U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–569 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1197 

UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS THROUGH 

BASIC RESEARCH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND 

INNOVATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 19, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada, Ranking 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 19, 2007 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Statement of Senator Sununu ................................................................................ 6 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Bement, Jr., Dr. Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation ..................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Jeffrey, Dr. William A., Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ............... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

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

Executive Office of the President ........................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to: 

Dr. William A. Jeffrey ...................................................................................... 51 

Dr. John Marburger III .................................................................................... 51 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to: 

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. ................................................................................. 53 

Dr. John Marburger III .................................................................................... 52 

(1) 

UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS 

THROUGH BASIC RESEARCH 

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND

INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. This hearing will come to order. 

Good morning, thank you, all of our witnesses, for being here, we 

appreciate it very, very much. 

Everybody here understands what our basic research and innovation means to our economy. Fifty percent of our economic growth 

in the last half century is due to scientific breakthroughs and technological innovation. And most of our productivity comes from it. 

Our competitors know this also, and that’s why increasingly, in 

other countries, they’ve been dedicating more and more of their resources to compete with us, and some of them are catching up. In 

Europe, Japan, and China, there’s a very specific, intensive dedication to investments in science and engineering. 

We’re here today because we believe that America can improve 

our competitiveness posture through basic research, and ensuring 

that our students remain capable of advancing the fields of technology, science and engineering. 

Inexplicably, the Administration has, over the last years, eliminated or cut funding for some of our most successful programs, and 

I’m not sure why. They have persisted in attempting to cut funds 

for the highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 

and the Advanced Technology Program. 

Notwithstanding scores of success stories that have been generated from these fairly modest Federal investments. There’s a 

company in Massachusetts, now the number one exporter of LCD 

displays to Japan, which used an ATP partnership to create jobs 

and growth, in fact, an ATP partnership led to the creation of the 

digital mammogram. 

In my judgment it makes no sense to cut a program that retains 

and creates high-paying, high-tech jobs, when we know that Asian 

2 

and the European Community are implementing large-scale, longrange, R&D projects. 

The bottom line is that a national budget ought to reflect your 

values and your priorities, but the choices in the budget today, 

many of us feel, will have a negative impact on our Nation’s ability 

to innovate and compete. 

Over the past years, we have had the opportunity to sustain 

American competitiveness in the world economy in a number of different ways. But the investments have not supported those opportunities. 

I don’t suggest that Government policy can or should singlehandedly dictate events, or the course of choices in the marketplace. We had that debate, probably in the 1980s here with President Reagan, and we all concluded that we’re not trying to pick 

winners, and we’re not trying to create losers. And that’s not our 

role. 

But, clearly the impact of Government investment has been proven to make a profound difference to the framework within which 

private sector choices are made. Perhaps, you know, one of the obvious classic examples of that is the Internet itself, which came out 

of Government research. The private sector saw the opportunities 

and took it and ran with it. 

There are many other such examples. There are also countless 

examples of mainstream consumer products that have come out of 

Government research and programs themselves, the Space Program is a classic example of that. 

Personally, I join with those who put their faith in the American 

entrepreneur and the American worker. But, it is clear that other 

governments are leveraging, to the greatest degree possible, their 

opportunities within the marketplace. There is much that we can 

do. 

I know that when I traveled, for instance, to Hong Kong and met 

with our foreign commercial service personnel, they were really 

frustrated at the absence of a significant Federal commitment to 

their ability to go out and compete for the RFPs that were being 

presented by countries in the region. 

And, indeed, many other countries were providing very significant resources, and very significant physical resources, to allow 

them to meet with different parties, and it was their conclusion, 

not mine, but their conclusion that we were losing billions of dollars of business as a consequence of our myopia. 

We’ve heard all the alarm bells sound now. Corporate leaders 

like Bill Gates have called our high schools ‘‘obsolete’’ even when 

they’re working perfectly. I’ve heard from executives at mid-sized 

manufacturing firms who say they’ve cut costs dramatically, but 

they still can’t compete. There are a lot of different ingredients of 

that, but part of it is this increasing joint venturing that’s taking 

place in a lot of countries in terms of basic research, science, technology, and even bringing products to market. 

Norm Augustine and his group from the National Academies say 

that our Nation risks falling behind, unless we make a comprehensive investment in our scientific eco-system. 

This Committee, along with others in the Senate, has responded. 

Chairman Inouye, and Vice Chair Stevens have worked with other 

3 

Committees to craft comprehensive competitiveness legislation. Our 

Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Ensign, has been a leader 

in this effort as well. I’ve joined as a cosponsor of this bill, and we 

expect floor consideration soon. 

The bill calls for increased investments in basic research, NSF, 

at NIST and the Department of Energy. It also addresses the need 

for better science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education from kindergarten through graduate school, and re-commits 

the Government to high-risk research. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the budgets and 

programs of our Federal science agencies. Before us are the Nation’s preeminent science and technology agencies, and we welcome 

you here. You have broad expertise, and your programs, from nanotechnology and information technology to climate change and hightech, provide important opportunities for strengthening the American economy. 

Speaking of climate change, the world is finally awakening to the 

grave threat that climate change poses. When major corporations 

from IBM to General Electric, Bruce Petroleum, 3M, DuPont, Dow 

Chemical and others are all calling for a Government response to 

the need to price carbon, and to begin to move in that direction 

with greater technology, it’s significant. 

Rather than sit idly by, as I’m afraid the Administration has 

done for almost 7 years, other nations have taken significant action, and are reducing their fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. We need to challenge ourselves to do what is important to our own economic future, as well as our health, safety, 

and security. 

There’s an enormous economic opportunity staring us in the face, 

and others are more aggressively pursuing that than we are. Witness what happened with photovoltaic alternative renewables, and 

the loss of our lead to Japan and Germany, because we basically 

refused to fuel the research that we committed to in the late 1970s. 

Companies that provide greener products, you can see it in General Electric’s ecoimagination advertising, you can see it in their 

revenues, with more efficient batteries, cleaner engines, more efficient appliances, and electronics that consume less, these are going 

to be the companies that prosper. 

Our challenge is to fund research and development that can enable a green product revolution and to educate the students who 

can invent, manufacture, and service these products. 

So, we look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel, Dr. 

Marburger, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, 

thank you for being here, doctor, and Dr. Arden Bement, Director 

of the National Science Foundation, and Dr. Bill Jeffrey, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Senator Ensign? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I’m very excited that our competitiveness bill will 

be on the floor, very soon. Although we cannot predict the exact 

timing, whether it will be later today, tonight, or early next week 

4 

sometime, the bottom line is that the full Senate will consider and 

hopefully pass our competitiveness bill very soon. 

A lot of work went into that bill last year. I appreciate Senator 

Inouye working with Senator Stevens on this Committee, as well 

as the leaders of the HELP Committee, and the Energy Committees, all working together on this bill. This bill is really one of the 

more remarkable work products that has come out in a bipartisan 

fashion in a long time. 

I was put in charge by Senator Frist last year, of trying to bring 

all of those groups together, and trying to just bring three Committees—forget Republicans and Democrats—trying to bring three 

Committees together to work on the same product and actually 

come up with something that all three of the Committee chairmen 

and ranking members would cosponsor, as well as both of the leaders, and then to bring virtually the same product back in this Congress, have both of our leaders cosponsor the bill and bring it directly to the floor so we didn’t have to go through more machinations this year, it’s very exciting. A big part of the bill is what we 

are here to discuss today, and that is addressing the basic research 

needs that we have in the United States. 

Anybody who looks at my record knows that I’m one of the most 

fiscally conservative people in the United States Senate. But there 

are places where the Federal Government can actually invest strategically, to where you get huge returns in tax revenues in the future, and also huge economic returns. And, there’s no better place 

to look at that, than in high-risk, basic research. 

Since the mid-1990s, we have dramatically increased the funding 

levels in the life sciences, but we have not kept up those increases 

in funding levels in the physical sciences. That is really a lot of 

what today’s hearing is about, hearing from all of you folks and 

getting direct testimony on this issue. 

Now, we have to make sure that when we’re doing this that we 

are always using taxpayer dollars, in the way that maximizes the 

benefit. I don’t care how much you increase science budgets by, if 

you don’t use the dollars correctly, you will not get the appropriate 

bang for the buck. So we want to make sure that as we’re going 

through this process that we are investing in those types of research grants that have the potential to yield the most results in 

the long term. Of course, with any basic research, you never know 

what’s going to be the end result of the research, but you want to 

have the processes properly set up and in place. I know that a lot 

of that has been done in the past, but we want to continue to 

streamline it, and improve it in ways where we invest in the types 

of research that have the potential to yield the most results. 

So, I’m excited about this whole process. Basic research is about 

keeping America competitive in the world. Basic research produces 

large amounts of jobs, as we go forward and then let the companies 

conduct the applied research, and bring exciting products to the 

market. We’re not saying that we know which one of the basic research projects that are being funded today is going to be the next 

disruptive technology of the future that is going to totally revolutionize the economy. 

