to what it was on the previous contract. 

RUSSIAN SUPPORT TO NASA 

NASA purchases comprehensive Soyuz support from Russia, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, crew rescue and landing for an entire 

long-duration mission. This support includes training and Soyuz seat certification, 

individual equipment, medical checks, supplies, on-orbit consumables, and search 

and rescue services. NASA does not purchase launches or Soyuz spacecraft themselves, but rather round trip ‘‘seats’’ or crew rotations, which incorporate all the associated services outlined above. For the contract extension signed between NASA 

and Roscosmos on April 2, 2010, these services amount to an average of $55.8 million for each crew member rotation purchased in 2013–2014. For the previous contract extension signed between NASA and Roscosmos on May 28, 2009, these services amounted to an average of $51M for each crew member rotation purchased. 

The question was not asked. But I feel compelled to say that the 

primary means of getting humans to the International Space Station, the expedition crews for a number of years by agreement 

among the international partners has been Soyuz. So while it will 

seem that we are doing something different, because we don’t have 

shuttles anymore, we use shuttles to get equipment and components, large components back and forth. But not as the primary 

means of getting crew there. 

Before I came, the agreement among the international partners 

was that we would use Soyuz as the primary means to get crews 

there and the primary means to get them back. And that is the 

only rescue vehicle that we have ever had from the beginning of 

the International Space Station Program, because back then we as 

a nation decided that we did not want to follow through on the production of a crew rescue vehicle. 

So the international partners again came together and decided if 

the United States is not going to provide it, then the next best 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
261 

thing is a Russian Soyuz. So today, two Soyuz, well one, because 

we only have a slight crew there, but whenever there is a full crew 

there, there are two Soyuz spacecraft that are there to bring the 

crews back in the event of an emergency. 

Mr. WOLF. What are the costs now? And do you have any agreement as to what the costs will be? 

General BOLDEN. I was saying the cost now is I think $51 million. 

Mr. WOLF. Fifty one million and do you expect that to increase? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, I do not. In fact, I do not expect it to increase significantly. We are in negotiations right now for a followon contract. If everything works out really well and one of the commercial entities that says they can get us to the International 

Space Station by 2013, it would not be necessary for me to renew 

the contract. But at the Heads of Agency meeting, the Russians 

said that they did not foresee a significant increase in the cost. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. They talked about it in terms of inflation. 

COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW CAPABILITIES

Mr. WOLF. Well the last question leads to just really where you 

were. The COTS Program is your attempt to develop and procure 

private sector capabilities, SpaceX and Orbital, to resupply the 

International Space Station. 

The fiscal year 2011 puts an additional $6 billion over five years. 

What is the current status of these efforts? And what is the earliest 

that the commercial cargo and crew capabilities to this space station could be operational? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, under the current schedule, they 

are planning to take crew to the International Space Station by 

2015. Both intend to fly their first COTS missions from—I think 

SpaceX is February of 2011 and then Orbital, May of 2011. I will 

add that was just the first round of commercial vendors. We are 

about to enter into another competition where we are hoping to increase the number of potential providers of commercial transportation. And among those, we expect that there will be some of the 

very well known providers of launch services to this date. While it 

is too early for me to announce something for a ULA, the information is that they or their partners do intend to bid in the next 

round. 

RANKING MEMBER CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. WOLF. I would end just to say since there is strong opposition, I do worry about a series of lobbyists rolling in here who, you 

know, plan on making a lot of money without worrying about 

where we are vis-a-vis the Nation. 

I think it would be helpful to—and I know no one wants to back 

down. No one wants to get into these things. But I did work for 

a Cabinet Secretary. And I think sometimes when you have something like this, this is very important. I mean, this is one area that 

we are ahead of everyone else. This is an area that has the imagination. I hear the President talking about getting young people involved. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
262 

We just had the gentleman yesterday, Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

Have you spoken to him recently? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. How recently have you spoken to him? 

General BOLDEN. I think the last time was about two weeks ago. 

It was at the last shuttle. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay, yes. 

General BOLDEN. And he is an incredible human being. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. And so I think it would be helpful to get a group 

of people like him, and Squyres, and some of the others, which we 

can give you the names, and just bring them in and sort of say, 

you know, where do we go from here? There are some good things 

in there. 

But I really worry at times that—and I know the President has 

got a lot on his mind. He has got other things going on. We have 

a budget deficit. We got a war in Afghanistan. We got a war in 

Iraq. And there are a lot of things going on. 

But I think it would be helpful with the spirit of reconciliation, 

not to use the reconciliation that you are talking about in the Congress, but reconciliation from a biblical sense, if you will. 

Bring a group of people in and take a day or two to sit around 

and really think about this, because the decisions that are made 

are going to have so many impacts, whether it be with foreign nations, whether it be with stimulating that young kid at Patterson 

Elementary that is going to want to know if he gets into science. 

I mean, this is really important. 

And I do worry a little bit about every administration that puts 

something out there. They really almost consider it a challenge to 

them if anyone wants to kind of change anything. 

And I know being a Cabinet Secretary, as you are a Cabinet Secretary, your obligation is to advocate for the Administration for a 

proposal. If you don’t, then, you know, you should leave and let 

someone else do it. But I think within the confines of that. 

So I would encourage you, we will give you some names, to pull 

together some of these people and take a good period to see if we 

can come up with something whereby we resolve a lot of the issues, 

that you understand certainly better than I understand, that are 

out there. And so if you would do that, I would—— 

General BOLDEN. I appreciate that recommendation. We will do 

that. I will tell you, the President needs no defense. But he is engaged in space policy. I spent a half hour this morning, not with 

him but with the Deputy Chief of Staff, because he is engaged. He 

has promised that we are going to find a solution to this problem. 

He has stated that, or through his Deputy Chief of Staff, he has 

stated that we are going to find a way to come together, because 

it is important for the nation. I agree with you, and the President 

does also. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t think it is a matter of anybody backing 

down. I think it is a matter of us trying to find common ground 

in what is an incredible budget. But what may be just differences 

of opinion that people have. I am confident that we are going to 

find a solution that will be good, because no one will be happy. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
263 

CONGRESSMAN FATTAH CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank my colleague who is also from Philadelphia. Now we are going to wrap up. And it has been an honor 

to have you present to the Committee. And the Chairman made 

his—made the point that he had an appointment that he had to go 

to. 

But we appreciate your leadership. And I think the country will 

be excited to witness the Space Exploration Meeting that the President is coming to lead and to listen. And we are going to learn a 

lot more about the vision. And I think here a host of views and the 

choice points that have to be kind of thought through. 

So thank you very much and have a good day. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, thank you also very much. I appreciate the time you have given us. And I know you didn’t have 

to take all this time. But I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
264 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 631 56820B.020
265 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 632 56820B.021
266 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 633 56820B.022
267 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 634 56820B.023
268 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 635 56820B.024
269 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 636 56820B.025
270 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 637 56820B.026
271 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 638 56820B.027
272 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 639 56820B.028
273 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 640 56820B.029
274 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 56820B.030
275 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 56820B.031
276 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 643 56820B.032
277 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 644 56820B.033
278 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 645 56820B.034
279 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 646 56820B.035
280 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 647 56820B.036
281 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 648 56820B.037
282 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 649 56820B.038
283 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 650 56820B.039
284 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 56820B.040
285 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 56820B.041
286 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 56820B.042
287 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 56820B.043
288 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 56820B.044
289 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 56820B.045
290 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 56820B.046
291 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 56820B.047
292 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 56820B.048
293 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 660 56820B.049
294 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 661 56820B.050
295 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 662 56820B.051
296 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 663 56820B.052
297 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 56820B.053
298 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 56820B.054
299 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 56820B.055
300 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 667 56820B.056
301 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 668 56820B.057
302 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 669 56820B.058
303 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 670 56820B.059
304 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 56820B.060
305 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 56820B.061
306 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 56820B.062
307 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 674 56820B.063
308 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 675 56820B.064
309 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 676 56820B.065
310 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 677 56820B.066
311 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 56820B.067
312 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 56820B.068
313 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 56820B.069
314 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 56820B.070
315 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 56820B.071
316 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 683 56820B.072
317 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 684 56820B.073
318 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 685 56820B.074
319 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 56820B.075
320 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 56820B.076
321 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 56820B.077
322 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 56820B.078
323 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 56820B.079
324 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 56820B.080
325 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 56820B.081
326 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 56820B.082
327 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 56820B.083
328 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 56820B.084
329 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 56820B.085
330 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 56820B.086
331 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 56820B.087
332 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 56820B.088
333 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 56820B.089
334 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 701 56820B.090
335 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 702 56820B.091
336 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 703 56820B.092
337 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 704 56820B.093
338 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 705 56820B.094
339 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 706 56820B.095
340 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 707 56820B.096
341 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 708 56820B.097
342 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 709 56820B.098
343 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 56820B.099
344 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 56820B.100
345 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 56820B.101
346 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 56820B.102
347 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 56820B.103
348 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 56820B.104
349 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 56820B.105
350 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 56820B.106
351 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 718 56820B.107
352 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 719 56820B.108
353 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 720 56820B.109
354 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 721 56820B.110
355 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 722 56820B.111
356 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 723 56820B.112
357 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 724 56820B.113
358 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 56820B.114
359 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 56820B.115
360 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 56820B.116
361 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 56820B.117
362 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 56820B.118
363 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 56820B.119
364 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 56820B.120
365 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 56820B.121
366 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 56820B.122
367 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 56820B.123
368 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 56820B.124
369 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 56820B.125
370 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 56820B.126
371 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 56820B.127
372 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 56820B.128
373 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 56820B.129
374 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 56820B.130
375 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 56820B.131
376 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 56820B.132
377 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 56820B.133
378 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 56820B.134
379 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 56820B.135
380 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 56820B.136
381 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 56820B.137
382 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 56820B.138
383 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 56820B.139
384 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 56820B.140
385 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 56820B.141
386 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 56820B.142
387 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 56820B.143
388 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 56820B.144
389 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 56820B.145
390 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 56820B.146
391 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 56820B.147
392 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 56820B.148
393 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 56820B.149
394 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 56820B.150
395 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 56820B.151
396 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 56820B.152
397 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 56820B.153
398 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 56820B.154
399 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 56820B.155
400 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 56820B.156
401 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 56820B.157
402 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 56820B.158
403 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 56820B.159
404 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 56820B.160
405 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 56820B.161
406 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 56820B.162
407 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 56820B.163
408 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 56820B.164
409 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 56820B.165
410 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 56820B.166
411 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 56820B.167
412 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 56820B.168
413 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 56820B.169
414 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 56820B.170
415 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 56820B.171
416 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 56820B.172
417 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 56820B.173
418 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 785 56820B.174
419 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 786 56820B.175
420 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 787 56820B.176
421 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 788 56820B.177

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(423) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010. 

NSF (NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION) FY2011 BUDGET 

OVERVIEW 

WITNESS 

ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NSF 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. 

Welcome to the Fiscal Year 2011 National Science Foundation 

Budget Overview Hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. 

Today we will cover the budget and operations of the National 

Science Foundation and the National Science Board and also review the status and future needs of U.S. science activities other 

than those in human health. 

APPRECIATION OF DR. BEMENT

Our witness is the director of the National Science Foundation, 

Dr. Arden Bement. Dr. Bement, I believe this is your valedictory 

appearance before this Subcommittee, and I want to begin by 

thanking you for your service to American science and technology 

and to the people of the United States. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I think you are leaving NSF well staffed 

with science leaders, you have succeeded in efforts to bring forward 

major cross cutting initiatives, achieving cooperation across the different science dictorates, and between the education and human resources directorate in the science, technology, engineering, and the 

math programs. 

And on a personal basis it has been a pleasure working with you, 

and I join everybody else who works with you in being extremely 

impressed with you as a scientist and as an administrator and as 

a person, it has been a real pleasure. 

Dr. BEMENT. And I reciprocate that feeling. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

DOUBLING THE NSF BUDGET

Based on considerable evidence, real growth in the U.S. economy 

in excess of population growth, it is primarily the result of innovations and new technologies that result from public and private investments and research and development. 

Accordingly, we are in the midst of a ten-year doubling and funding for NSF contemplated by the America Competes Act. This doubling was accelerated by $3 billion added to the fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the Foundation as part of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act. Those funds have gone to increase grant 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
424 

funding across all areas of NSF and to various science infrastructure investments. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 continues the planned 

doubling with a roughly seven percent increase over the 2010 enacted levels. 

STEM EDUCATION REFORM

In fiscal year 2010 this Subcommittee supported an increase to 

NSF education programs focused on hands on, inquiry-based instruction in grades K through 12 and in K through 12 teacher 

preparation. 

Last month we heard testimony from those who work in this 

area, and they provided examples of successful efforts at improving 

science, technology, engineering, and math education. Those witnesses offered evidence of the benefits that result from federal investments made through NSF. 

NSF has a major role to play in continuing and accelerating the 

reform of science education to include inquiry and student assessments of inquiry skills. 