We just have no idea what specifically will emerge ‘‘out of basic’’ 

research conducted today. But companies in the private sector canVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
5 

not afford to fund that kind of basic research, really, only the Government can. So, I’m excited about today’s hearing, and working on 

this project, and seeing how we can keep America competitive in 

the 21st century. 

And a big part of this—as you’ve mentioned, Mr. Chairman—is 

education. You know, it’s great to have the research, but if we’re 

not, educating the next generation of engineers, if we’re not inspiring young people then we will be in trouble. We have the finest colleges and universities in the world. People from all over the world 

have wanted to come here. Now, that is changing. Other countries 

are catching up to us even in the university setting, but we still— 

at this point in time—have the finest universities in the world. 

Unfortunately, in Kindergarten through 12th grade, we do not 

have the best system for teaching the STEM fields. We’re not inspiring our young people to love math and science, and we’re not 

doing a good job of teaching. We’ve done hearings in the HELP 

Committee and in this Committee, on some of the things that we’re 

not doing right. We really need to figure out how to improve our 

STEM education for the future of our American workforce and so 

that we have those kinds of people that create the jobs for everybody else. 

One of the statistics that several experts mention is that 4 percent of the population is going to create the other 96 percent of 

jobs. A lot of the jobs in both categories are in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, and so we have to 

make sure that we are providing the kind of educational opportunities, that we need to enable American students to succeed. I agree 

with Bill Gates, we have to dramatically re-think what we are 

doing in Kindergarten through 12th grade to get our children on 

the right paths toward a bright educational future. 

So, thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Ensign. Thank 

you for your leadership, again, as I said, I know you’ve been involved, and it’s been fun working with you on a lot of this stuff. 

We’re pleased to have the Chairman of the full Committee here, 

who has helped lead us to get that bill ready to be on the floor, 

and Senator Inouye, thank you for that. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, I wanted to be here, Mr. 

Chairman, to demonstrate my support for the work being conducted by this Subcommittee. 

A few weeks ago I read an article that was a bit frightening. It 

indicated that one-third of fourth graders in the United States performed at or above a level deemed proficient, and about a fifth of 

eighth graders lacked the competency to perform basic mathematic 

computations. In this country, only 32 percent of Americans graduate with college degrees in science and engineering, and at the 

same period, in China, the Chinese graduated more than 600,000 

engineers, India, 350,000, and we had less than 70,000. 

I think something must be done to change these trends, and I’m 

here to give my support, sir. 

6 

Thank you very much. May I have the rest of my statement included? 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Our economy’s strength derives from our competitiveness as a nation in the fields 

of emerging technologies. The genius and painstaking work of our scientists, and the 

hard-won government funding for research and development, are investments that 

have paid dividends not only in world class peer-reviewed scientific papers but also 

in cutting edge technologies that keep America competitive in the global marketplace. 

America’s young people are surrounded by an array of these sophisticated technologies. They use these complex gadgets with ease and confidence for both study 

and play. Unfortunately, we have heard the warnings from Norm Augustine and his 

National Academy of Sciences panel in Rising Above the Gathering Storm that our 

technologically sophisticated youth are slipping behind their international competitors when it comes to discovering and building the next generation of products. 

Although it seems that every month there is a new ‘‘best’’ cell phone or MP3 player that every teenager wants, how many of those teenagers actually understand the 

science behind wireless communications technology, or what it takes to develop the 

applications and operating systems that actually make the phone, and the network, 

for that matter, operational? 

This pattern is far more pervasive than simply cell phones and teenagers. Less 

than one-third of U.S. fourth graders performed at or above a level deemed ‘‘proficient’’ and about one-fifth of eighth graders lacked the competency to perform basic 

math computations. In the United States, only 32 percent graduate with college degrees in science and engineering. 

In 2004, while China graduated more than 600,000 engineers and India graduated 350,000 engineers; the United States graduated less than 70,000 engineers. 

We must take action today to turn these trends around if we are to stay competitive tomorrow. 

As the researchers of today retire, and reports to Congress indicate that they will 

be retiring in large numbers during the next few years; there must be a next generation to take their places. That means we need to educate our children so they 

can do more than talk about the science. They need to be able to do the science. 

Further, scientists, like any other member of our workforce, go to where the jobs 

are. That means we need to have the world-class laboratories and facilities necessary to tackle a new generation of questions and challenges, and those laboratories and facilities need to be here in America. 

These two key issues formed the backbone of this Committee’s work on comprehensive competitiveness legislation, S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, and 

will be the lens through which we view the Fiscal Year 2008 U.S. research and development budget. I look forward to working with you in the year ahead as we make 

these issues our top priority. 

Senator KERRY. Without objection, absolutely. The Chairman can 

have whatever the Chairman wants. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your 

taking the time to come here and share that with us. 

Senator Sununu? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let 

me begin by saying that it really is important to be having this 

hearing and this discussion. We had at least one similar hearing 

last year—the more, the better—because of the importance of basic 

mathematics and science to our economy on the broadest scale. And 

I think you described that quite accurately in your opening comments. 

7 

Second, let me underscore that I appreciate the amount of time 

and effort spent in developing the competitiveness legislation that 

is scheduled to be introduced in the Senate, in the coming weeks. 

I know there was a very sincere effort to make that bill comprehensive, to try to address a number of recommendations that have 

been put forward by the Administration, by independent groups, 

and by Members of Congress as well—we all have our priorities. 

And, I’ll begin by talking about the most important goals of that 

legislation, which I strongly support, and have supported for some 

time, and spoken about as far back as 5 or 8 years ago, when I was 

a member of the House of Representatives. That is, first and foremost, doubling the amount of money committed to the National 

Science Foundation for peer-reviewed research. It is the best, 

strongest, most effective vehicle we have for advancing basic 

science, in the United States and around the world. High-risk basic 

research has very long time horizons for payback, and the benefits 

are very widely distributed, and they are not areas that capital 

markets, or venture capitalists or others in the private sector can 

really accurately forecast. And that’s why the Government has a 

responsibility in this area. 

Second, increasing the Office of Science within the Department of Energy which is also involved in this basic research, from $3.6 

billion to over $5 billion in the coming 5 years. 

Third, increasing our commitment to the National Laboratories, 

that are, really, the crown jewels in terms of the physical infrastructure necessary to do this important research. Those are critical, essential goals, extremely valuable achievements that are set 

out in the competitiveness legislation. 

However—and there is a very, very important ‘‘however’’ here— 

I’m very concerned that—because there were so many hands in it, 

perhaps, because there are competing interests, because there were 

four or five Committees in the Senate alone, with jurisdiction—its 

effectiveness will be diluted. We’ve seen a proliferation of programs 

and ideas in there that I am principally concerned will take away 

from the focused mission in each of these three areas: Office of 

Science, National Science Foundation, National Laboratories. Instead of maximizing the funding available for peer-reviewed research in physics and chemistry and material science and computational mathematics, this legislation would begin the process of 

carving out specific fiefdoms for programmatic funding. 

And whether it’s for education and human resources, or for behavioral sciences—anything that is not geared directly toward that 

mission of peer-reviewed science, carries the risk of diluting the 

power and the importance of these institutions, for these important 

goals we share. 

I’m extremely concerned about that, these institutions can provide great axis for educational programs, especially for college and 

graduate level work in the math and science fields, but their focus 

needs to remain on the peer-reviewed work. And, I’m very much inclined to try to offer some amendments to make sure we get back 

to that focus and that emphasis. 

Second, as Senator Kerry mentioned, we shouldn’t be picking 

winners and losers in private markets where there are commercial 

operations and commercial players. And, I suppose there’s an honVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
8 

est disagreement, what constitutes picking winners and losers, but 

I will pick up on the example Senator Kerry gave, and this is an 

area of disagreement, and I don’t want to get bogged down here, 

I just want to present a slightly different viewpoint on the Advanced Technology Program. 

You mentioned an example of an LCD manufacturer, it’s a great 

industry, I’m sure it’s a terrific company. But, they are manufacturing commercial products for sale in the United States and 

around the world, and any time that we provide a grant to a company manufacturing products for commercial sale, we are picking 

winners and losers, because that means there are some companies 

manufacturing similar, or even the same products for commercial 

sale that won’t get the grant. 

And, at the same time, I recognize the Federal Government does 

a lot of this. But we need to be very concerned anywhere there are 

direct grants or subsidies going to people engaged in competitive 

commercial activity. And that, to me, is picking winners and losers. 

And, we need to do everything possible to minimize or avoid that 

kind of intervention in competitive markets—again, anywhere 

we’re doing work—but in this legislation, in particular, there are 

some programs created in the competitiveness bill, recreated, that 

would do just that. 

And, again, any time we are doing that—intervening in commercial markets—we’re diluting resources, and limiting resources that 

could go to physics and chemistry, computational mathematics and 

material science—basic peer-reviewed scientific research. 

Third, is this issue of education—trying to encourage our educational systems to produce more students interested in science 

and mathematics and engineering. I don’t know if it’s a good thing 

or a bad thing that I speak from some experience, because I’m the 

only member of the U.S. Senate with a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering. But, maybe that makes me biased, maybe that makes me 

more knowledgeable, I don’t know the answer to that question. 