NSF CLIMATE RESEARCH

In addition, NSF plays a growing role in climate observations 

and research. Under the Major Research Equipment and Facilities 

Construction Account the request to initiate the National Ecological Observatory Network and to provide major funding for the 

Ocean Observatories Initiative should result in new understanding 

of how ecosystems and the oceans influence and respond to climate 

change. 

These research networks, along with the NSF grants for critical 

zone observatories, new research in hydrology, and new super computer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research have the 

potential to support climate understanding predictions that are 

both more accurate and finer in spatial resolution. These improvements will be needed to assist the private and public sectors in 

choosing climate change adaptation strategies and investments. 

BROAD SUPPORT OF RESEARCH

NSF is involved in so many exciting areas of research including 

math, genomics, computer science, and engineering. I could go on, 

but this breadth of activity is the unique mission of NSF. 

While NSF and the mission agencies support R&D addressing 

changing national priorities, it is NSF’s unique responsibility to ensure that the U.S. has continuing expertise across all areas of 

science and technology. This provides our Nation with the ability 

to address rapidly new challenges as they arise. 

Given the critical role of science and technology in the future 

prosperity and international leadership of the United States, we 

look forward to hearing from you, Dr. Bement, on the state of U.S. 

science and technology and its future needs and prospects. 

Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we 

will ask you to provide a summary of your written statement which 

will be included in the hearing record and then we will go on the 

questions from Subcommittee members. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
425 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join the Chairman today and welcome you Doctor to the hearing to testify on the budget, and I am pleased to see the level of 

commitment to funding basic science and scientific research. 

APPRECIATION OF DR. BEMENT

And I will just have the Director submit for the record. I just 

want to thank you for your service and to the country, and I think 

it is going to be a loss for our government to see you leave, but I 

am curious to see who they appoint. 

And as we get into talking, since you are never coming back here 

again in the sense that nobody can ever fire you pretty much, why 

don’t you really tell us how things really are? 

Dr. BEMENT. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. No, no, I mean—— 

Dr. BEMENT. No, I understand. 

Mr. WOLF. You are a father of how many kids? 

Dr. BEMENT. Eight. 

Mr. WOLF. Eight. And you are a grandfather of how many? 

Dr. BEMENT. Thirty. 

Mr. WOLF. So you take a different approach to maybe a 28 year 

old. 

Dr. BEMENT. You could have kept going. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. And how many great grandchildren? 

Dr. BEMENT. Nineteen. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah, so I think you have a perspective. So I would 

hope when the hearing begins, in your testimony you would really 

tell us the truth and just let us know. Because I think I really 

worry that the Nation is ready to come into a period of decline. 

I saw Charles Krauthammer’s piece about a month and a half 

ago, he said, decline is a choice. As individuals we make a choice 

whether we want to decline, as great nations we make a choice. 

And so I would just like to hear you really tell us where we are. 

There is all this research, going on, you have got the Board’s Foundation, you got this group, you have Arne Duncan doing this. 

Really so when you come and tell us, tell us really where you 

think not only as the head of the National Science Foundation, but 

as a father, and a grandfather, and a great grandfather somebody 

who has a perspective from a biblical wisdom, if you will, where 

you think the Nation is and what you think we have to do. 

But I join the Chairman too in thanking you for your service over 

the many years. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are not suggesting that you had never not 

told us the truth though. 

Mr. WOLF. No, but I think—well the reality is though when you 

work in the Administration—I used to work for a cabinet secretary 

who had different views than the White House, and you would sit 

in a meeting and you would know how he felt, then you would 

come up on the testimony and—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You wouldn’t hear it all? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
426 

Mr. WOLF. It would be different, so I want him to tell us the way 

it really is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Dr. Bement, we again welcome you and 

invite you to tell it the way it is. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member 

Wolf, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here 

with you today. 

PRESIDENT’S 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

The essence of the President’s 2011 budget request for the National Science Foundation is to reaffirm the agency’s roots as a Nation as well as bring us scientific innovation. 

An assessed 2011 request is $7.4 billion, an increase of eight percent over 2010. This keeps us on the road to the President’s and 

the America Competes Act goal of doubling NSF’s budget. 

But as with any budget this request reflects tough choices and 

clear priorities. It recognizes NSF’s unique national responsibility 

for supporting basic research, our catalytic role in education, and 

the ongoing need for investments and stewardship. 

NSF’s research and education agenda is both multifaceted and 

well rounded. It is designed very deliberately to support the Administration’s plan for making innovation a center piece of economic strength and future well being. 

The main driver for this investment is the National Innovation 

Strategy. Nothing speaks more to what NSF is and does than the 

Administration’s commitment to fundamental research, and that is 

emphasized throughout the budget. 

You will also see NSF at the forefront of educating the next generation of 21st Century knowledge and skills. Let me highlight programs that are central to this goal. 

The Advanced Technological Education Program supports new 

and enhanced two year college programs that educate technicians 

for the high-technology workforce. I might say parenthetically they 

also prepare a lot of teachers for STEM education in the schools. 

The Graduate Research Fellowship and Faculty Career Development Program supports students and early career investigators to 

foster the Nation’s next generation of scientists and engineers. 

Climate change education addresses learning at all levels and is 

designed to stimulate careers in climate science. 

NSF programs also support next generation information technology and secure cyberspace. NSF will support the interagency 

networking and information technology R&D program at $1.17 billion. 

Overcoming challenges inherited, today’s great scientific questions will require a new computer revolution to overcome the physical restrictions of today’s silicon chip based technology. 

NSF’s Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law is a multidisciplinary research program designed to enhance our Nation’s 

economic competitiveness. The program’s name refers to the proposition that computer processing power based on semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18 months; however, we are 

rapidly reaching the physical limitation of that progress. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
427 

NSF must continue to innovate in tackling the large scale scientific and engineering challenges of our age, including understanding the Nation’s scope of changes in the earth’s climate. 

NSF contributes multiple resources to support the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program and other interagency initiatives that 

are helping us understand and confront the global challenge of a 

changing climate. 

NSF’s contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program is proposed to increase by 16 percent to $370 million. Also in 2011, NSF will spend $766 million on a portfolio of activities called Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability. 

It will seek integrated approaches to increase U.S. energy independence, enhance environmental stewardship, and reduce energy 

use and carbon intensity while generating continued economic 

growth. 

Regaining our Energy, Science, and Engineering Edge, or RE- ENERGYSE, is a new $19 million program to help the Nation regain its leadership in science and engineering by attracting and 

educating future scientists into the clean energy fields. 

NSF will jointly fund RE-ENERGYSE with the Department of 

Energy to prepare as many as 8,500 highly trained young scientists 

and engineers for clean energy careers by 2015. 

Additionally, RE-ENERGYSE will provide training of technicians 

for clean energy industries. NSF’s request includes $20 million in its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account to begin construction of 

the National Ecological Observatory Network, or NEON. 

NEON is a multi-faceted project with a total projected budget of $434 million spread out over the next six fiscal years. 

NEON will collect data on the effects of climate change, changes 

in land use, and invasive species on natural resources and biodiversity. 

NEON will be the first observatory network designed to detect 

and enable forecasting of ecological change on the continental scale 

over multiple decades. 

As with any budget the most important information is the message between the numbers. In 2011 that message is the Administration’s commitment to innovation and economic growth through 

science and engineering. 

The Foundation is pleased to be playing an important role in 

that effect. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wolf, as this will likely be 

the last time I testify before you before my June 1st departure from 

the Foundation I want to make certain that you are aware of how 

deeply appreciative I am of your support over the past nine years 

as director of NSF. 

And with that I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
428 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 56820B.178
429 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 56820B.179
430 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 803 here 56820B.180
431 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 804 here 56820B.181
432 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 805 here 56820B.182
433 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 806 here 56820B.183
434 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 807 here 56820B.184
435 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 808 here 56820B.185
436 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 809 here 56820B.186
437 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 810 here 56820B.187
438 

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES ACCOUNT FUNDING REQUEST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well over the past nine years several chairman, 

several ranking, Mr. Wolf in both positions and myself on both positions, and Mr. Serrano I think was in there at a time, Mr. Rogers 

probably during that time, I know just talking with all of them offline they all hold you in such high regard, and so it has been easy 

to support you over nine years. 

Dr. BEMENT. And I appreciate hearing that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. And so we thank you for your service 

again. 

Well you suggest that NSF’s budget request is eight percent 

above the amount appropriated in 2010, I think that was your testimony, and the research and related activities increase. What is 

the research and related activities increase? 

Dr. BEMENT. It is about eight percent. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. See we have it at 7.1. I think we have the overall at 7.2. I understand the difference in those two numbers, but 

what I am curious about is why the education and human resources increase is only 2.2, or that is the way we are computing 

it, but significantly less than the overall increase, and the increase 

for total NASA spending on STEM education is by our reckoning 

2.3 percent. 

Dr. BEMENT. I think the primary reason is again the importance 

of the National Science Foundation to the National Innovation 

Strategy. And clearly the budget was skewed to deal with economic 

forces, putting more money into fundamental research. 

Again, major programs that encourage high growth and innovation enterprise, entrepreneurship. Learning and workforce development is an important part of that, and there clearly are three principal objectives in the National Innovation Strategy. 

One is to increase the number of graduate research fellowships, 

to provide more support for young investigators, especially through 

career grants, to—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So that is all out. So you are explaining to me 

why there is only 2.2 percentage increase in education and human 

resources and only a 2.3 percent for STEM education. Is that what 

you are after? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well that is not the full story. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is my question. 

Dr. BEMENT. You are asking a comparative analysis why there 

is more money in R&RA than there is in EHR. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Correct. 

LEVERAGING EDUCATION FUNDING ACROSS NSF

Dr. BEMENT. And I am saying that the NIS priority of the President, the Administration’s priority, skewed more of the resources 

into the R&RA account for the reasons that I mentioned. 

On the other hand, I have to say that the EHR account is very 

highly leveraged within the Foundation. For example, the total 

funding for STEM education is $1.225 billion, which is a substantial investment. Thirty percent of that investment comes from the 

R&RA account, and those investments deal largely with underVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
439 

graduate education and graduate education, but a significant 

amount also contributes to K to 12 education. 

Now that is a conservative estimate. It doesn’t include investments that are made by the individual investigators themselves 

through Broader Impacts, and a lot of the innovative initiatives in 

developing instructional materials, and also inquiry-based learning, 

comes out of the research program through the Border Impacts account. There is no way to sum that up very readily, but it is an 

additional contribution. 

I could give you other examples. Another factor is that we increased the base of several important EHR programs in the 2010 

budget. One example is the ATE Program, the Advanced Technological Education Program, which deals with community colleges. 

We increased the base of that program in the 2010 budget by 23 

percent primarily because it was a major priority of the Administration. 

By increasing that base in 2010 we also increased the fraction of 

the total funding that would be available for new awards. That 

flexibility carries over into 2011, so we left it flat funded in 2011 

because we had the additional flexibility. 

So just looking at one year numbers doesn’t really indicate what 

the pattern might be over two or three budget cycles. 

Another example is the ARRA funding that went into EHR primarily for the Noyce Program and the Math and Science Partnership Program. That was $85 million through ARRA funding. All 

that money was put out in standard grants that will be spent out 

over a period of three to five years, let us say an average of four 

years. If you put that against the base for K to 12 education, which 

those two programs support as far as teacher training, pre-service 

and in-service training, that is an addition of about eight percent 

per year to the budget for K to 12 education. And then if you add 

in the R&RA component, plus the two and a half percent average 

for EHR, that brings it up close to 10 to 11 percent effective increase in budget. 

We also have to pay attention to sustaining renewals of the 

ARRA funding, so we look at it over several budget cycles to determine what will be the impact in 2012, 2013, and so forth. 

So we feel that the 2011 budget for EHR does two things. Number one, it hits all the priorities of the Administration in graduate 

research fellowships, in the ATE Program and a couple other programs. It also provides funding flexibility for a number of programs 

that are very important for teacher education. 

That is what I meant in my opening remarks by saying the program is balanced. And it is also very highly leveraged. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So this is your work up, this is your recommendation to the Administration, the funding increases in education, human resources, and the spending on STEM? 

Dr. BEMENT. Much of the decision making in terms of which programs to plus up and which ones to hold constant and the impacts 

of the ARRA funding were decisions that I made. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How to manage that amongst those accounts? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
440 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What about the absolute request number, is that 

your recommendation to OMB or is this a result of push back and 

forth? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well the early President’s plan for 2011 was a much 

smaller number than we ended up with. The EHR component 

stayed pretty much the same as was planned, but the R&RA account was actually substantially enriched as a result of the National Innovation Strategy. So much more money went into research. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. But my question was for these accounts 

that I am asking you about, this human resources and the STEM 

education, did you request more to OMB, and the answer sort of 

suggests you did. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well that is a pre-decisional question, of course. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. So I am looking for a pre-decisional answer. 

Dr. BEMENT. I know I have been in this trap before. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you know, it is not a trap. You know, it 

is interesting why that should be a secret. And I am not sure in 

this Administration it is, but I guess I will just ask that question. 

Has OMB told you not to answer those questions under this Administration? 