But it is my personal experience that individuals, men and 

women, pursue education in engineering at college because they 

are, they find that they are interested in math and science in high 

school. And that interest in math and science that comes to fruition 

in high school, or really begins—I shouldn’t say comes to fruition, 

but is inspired in high school—doesn’t even begin in high school, 

it really begins in 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. That’s where a 

young girl or a young boy realizes, ‘‘This is interesting, this is exciting. I enjoy math and science, I’m good at it, and when I get to 

high school I’ll look forward to taking math and science classes.’’ 

And, if it doesn’t happen in 6th or 7th or 8th grade, it’s not going 

to happen when they’re a junior or senior in high school. 

So, if you really want to do something about creating engineers, 

you don’t create programs necessarily for post-graduate students in 

material science—that doesn’t encourage more engineers. It might 

be an important program for a post-graduate electrical engineering 

student, but if you want to get more post-graduate electrical engineering students, you need to get more electrical engineering undergraduates. And if you want more electrical engineering undergraduate students, you need to get them interested in math and 

science in 6th and 7th and 8th grade. 

9 

So, a huge burden here has to be on our K through 12 system. 

And whether it’s inspiration through the Department of Education 

in math and science in K through 12, or the corporate leaders that 

come to Washington that complain that we don’t have enough math 

and science students getting more involved at the local level, to inspire math and science focused curriculum—those are all good 

ideas, and those ought to be pursued. But, we need to recognize 

that the inspiration process occurs much earlier. 

Senator Inouye had it exactly right—the scary statistics are the 

proficiency in 4th grade, and proficiency in 8th grade. And if only 

a third are proficient in 4th or only half are proficient in 8th, you’re 

going to get fewer math and science students in high school, in college. That’s just a basic fact. So, for in terms of inspiration, and 

encouraging more to pursue this field, we have to deal with those 

numbers that Senator Inouye talked about. 

I think we need to remain focused on the basics, we need to act 

as aggressive as possible at pursuing these goals for doubling NSF 

funding, Office of Science funding, and National Laboratory funding, and we need to remain true to our mission. 

One final thought about the educational effort. The Academic 

Competitiveness Council put out its initial findings in March. They 

looked at all of our science, technology, engineering and math education programs in the Federal Government. And, on the one hand, 

I think we can say we’re pleased to find there are lots of them. On 

the other hand, they’re not necessarily—as the Council found—as 

focused as they should be, there are duplication and overlaps, there 

is not necessarily the follow-through that there should be. 

A dozen in the Department of Agriculture, seven in the Department of Commerce, eight in the Department of Defense, 12 in Education, 34 in the National Science Foundation, six in the Department of Transportation, five in the Department of Health and 

Human Services and so on—all of these programs focused on 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. And what I 

don’t think we’ve done in the competitiveness bill is look at these 

programs, and find out ways to strengthen them and improve 

them, and make sure they’re focused on the goals that we do share, 

that absolutely come to us across party lines. 

So, I hope that we’ll do more to look at how those programs are 

implemented. If we look at the programs in the target areas that 

they have, of that list of programs, 57 of them focus on under-represented populations, 39 focus on teachers, 60 focus on practitioners, 61 on undergraduate students who are majors, 21 on undergraduate students who are non-majors, 51 on graduate studies. 

So we can see that there is a lot of duplication, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we want to make sure that their efforts 

are as complementary as possible, where we have multiple programs. 

I know that’s a tall order, you’ve been very generous with the 

time, Mr. Chairman, I just think it’s important that we emphasize, 

even as we pursue the right goals, and the right levels of funding, 

we want to make sure that we stay as focused as possible. No legislation is perfect, and even when, where we have legislation, we’re 

going to have some disagreement on what you might put in the bill 

and what I might put in the bill, but I think there’s so much agreeVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
10 

ment here, and so much consensus about the importance of this 

issue, we ought to be able to improve it before it finally goes to the 

President. 

Thank you very much, you were very, very generous with the 

time, and I appreciate that. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Senator Sununu. We do want to get 

to our witnesses, I want to just make one comment on the ATP, 

but Senator Thune, do you want to make any comment, or are 

you—? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this 

hearing. I think this is an important subject, and it’s obviously a 

tough issue for us to get our arms around because there isn’t a single policy that’s going to keep us competitive. As the world leader 

in science, innovation, and entrepreneurship, I think we have to be 

continually focusing on fostering math, science, and basic research 

at our schools and universities in order to stay on top, and we also 

have to ensure that we’ve got good tax rates, regulatory regimes, 

and legal environments that aren’t so onerous that we lose businesses and jobs to other countries. 

We aren’t creating our policy in a vacuum, and if we don’t get 

it right, some other country will, and we will lose businesses and 

jobs to that country. 

Again, I appreciate you holding this hearing, I think this is an 

important subject, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

and I have a couple of questions when that time comes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KERRY. Great. 

Well, we’re going to go fairly rapidly to—I do want to just comment on one thing if I can on the ATP, and I don’t want to engage 

in a long, drawn-out debate. 

When I was Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, I sat ex officio on a board called the Mass Technology Development Corporation, and we were specifically charged with allocating certain funding to venture startup efforts using state money for projects that 

simply couldn’t get funded in the private sector—they were very 

high-risk, they were very long-distant future for returns, but it was 

a promising field. 

And our charge was, specifically, to sort of make a selection between those kinds of projects, which we did, and the minute—if 

they were successful, that they showed that success, an ability to 

stand on their own, we withdrew. The Government got out of it, 

and the normal capital market process would take over. 

I’m pleased to say that there are a number of companies today 

on the big board that have provided enormous job base and significant revenues to our state that would otherwise not have been 

funded if we hadn’t done that. And, I think we did it with a sensitivity to this notion of not picking, you know, specific winner or 

loser, but taking a project in a sector that couldn’t get funded. 

Now, ATP has had the very, very similar kind of charge here. It 

fills a national need, broad-based innovation requirements for the 

Nation. And, sure an ATP participant benefits from this. But, they 

11 

put up the majority of the funding. And, they’re taking huge risk, 

which otherwise the private sector won’t fund. 

Now, it’s good and well to sit here and say, ‘‘Well, the private 

marketplace ought to do this,’’ but they don’t. Everybody knows it. 

There’s only so much private capital, there’s a capital pool that 

goes out there, there’s a certain risk they’re willing to take. The 

fact is that we have repaid, in the tax base of our country, more 

times over, many times, what we’ve put up. 

So, if you want to talk about return on investment, and smart 

leverage, this has been about as smart a leverage program as there 

is. And the ATP selection criteria require that the potential benefits of projects be broad-reaching, not narrow, incremental improvements, but broad-reaching improvements that spill out into the rest 

of the economy. And significantly, it’s been extensively reviewed 

since its inception. 

There have been more—there have been the General Accounting 

Office has conducted 14 studies, 10 studies have been completed by 

the Department of Commerce’s Inspector General former Secretary 

of Commerce Bill Daly sponsored a 60-day study, the National 

Academy of Science’s National Research Council published ATP 

Challenges and Opportunities in 1999, and ATP Assessing Outcomes, in 2001. 

In addition, 25 studies have been conducted by ATP’s Economic 

Assessments Office and they have all—all—revealed that the ATP 

does not, does not fund projects that otherwise would have been financed in the private sector. Rather, the ATP have funded the socalled Valley of Death projects, those that just couldn’t find the financing otherwise. 

And in June of 2001, the National Academy of Science, National 

Research Council completed its comprehensive review, and they 

found that it’s an effective Federal partnership, funding new technologies that contribute to important societal goals. 

I could go on and on and on—I’m not going to now, but I really 

think that given that kind of a record, and we can get into this a 

little bit, it’s hard to understand why somebody would zero-fund it. 

Measured against the unbelievable successes that we’ve had. 

So, you know, it’s worthy of a debate—all of these things are 

worthy of debate, but the facts are facts, and the record is the 

record, and it’s pretty darn hard to ignore, sort of, the sensitivity 

with which it’s been constructed, the requirements are very rigorous for who can participate and how, and what the benefits have 

been. 

I know we wanted to try to get here, Senator Pryor, did you want 

to make any quick comment, because we do want to try to, you 

know, thanks, very much. 

Dr. Marburger, if you’d lead off, we’d appreciate it very much. 

And your full testimonies can be placed in the record, if you want 

to summarize, we can get to have a good dialogue here, and that’d 

be helpful. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. MARBURGER. Thank you, I will do that. 

12 

And thank you very much, Chairman Kerry, and Ranking Member Ensign, members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to 

present the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 research and development 

budget. 

And I also want to thank the Committee on behalf of the Administration for the good working relationship that it has established 

with the science agencies, and with my office. And I look forward 

to working together on the important task of fostering innovation 

and competitiveness. We agree on the thrust of the principles, I believe. 

As you know, President Bush has proposed a Federal budget that 

will balance in 5 years. By continuing strong pro-growth economic 

policies, and by holding non-security discretionary spending below 

inflation. And that requires establishing priorities, and allocating 

resources to achieve the greatest impact. 

Winning the war on terror, securing the homeland, strengthening 

the economy remain the President’s top priorities, and this year’s 

budget, once again, proposes investments in America’s future competitiveness through research and development. The President is proposing a $142.7 billion Federal R&D budget, that’s another record-breaking budget, an increase of $5.5 billion 

over his 2007 proposal. And within this record-breaking top line 

amount, are increases in categories of funding that are important 

for broad national goals, including innovation and competitiveness. 

In this budget, non-defense research increases at a higher rate 

than the rest of the discretionary budget, expanding once again, 

this year, the science share of available funds to 13.9 percent, it’s 

unprecedented. 

Growth in non-defense R&D, important for civilian productivity, 

during this Administration has been substantial, and there’s a 

chart in my written testimony in the record. 

The basic research category, which includes Department of Defense 61 funds, also grows in this budget, by nearly a billion dollars, from $27.5 billion to $28.4 billion. The indicator called Federal 

Science and Technology, which includes DOD 61 and 62 funds, increases by $1.5 billion, relative to the President’s 2007 proposal. 

Many of these increases come from follow-through on the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative last year, and further 

commitments to R&D this year to diversify America’s energy supply. 

The ACI does set education as well as research priorities, and it 

focuses funds accordingly. The overarching research priority in the 

ACI is innovation-enabling basic research in physical science and 

engineering. Multi-year funding targets are set for NSF, NIST research, and DOE’s Office of Science, which has been mentioned 

here. The Fiscal Year 2008 budget calls for a 7.2 percent increase 

for these agencies, on top of the 9.3 percent increase the President 

requested in Fiscal Year 2007. This additional $764 million would 

bring the two-year ACI research incremental investment to $2.6 

billion. 

Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2007 Continuing Resolution process only provided half of the first year ACI budget increase requested, $452 million short of the President’s request. And, I do 

hope we can catch up this year. 

13 

This program responds to a very strong call from the Nation’s 

high-tech community, as you’ve noted, Mr. Chairman whose recent 

American Innovation Proclamation—a very nice summary, I would 

say of our mutual goals—summarizes exactly the principles of the 

President’s initiative. The Proclamation has been endorsed by hundreds of American business and higher education leaders, and it 

preserves the focus and the priorities that are so important to the 

American Competitiveness Initiative. 

This budget contains substantial investments in research and 

other important areas that are described in more detail in my written testimony. It sustains budgets for climate change and science 

and technology, it includes funding to improve Earth observations 

capabilities in areas such as ocean observing, earthquake monitoring and prediction, tsunami warnings. It provides funds for the 

Landsat Data Continuity mission, the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission, launches a new Ocean Initiative, with over $80 

million. 

The Advanced Energy Initiative in this budget, that, Department 

of Energy is increased by 26 percent, to $2.7 billion, accelerating 

clean electricity generation technologies. This year the AEI includes over $700 million in basic research at DOE’s Office of 

Science, a 32 percent increase, to overcome major technical barriers, the use of solar, biomass, hydrogen and fusion. 

We have other initiatives—the National Nanotechnology Initiative continues to grow, biomedical research would receive $431 million in new funds over the 2007 request, and so forth. 

Let me just finish this rapid and incomplete overview by expressing a concern about NASA, and the budget danger that lies ahead 

for this agency. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget includes a 3.1 percent 

increase for NASA in 2008, on top of the 3.4 percent the President 

requested for 2007. But, unfortunately, once again, the CR held 

NASA more than a half a billion dollars below the President’s request, which causes great stress on that agency, and we’re concerned about that. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this year’s R&D budget proposal 

does provide robust levels of investment that will allow America to 

maintain its leadership position in science, and move ahead in selected priority areas. 

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on these points. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am pleased to appear before you today to present the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 

research and development (R&D) budget. Although this is my first appearance before the Committee under the new Congressional leadership, I am aware that this 

Committee has expressed bipartisan support for science funding in the past, and 

values scientific research and its applications for the benefits it brings to every part 

of our society. On behalf of the Administration, I thank the Committee for the good 

working relationship it has established with the science agencies and with my office, 

and look forward to working together in the future to advance American innovation 

and competitiveness. 

14 

This year, President Bush presents a Federal Budget that will balance in 5 years. 

The President proposes to do this by continuing strong pro-growth economic policies 

and by holding non-security discretionary spending below inflation. This strategy inevitably requires establishing priorities and allocating resources to achieve the 

greatest impact. Winning the war on terror, securing the homeland and strengthening the economy remain the President’s top priorities, and this year’s budget once 

again emphasizes investments in America’s future competitiveness through research 

and development. The President is proposing a record $142.7 billion 2008 Federal 

R&D Budget, an increase of $5.5 billion over his 2007 Budget. And the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that 2008 non-defense 

Federal R&D is increased by over 2.1 percent in the President’s Budget, much better than overall non-defense discretionary spending. The President’s commitment to 

the government’s R&D enterprise is strong, and the advancement of science remains 

among his top budget priorities. 

While significant increases have occurred for defense-related development—most 

of the ‘‘D’’ in R&D—it is important to be aware of the very significant growth during 

this Administration in non-defense research spending, as shown in the accompanying chart. 

Non-defense R&D has continued on a significantly upward trajectory. In fact, with 

President Bush’s 2008 Budget, real growth in outlays for the conduct of non-defense 

R&D—i.e. corrected for inflation—is up 26.5 percent during the 7-years of this Administration. 

The 2008 Budget also raises funding for the category of Basic Research almost 

$1 billion above the most currently calculated level of 2006: $28.4 billion compared 

to $27.5 billion. This is a direct indication of the Administration’s strong focus on 

fundamental research and the discovery of new knowledge as a leading mission of 

the Federal Government. It is notable that this favorable treatment of Basic Research is occurring in a year of belt-tightening for many other domestic programs, 

indicating the high priority this Administration places on the importance of this activity. 

Basic Research, by itself, however, is not the complete measure of investment activities that drive future innovation. The accounting category known as the Federal 

Science and Technology Budget emphasizes both basic and applied science and engineering research short of development, and thus captures other important activities 

underpinning competitiveness. The Federal S&T Budget advances $1.3 billion in 

2008 relative to 2006 funding levels, and when only civilian S&T agencies are considered, it represents a 4 percent increase. If Congress fully supports the President’s 

2008 request, Federal science and technology investment will increase $1.5 billion 

from the President’s own 2007 Budget. 

These very positive historical trends directly reflect the launch of the American 

Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) last year and further commitment to the importance of research and development to diversify America’s energy supply in this 


419MARB1.eps
15 

year’s State of the Union address. This focus on research and development, science 

and math education, and advanced energy solutions directly supports our National 

goals of protecting the homeland, educating our children and making the economy 

strong. 

The American Competitiveness Initiative establishes clear research and education 

priorities and focuses increased funding accordingly. The overarching ACI research 

priority is innovation-enabling physical science and engineering research. As the 

next chart illustrates, ACI funding increases under this priority are targeted to 

three science agencies, including two under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee— 

the National Science Foundation and the laboratories of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology—as well as DOE’s Office of Science. The 2008 Budget 

calls for a 7.2 percent increase on top of 2007’s 9.3 percent requested increase. This 

additional $764 million brings the total two-year ACI Research incremental investment to $2.6 billion. I want to note that the recently released ‘‘American Innovation 

Proclamation—a package of consensus recommendations by American business and 

higher education leaders—calls for the doubling of the ACI research agencies. 

Unfortunately, the 2007 Continuing Resolution only provided 50 percent of the 

first-year ACI budget increase. That was $452 million short of the increase in the 

President’s request. I know this Committee is as disappointed as I am at this shortfall for science. This is not sufficient to meet America’s competitiveness challenge, 

and falls short of the aforementioned doubling path that is the key component of 

the Initiative. A year of enhanced and expanded high-impact innovation research is 

diminished and a $1.2 billion increase is now required in 2008 to ‘‘catch up’’ to the 

President’s commitment. Achieving this in 2008 is critical to sustaining momentum 

necessary to complete the doubling Initiative in the outyears. 

Before turning to other specifics of this year’s research budget, I want to comment 

on S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, which I understand Senate leadership may 

be considering for floor time. While I commend this Committee and the entire Senate for its leadership and efforts on the issue of competitiveness, I must share with 

you concerns I have regarding the specific provisions of this legislation. These concerns, which I raised in a letter (appended) to the Committee when nearly identical 

legislation was considered last year, largely center on the many new programs created in the bill, and how their focus and cost would divert resources available for 

priority basic research in the physical sciences at the key ACI agencies (for example, 

the Administration estimates the legislation creates up to 20 new programs and 

could cost over $8.6 billion more than projected Administration budgets over 4 

years). I hope the Senate will give strong consideration to these concerns, in Committee or otherwise, before it commits to floor consideration of any competitivenessrelated legislation. I believe we share a common interest in working to strengthen 

America’s capacity to innovate and retain its leadership position in the global economy, and I look forward to working with you toward this goal. 