Dr. BEMENT. No, this has been a practice a long time. The last 

time I was, as you recall, stymied by that question was during the 

Bush Administration, the first term. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well then I can understand why you were stymied in the Bush Administration. I am asking you has that policy 

changed in this Administration or is it consistent? 

Dr. BEMENT. Hasn’t changed. Hasn’t changed. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So OMB is directing you not to answer these 

pre-decisional questions as you call them—— 

Dr. BEMENT. That is correct. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. [continuing]. Before the Appropriation’s Committee of the United States Congress? So you won’t answer that? 

Dr. BEMENT. Obviously as a director of an agency I ask for a lot 

more money than I actually get, so you can draw your own conclusions from that. 

You know, it is just like the President’s budget. The President 

proposes and the Congress disposes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have heard that before. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, I am sure you have. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well let me ask you this in a more serious 

vain. When you look at NSF and its role with regard to education—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

ROLE OF NSF IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. STEM education, tell us what is the 

role that you think the National Science Foundation, and it is almost at the philosophy level or certainly at the policy level, what 

role do you think the National Science Foundation can play, should 

play, and apply its scarce resources to? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
441 

Dr. BEMENT. First of all we invest money in research and development to develop best practices, but also to innovate . . . find innovative ways to not only enhance learning, but also to enhance 

teaching, and to bring learning and teaching together. 

We try to focus on quality in education, but again, our focus is 

on math and science education, and as a federal agency with limited resources we have to stay focused, and so we leverage our resources with the Department of Education which deals with states 

in their formula grants, and we expect that once we develop best 

practice that the Department of Education will work with us, as 

they do, in translating that—or transitioning that to broader use 

across many school districts and scaling it up across the country. 

And that has been the essence of our partnership as long as I have 

been in the Foundation. 

Now, I can tell you a story that I think will illuminate the point. 

We run the Teacher’s Presidential Award Programs for both math 

and science teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels, 

and every time they come to Washington, I would say 100 teachers, 

I ask them a simple question. I have asked this in front of congressmen and congresswomen, and it is always a challenge because 

I never know how they are going to answer. I ask them how many 

of you have been impacted by NSF investment in education? And 

every hand goes up invariably. 

So this time I asked them why we have such an impact considering the scale of our program? Their answer was that they work 

in the trenches every day, and in many cases they have to struggle 

within their own social environment within a school in terms of 

what to teach and how to teach and how much latitude they will 

have to teach. 

And almost invariably when that argument ensues if they can 

cite evidence, evidence-based results of something the NSF supported or funded and cite that as a case they almost invariably win 

their argument. They appreciate that more than anyone can say, 

even though we don’t fund them directly. We fund the universities, 

but the impact does filter down, and so that gives me a good feeling. And these are the best of the best, these are the cream. 

So hopefully next time when you have one come to town you will 

have a chance to ask that question and see what they say. 

COLLABORATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I had one visit me this year. I think I do every 

year actually, almost every year. 

With what office or department or person at the Department of 

Education do you interface? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well we interface at every level. First of all at the 

highest level I think it is Michael Lach in the Secretary’s office. 

There is an ongoing dialogue between Michael Lach and Dr. 

Marrett. They meet periodically and they meet for the purpose of 

identifying areas where there can be more cooperation. 

We also operate at the division level. We have a close working 

relationship with the Institute of Education Sciences. In fact we 

have two joint programs with them in assessment. First of all assessing professional development of math teachers, and then assessing professional development in science across the board, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
442 

STEM across the board. But even these we are always looking for 

new opportunities. 

At the program level we have very close working relationships. 

For example, in the Math and Science Partnership program we 

sponsor joint workshops, we meet with state officials. We are part 

of each other’s websites. And more than that we strategize how to 

do the transition and also the scaling at the state level. 

So today about 60 to 69 percent of the MSP projects that are 

closely linked with state initiatives. These are NSF projects that 

are closely linked with statewide initiatives, which is a pretty high 

fraction. 

So I think that relationship has been effective, it is getting better 

all the time, and the reason for that is that Secretary Duncan and 

many of his associates in the Department of Education come from 

the Chicago school district, and the Chicago school district is exemplary because they have used NSF funded programs within their 

various initiatives to improve science and mathematics proficiency 

in the grades from 8th grade on up to secondary education. 

We have a very easy way to communicate since we have a lot of 

common ground based on past experience, and so the relationship 

is very close. 

SCIENCE BOARD SUPPORT FOR THE 2011 NSF REQUEST

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well good. Doctor, does the Board agree with the 

relative priorities for funding between STEM research and infrastructure and STEM education? Has the National Science Board, 

is it their judgment as to relative priorities for funding between—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Well the Board really doesn’t differentiate much in 

priorities between research and education because the philosophy 

of the Foundation is to integrate research with education, so they 

have a mutually supportive relationship. 

But I would have to say that in reviewing the budget they did 

review all of the Administration’s priorities and they approved the 

budget in its totality before it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, so they stand behind the budget. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Wolf. 

STATE OF U.S. INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just looking at this brochure, Key Science and Engineering Indicators, on page 14 it shows the location and estimate of worldwide 

R&D has moved from North America and Europe to Asia. You said 

the distribution of R&D expenditures has shifted from 1996 to 

2007, Asia’s shares has risen to nearly one-third due to mostly by 

China’s rapid R&D. The average annual growth rated number researchers you look at that chart B, U.S. is flat, EU, flat, Russia 

down, South Korea dramatically up, Taiwan even more, China 

much more, and Singapore even much more than that. 

With this information and what I asked you at the outset and 

knowing that 50 percent of the money that was allocated last year 

roughly for STEM was accessed, and looking at where we are on 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
443 

the math and science scores, where do you think we are now as a 

Nation, vis-a-vis, China manufacturing, education? 

And you know one of the questions you know I am going to ask 

you is on the language that we put in for the study that we asked 

you to do. So where do you think we really on now? 

At one time you had told me that Europe was making an effort 

to bring people back to Europe to work in their universities. And 

so just kind of in a couple minutes tell us where you think we really are at this time. 

Dr. BEMENT. We are going through a period of rapid change and 

we are being challenged in terms of our position in science and 

technology more so than ever before. 

Our world share, even though we are still the dominant research 

performer in the world today, and our universities are ranked very 

highly and are highly regarded, one has to recognize that almost 

every nation in the world recognizes that in a knowledge economy, 

economic growth in prosperity, are to a large extent, dependent on 

investment in education, investment in research, and investment in 

infrastructure. So they have been investing very highly. 

In Europe, Germany, and the UK and other countries are trying 

to improve their relative ranking of their universities because they 

don’t rank as high as they feel they should. The same thing is happening in the Far East. 

For example, KAIST—I was in KAIST just three or four weeks 

ago—KAIST is a Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, it is sort of the MIT in South Korea. They have come from 

a position way down to a position where they are now ranked 12th 

in the world in engineering, and there are only three institutions 

in the United States that rank higher than they do, Cal-Tech, MIT, 

and Cal-Berkeley, which indicates where they stand relative to a 

lot of other universities in the U.S. as far as international ranking 

is concerned. 

So the world share of research and development of the U.S. has 

gone down not so much that the absolute numbers have gone down, 

the absolute numbers do continue to go up, it is that everyone is 

investing so much more. 

For example, our investment rate in federal funding has been increasing about six percent per year across the board roughly. In 

China it has been increasing 20 percent a year. In most of the 

other Asian nations it has been increasing at least ten percent a 

year. Well those kind of increases over time will make a difference. 

And for example, in China data that go back to even 2007 indicated that the total number of researchers in China equaled a 

number of researchers in the U.S., and I am sure today they have 

more researchers in China than we have in the U.S. 

If you look at advanced technology, we aspire to push forward 

clean renewable energy, nuclear energy, bio derived hydrocarbon 

fuels, and wind energy. Well guess where the world’s share of the 

technology, the equipment and the facilities and the displays and 

so forth are going to come from? At the rate we are going, we will 

be buying our nuclear reactors from South Korea, we will be buying most of our wind generators and photovoltaic panels from 

China. We are already purchasing some bio derived fields from 

Brazil. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
444 

So that these changes are primarily about national will, it is not 

necessarily changes due to capacity or capability, it is national will. 

They want to be leaders, they want to set the standards, they don’t 

want to be dependent on the rest of the world for standards, and 

they are succeeding. 

So that is going back to your earlier question, that is what keeps 

me awake sometimes at night. 

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

Mr. WOLF. Well then I guess to follow the question would be this: 

If the trend continues where it is now both here in the United 

States and in Asia and other places, what do you foresee the circumstances if this same question were asked of the director of the 

National Science Foundation 20 years from now? What do you 

think their answer will be as to where we are? What impact do you 

think this will have? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well if I could have the luxury of projecting myself 

ahead 20 years and then answer that in retrospect. 

I think the point is, and this is why I put so much emphasis on 

international collaboration. This is the way of the world, it is not 

a ‘‘king of the mountain’’ approach anymore, it is no longer a matter that the U.S. is going to be dominant in all fields of science 

anymore in the future. We will be dominant in some fields, but not 

every field, not every important field. 

So it is imperative that we develop links, we network, we have 

relationships with top scientists throughout the world. We have to 

learn how to collaborate in order to compete. We have to know 

where the frontier is, and the frontier may look differently in 

China and may look differently in France than it looks in the U.S. 

They may be seeing different opportunities. If we are not connected, if we are not networked, and we don’t have frequent exchange, then we are going to get blind sided. And blind sided 

means that we won’t have an opportunity to move into fast moving 

markets as a leader. We will be a fast follower or maybe even a 

slow follower, but we will not necessarily be the leader. 

So I put a lot of priority in building up our international programs and the amount of resources we have for international collaboration. We are doing a very good job. We have broadband links 

with almost every region of the world. Some regions are a little bit 

dark, but they will be lighted up in the next five years. 

So science is being done on a 24 by 7 basis throughout the world, 

and it is very important that our scientists have an opportunity to 

succeed in some of the fast moving fields that may be emerging 

somewhere else. And 20 years from now in retrospect that will be 

the story. 

Mr. WOLF. Well what do you think it is going to be 20 years from 

now? 

Mr. BEMENT. Well, you know, that is not just a science and technology question, that is a political question for the very reason that 

with information and communication technology the world is 

shrinking faster now than ever before in the past. We used to think 

that international travel was a great democratizer or a shrinker of 

the world. That is no longer the case. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
445 

We are going to be interconnected with broadband communication where any person in the world will be able to talk personally 

with any one other person in the world before too long. We can do 

it now. In fact, I have international meetings under bilateral agreements with teleconferencing now on a routine basis, and it works. 

You don’t have to travel, you don’t lose the time, you don’t pay the 

extra expenses, and you get work done. 

We are now entering an era where we can share instrumentation 

like never before. We can have a researcher in the United States 

actually operating a piece of equipment somewhere else in the 

world and getting the data back in real-time. They don’t have to 

have their own instrument. 

An example is the ten meter telescope at the South Pole. No 

more remote region of the world than the South Pole. We have a 

telescope there that operates during the austral winter, which is 

summer here, and that is the best viewing season for doing astronomical observation. Well that has been automated to an extent 

where a researcher, an astronomer here in the U.S. with a laptop 

can operate the instrument and get the data. They don’t have to 

travel all the way to the South Pole. That is going to be more prevalent. 

Furthermore, I think top researchers are going to become more 

peripatetic, and they are also going to be virtually connected with 

research groups in several parts of the world. They are very much 

like orchestra conductors. Orchestra conductors will conductors a 

symphony in Washington, the next day they will be in London, the 

next day they may be in Moscow, different orchestras. 

I see top scientists doing the same thing with research groups in 

different parts of the world where they will have an influence, and 

that will all be virtually connected. They can manage all that in 

Santa Fe, New Mexico if they wish. 

CHINA’S POSITION IN THE WORLD

Mr. WOLF. Well okay. I guess I would comment, you know, I 

agree with a lot of what you say, probably all. 

When I was the chairman of this Committee we reversed the decline in the sciences. It keeps me awake. My wife and I we have 

five kids, we have 15 grand kids, and I see things taking place and 

I think I bring a perspective of concern from outside to scientific 

area. 

Norm Augustine came to a group that we had where he made a 

comment that in the 16th Century Spain was number one, and we 

know what happened to Spain. In the 17th Century, it was the 

French century. In the 19th Century it was the British century, 

you know, the sun never set on the British empire, if you will. And 

the 20th Century was the American century. And he made the 

comment that he was concerned that the 21st Century could be the 

Chinese century. 

And I think what troubles me, I get that this institution doesn’t 

seem very troubled by it, and the previous administration didn’t 

seem very troubled by it and this Administration doesn’t seem very 

troubled by it do they? They just don’t seem to care. 

But if you look at China and their values; the Chinese government. I mean the persecution of the Catholic church. I used to say 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
446 

there were 34 Catholic bishops in jail, I can’t say that anymore because some of them were so old they have died. But everyone that 

was in jail was still in jail, the ones that are out of jail now have 

died. Nobody says anything, nobody seems to care. That is a value 

that is not good for the country. 