Another major concern I must address is the serious, deleterious impacts of earmarking on the Federal science budget in the past. Earmarks circumvent the scientific merit-review process for identifying and funding the best research. That process has been the bedrock of our Nation’s scientific leadership. On January 3, 2007, 

President Bush called on Congress to cut the number and cost of earmarks by at 


419MARB2.eps
16 

least half this year. To help establish a clear and transparent benchmark for accurately measuring the President’s goal, OMB developed a database on FY 2005 earmarks. As we discuss the importance of pursuing the best science to contribute to 

U.S. competitiveness, I hope the new Congress will reject research earmarks in FY 

2008, as it so commendably did in a spirit of reform in the Continuing Resolution 

for the current Fiscal Year. We would like to work with the new Congress to achieve 

the President’s goal. 

While future competitiveness is a national priority that is reflected in the Federal 

R&D budget request, there are additional national goals that are similarly wellserved by the FY 2008 Budget. Since 2002, the Administration has spent approximately $9 billion on climate change science research through the multi-agency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and the President’s 2008 Budget sustains 

that level of effort. I should note, however, that some of the research projects included in earlier CCSP totals have now advanced to operational missions which are 

no longer included in CCSP totals, but which certainly contribute significantly to 

advancing climate science research. Further, between 2003 and 2006, the President 

has committed nearly $3 billion annually to the climate change technology research 

and deployment programs that constitute the multi-agency Climate Technology Program. The U.S. leads the world in advancing climate science and technology, with 

expenditures on the order of $35 billion in climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs during this Administration. 

Undoubtedly, previous investments in advanced energy science and technology 

have put the U.S. well on track to meet the President’s goal of reducing greenhouse 

gas intensity 18 percent by 2012. In addition, the 2008 Budget includes funding to 

improve our Earth Observations capabilities in areas such as ocean observing, 

earthquake monitoring and prediction, and tsunami warnings. The Budget request 

also provides funding to continue the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, to move forward with the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, and to launch a new 

Ocean Initiative with over $80 million in new funding for ocean science research at 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NSF and the U.S. Geological 

Survey. This Ocean Initiative is based on priorities set forth in the Ocean Research 

Priorities Plan: Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States, a report 

of the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean 

Science and Technology, written with significant input from the external scientific 

and resource management communities. 

Biomedical research is supported in the 2008 NIH Budget with an increase of $431 million over the 2007 request. The FY 2008 request of $28.7 billion will allow 

NIH to maintain many priorities including awarding over 9,400 new and competing 

research grants. The NIH Director’s Roadmap Initiative is increased in 2008 to enhance this interdisciplinary incubator for new ideas that will accelerate the pace of 

discovery across the NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers. 

The Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) at DOE is funded at $2.7 billion in the 

2008 Budget, which is a 26 percent increase over the President’s 2007 request and 

almost $1 billion more than 2006. The AEI will develop technologies that could help 

contribute to the President’s goal of cutting gasoline use by 20 percent in 10 years 

through legislative and regulatory actions. AEI will help by accelerating the technical and cost viability of plug-in hybrids, hydrogen-powered fuel cells, and ‘‘cellulosic’’ ethanol derived from biomass, which are all technologies that could help 

meet the President’s twenty in ten goal. AEI will also accelerate clean electricity 

generation technologies such as solar, wind, nuclear, and clean coal. Perhaps most 

critically, the 2008 AEI includes over $700 million in basic research at DOE’s Office 

of Science, a 32 percent increase, to overcome major technical barriers to the use 

of solar, biomass, hydrogen and fusion. With the 2008 Budget, the Presidential commitment to invest $2 billion on clean coal research is fulfilled, as is President Bush’s 

commitment to propose a five-year, $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. 

This Administration’s National Nanotechnology Initiative also strongly continues 

with $1.45 billion in 2008 for this multi-agency, highly-coordinated investment in 

fundamental research, multi-disciplinary centers of excellence, and development of 

focused cutting-edge research and education infrastructure. The NNI also supports 

activities addressing the societal implications of nanotechnology, including those related to human and environmental health and methods for managing potential 

risks. With the 2008 request, over $8 billion will have been spent on nanoscale R&D 

in 7 years. 

Finally, let me finish by expressing a concern regarding NASA and the budget 

danger that lies ahead for this agency. The President’s FY 2008 Budget includes a 

3.1 percent increase for NASA in 2008 on top of the President’s 3.4 percent requested increase for 2007. However, the FY 2007 CR held NASA $545 million below 

the President’s request. That leaves NASA at its 2006 level (hurricane 

17 

supplementals removed) with no increase and puts at risk the Vision for Space Exploration and priority Earth and space science missions. Certainly at risk is the 

timely development of a new, much more capable U.S. human spacecraft to follow 

the Space Shuttle which will be retired in 2010. 

Budget Highlights of Agencies of Jurisdiction 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

Funds are requested to increase the budget for NSF to $6.43 billion in FY 2008, 45 percent above 2001’s $4.43 billion level. Similar investments in the past have 

yielded important scientific discoveries, which boost economic growth and enhance 

Americans’ quality of life. 

The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative is President Bush’s 

plan to double investment over a 10-year period in key Federal agencies that support basic research programs emphasizing the physical sciences and engineering. 

NSF is one of the three key agencies, as it is the primary source of support for university and academic research in the physical sciences, funding potentially transformative basic research in areas such as nanotechnology, advanced networking and 

information technology, physics, chemistry, material sciences, mathematics and engineering. 

NSF has central roles in two previously mentioned Administration priority research areas that promise to strengthen the Nation’s economy: the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the Networking and Information Technology R&D 

program (NITRD). NSF-funded nanotechnology research, proposed at $390 million 

in FY 2008, a 5 percent increase over the 2007 request and 160 percent since 2001, 

has advanced our understanding of materials at the molecular level and has provided insights into how innovative mechanisms and tools can be built atom by atom. 

This emerging field holds promise for a broad range of developing technologies, including higher-performance materials, more efficient manufacturing processes, higher-capacity computer storage, and microscopic biomedical instruments and mechanisms. NSF’s investments in NITRD, funded at $994 million in 2008, up $90 million 

over 2007 and 56 percent since 2001, support all major areas of basic information 

technology (IT) research. NSF also incorporates IT advances into its scientific and 

engineering applications, supports using computing and networking infrastructure 

for research, and contributes to IT-related education for scientists, engineers, and 

the IT workforce. 

The 2008 NSF Education and Human Resources (EHR) budget will advance efforts to prepare U.S. students for the science and engineering workforce with a 7.5 

percent increase (+$53 million) over the level in FY 2007 CR, adjusted for the movement of EPSCoR to the Research and Related Activities account. To further 

strengthen NSF’s emphasis on increasing the quality and quantity of the science 

and engineering workforce and ensuring that undergraduate students are well prepared for an increasingly technological global society, EHR will increase funding for 

its undergraduate education portfolio by $13.4 million. This total includes $3.5 million for the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program and 

$5.1 million for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program to improve 

technician training at community colleges. The FY 2008 EHR budget also provides 

an increase of $8.9 million for the Graduate Research Fellowship program, an 

amount that will support an additional 200 graduate students, and $4.53 million for 

the Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology, a program designed 

to broaden participation in the science and engineering workforce. The FY 2008 request provides increased support for K–12 STEM education including $30 million 

for new awards under the Math and Science Partnerships program. The increases 

in funding for the ATE and CCLI programs also benefit K–12 students, in the case 

of the former by providing support for high school students who participate in dualenrollment or articulated technician education programs, and the later which aims 

to improve undergraduate STEM education to all students, including those who will 

become K–12 teachers. Similarly, since many research projects and centers include 

education and outreach activities for K–12 students and teachers, the increased 

funding for research also benefits K–12 education. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

The Department of Commerce’s NIST ‘‘core’’ research and facilities receive $594 

million in 2008, an increase of 21 percent from the level in the FY 2007 CR, which 

is $42 million below the President’s 2007 ACI request. In 2008, the American Competitiveness Initiative proposes NIST funding increases of $69 million for new initiatives in research and measurements in high-leverage areas such as the Disaster-Resilient Structures and Communities Program, the interagency Climate Change 

Science Program, and the interagency National Earthquake Hazards Reduction ProVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
18 

gram. Support continues for high-leverage, broad impact research in quantum information processing, nanotechnology, and new and expanded capabilities at the NIST 

Center for Neutron Research and at its Boulder, Colorado, high-performance labs. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

The President’s 2008 Budget for NASA is $17.3 billion, a 3.1 percent increase over 

the President’s 2007 request, reflecting a strong commitment by the Administration 

to the continued pursuit of the Vision for Space Exploration. The FY 2007 CR, however, reduces the 2007 Budget by $545 million to $16.2 billion. In 2008, NASA requests $3.92 billion for exploration systems including the Orion 

Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and the Ares I launch vehicle that will carry astronauts to the Moon. Having already initiated the acquisition process for certain elements of this architecture during 2006, NASA anticipates that all Orion CEV and 

Ares I elements will be under contract by the end of 2007, with the first crewedflight planned to occur no later than 2014. The 2008 Budget requests $5.52 billion, almost a third of NASA’s total budget, 

to continue operating the 59 spacecraft of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and 

to support investments in future Earth and space science missions, vital technologies, and frontier research. NASA will develop seven new Earth observing space 

missions, including the Landsat Data Continuity Mission and the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, which will launch no later than 2013. NASA will continue its roles in the interagency Climate Change Science Program and the international initiative on the Global Earth Observing System of Systems. NASA will 

also support studies of the Earth-Sun system using data from the STEREO mission 

and the upcoming Solar Dynamics Observatory. A new Lunar Science Research program will conduct robotic investigations of the Moon as a part of the Vision for 

Space Exploration. Following up its missions to Mars and Saturn, NASA is sending 

ever-more capable spacecraft to Mars, Mercury, the asteroids, and Pluto. NASA also 

will continue its vibrant astronomy program through its Great Observatories, and 

will upgrade Hubble in 2008 to provide five more years of productive on-orbit life, 

while planning new spacecraft, such as Webb and Kepler, that will search for planets around other stars and peer deep into the universe. Funding for the Beyond Einstein program is increased in FY 2008 to act on the forthcoming recommendation 

from the National Research Council regarding a strategy to unlock the secrets of 

the fundamental physics of the universe. 