Protestant pastors are being rounded up, thrown in prison. That 

is bad, that is a value. A government can round up somebody purely preaching the gospel. That is not good. 

What they have done to Tibet. I went to Tibet ten years ago, I 

went with a young Buddhist monk, we went in the monasteries. 

They have tortured the mild mannered Tibetans. Nobody cares. 

This Administration, the President won’t even meet with the 

Dalai Lama the first time he came. They are persecuting the Muslims, the Uighur. The Uighur are going through a very difficult 

time. They are spying against us. These are cyber attacks. I am 

sure you have had Chinese cyber attacks against you. They have 

had cyber attacks against this Congress and they don’t really do 

anything about it. 

And so the values—and if you want to take it down to the raw 

what it means for real people, the number one supporter, the government is China, the genocide in Darfur is Chinese generated. 

Chinese generated. They sell the bombers, the Kalashnikov’s, the 

Soviet helicopters. 

So the world will be a different world from a values point. And 

so while the Chinese people are wonderful, when they come here 

they come through my office, I don’t worry about the Chinese people, but I worry about the Chinese government. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yeah. 

Mr. WOLF. And since the Bush Administration and this Administration, China has the worst human rights record than it did ten 

years ago. 

And we see Google. Very few people want to come to the defense 

of Google. You know I admire the leadership of Google that is willing to speak out. 

So the world will be different with China with those values because then they can use it for bad, for evil, for bad things. And so 

it worries me deeply. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I don’t believe very much at all of what Lenin 

said, but he did say one thing that I think applies to this situation. 

His statement was ‘‘quantity has a quality of its own’’, and that is 

what we are facing is quantity. 

EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE STEM EDUCATION

Mr. WOLF. The question I wanted to ask you. We put language 

in asking NSF to convene a panel. We had originally— we were 

going to put in Norm Augustine’s name, but we didn’t, we didn’t 

do that. I was a little disappointed that we got a response back 

from your people saying we have identified the National Research 

Council Board because we wanted some best practices, and with all 

the funding they get we believe that you know understand best 

practices. 

The response we got back said that you are going to contract it 

out, the report will require nine months to complete from the time 

the award is made, from the time the award is made. The language 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
447 

called for 180 days. So if you can use your bill signing ceremony 

pen just to tell whoever is responsible we would like to see this 

kind of pushed up much faster. The bill passed in what, November? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. So you have had December, January, February, 

March, and now we are almost at April. So if you can expedite it 

and try to get something out quickly, I don’t think it is a major B1 

Bomber contract, it is something to get the very best information 

that is around that and kind of pull it together so we can get something. Ideally I would like to see you have something by the beginning of the school year. I think we missed this upcoming school 

year, so that superintendents around the country and other curriculum people can see what works. 

Because you would agree, I assume, that if you lost a young student by 6th grade, the likelihood of getting them back interested 

in math and science and physics and chemistry is very small; if not 

impossible. But if we capture them in those early, early years the 

better opportunity they will have. Because this shows that we are 

falling behind in that area too. 

Dr. BEMENT. I will look into a dual track on this. I think the approach with the National Research Council is a more deliberate approach, but it may be that we do a shorter term approach in parallel. I am going to try and satisfy that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr. 

Bement. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. 

INTEGRATING STEM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACROSS GOVERNMENT

Mr. HONDA. I read the testimony with a lot of interest, and permeated throughout the testimony was a discussion around how we 

can improve our research and development, the information, and 

the knowledge that we have gathered through grant funded research in the area of STEM, and also the discussion about innovation and teaching innovation and inventiveness, and all these 

things that I think came out in the report that the National 

Science Board had put out in 2006. 

And in 2007 I introduced a bill. Right now it is H.R. 2710, but 

at that time in 2007 when we put out a bill it was H.R. 6104. H.R. 

6104 had laid out basically what the report had asked us to do. 

And the other thing that we noticed is that based upon the report it appeared that there were a lot of silos that were not talking 

to each other in terms of STEM research. Agencies, different agencies had done STEM research. I think the number was—we spent 

close to $2 billion with 12 agencies and none of the information was 

being shared with each other where there could be a repository of 

information and conclusions that could be shared with the education field and other fields. And we shared the Board’s concern 

through that report. 

And it appears that again we are rehashing what was said in 

2006, we tried in 2007, and again we tried to do it this year under 

H.R. 2710. We did H.R. 2710 because part of our original bill is 

taken up by the Science and Technology Committee, so we have 

taken the rest of it. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
448 

Our interest in E–STEM, enhancing STEM education was also— 

we were also saying that in the Department of Education there 

should be an office that would be headed by an assistant deputy 

secretary of education, that you also had a National Science and 

Technology Council, that within that there should be a full committee that deals with STEM. None of those things have happened, 

but it sounds like this is what you are suggesting in terms of just 

out of administrative fiat. 

Given that and for sustainability and also assuring this scientific 

innovative ecosystem, I think you called it ecosystem, would it not 

be beneficial to put this into statute rather than just have an existing one in the Administration and then not having it sustained 

throughout the time? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, Mr. Honda, the current activity in the current 

Administration is to take up this issue based on the American 

Competitiveness Council activity in the previous administration 

where they identified all the various programs across the government and to develop a government-wide strategy for STEM education. So I think it is totally faithful with what you are trying to 

accomplish with the bill. 

There is within the National Science and Technology Council a 

subcommittee on education which is co-chaired. 

FIRM DIRECTIVE FOR INTEGRATING STEM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

ACROSS SOCIETY

Mr. HONDA. Right, I understand that, now I am suggesting it 

goes up to level of committee. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well that is up to the director of OSTP. 

Mr. HONDA. Well would it have more stature and more impact 

if you had a committee rather than a subcommittee? 

Dr. BEMENT. I am not sure it would be anymore effective. You 

know, they have got a full platter of work at the present time, and 

I think they have plenty of support. I am not sure what the next 

step would amount to. 

Mr. HONDA. Well not to be argumentative, they may have a lot 

of things on their plate, but if all this discussion about integrating 

the research and the development into various parts of our societies and various parts of our activities in terms of instruction, preK to postgraduate, if that is not part of the daily discussion, how 

you doing, how is it going, it will never get done. 

But you know, upon reflection everybody will say that was a good 

idea, how come we didn’t do it? And we are at that point again in 

2011, this would be a good idea, now we are getting started, we lost 

five years. And so putting in a statute where you have an expectation rather than just only, you know, having an expectation to statute at least we can have some guidance and create some benchmarks. 

If there were a bill out there like that would that be something 

that you could sign onto? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I think what I would like to suggest is that 

we have people within the Foundation work with your staff to at 

least inform you what the current pace is and what the current activity and schedules are so you have a general idea. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
449 

Mr. HONDA. We have done that, and we would love to do it again. 

But in terms of—— 

Dr. BEMENT. But I think what is going on now will have an impact on the next budget cycle, the 2012 budget. 

Mr. HONDA. I am sure it will, but I am looking for sustainability. 

Part of terminology we use in the green vernacular is sustainability, and if we are looking for E–STEM to be imparting enhanced STEM into everything. 

The other thing you mention in your report, your testimony, you 

are suggesting that there should be an integrated approach to 

other areas, because it does have impact, but there is nothing 

there—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, I fully agree with that. 

Mr. HONDA. But there is nothing that says thou shalt. There 

should be some sort of directive or a very stronger statement in 

that, because we could produce engineers. 

My son is an aerospace engineer, and he admits that he is not 

well rounded, he is kind of lopsided and he can do some of the 

other stuff, and all this stuff should be embedded in all the other 

activities it seems to me so that we have a citizenry that at least 

has the baseline and not be not be, misled by misinformation to the 

media that, there is no such thing as global warming. At least have 

an argument with yourself that is, critical and based on some facts. 

And I think that is one of the downfalls of our country. We only 

see one side, and our side is always right whether it is empires 

or—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I don’t think you could find a better champion 

for STEM education than the President. 

Mr. HONDA. I am not arguing that. 

Dr. BEMENT. He is going on record—gone on record many times 

pushing STEM education. 

Mr. HONDA. Dr. Bement, I am not arguing that point. I am just 

asking would it not be sustainable if we had this embedded in some 

statute that reflects the President and your—and this report’s 

sense of direction and importance? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I guess I could only say I am not inimical to 

it, I just don’t—I just can’t speak for the Administration on that 

issue. 

Mr. HONDA. Well as an educator it seems to me the public policy 

and the kinds of things you are talking about that we should be 

able to do this. 

I asked Dr. Augustine the question, can innovation be taught? 

And he said, well it is very difficult, because it is in the character 

of each person. And now we are talking about being able to teach 

inventiveness and innovation if we did it right, and we put something together for NSF to look at that for funding, and hopefully 

we can revisit that, because as an instructor I think we can do 

that. All you have to do is look at the walls of a lot of these companies where they have their engineers and scientists with their patents up there, the ones with peaks are the ones you want to study 

I guess. 

But I just wanted to lay that out just so we can have a future 

discussion with our staffs with your staff. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
450 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for joining us today. 

I want to take you to one of my favorite recurring subjects, and 

that is the observatory in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

NATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND IONOSPHERE CENTER (ARECIBO)

Mr. SERRANO. And I want to first of all, as you know the plan 

seems to be to continue to reduce its funding, while they seem to 

be to want to close it down in the process, and continue to reduce 

its funding, yet I seem to find in my way of looking at things a contradiction between people who make budget decisions and the scientific community. 

There seems to be more and more statements coming forward 

every so often telling us that there is a need for the work done at 

the observatory. 

Now needless to say in the territory of Puerto Rico this has 

caused great alarm for many reasons. For the importance they feel 

it has in the scientific community, the importance it has to the 

commonwealth of Puerto Rico, you know, in so many ways and we 

just finished that debate this week, that the territories get treated 

differently. In this case having placed the observatory there was 

quite a boost years ago to the relationship between the United 

States and Puerto Rico. There is an issue of jobs obviously and of 

tourism where folks go to see it because they know it is advertised 

as having been in a couple of movies. James Bond has a lot of fans 

throughout the world and people want to see this observatory. 

But any way, first of all, is there a contradiction or is there at 

least a difference of opinion between folks who want to reduce the 

budget and eventually close it down and people in the scientific 

community that say there is an importance and a need for the observatory? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well let me state my position. First of all, I have 

never taken a position of closing it down. The senior review that 

looked at all the telescopes and all the assets in astronomy made 

the statement that it continued to do valuable research, and I believe that. 

The problem is that it has gotten beyond the capacity or the capability of the Foundation to be the sole supporter of the telescope, 

so we have been looking for partners. One partner would be NASA, 

for example. They have the mission of tracking low earth objects 

such as asteroids and so forth. Arecibo is the ideal instrument for 

doing that, and it does do so at the present time. 

The opportunities in astronomy are still so great in terms of getting back closer to the Big Bang and understanding how the universe began and all the aspects of evolution of the universe. It is 

still a very compelling topic. So there is always a need to build new 

telescopes. And we have at the present time substantial investment 

not only in ALMA, but also a new solar telescope that we wish to 

build in Hawaii. All those put pressure on the operation and maintenance expenses of our existing telescopes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
451 

Now Puerto Rico has done quite a lot and they have increased 

investment in Arecibo. So you know the intent is not to just keep 

drawing down the budget to zero. The point is to find how we can 

continue to operate Arecibo, but not at its full capability. Other 

people are going to have to come in and help. 

Mr. SERRANO. But there is a recommendation for yet another de- crease I believe of $1.6 million less than last year. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. So there is that intent, and my question to you is 

how successful are we in getting NASA or others to share funding? 

Also the projections were made on flat funding for the Foundation. Well that has not been the case in the last couple of years, 

nor do I think it will be the case in future years. 

So you see here is the problem. As I tell many people in a very 

serious way and half joking for some folks, I represent two districts. I represent the Bronx and I represent the place where I was 

born, Puerto Rico. And you wonder how much of this has to do with 

the relationship with the United States. The territories are always 

last. I mean, I don’t want to drag you into another discussion, but 

you should have seen what we went through in the health care bill 

just to get the territories something. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. And it wasn’t enough that you were talking about 

American citizens. The fact that they don’t have two senators, and 

you know, in Puerto Rico’s case seven members of Congress makes 

a big difference. 

So it will always, unless we make a special effort to save it and 

to keep it open, Arecibo will disappear because it is not a priority. 

In fact when you are telling me you are building a new one in 

Hawaii I am all for that, but it doesn’t hurt to have a president 

in the White House—I was born in Hawaii, so I suspect that one 

will do very well. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well that was planned well before the election. 

Mr. SERRANO. I understand. It just coincides this way, you know. 

Just like it coincides on my watch. 

Mr. BEMENT. Let me clarify one of your issues. I simply needed 

to bring on additional partners. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

LONG-TERM FUNDING OF THE NATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND IONSPHERE

CENTER (ARECIBO)

Dr. BEMENT. We are also looking within the Foundation for additional partners. For example, one of the capabilities at Arecibo is 

they’re working on atmospheric and geospace sciences, and I have 

been there and I have seen the facility and they do have a good 

staff and they do make a major contribution. 

So we have got in our Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Division and they are—in the fiscal year 2010 budget they put in $2.2 

million which brought the total up to $10.6 million, and as compared with the 2009 budget of $9.6 so that was an addition of a 

million over all. 

Now the 2011 request it goes back down again, but it is hovering 

at around $9 to $10 million a year. I don’t see that that is inconsistent with my statement that we are trying to maintain. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
452 

But I would be more than happy to have another federal agency 

come in and become a co-supporter of that facility so that it would 

have a much more robust program. 

Mr. SERRANO. All right. Let me just make two quick points here, 

I don’t want to take too much time on this, and at the same time 

ask you a question. 

The original report did recommend closure after 2011 if significant non-federal sources of funding are not found. 

Dr. BEMENT. That was made by a senior review panel that did 

not include officials of the Foundation. I told you my position. 

Mr. SERRANO. So officials of the Foundation you are saying for 

the record are looking for a comfortable level of funding that you 

can afford, but not intending to close it down? 

Dr. BEMENT. That is my position. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. And is that position shared by others who 

may be around after you are not there? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well that position was taken in fiscal 2007. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Dr. BEMENT. It hasn’t changed in three budget cycles, I hope it 

won’t change in the future. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. And lastly, I just want to for the record, Mr. 

Chairman, remind folks that this past January the National Research Council released a report on near earth asteroids, that is asteroids that have the potential to hit earth, entitled, Defending 

Planet Earth Near Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation 

Strategies. The report outlined the importance of Arecibo, and it 

says, quote, ‘‘Immediate action be taken to ensure the continued 

operation of the Arecibo observatory at a level sufficient to staff 

and maintain the facility and that it should be supported.’’ The report in fairness says NASA and NSF. 

Dr. BEMENT. That is exactly the point I was making earlier. This 

is a NASA mission too. 

Mr. SERRANO. And the point I am trying to make is which you 

agree with, that there are folks involved today in scientific research 

who claim that Arecibo is necessary. 

Dr. BEMENT. And I agree with that. 

Mr. SERRANO. All right. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. As I noted, Dr. Bement, in my opening statement, this Subcommittee held a couple of hearings last month focusing on STEM education. 

From the testimony it is clear that the effectiveness of the inquiry-based education in STEM education is needed at all levels, 

but implementation is woefully lacking. 

How many and what percentage of colleges and universities receiving NSF funding offer courses that are inquiry-based other 

than undergraduate research opportunities and graduate thesis 

preparation? 

Dr. BEMENT. Our information is that in almost all the universities that we support there are faculty that effectively use inquirybased education or promote inquiry-based education. As a matter 

of fact, many of investigators under Broader Impacts make a sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00452 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
453 

nificant contribution to inquiry-based education through the type of 

research that they are doing. But that is the good news. 

The bad news is it is not being used enough, especially in undergraduate education. It is being underutilized. We would like to see 

a much broader application of inquiry-based education and we continue to press for that. 

We feel that first of all the evidence is compelling that it not only 

contributes to understanding concepts, improving problem solving, 

but it also aids retention, recruitment, and also graduation success, 

because students have become more interested in the subject if 

they have an opportunity to either carry on some type of project 

work or some type of research as part of the learning experience. 

Even computational application, use of computers, computer 

modeling is a good application of inquiry-based learning, and they 

get a chance to deal with more complex problems than they might 

otherwise do. 

That is the reason why we are stressing the Cyberlearning 

Transforming Education initiative, the CTE initiative, to bring on 

more cyber technology into the classroom for inquiry-based education. 

That is pretty much the situation as it currently extends. We 

have made progress, but we have a long way to go. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. At NSF you primarily fund colleges and universities. How can you increase the use of inquiry in the teaching of 

science in our schools? 

Dr. BEMENT. We can build it into our solicitations, and we do in 

many respects. A lot of our programs focus on inquiry-based education, so those are some of the things that we can do. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. To what extent are you doing that? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I will ask Dr. Mundy to answer that question. 

This is Joan Ferrini-Mundy who is the Acting Assistant Director 

for EHR. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well we should have another chair up there if 

you want to do that. That was very clever. It is not June yet. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. So the question is what are we doing now? 

There are lots of strategies for improving the use of inquiry methods for improving in general teaching of science that leads to conceptual understanding and that leads to ability to solve complex 

problems. And so we have various programs that address this. 

One is to try to get the faculty themselves to become aware of 

these methods, to understand them, to try them out in their teaching, and we do that through our Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM program. 

Another is to continue the research about these methods so that 

we have evidence about their effectiveness, because that helps in 

their dissemination too. We have other programs that do that. 

Helping K through 12 practitioners come into contact with undergraduate faculty is another way to try to spread the word, and 

we do that through our GK–12 Program as well as our Math and 

Science Partnership Program. 

And then finally we invest in the STEM faculty of tomorrow, 

during their own graduate preparation, in helping them to understand these methods. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
454 

So we work on multiple strategies and continue to promote the 

ideas through several programs. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is through grant funding? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And give me an example of a college, university, 

where that is happening. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. So the University of Colorado Boulder is a 

place that has a whole program on using undergraduate learning 

assists in the teaching of physics, I believe, and so the physics faculty who are also involved in that teaching are working together 

with undergraduate students to try to improve opportunities for 

physics learning in the classroom. You have a mix of undergraduates, folks from the School of Education who are doing some evaluation and research about the project, and faculty in the sciences 

coming together to try to improve the opportunities to really understand physics as opposed to learning physics in a rote kind of way. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is at what level? That is at the college 

level? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Undergraduate level. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Undergraduate level. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Right. 

INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION IN K THROUGH 12 CLASSROOMS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. And so how does that lay a foundation for 

migrating inquiry into K through 12? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Sure. First of all you have the faculty in 

physics and in the science departments who are those folks who actually teach the future teachers their subject matter contents and 

so they are getting the chance to see this used and then to try to 

bring it into their own teaching. And then hopefully some of these 

undergraduate learning assistants ultimately might consider becoming K through 12 teachers. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. When you say hopefully, what does that mean? 

Is that what you do once that program is done, then you are hoping 

something happens after that? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. No, we actually follow—all of our programs 

have very strong evaluations components, and so we are very interested in particular kinds of outcomes, and a program like that the 

main outcome is I suspect about the undergraduate students learning of physics. But our programs for teacher preparation are looking at the impacts of our teachers on the instruction in K through 

12 classrooms. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do your goals go to migrating this or inserting 

it into the K through 12 undergraduate programs that are inquirybased? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What initiatives do you have to help facilitate 

that? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. One of our major programs is the Math and 

Science Partnership Program which involves STEM undergraduate 

faculty, as well as K through 12 teachers and leaders, as well as 

education faculty at universities and colleges, and so by using those 

combinations of leaders you get the opportunity to really put ideas 

together that make their way into teacher education programs. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
455 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How do they make their way into teacher education programs? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Well the people who are working in say an 

MSP project may have as a partial goal for their work to do some 

reform of their undergraduate STEM teacher preparation, they 

might make new courses or create new opportunities for internships in schools or opportunities for connections to industry. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It doesn’t sound very certain, it doesn’t sound 

like it is a piece of that actual strategy forcing a prototype experience that was tested out. And is that occurring, and if so would it 

be useful, and if not would it be useful? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. All of our programs have a very strong research and development focus, so we ask our PI’s to come with a 

really clear hypothesis about what they are trying to change and 

why they are—why they believe it is going to make a difference 

based on the literature, based on best practice and so forth. They 

implement those ideas and they study them. 

The idea is to produce models, which as Dr. Bement has mentioned, then might be scalable by other organizations by connections to the Department of Education. 

So that is the major focus of much of our work, to try out, test, 

refine, and improve models that then are published, are discussed, 

are circulated, and are disseminated. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. What I am hearing is that, you know, you 

are doing education inquiry-based incentivising—incentivising inquiry-based as you are instructing at the undergraduate level research, at the graduate level, that there is—this may go down into 

the K through 12 where you have some—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Well some of our programs are K through 

12 focused, and so we do a lot—let us say—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who are the grantees? I am sorry. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. The grantees are universities working in 

partnership sometimes with school districts or with non-profits. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Where is that happening? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. That is the Math and Science Partnership 

Program. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But where, give me an example? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Across the country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Colorado? Is the University of Colorado doing 

this? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I don’t know for sure if there is an MSP in 

Colorado, but the University of Georgia has one. 

EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRY-BASED EDUCATION IN K TO 12 SETTINGS

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would you identify yourself? 

Dr. SEIDEL. Yes, I am Acting Assistant Director for Math and 

Physical Sciences, but I have examples of exactly what Joan is 

talking about as a PI at Louisiana State University. I had NSF 

funding at a center there, before I came to NSF, where we worked, 

for example with local school districts and had workshops in the 

summer where we would have teachers and their students from 

local high schools, in fact across the state, learning how to build 

a super computer out of PCs—how to build a Beowulf cluster. And 

the great thing about that is the kids get very excited because they 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
456 

understand PCs and they can build something that becomes a 

super computer. And their the teachers also get very excited about 

it and learn how to do this and then they can begin to incorporate 

this into the class. 

When the kids built the computers they brought them back into 

the classrooms and we donated them to the schools, and then they 

maintained these small super computers. 

Another example is funding from an ESPSCoR program where 

we involved students using Sony Play Stations, what they use for 

gaming, but actually they are small super computers themselves. 

And so we taught them to run things like storm search calculations 

on them, which is something understood by many kids in Louisiana 

because of the hurricane phenomenon that come all the time. And 

so they understand how these are actually super computers. 

And then we have had letters from parents saying their children 

have been turned around and they are very interested now in going 

onto college when they might not have before. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you think this kind of education ought to 

be—inquiry-based education ought to be ubiquitous in STEM education across the country? 

Dr. SEIDEL. I think there are all kinds of evidence that inquirybased experiential learning, hands-on kinds of experiences, and 

concept-based learning, that kind of activity can be driving what 

goes on in schools across the country. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Dr. SEIDEL. That is a yes. 

FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION IN

K TO 12

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

So if members of Congress who have year after year heard that 

kind of exciting testimony about these methods that if they were 

employed they would improve whatever standard test you judge 

that, and you understand that, and that if it were employed 

throughout the country would change the testimony before us from 

that of woe is me, we are falling behind to we are really getting 

it and we are implementing the policies and techniques and strategies in the school system integrated from K up. We are hearing 

that, but it is the same woe is me testimony the next year, so that 

that integration has never happened. 

And so would you think it reasonable for members after hearing 

that to wonder why this is not integrated from the highest levels 

of NSF through education down through kindergarten? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Absolutely a reasonable question. 

If you think about the whole K through 12 system the main drivers are the teachers themselves, what they know, how equipped 

they are to teach with this kind of material, to teach in this style, 

and the materials themselves. So the learning tools, the resources 

are important. NSF invests of course in both areas. 

But not to be overlooked piece is the assessments that are used. 

It is hard to measure some of this. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes but see—let me—just forgive me. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Sure. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
457 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And explain to me why that is an answer to my 

question. 

What I am trying to get at is I think I could do a fairly superficial job of answering a lot of these questions having asked them 

a lot and heard them answered, and I said superficial, but the 

question that doesn’t get answered is the question I tried to ask 

just a second ago. 

By what method and does NSF have a role in introducing these 

techniques not sort of as an experiment, but as an accepted method 

to be embraced by the educational communities across the country, 

how does that happen? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Okay. I think I would go back to what Dr. 

Bement said about what he heard from the teachers. Dr. Bement 

is going to comment too. 

One way is by the creation of the funding of materials that use 

these methods that are well tested and have strong evidence behind them so that teachers can then pick them up and use them. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is a piece of it. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. That is a piece of it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Materials is a piece of it. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Teacher preparation and education is a 

piece of it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Teacher preparation, teacher support. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Superintendent involvement and acceptance. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. School-based support. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. State board of education—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Support and implementation—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Absolutely. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And direction perhaps. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. And assessment again, if the tests don’t 

measure—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Assessments to do it. Integration, teacher 

retraining at the colleges. The undergraduate being taught inquiry. 

And you have all these pieces. And are there prototypes to tie all 

that together in different rural, urban, southern urban, northern 

urban, western urban environments to see how you can actually integrate that throughout the system? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. So again, this notion of a systemic approach 

seems right where you tie together—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I mean would it be NSF’s role to run a solicitation to invite different educational systems to be a part of a comprehensive testing out of how you integrate all that, and prove out 

whether this STEM education works? And the only way you could 

do it would be if you did it in an integrated sort of way up and 

down wouldn’t it? Would that be an appropriate role for NSF? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. We have had different approaches to 

that—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Or have you done it. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY [continuing]. Over the years, and we have 

done it. And I think what we have learned is that it does take all 

of that integration, but it is costly, because you have to have a lot 

of partners on board all headed in the same direction and you have 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
458 

to have the policies headed in the same direction, but there have 

been existence proofs. Our Math and Science—Partnership Program continues those ideas. 