In December 2006, the President approved the Nation’s first National Aeronautics 

R&D Policy. Consistent with this Policy, the 2008 NASA aeronautics budget 

prioritizes fundamental aeronautics research, the improvement of aviation safety, 

and research that will help support the development of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System. In addition, NASA will address infrastructure upgrades and 

maintenance requirements for aeronautical test facilities across NASA centers that 

are of vital importance to the Nation. The 2008 Budget requests $554 million for 

NASA aeronautics, an almost 5 percent increase over the 2007 request after adjusting for NASA’s implementation of simplified full-cost accounting. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

For NOAA in the Department of Commerce, the FY 2008 Budget provides $358 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), a $20 million increase over 

the 2007 Budget. OAR provides for ongoing research on climate, weather, air quality, and ocean processes. 

The 2008 NOAA budget supports a new interagency oceans initiative to imple- ment the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan including $60 million in new funding 

over the 2007 Budget to advance oceans science and research (of which $13 million 

is in OAR). Of this $20 million will address four near-term ocean research priorities 

established by the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy (ORPPIS), published in January (with another $20 million from NSF and USGS). 

The NOAA Budget also proposes $40 million to develop an operational ocean monitoring network, to delimit the extent of the U.S. Continental Shelf, for technology 

and other infrastructure to support ocean science, for International Polar Year activities, and for research on protected species and commercial fisheries. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

The FY 2008 Budget request for highway-related research is $430 million, consistent with the level in the multi-year surface transportation research authorization. Highway research includes the Federal Highway Administration’s transportation research and technology contract programs. These research programs include 

the investigation of ways to improve safety, reduce congestion, improve mobility, reduce lifecycle construction and maintenance costs, improve the durability and longevity of highway pavements and structures, enhance the cost-effectiveness of highVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
19 

way infrastructure investments, and minimize negative impacts on the natural and 

human environment. 

The 2008 Budget request for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering, and Development is $140 million, including $63 million focused on the 

advancement of the Next Generation Air Transportation System led by its Joint 

Planning and Development Office. In addition, the 2008 Budget requests $12 million for the Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration to coordinate and advance the pursuit of transportation 

research that cuts across all modes of transportation, such as hydrogen fuels, global 

positioning and remote sensing. DOT research programs also support the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative, the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, and the 

President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. 

Budget Highlights of Other Important Science Agencies 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

The Office of Science in DOE (DOE–SC) is one of the three priority research agencies in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative, supporting scientific 

studies and infrastructure for a wide range of basic research related to potentially 

significant innovations. The 2008 Budget provides $4.4 billion for DOE–SC, an increase of 16 percent over the level in the 2007 House-passed full-year Continuing 

Resolution (CR), which is $306 million below the President’s 2007 ACI request. The 

Budget includes funding for priorities such as nanotechnology ($286 million), materials science research facilities ($699 million), basic research in support of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative ($60 million), the Advanced Energy Initiative ($713 million), 

and high-end computing facilities and research ($340 million). The Budget also completes funding ($45 million) for project and engineering design of the National Synchrotron Light Source II, a new x-ray light source that will enable the study of materials properties and functions at a level of detail and precision (nanoscale) never 

before possible. It continues support for construction of the Linac Coherent Light 

Source—a materials research facility that will provide laser-like x-rays allowing an 

unprecedented real-time glimpse of chemical and biological processes, fully funds operations for the five nanoscale science research centers, and provides funding for the 

project and engineering design for the upgrade of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility. 

DOE implements the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), highlighted 

above. The 2008 AEI Budget proposes: 

• $217 million for the solar R&D to accelerate development of cost-effective photovoltaic materials; 

• $292 million for the biomass R&D, including $179 million for the Biofuels Initiative and an additional $113 million in supporting basic research, to help enable cellulosic ethanol to become practical and competitive; 

• $42 million for development of high-energy, high-power batteries for hybridelectric and ‘‘plug-in’’ hybrid vehicles; 

• $40 million for wind energy research to help improve the efficiency and lower 

the costs of wind technologies, and to help overcome technical and regulatory 

barriers to more wide-scale deployment of wind technologies; 

• $108 million for the FutureGen project to develop technologies for a coal gasification plant with near-zero atmospheric emissions; and 

• $309 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, a crosscut of activities at DOE 

that includes AEI activities to accelerate development of hydrogen production, 

storage and infrastructure technologies that can help make possible the use of 

hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure to support them. 

The 2008 AEI budget also proposes $395 million for the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership (GNEP) in Nuclear Energy with the goals to demonstrate advanced fuel 

cycle technologies, to expand the domestic use of nuclear power, and to provide for 

safe, environmentally responsible global nuclear energy systems that support nonproliferation objectives. Full funding of $160 million for the U.S. contribution to the 

ITER international fusion energy project is included as well. 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

DOD’s FY 2008 R&D budget is almost $79 billion. This level of funding will support the Department’s commitment to transform its capabilities and forces for greater agility, while enabling effective responses to asymmetric and uncertain challenges 

of future conflicts. These funds will also help address emergent threats through 

countermeasures to biological agents and will advance novel technologies to detect 

and neutralize improvised explosive devices, mines, rockets and mortars. DOD proVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
20 

vides the largest share of NITRD program funding, over $1 billion, to address IT 

needs for the Nation’s defense. Likewise, DOD will invest $375 million under the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative, emphasizing development of materials, devices 

and systems that address the national security mission. 

The Science and Technology (S&T) component of the overall DOD R&D budget includes basic research (6.1), applied research (6.2), and advanced technology development (6.3). At $10.8 billion in the FY 2008 Budget, DOD S&T exceeds the 2001 enacted level by 21 percent, or $1.8 billion. From 2000 to 2007, Congressional earmarks to DoD S&T quadrupled. For 2007, there were over 1,200 of these adds (totaling $2.8 billion), most of which must be identified and tracked down, advertised in 

a way specific to the Congressional mark, evaluated, negotiated and awarded, in 

some way separate from other potential awards. This means that those awards consume several times the staff and management resources of the average research 

award, and may not even target a military-specific research need. The large number 

of such additions creates impediments to the creation of effective research programs 

throughout the Department, and should be cause for concern to Congress as well 

as to the Administration. 

A total of $1.43 billion is provided for DoD 6.1 basic research in 2008. This is a 

nominal increase over the 2007 Budget and represents 13.3 percent of the DoD S&T 

Budget, more than last year’s 12.8 percent share. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

The President’s FY 2008 request includes $799 million for the DHS Directorate 

of Science and Technology and $562 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. R&D continues to play a key role in securing the Nation against the terrorist 

threat. The President’s 2008 Budget maintains an aggressive investment in scientific research, technology development, and research infrastructure aimed at continuing to enhance our Nation’s security. Priority research areas include: $100 million in transformational R&D aimed at enhancing our ability to detect, identify, and 

attribute nuclear and radiological materials; $68 million for explosives countermeasures research; and $15 million to fund cyber security and information assurance R&D. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

The President has proposed a budget of $975.0 million for USGS in the Department of the Interior in Fiscal Year 2008. The proposed budget includes an increase 

of $3 million for the new oceans initiative activities, including $1.5 million in the 

Coastal and Marine Geology program to begin implementation of the Oceans Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. This involves conducting observations, research, and sea-floor mapping and developing forecast models. The budget 

also includes $1.5 million in the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis program to 

begin implementation of an interagency National Water Quality Monitoring Network that will integrate watershed, coastal waters, and ocean monitoring based on 

common criteria. 

The FY 2008 USGS budget continues funding for operations and maintenance of 

Landsats 5 and 7 at $16 million. The Budget also includes $24 million to fund efforts with NASA and the Landsat Science Team to continue development of the 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

The FY 2008 Budget for science and technology funding at EPA is $755 million. 

Research priorities include supporting the agency’s risk assessment programs including Air Quality Science Assessments (formerly called the Air Quality Criteria 

Documents) and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and the Science to 

Achieve Results (STAR) program of extramural research and graduate fellowships 

in areas of environmental science and engineering; $69 million is requested to fund 

new and ongoing research in water security, including monitoring and surveillance 

of terrorist threat agents, and post-incident decontamination. 

Conclusion 

Making choices is difficult even when budgets are generous, but tight budgets require priorities to be focused, and program management to be strengthened. This 

year’s R&D budget proposal provides robust levels of investment that allow America 

to maintain its leadership position in science and move ahead in selected priority 

areas. The American Competitiveness Initiative and Advanced Energy Initiative 

properly focus R&D investments in areas that will increase our economic competitiveness, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and accelerate development of 

clean energy technologies. 

21 

America currently spends one and a half times as much on federally-funded research and development as Europe, and over four times as much as either Japan 

or China, the next largest investors. Our scientists collectively have the best laboratories in the world, the most extensive infrastructure supporting research, the greatest opportunities to pursue novel lines of investigation, and the most freedom to 

turn their discoveries into profitable ventures if they are inclined to do so. 

We lead not only in science, but also in translating science to economically significant products that enhance the quality of life for all people. 

This budget will sustain this leadership and maintain science and technology capabilities that are the envy of the world. I ask that Congress fully fund the initiatives advanced in the President’s proposal. I would be pleased to respond to questions. 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Washington, DC, May 17, 2006 

Hon. TED STEVENS, Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am writing to thank you for your strong and steadfast leadership on issues of 

importance to America’s science and technology enterprise, and to comment on legislation (S. 2802) that I understand your Committee may be considering for markup. 

First, I want to commend you for your efforts to highlight the paramount importance of basic research to America’s long-term economic competitiveness. Your commitment to this issue is greatly appreciated. Your support now for the President’s 

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) specifically will be crucial to the ultimate 

success of this domestic agenda priority. 

As you know, the centerpiece of the ACI is a commitment to double, over 10 years, 

funding for the three key Federal agencies that support high-leverage fields of physical science and engineering: the National Science Foundation, the Department of 

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

labs within the Department of Commerce. The focus on these priority agencies was 

born out of an extensive and growing recognition that increasing the support for the 

basic research these agencies fund in the physical sciences is of critical importance 

to ensuring America maintains its competitive edge. 

The proposed American Innovation and Competitiveness Act endorses our common goal of strengthening U.S. competitiveness through science and technology. 

However, I must raise very serious concerns with regard to the specific provisions 

of the legislation. While the President’s ACI proposal is a targeted effort to focus 

increased funding on existing peer-reviewed research at the three priority agencies, 

the draft bill creates a multitude of new programs at many agencies, which, if enacted, would undermine and delay this very research. The Administration is strongly opposed to the creation of new bureaucracy. Many of the draft bill’s provisions 

would duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs. Others 

would put the government in the position of competing with private investment and 

influencing market decisions in potentially inefficient and counterproductive ways. 

While we understand that the draft legislation is still a work in progress, the Administration is especially concerned about the authorization levels currently under 

consideration; excessive authorization levels may discourage and divert resources 

available for basic research in the physical sciences, thereby jeopardizing our shared 

goal to double funding for basic research at the key ACI agencies. 

I hope you will give strong consideration to these concerns as your Committee begins consideration of any competitiveness-related legislation. I believe we share a 

common interest in working to strengthen America’s capacity to innovate and retain 

its leadership position in the global economy, and I look forward to working with 

you toward this goal. 

Thank you again for your leadership on these issues. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN H. MARBURGER III, 

Director. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, doctor, I appreciate that. 

Dr. Bement? 

22 

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. BEMENT. Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the National Science Foundation’s importance to U.S. competitiveness. 

NSF’s commitment to the science and engineering enterprise 

comes from an abiding belief that knowledge is a powerful force for 

progress. 

NSF works at the frontier of knowledge, where high-risk, highreward research can lay the foundation for revolutionary technologies, and tackle complex problems that challenge society. 

Quite simply, our investments in fundamental research and education aim to improve the quality of people’s lives, and to keep the 

Nation safe and growing. The NSF budget for 2008 reflects this 

vital agenda and is detailed in my written testimony. 

For over 50 years, NSF has been a strong steward of the Nation’s 

scientific discovery and innovation process that has been crucial to 

increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national security and overall quality of life. Despite its small size, 

NSF has an extraordinary impact on scientific and engineering 

knowledge and capacity. 

While NSF represents only 4 percent of the total Federal budget 

for research and development, it accounts for 50 percent of non-life 

science basic research at academic institutions. In fact, NSF is the 

only Federal agency that supports all fields of basic science and engineering research, and the education programs that sustain them 

across the generations. 

NSF relies on a merit-based competitive process that is critical 

to fostering the highest standards of excellence and accountability, 

standards for which NSF is known all around the world. 

Not only do we provide funding to the best of the best, we 

prioritize the research funding based on principles that have proven to be both robust and visionary over the years. The proof of its 

effectiveness lies in the outcomes. 

NSF-funded results permeate our society—examples include 

Doppler radar, MRI scans, nanotechnology, the Internet, webbrowsers, search engines, bar codes and computer-aided design systems. NSF investments have had a profound effect on our quality 

of life and on American competitiveness. Just these examples alone 

have added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy over 

the past 15 years. 

I would like to point out just a few other recently funded developments with equal promise, some of which illustrate the accelerating 

convergence between the physical and the life sciences. NSF’s support for cutting-edge research projects often serve as bell weathers 

for solutions to a myriad of complex issues facing society. 

For example, implantable generators, with advanced drug delivery systems, illustrate nanotechnology’s increasing contribution to 

understanding and treating disease. An injectible gel to treat spinal cord injuries is the result of NSF-supported polymer research. 

The Lasik eye correction procedure has emerged from high-precision laser research, funded by NSF. 

23 

On the environmental front, thin film technologies and power 

plastics sufficiently generate power from light, offering viable renewable energy resources. Meanwhile, the production of plastics 

from atmospheric carbon dioxide puts the damaging greenhouse 

gas to good use, helping to sustain the environment. 

NSF programs traditionally integrate research and education, 

fast-tracking innovation excellence via hands-on learning. For example, NSF-supported Advanced Technology Education centers 

offer industry-sanctioned technician education programs. The centers respond directly to industry’s workforce needs, and graduate 

technicians who immediately enter the high-tech workforce. 

It is important to note that in our efforts to advance the frontier, 

we also aim to enhance developments of the Nation’s talent pool of 

scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians, otherwise 

known as STEM. The world class STEM talent pool, trained 

through NSF-sponsored research, transfers new scientific and engineering concepts from universities directly to the entrepreneurial 

sector as they enter the workforce. This may be basic research’s 

most profound and lasting impact. This capability is a strong suit 

in U.S. competitiveness, and one of NSF’s greatest contributions to 

the Nation’s innovation system. 

Another significant contribution is NSF-supported coupling programs between universities and the private sector. NSF centers 

programs, such as our Engineering Research Centers and Science 

and Technology Centers, directly invite private sector partners to 

engage in and sponsor related cutting-edge research in education 

that can lead to high-leverage innovations. 

Furthermore, NSF couples investments in our Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs with high-impact, emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, information technology, and bio-technology. 

Today I’ve only touched on the variety and richness of the NSF 

portfolio. NSF research and education efforts contribute greatly to 

the Nation’s innovation economy, and help keep America at the 

forefront of science and engineering. Extraordinary discoveries 

coming from NSF-funded researchers and initiatives enrich the entire science and engineering enterprise, and make education fun, 

exciting, and achievement-oriented. NSF and the National Science 

Board looks to the future, committed to these important considerations, and we have crafted our 2008 budget to address them. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I look forward to 

working with you in the months ahead, and would be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on the importance of basic research. It is a pleasure to appear before you again on this important topic. I would like to thank the 

Members of this Committee for their support for NSF over the years and specifically 

for your support for NSF in the 2007 Continuing Resolution, the 2008 budget and 

the America COMPETES legislation. 

I am especially pleased to emphasize once again the role the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) plays in sustaining America’s competitiveness in the global economy. As you are well aware, the President’s request for NSF represents an 8.7 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
24 

cent increase over the appropriated levels, and will keep NSF on the course set by 

the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to drive innovation and 

sharpen America’s competitive edge. This year’s budget reinforces the Administration’s firm commitment to doubling overall funding for the NSF, the Department of 

Energy’s Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of 

Standards and Technology labs over the next 10 years. 

For over fifty years, NSF has been a steward of the Nation’s science and engineering enterprise, with a track record of producing results. NSF investments in discovery, learning, and innovation have been important to increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national security and overall quality of life. 

Despite its relatively small size, NSF has an important impact on scientific and 

engineering knowledge and academic capacity. While NSF represents only 4 percent 

of the total Federal budget for research and development, it accounts for fifty percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions. In fact, NSF is the 

only Federal agency that supports all fields of basic science and engineering research. 

NSF relies on a merit-based, competitive process that is critical to fostering the 

highest standards of excellence and accountability—standards for which NSF is 

known all over the world. 

We provide funding to the best of the best. Of the 513 individuals who have received the Nobel Prize since NSF first awarded research grants in 1952, 174 or 34 

percent received NSF funding at some point in their careers. 