And so we are all for these kinds of integrations across all these 

different parts of the educational system. But to make deep change 

does take time and does take a lot of collaboration. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But is that exercise at this point in time appropriate or are you beyond that? You didn’t hear my question, you 

were talking to somebody else weren’t you? Or is it useful at this 

time or are we beyond that? 

Dr. BEMENT. Let me butt in, because we have been very hard at 

work at this, especially in bioscience. 

There has been an effort through the last three or four years of 

the whole community, and in many cases you have got to get community buy in, so this is an approach that involved the community 

at large. It is now being rolled out. There is a joint program between EHR and the Bioscience Directorate to carry this into implementation. It is primarily focused on undergraduate education in 

bioscience, but it will also impact K to 12. And if you wish I will 

develop a report for the record to tell you more about it. 

[The information follows:] 

Over the past year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 

with support from the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and 

Human Resources and Directorate for Biological Sciences, held a series of conversations with faculty, administrators, students, and other stakeholders on the future 

of undergraduate biology education. The website below outlines the work of this collaboration: the issues, discussions, presentations, and other activities. A summary 

of recommendations may be found in the report titled Vision and Change—A Call 

to Action. 

The report may be found here: www.visionandchange.org/VClreport.pdf. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay, and I would like you to come up and talk 

about it, just chat about it. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Could I add one more thing? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. If you are not doing anything that day you could 

come too. 

COLLABORATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN INQUIRY-BASED

EDUCATION

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Okay, thank you. 

We are in very strong and good collaboration with the Department of Education, and so some of what you are talking about, this 

kind of systemic approach to how to roll things out in ways that 

get picked up widely are exactly the topics of our conversations 

with Michael Lach and others at the department. 

That is to say we have even been working on, you know, what 

is well known about math professional development and how do we 

immediately then communicate with states with—chief state school 

officers and with other parts of the enterprise to get these ideas out 

so that some of the NSF investments get picked up? 

So a way we have tried to work on it recently has been through 

this kind of leveraging of intellectual resources with other agencies 

that have wider reach where we have been able to build and understand in deep ways the models that can work and then to take 

them out broadly. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
459 

FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES IN INQUIRY-BASED EDUCATION

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well this is the 2011 budget hearing for NSF, 

and irrespective of conversations with OMB, and not to get into 

any pre-decisional secrets here, this would be your opportunity to 

say gee, if I had my druthers I would like to see something in this 

area in the 2011 budget request for NSF. Can she answer that, Dr. 

Bement? Please? 

Dr. BEMENT. That is sort of the answer that comes from the initial lead in. If you had additional money in your budget what 

would you spend it on? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well no, honestly it is—you know, if we wanted 

to do something in this area we would like to know, and have your 

advice, what would it be? Forget about your budget request. If we 

wanted to do something in this area, a direction from this Committee, what would your advice be to what we would do? That is 

a totally appropriate question, I would hope you would answer it. 

Dr. BEMENT. I think what you would do is you would move directly to be sure that those programs are well supported. 

Part of what we do in order to bring about systemic change is 

to do innovative institutional integration, and that is taking various programs and integrating them in order to achieve purposes 

like this, and there is a budget line for that in our budget. And one 

of the objectives of that program is to also boost inquiry-based 

learning. 

So now that we know the level of interest that you have, there 

are things that we can do with our existing budget and with our 

existing programs in order to intensify attention to your interest. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well it is not my interest, I don’t want to be, you 

know, I don’t have the knowledge base that you have and wouldn’t 

pretend to be an expert. 

Dr. BEMENT. But you know based on our testimony that we agree 

with you fully, so you know, we are not in opposition, we are not 

talking cross purposes, we fully agree with one another. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well we look forward to working on this as we 

move our budget forward, and thank you, Doctor, thank you so 

much. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NSF AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Following up on one of the Chairman’s line of questioning. Has 

there ever been the opportunity for the NSF to develop a cooperative relationship with the school district whereby you literally, not 

take over the school district, but you literally—they were willing to 

turn this over to the NSF, perhaps one in a rural district one in 

an urban district whereby NSF would run the program? 

Dr. BEMENT. Not within the limitations of the Constitution. 

Mr. WOLF. No, where they would ask you. School districts would 

be very open. I mean you mentioned Chicago. You know, if you 

have a failing school district they may be very open. I am not talking about the federal government taking over, I don’t believe that. 

What I meant is that whereby they would say our math and 

science scores are not very good, et cetera, et cetera. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
460 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I don’t know of a single example of that. 

Mr. WOLF. Would you be interested in something like that? 

Dr. BEMENT. I don’t think so. I don’t think we are in the education business per se, I think we are in the education research 

business, and the investment that we make can have an impact on 

schools broadly rather than just a single school. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I know that, but the reason we put the language 

in last year was to get you to give us something that would be best 

practices that every other school district could use. We don’t have 

that from you now, and if you had a situation where you went into 

a particular urban, suburban, rural, whatever and did something 

it would be an—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we do have pieces of it, Mr. Wolf. We are on 

the website of the Institute of Education Sciences on best practices. 

Some of these best practices are on their website. In fact a good 

fraction of the best practices on their websites are based on NSF 

programs. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Dr. BEMENT. And we can give you that information for the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

The What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education provides a list of nine topic areas under which reviews of research on 

important issues in education can be accessed. NSF-funded activities can be found 

under two of these topic areas: 

• Elementary School Math—of the nine interventions reviewed, two have received 

NSF support. 

• Middle School Math—of the fourteen interventions reviewed, five have received 

NSF support. 

The web link to the topical index is www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports. 

NSF’S ROLE IN IMPROVING SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. WOLF. This year and the last the Committee heard testimony from experts advocating a more prominent leadership role 

from the NSF in a national effort to improve science education. 

Your education budget continues to grow, but at a lower rate than 

your research program. 

How do you see NSF’s role as distinct with that of the Department of Education, and do you feel that roles and responsibilities 

in funding are properly aligned? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I can say categorically that I believe that our 

programs are effective, I think they are making an impact on improving math and science proficiency. I feel that it is in the interest 

of the Nation that we continue that role, and we are working very 

hard to find ways of leveraging our resources to do it better. 

Mr. WOLF. But have not the scores continued to drop in comparison to other countries? 

Dr. BEMENT. No. Well the latest international data indicates that 

in 4th and 8th grades math proficiency scores have increased significantly. 

Mr. WOLF. What about in high school? 

Dr. BEMENT. I am sorry? 

Mr. WOLF. How about in high school? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
461 

STATE OF K TO 12 SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE NSF

Dr. BEMENT. I think probably less clear in high school. The problem area is in science. Science has been pretty flat, it has not improved very much. 

I believe from what the teachers tell me they feel cheated sometimes in their education programs because they don’t get very 

much exposure to science. Unless they are teaching in secondary 

schools they don’t get focused preparation in science. 

Mr. WOLF. Cheated by their school district or cheated by the college? 

Dr. BEMENT. I am talking about the colleges. I am talking about 

the education programs. 

Mr. WOLF. The last study that we worked on said that the STEM 

money in 2007 was only 50 percent of the STEM money was used. 

Is that accurate? 

Dr. BEMENT. I don’t know that. 

Mr. WOLF. Wouldn’t that sort of fit in though if the teachers felt 

cheated that that would be the no cause and effect death? 

Dr. BEMENT. I think it is an issue that has to be taken seriously 

by schools of education across the board. Under No Child Left Behind science was not a measure. It wasn’t a requirement. So in 

many cases teachers were not encouraged to put a lot of time and 

effort into science education, and I think that has to change. There 

has to be much more emphasis on science and it has to start early. 

Most children by the time they are eight to ten years old already 

have a world view, they already know pretty much what they want 

to be when they grow up. If you don’t have an influence, if they 

don’t have basic understanding of some science or at least the scientific method early they are going to have an education deficiency 

as they try to move up to higher grades. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I think that was why we had asked you to do 

that study. 

There was a full page article in a journal a week ago Saturday 

I think by Chester Finn and he talked about in China for instance 

they go to school 41 more days than we do. He also commented on 

other countries that have Saturday classrooms, Saturday schools. 

He also commented on the number of hours in different countries. 

Does this also have a major impact as far as scores, and I don’t 

want to use the word techniques, but something like that? Because 

if you take off as he said the full summer the school gets out on 

June 10th, doesn’t go back till the day after Labor Day, the memory loss drops off. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well let me give you a case in point in South Korea 

where I just visited. The concern that the president of South Korea, 

Mr. Lee has, is that parents are putting too much emphasis and 

spending too much money on private tutoring for their children. 

The children have hardly any time of their own. They start school 

at 8 o’clock in the morning and they go sometimes till 10 o’clock 

at night, because when they finish the school room part of their 

learning then they go to a private tutor and they spend another 

two or three hours with a private tutor. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
462 

That kind of learning will give you better proficiency scores on 

tests because the tests are pretty much what the students are 

being taught, but a lot of it is learning. 

A few years ago I came to realize that education administrators 

from Singapore were quite concerned because even though they 

were scoring high in math and science in Singapore, they were 

finding that their students once they got into higher education 

were not very creative or not very innovative, and they saw the 

United States as the country where education and creativity and 

innovation was the gold standard, and so they wanted to learn 

from us, and these are the exemplars when you look at just the 

scores of math and science proficiency. They wanted to learn from 

us how to teach creativity and innovation. 

Which gets me back to inquiry-based learning. It is in inquirybased learning and activity-based learning that you teach creativity 

and innovation. That is our strong suit. That is what we ought to 

build on. So we are in complete agreement on that point. That is 

the strength of our education system. And unfortunately we are 

faced with a tyranny of averages as a Nation because we look at 

means. 

One has to recognize that we have the brilliance among our 

young people in this country that can go to an international math 

Olympics and come back with gold medals. They can go to a computer software Olympics and come back with gold medals. They 

can go for a robotics international competition and come back with 

gold medals. So the talent is here. 

Now the challenge is to make education and excellence in education more broadly available, that is where the challenge is. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is a part of that mining those high aptitude 

math and science students, those who have inclinations in this 

area, identifying them and concentrating on them? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well that is being done. Almost every state has 

their own academy or their own institute for bringing in the very 

bright students from around the state and putting them into a residence education program where they are taught by faculty that 

have master’s and Ph.D. levels of education. I mean these are almost like mini universities for the most part. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So the answer is yes, and I didn’t want to take 

up any more of that time, but maybe I will follow up on it. 

Mr. Honda. 

IMPLEMENTING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN OUR EDUCATIONAL

SYSTEM

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The discussion is pretty interesting. Just to continue on this line 

of discussion where you are really promoting and being a champion 

for teaching innovation and creativity, and yet I don’t see where 

you are going with it except to say that we got the information, but 

it is up to other people to do it. 

A question, and I don’t want an answer right now, but the question is then how would you create a process from your point of view 

to operate with the other entities to have a systemic process where 

it will be embedded in our public school systems? That is one question. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
463 

Then you talked about the tyranny of mediocrity I guess, and 

then you say but what we have samples—— 

Dr. BEMENT. No, I didn’t mean that, sir, I meant tyranny of averages. In other words we look at the averages and we believe in the 

averages. You don’t see the variability around the mean. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. The tyranny of average then. And I am not 

quite sure what that tyranny is, maybe you can answer that in 

part of your answer, then how do you make excellence the predominant effort in our system to make it more available if the information you already hold that speaks to excellence is not shared or advocated by your group with the rest of the community in public 

education? 

Dr. BEMENT. Okay. We have clear examples. We have a program 

that is designed—— 

Mr. HONDA. No, I know we got programs. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well let me go on. 

Mr. HONDA. No, no, I want you to answer the question. How do 

you see this becoming infused into our system then? 

Dr. BEMENT. And that is the question I am trying to answer. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Because I will stop you if you say we have 

programs and yet you don’t describe how that program works. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well they start with programs, but to get to your 

question, the math and science partnership is primarily designed 

to bring about systemic change and to improve performance in 

math and science education. And it goes back to my question of 

transitioning and also scalability. 

In other words, within a state—within your state, Chairman 

Mollohan, we have the Math and Science Partnership with West 

Virginia, Kentucky, Southern Ohio. That program has done magnificent work in improving math and science performance. 

Now the question, getting to your point, how do you scale that, 

how do you transition it? You have to work with the states. Because even though this is a national problem and a national issue, 

the responsibility for education is with the state and local areas, 

not with the federal government. So unless the state adopts these 

methods and infuses them in their school systems they are not 

going to be very effective. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I just may insert myself 

again. 

This is based upon the Constitution that the Constitution says 

the states have a primary responsibility for education. Okay. The 

Constitution was written on September 17th, 1787, that was the 

first day of our federal government. They had no departments. And 

so they said it is going to be the responsibility of the states. 

We have developed to a point in 2011 where we could talk to 

each other in real-time as you have said, shrunk this world to a 

point where they could never have conceived it at the time they 

wrote the Constitution. 

Is it not time for us to take hold and understand that the span 

of time that has gone on that we jump to 2011 from the old Constitution and say in spite of that we have to find a way to become 

partners where what we know and understand should be and 

somehow convince the public, what we call the local entities, that 

this is the reason why, and if you can’t understand that you comVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:31 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 056820 PO 00000 Frm 00463 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A820P2.XXX A820P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
464 

plain about other countries, but you have to understand that they 

are not the enemy. 

Dr. BEMENT. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. We are the enemy of our own selves. 

How do you readjust what it is that you know and understand 

in the context of what I just described and make it happen? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, Mr. Honda, politics is the art of dealing with 

values, and what you are raising a question about is how do you 

deal with values in a contemporary society? That is a political activity that has to be determined as part of the national governance—— 

Mr. HONDA. Excuse me. Education and the expenditure of our 

funds for research and development and the knowledge that comes 

out of it becomes something that we have that we are supposed to 

be sharing. Is that not a right to have that shared with the rest 

of our country and rest of our children instead of hiding behind—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, you know, your point is well taken, but you 

were asking how do we make it happen, and the only way I can 

respond to how to make it happen is through the political process. 

Mr. HONDA. In your experience, and sometimes when we accept 

the infrastructure that we have right now, if we accepted the old 

infrastructure we would still be back in the days where we used 

to use people as slaves and things like that. We have changed. Our 

infrastructure has changed. Is it not time to look at the public education as if it were a civil right? 

Dr. BEMENT. No, I think we have to put education under the microscope and really study it very hard and make these determinations. At what stage do we begin to adopt national standards, for 

example? That has been an ongoing question for some time. What 

is the state-federal partnership in education? How do you structure 

the state-federal partnership? That is another key question that 

has to be resolved. How do state governors come together to deal 

with regional systemic initiatives rather than just statewide systemic initiatives? 

In Appalachia, for example, that is a regional initiative. It involves four or five different states. They are taking a regional approach. We need more regional approaches. But again, that is part 

of the political process. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD TO FOLLOW

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Dr. Bement, we have been talking to you here 

this morning about 12 percent of your budget plus whatever you 

are spending on education out of research and related activities. It 

is not that we don’t realize you are doing other things, but you are 

just doing them so well, and so we appreciate that, and we will 

have questions for the record regarding all that and some follow up 

questions along these lines. 

Dr. BEMENT. I would be pleased to respond. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would appreciate that. And I hope that we can 

find some time to sit down and visit with you. 

Dr. BEMENT. I will get that on my calendar. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
465 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes. Have a cup of coffee and talk about this and 

think about ways that we can help do what you think that we 

should do in this area. 

So again, thank you for your testimony here today. Let me repeat 

what a pleasure it has been for me to work with you during a lot 

of those—well all those years actually, I have been on the committee one way or another during that time, and wish you well in 

your future endeavors, which I know will be as successful and as 

impressive as your career up to this point. 

Dr. BEMENT. I hope our paths will cross many times in many 

ways. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I hope so, that would be great. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would certainly benefit from that. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say that I apologize for being what may be considered unkind and unprofessional. I recognize that you are an independent agency, but I think of all the kids across this country, and 

we are sitting here cogitating intellectually about what they go 

through every day, and I know that you think about that, too. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, we have a shared passion. 

Mr. HONDA. Right. And so if the only currency our youngsters go 

to school with is time, and every day that we talk about things that 

should be, that could be, that isn’t, then that is the investment that 

we lose from them and they get nothing out of it. And if we don’t 

start strengthening our systems and pointing out where some of 

the gaps are and suggesting how to fill those gaps on behalf of the 

children then I don’t think we have done our work. 

But it wasn’t directed to you personally. 

Dr. BEMENT. I didn’t take it that way. 

Mr. HONDA. I just wanted to squeeze something out of this hour, 

but I apologize if I offended you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Looks like I was premature in ending the hearing. I hope you haven’t already readjusted. Mr. Wolf has some other questions. 

ICE BREAKER FUNDING

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question and one sort 

of thought. 

But the fiscal year 2010 bill transferred funding for the operation 

of coast guards pulled the ice breaking vessels back to the Coast 

Guard. It is an initiative we have been involved in for years. Your 

fiscal year 2011 budget again requested funding on their NSF. Why 

is that? 

Dr. BEMENT. It was our expectation that based on legislation 

that we would find the Coast Guard putting money into the operation of maintenance of the Polar Sea and also—what was the 

other vessel? And the Healy. 

And so we were all primed to go into the new mode of our operation of paying incremental costs and had thought about our MOU 

with the Coast Guard in those terms; however, we discovered that 

the Coast Guard didn’t put money in their budget for the operation 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
466 

or maintenance of those ships. And since they are essential not 

only for science funded by the Science Foundation, but also NASA 

and NOAA, we felt that we had to preserve the availability of those 

vessels so we put it in our budget. 

Mr. WOLF. Because you would rather it be the other way, but 

since it wasn’t you—— 

Dr. BEMENT. That is right. It was a default decision. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well the other question I want to ask you is 

there a benefit to NSF of having the funds appropriated to NSF 

rather than to the Coast Guard? Then the answer would be it 

should have been the other way, but I understand. 

STATE OF SCHOOLS

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. That is the answer. 

Mr. WOLF. I guess the last thing I wanted to say. Once, again 

thank you for your service to our country. 

I think the concern that I have is that it just doesn’t seem to be 

working as well as it should. 

And you mentioned the Chicago schools. Well the Chicago schools 

have the highest death rate of any school system. They have been 

gunning kids down left and right, Chicago. And I saw this Administration, I saw, you know, the Secretary moved to Arlington County, 

which I represented, because he wanted a good school for his kids. 

Last week I went to a school in the inner city, it was a little 

Christian private school, the kids are scoring really high, they are 

really doing amazing things, and yet this Administration and this 

Congress is cutting off the tuition and grants to them. These are 

all inner city kids who are poor. 

I talked to a single parent who said this was their opportunity, 

this was their way out, and yet so I feel the inconsistencies of saying we are doing this or putting all this in, but yet we just throw 

these inner city kids in. 

Dr. BEMENT. I won’t argue that. One of the very best schools in 

this whole area is in the District, it is at Howard University, it is 

their middle school, their university school, and they take children 

I guess from about 7th grade, it is a middle grade, 6th grade. And 

so it is six to eight, and since they have an open enrollment policy, 

it is required in the District that they have open enrollment, they 

take kids into the school that don’t come anywhere near the mean 

or the average performance of the other kids. Within about a semester they brought them all up to speed. 

By the time they are finished in the middle school the big challenge is what do they do next? I mean they brought them to such 

a high level then where do they go, where do they transfer to finish 

out their high school? But you know, that would be a place to do 

a CODEL or a STAFDEL to go and visit that school and see what 

they do. I think you would be very much impressed. 

We have another example in Alaska believe it or not at the University of Alaska in Anchorage where the issue is how do you get 

to the rural communities in Alaska and teach mathematics so that 

native Alaskans in Barrow or other places, in really remote areas, 

can meet the entrance requirements for university? 

Well what has happened is that the graduate students at—and 

these are native Alaskan graduate students—decided that they 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
467 

would do an online distance learning program where they would 

connect directly with these communities and they would bring in 

the students and they would teach them online. And they developed innovations because they wanted to teach better than they 

were taught. And so they have done some remarkable things, and 

they have overcome that deficit. And this is self-initiated by graduate students. That would be another great STAFDEL. If you ever 

wanted to go to Alaska that would be a great school to look at. 

So those things can happen. If it works in Alaska it should be 

able to work in any EPSCoR state, should be able to work in Hawaii, and should be able to work almost anywhere where you have 

to deal with rural school issues. And that is a best practice. That 

is a best practice that ought to be emulated and replicated. 

Mr. WOLF. Well hopefully when you look at the kids in the inner 

city in some of the schools, and in my area we have great schools. 

Thomas Jefferson is frankly according to the U.S. News and World 

Report the best school in the country, and I think we have to replicate that in the inner city. 

I think we agree you are doing a good job, I worry at times 

though when someone tells me that they are opposed to helping 

kids in the inner city with the tuition help because they want to 

improve their overall schools, but if you are a parent you can’t 

wait. Because if you lose somebody you never get them back in a 

way. And so to say that their children should just wait unless we 

want to happen happens—— 

Dr. BEMENT. No, you can’t wait. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. In the interim. And I just think when 

you come into my—you know where I am from in Philadelphia the 

schools are dysfunctional in parts of it, Chicago, other parts, and 

I just think that is something—just how do we kind of broaden this 

whereby there are the opportunities for everyone. 

Anyway, I will just submit the rest of the question for the record, 

and again wish you the best. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well as I indicated there is a tremendous 

amount of interest in this—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Obviously. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. And I was premature in thinking 

we were closing up, but some really good questions happened after 

I said all those good things about you. 

So let me just—let us refer to the record to see what I said and 

by reference will be the end of the hearing. 

Thank you, Dr. Bement. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
468 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 881 56820B.188
469 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 882 56820B.189
470 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 883 56820B.190
471 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 884 56820B.191
472 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 885 56820B.192
473 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 886 56820B.193
474 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 887 56820B.194
475 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 888 56820B.195
476 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 889 56820B.196
477 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 890 56820B.197
478 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 891 56820B.198
479 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 892 56820B.199
480 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 893 56820B.200
481 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 894 56820B.201
482 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 895 56820B.202
483 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 896 56820B.203
484 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 897 56820B.204
485 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 898 56820B.205
486 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 899 56820B.206
487 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 900 56820B.207
488 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 901 56820B.208
489 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 902 56820B.209
490 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 903 56820B.210
491 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 904 56820B.211
492 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 905 56820B.212
493 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 906 56820B.213
494 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 907 56820B.214
495 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 908 56820B.215
496 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 909 56820B.216
497 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 910 56820B.217
498 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 911 56820B.218
499 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 912 56820B.219
500 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 913 56820B.220
501 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 914 56820B.221
502 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 915 56820B.222
503 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 916 56820B.223
504 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 917 56820B.224
505 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 918 56820B.225
506 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 919 56820B.226
507 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 920 56820B.227
508 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 921 56820B.228
509 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 922 56820B.229
510 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 923 56820B.230
511 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 924 56820B.231
512 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 925 56820B.232
513 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 926 56820B.233
514 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 927 56820B.234
515 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 928 56820B.235
516 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 929 56820B.236
517 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 930 56820B.237
518 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 931 56820B.238
519 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 932 56820B.239
520 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 933 56820B.240
521 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 934 56820B.241
522 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 935 56820B.242
523 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 936 56820B.243
524 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 937 56820B.244
525 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 938 56820B.245
526 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 939 56820B.246
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Bement, A. L., Jr ..................................................................................................... 423 

Bolden, Major General C. F., Jr ............................................................................. 189 

Hill, Dr. Oliver ......................................................................................................... 1 

Holdren, Dr. J. P ...................................................................................................... 107 

Luft, Dr. Julie .......................................................................................................... 55 

Miele, Dr. Eleanor ................................................................................................... 1 

Strang, Dr. Craig ..................................................................................................... 55 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATH (STEM) 

EDUCATION 

Page 

Breaking the Cycle of No Inquiry .......................................................................... 11 

Decline in U.S. Manufacturing ............................................................................... 26 

Education 

Creativity and Innovation ................................................................................ 83 

Crisis .................................................................................................................. 5 

Drivers of Curriculum Choices ........................................................................ 9 

Educational Materials ...................................................................................... 93 

Effective, Accelerated Implementation ........................................................... 24 

Effects of Poverty .............................................................................................. 33 

Eighth Grade Projects ...................................................................................... 29 

English As a Second Language ....................................................................... 33 

Grants ................................................................................................................ 46 

High Stakes Standardized Testing ................................................................. 14 

How We Can Bring About Change .................................................................. 35 

Improving Higher Education ........................................................................... 45 

Mathematics ...................................................................................................... 3 

National Science Education Standards ........................................................... 99 

New Course Development ................................................................................ 13 

Science Teacher Certification .......................................................................... 92 

Standards of Learning ..................................................................................... 84 

Student Assessment ......................................................................................... 99 

Teacher Challenges .......................................................................................... 86 

Teacher Preparation in Science ....................................................................... 88 

Teacher Preparation in Science ....................................................................... 88 

Teacher/Student Rapport ................................................................................. 45 

Teacher Talent .................................................................................................. 25 

Teaching Instead of Retiring ........................................................................... 37 

Test Scores and Science Interest ..................................................................... 43 

Exit Projects and Student Assessment .................................................................. 13 

Historically Black College and Universities (HBCUs) 

Challenges for Young Faculty at ..................................................................... 27 

Role of ................................................................................................................ 4 

Inquiry Based Instruction 

Assessing Student Inquiry ............................................................................... 82 

Building a Cognitive Network ......................................................................... 41 

Doing Science—Inquiry .................................................................................... 9 

English Skills .................................................................................................... 34 

Implementation of ............................................................................................ 78 

Inquiry Skills .................................................................................................... 39 

Instruction and Evaluation .............................................................................. 10 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Inquiry Based Instruction—Continued 

Recommendations through NSF Funding ...................................................... 51 

Student Math Achievement Evaluation ......................................................... 42 

Superiority of..................................................................................................... 23, 77 

Support/Spreading ............................................................................................ 76, 86 