NSF-funded research has led to social benefits. Examples include Doppler radar, 

MRI scans, nanotechnology, the Internet, web browsers, search engines, bar codes, 

and computer-aided design systems. NSF investments have played an important 

role in American competitiveness and innovation. The economic returns from these 

technologies alone have added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy 

over the past 15 years. 

As you well know, investments in fundamental research often yield unexpected 

benefits. One example I like to use is NSF’s support of abstract auction theory and 

experimental economics. NSF-supported researchers provided the FCC with its current system for apportioning the airwaves. Since their inception in 1994, FCC ‘‘spectrum auctions’’ have netted over $45 billion in revenue for the Federal Government 

and more than $200 billion in worldwide revenues. Although the payoff was unexpected at the time NSF started supporting game-theory research, the payoff is many 

times greater than the total investment NSF has made in social and behavior 

sciences over our fifty year history. 

In our efforts to advance the frontiers of knowledge and spur innovation, NSF also 

aims to develop of the Nation’s talent pool and create a highly skilled workforce. 

This may be NSF’s most profound, and lasting, impact. 

Perhaps even more important than the breakthroughs I have described above, are 

the students that have been educated and trained along the way, including as participants in prize-winning research. The scientists, technologists, engineers, and 

mathematicians trained through the integration of research and education transfer 

new scientific and engineering concepts from universities directly to the entrepreneurial sector as they enter the workforce. This capability is a strong suit in U.S. 

competitiveness, and one of NSF’s greatest contributions to the Nation’s innovation 

system. 

Opportunities to advance the frontiers of research and education are more promising than ever before—across every field of science, mathematics and engineering. 

No matter what field of science one chooses—from studying the smallest particles 

of matter, to exploring the formation of the cosmos, to understanding dynamic interactions among humans or unraveling the complexity of life on Earth—ground-breaking research is on the horizon. The NSF budget for FY 2008 sets an ambitious agenda for capitalizing on this potential to discover new knowledge that can help boost 

the Nation’s economic vitality and improve our quality of life. 

NSF’s commitment to the science and engineering enterprise comes from an enduring belief that knowledge is a powerful force for progress. NSF works at the frontier of knowledge where high-risk, high-reward research can lay the foundation for 

revolutionary technologies and tackle complex societal problems. 

Quite simply, our investments in fundamental research and education improve 

the quality of people’s lives and contribute significantly to our Nation’s prosperity. 

The NSF budget for 2008 reflects this vital agenda, and I’m pleased to present it 

to you today. 

Let me begin with the numbers. Overall, in his FY 2008 Budget Request, the 

President is requesting $6.43 billion for the NSF. That’s an increase of nearly $513 

million, or 8.7 percent above the 2007 appropriated amounts. Funding at this level 

in FY 2008 will keep us on the course set by the President’s American CompetitiveVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
25 

ness Initiative. The ACI aims to expand Federal research investments over the next 

10 years to drive innovation and sharpen America’s competitive edge. Our task in 

this ambitious undertaking is to energize the Nation’s leadership in fundamental research and education that keeps America at the leading edge of innovation. 

Funding levels increase for every major NSF appropriations account. Investments 

in Research and Related Activities increase by 7.7 percent, and our Education and 

Human Resources account by 7.5 percent. Rapid progress in these areas will generate new concepts and tools with far-reaching applications, lay the foundations for 

next-generation tools and technologies, and develop educational strategies to engage 

students and prepare them for the fast-changing, global environment. The budget 

includes increases for every Directorate and Office of NSF. 

Our budget priorities for 2008 are based on the long-term investment strategies 

identified in the new NSF Strategic Plan. They are focused squarely on the future. 

Discovery Research for Innovation 

The first priority is Discovery Research for Innovation. In nearly every field of 

science and engineering, we are moving toward new knowledge that will contribute 

to the resolution of some of society’s most stubborn problems—in areas such as energy, security, health and the environment. And we are on the threshold of technological innovations that will power the economy well into the future. 

Today, the most fertile ground for discovery is often at the interface among disciplines, where insights from one field inform our understanding of another. To explore that territory, our strategy must be to keep all fields and disciplines of science 

and engineering healthy and strong. We continue to address that objective in 2008. 

At the same time, we must be constantly alert to research that has the potential 

to overturn accepted paradigms and open entirely new fields for exploration. Below 

I will highlight several of these emerging frontiers. But it is important to note that 

the power of transformational research is ubiquitous today across the social, physical and life sciences, and engineering. 

Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation 

The power of new information and communications allows us to investigate phenomena of increasing complexity, scale and scope. But researchers are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the flood of data from improved observational tools, 

to assimilate different data formats and ontologies—atomic to the cosmic—and to 

find ways to store and archive petabyte-sized databases. In 2008, NSF will invest $52 million in a new initiative we call Cyber-enabled 

Discovery and Innovation, or CDI. CDI will explore a new generation of computationally-based discovery concepts and tools at the intersection of the computational 

world and the physical and biological worlds. 

In every discipline, we need new techniques that can help scientists and engineers 

uncover fresh knowledge from vast amounts of data generated by sensors, telescopes, satellites, or even the media and the Internet. Understanding complex interactions in systems ranging from living cells to binary star systems, or from computer networks to societies, also present challenges. 

We need improved simulation and other dynamic modeling techniques to support 

experiments with complex systems—from earthquakes to brains—that are not feasible to perform in the physical world. 

Finally, virtual environments have the potential to enhance collaboration, education, and experimentation in ways that we are just beginning to explore. CDI educational research efforts will center on a combination of virtual environments and 

advanced cyberinfrastructure. CDI will tackle all of these challenging research problems. 

Ocean Research Priorities Plan 

Understanding the interactions between society and the oceans is of vital importance for ensuring a clean, healthy, stable, and productive ocean environment. The 

Ocean Research Priorities Plan (ORPP) lays out, for the first time, a national effort 

to link ocean research to societal issues ranging from the stewardship of ocean resources to the ocean’s role in climate. 

A new NSF investment of $17 million will support fundamental research and 

technology development in four areas identified in the Plan as near-term priorities. 

One area of investigation will look at the complex dynamics that control and regulate marine ecosystem processes—knowledge that is absolutely essential to improve 

the management of marine resources. A second explores variability of the Meridional Overturning Circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. This is one element of global 

ocean circulation that is responsible for long-term climate variations along the Eastern Seaboard. Research will also address the response of coastal ecosystems to 

events ranging from non-point source pollution to hurricanes. 

26 

A fourth priority is the development of new marine sensors. This is also an important objective of the Foundation’s Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). OOI—together with other observatories such as NEON, NEES, and GEON—will make an 

important contribution to GEOSS—the Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

(GEOSS). This research complements a much more extensive, ongoing program of 

ocean research and education at NSF. 

National Nanotechnology Initiative 

Nanotechnology is an emerging field of immense promise, with ramifications for 

manufacturing, medicine, and next-generation computing. With the promise of nanotechnology, we can anticipate systematic programs to identify or design a broad 

spectrum of materials with just the right properties for the application in mind. 

We are increasing our investment in the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative by nearly $17 million, to a total of $390 million, to support fundamental 

nanoscale research and the development of nanomaterials. 

A critical focus of this investment will be a new multidisciplinary effort to better 

understand the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanomaterials. This research will explore the interactions between nano particles and materials and the 

living world at all scales. The development of innovative methods and tools to detect, characterize, and monitor nano materials in the environment, is an important 

feature of these activities. 

International Science and Engineering 

International partnerships are now an abiding feature of the global science and 

engineering landscape. U.S. scientists and engineers must remain connected with 

researchers around the globe to detect movements at the frontier and capitalize on 

new concepts. This is essential if we wish to be the first nation of choice for scientists, engineers, and students from abroad. 

Moreover, in this era of globalization, international experience is fast becoming 

an essential element in the training of U.S. undergraduate and graduate students. 

NSF will support agency-wide activities to expand international partnership opportunities for U.S. scientists, engineers and students, with an increase of nearly 

11 percent for the Office of International Science and Engineering, for a total of $45 

million. 

Preparing the Workforce for the 21st Century 

Creating a strong science and engineering workforce for the future is vital to 

maintaining the Nation’s competitive edge. NSF will continue to fund a portfolio of 

highly successful programs. 

You will recognize all of them: CAREER, aimed at junior faculty; Advanced Technological Education (ATE) to train skilled technicians and technologists; Broadening 

Participation in Computing, designed to train the future IT workforce; Noyce Scholarships, which promote the development of a world-class math and science teaching 

corps; The STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP) and the Centers for Research 

Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST), both of which aim to broaden participation of underrepresented groups and engage a broader spectrum of institutions, two objectives of vital importance to maintaining America’s global competitiveness. 

In coordination with the Department of Education, NSF will continue funding for 

the Math and Science Partnership program, aimed at improving K–12 science and 

math education and teaching. Although the 2008 Request for MSP remains at the 

FY 2007 level of $46.0 million, approximately $30 million will be available for new 

awards in 2008. 

The budget request also includes funding for an additional 200 Graduate Research 

Fellowships (GRF). Together with other NSF graduate fellowship, that brings the 

total number of graduate students supported to about 5,