Testing ............................................................................................................... 42 

National Science Foundation 

Funding ............................................................................................................. 11 

National Security Perspective ................................................................................ 36 

Prepared Statements 

Hill, Prof./Chairman Oliver, PhD .................................................................... 6 

Luft, Dr. Julie ................................................................................................... 58 

Miele, Eleanor, PhD ......................................................................................... 16 

Strang, Dr. Craig .............................................................................................. 65 

Schools 

Are Improvements Ready for Broad Implementation ................................... 43 

Building Student Support ................................................................................ 33 

Charter .............................................................................................................. 30 

Local School District Issues ............................................................................. 36 

Math and Science School ................................................................................. 28 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education 

Career Choices .................................................................................................. 11, 23 

Department of Education ................................................................................. 88 

Good Education ................................................................................................. 27 

Importance of .................................................................................................... 84 

Increased Undergraduate Majors .................................................................... 14 

Individual Successes and Pervasive Problems ............................................... 25 

Funding Impact ................................................................................................ 49 

National Security & Production of STEM Professionals ............................... 34 

NSA .................................................................................................................... 35 

Personnel Turnover .......................................................................................... 98 

Reward of STEM Careers ................................................................................ 26 

Rural America ................................................................................................... 28 

Systemic Initiatives .......................................................................................... 97 

Training 

Cognitive Training ............................................................................................ 21 

Innovative Role of Junior Faculty ................................................................... 37 

Inquiry Skills .................................................................................................... 39 

Skills Training Versus Inquiry ........................................................................ 39 

Using Local Resources ............................................................................................. 12 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP) 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............................................................ 153 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 181 

Climate Observing Systems .................................................................................... 163 

Doubling Path for Basic Research Agencies .......................................................... 187 

Exploration Beyond Earth’s Orbit .......................................................................... 176 

International Space Station and Crew Transportation to LEO ........................... 175 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) .................................... 110 

American Leadership ....................................................................................... 134 

Augustine Commission Report ........................................................................ 131 

China ................................................................................................................. 149 

China and Russia ............................................................................................. 126 

Commercialization of Space Exploration ............................................ 134, 141, 170 

Constellation................................................................. 123, 126, 128, 131, 140, 188 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—Continued 

Heavy Lift Capability ....................................................................................... 138 

Hubble Space Telescope ................................................................................... 169 

Human Space Exploration ........................................................................... 125, 168 

International Space Station ............................................................................. 169 

Intelligence ........................................................................................................ 142 

Job Losses ......................................................................................................... 127 

Manned Space Program ................................................................................... 148 

Mars ................................................................................................................... 128 

Planetary Science Program .............................................................................. 138 

Satellites ........................................................................................................ 137, 143 

Vision ..................................................................................................... 139, 146, 147 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS).......................................................................................................... 161, 184 

Ocean Surface Vector Wind (OSVW) observing system ....................................... 162 

Opening Statements 

Holdren, Dr. John ............................................................................................. 108 

Mollohan, Chairman Alan ............................................................................... 107 

Wolf, Ranking Member .................................................................................... 121 

Research and Development ..................................................................................... 171 

Science 

Astrophysics and Heliospheric Physics ........................................................... 161 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) 

Advanced Technology Education ..................................................................... 166 

Education .......................................................................................................... 155 

Inquiry Based Instruction ................................................................................ 164 

Reform ............................................................................................................... 166 

Space Exploration .................................................................................................... 174 

Prepared Statements 

Holdren, Dr. John ............................................................................................. 112 

Questions for the Record 

Mollohan, Chairman Alan ............................................................................... 153 

Wolf, Ranking Member Frank ......................................................................... 174 

Culberson, Representative John ...................................................................... 188 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Aeronautics Research 

Aviation ............................................................................................................. 313 

NextGen ............................................................................................................ 316 

Antideficiency Act (ADA)............................................................................. 249, 250, 367 

Antideficiency Act Prosecutions ...................................................................... 250 

Astronaut 

Commercial Astronaut Launch.................................................................... 237, 272 

Corps .................................................................................................................. 270 

Flight Schedules ............................................................................................... 268 

General Bolden’s Experiences ......................................................................... 220 

Health Risk ....................................................................................................... 213 

Launch Capabilities ......................................................................................... 271 

Positive Effects of Astronaut Visits ................................................................ 304 

Safety ............................................................................................................. 270, 377 

Training Facilities ............................................................................................ 271 

Budget Request 

Authorizations and Obligations ....................................................................... 326 

Cost of Astronaut Flights to Low Earth Orbit ............................................... 218 

FY 2011 Proposals ............................................................................................ 234 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Budget Request —Continued 

NASA’s Budget.............................................................................................. 228, 252 

Objections .......................................................................................................... 219 

President’s ..................................................................................................... 191, 213 

Closing Remarks 

Congressman Fattah ........................................................................................ 263 

Ranking Member Wolf ..................................................................................... 261 

Construction of Environmental Compliance and Restoration 

Constellation 

Constellation Closeout Cost ............................................................................. 257 

Constellation Program.......................................................................... 231, 275, 276 

Constellation Program Continuity .................................................................. 256 

Constellation Program Contracts ........................................................ 220, 251, 366 

Constellation Program Contract Modifications .............................................. 251 

Constellation Program Cancellation Costs ......................................... 242, 275, 278 

Constellation Program Termination ........................................... 191, 213, 236, 353 

Contracts 

Constellation Program Contract Modifications .............................................. 251 

Heavy-Lift Contracts ........................................................................................ 255 

Termination Cost .............................................................................................. 366 

Termination Liability ....................................................................................... 250 

Cooperation with China .......................................................................................... 274 

Cost Overruns in Major Projects ............................................................................ 357 

Cross-Agency Support 

Cybersecurity........................................................................................................ 230, 231 

Deputy Administrator Garvey Speech ................................................................... 238 

Directors Discretionary Funding ............................................................................ 296 

Education 

Budget............................................................................................................ 259, 356 

Middle School Education Efforts ..................................................................... 254 

Retaining Contractor Expertise ....................................................................... 241 

Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) .......................... 297 

Space Grant................................................................................................... 305, 311 

Summer of Innovation ...................................................................................... 297 

Exploration 

Animal Experimentation .................................................................................. 266 

Ares I ..................................................................................................... 215, 245, 371 

Ares V............................................................................................ 243, 245, 251, 371 

Augustine Commission Cost Estimates ...................................................... 247, 377 

Commercial Cargo & Crew Capabilities ..................................................... 261, 382 

Commercial Oriented Approach ...................................................................... 216 

Constellation Closeout Cost ............................................................................. 257 

Constellation Program.......................................................................... 231, 275, 276 

Constellation Program Contracts ........................................................ 220, 251, 366 

Constellation Program Cancellation Costs ......................................... 242, 275, 278 

Constellation Program Termination ........................................... 191, 213, 236, 353 

Exploration Technology........................................................................ 252, 362, 374 

Heavy-Lift Capability ................................................................................... 228, 369 

Heavy-Lift Contract .......................................................................................... 255 

Heavy-Lift Launch and Human Capsule Vehicle .......................................... 235 

Heavy-Lift Technology.................................................................................. 242, 243 

Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle .......................................................... 232, 276, 285, 340 

Heavy-Lift Propulsion Research & Development Program ....................... 203, 229 

Human Exploration and Robotics ................................................................... 233 

Human Launch Capability Timing ................................................................. 218 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Exploration —Continued 

Industrial Base in Solid Rocketry ................................................................... 279 

Leasing .............................................................................................................. 362 

Lost Constellation Program Benefits .............................................................. 214 

Mars ................................................................................................................... 372 

Moon............................................................................................................... 275, 372 

Orbital Science Corporation......................................................................... 380, 381 

President’s Proposal for Space Exploration .................................................... 222 

Robotic Space Exploration............................................................................ 233, 282 

Space Exploration ............................................................................................. 342 

Space X .................................................................................................. 373, 380, 381 

Use of Current Year Exploration Funds ......................................................... 346 

Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) ...................... 375 

Full Time Equivalent .............................................................................................. 329 

Launch Capability ................................................................................................... 228 

Letters Expressing Concern over the Human Spaceflight Program ................... 385 

Opening Remarks 

Administrator Bolden ....................................................................................... 190 

Chairman Mollohan .......................................................................................... 189 

NASA Facilities ........................................................................................................ 286 

Enhanced Use Leasing (EUL) ......................................................................... 290 

Prepared Statements 

NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr ................................................... 194 

Primacy in Spoke ..................................................................................................... 256 

Questions for the Record 

Aderholt (Representative) ................................................................................ 366 

Culberson (Representative) .............................................................................. 362 

Mollohan (Chairman) ....................................................................................... 257 

Schiff (Representative) ..................................................................................... 340 

Wolf (Ranking Member) ................................................................................... 342 

Science 

Astrophysics ...................................................................................................... 253 

Europa Mission ..................................................................................... 235, 244, 245 

GLObal Backscatter Experiment (GLOBE) .................................................... 308 

Hubble Repair ................................................................................................... 234 

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) ...................................................................... 246 

Missions ............................................................................................................. 240 

Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) .............................................................. 246 

Planetary Science ............................................................................................. 234 

Plutonium-238 Production............................................................................ 257, 354 

Space Operations 

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) ............................................................. 283 

Astronaut Transport to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) ............................................ 268 

Buying Russian Launch Services .................................................................... 260 

Center Job Losses ............................................................................................. 224 

Human-Rate Launch Vehicle ........................................................................... 273 

Human Space Flight ........................................................................................ 278 

International Space Station......................................................... 283, 317, 359, 379 

Launch Services ................................................................................................ 284 

Space Shuttle ................................................................................................ 283, 358 

Shuttle Workforce Transition Strategy Report .............................................. 255 

Workforce .......................................................................................................... 223 

Space Summit .......................................................................................................... 254 

Space Technology ..................................................................................................... 322 

Super Computing ..................................................................................................... 295 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

U.S. Leadership in Space .................................................................................... 219, 325 

China and the Moon ..................................................................................... 225, 256 

High Ground (The) ........................................................................................... 235 

Leadership in Human Spaceflight .................................................................. 224 

NASA’s Role/Mission .................................................................................... 234, 264 

President’s Proposal for Space Exploration ................................................ 222, 225 

Review of the New Proposal ............................................................................ 226 

Space Program .................................................................................................. 227 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............................................................ 468 

Appreciation of Dr. Bement................................................................................. 423, 426 

Broad Support of Research ..................................................................................... 424 

Budget 

Authorizations and Obligations ....................................................................... 504 

Doubling the NSF Budget ................................................................................ 423 

President’s FY 2011 Request ........................................................................... 426 

Science Board Support for the 2011 NSF Request ........................................ 442 

China 

Position in the World ....................................................................................... 445 

Maintaining U.S. Global Competitiveness ..................................................... 526 

Climate Research ..................................................................................................... 424 

Collaboration 

Department of Education ................................................................................. 441 

International ..................................................................................................... 444 

Community Colleges ................................................................................................ 479 

Cooperative Relationship Between NSF and School Districts ............................. 459 

Doubling Path .......................................................................................................... 519 

Education 

Education and Human Account Funding Request ......................................... 438 

Implementing Creativity and Innovation ....................................................... 462 

Leveraging Education Funding Across NSF .................................................. 438 

NSF Roles in Improving Science Education ................................................... 460 

State of K to 12 Science Education in the NSF ............................................. 461 

EPSCOR ................................................................................................................... 485 

Funding 

Ice Breakers ...................................................................................................... 465 

GLObal Backscatter Experiment (GLOBE) ........................................................... 510 

Industry Based Education 

Examples of K through 12 Settings ................................................................ 455 

Inquiry Based Education ......................................................................................... 452 

Collaboration with Department of Education ................................................ 458 

Full-Scaled Implementation K to 12 ............................................................... 456 

Funding for Initiatives ..................................................................................... 459 

K through 12 Classrooms ................................................................................. 454 

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction ...................................... 519 

Minority Servicing Institutions .............................................................................. 481 

National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (ARECIBO) .................................... 450 

Long-Term Funding ......................................................................................... 451 

NEON Project .......................................................................................................... 523 

Prepared Statements 

Bement, Dr. Arden L, Jr .................................................................................. 428 

Questions for the Record 

Aderholt, Representative Robert B ................................................................. 525 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

ix 

Questions for the Record—Continued 

Mollohan, Chairman Alan ............................................................................... 468 

Wolf, Ranking Member Frank R ..................................................................... 514 

Research and Development 

Current Perspective .......................................................................................... 489 

Future Perspective ........................................................................................... 501 

State of U.S. Investment in Science and Engineering .................................. 442 

Research Vessels ...................................................................................................... 483 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) 

Education Reform ......................................................................... 424, 469, 514, 525 

Examples of Effective STEM Education ......................................................... 446 

Firm Directive for Integrating STEM Education Across Society ................. 448 

Integrating STEM Research and Education Across Government ................ 447 

Role of NSF ....................................................................................................... 439 

State of Schools ........................................................................................................ 466 

Stimulus Programs .................................................................................................. 517 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING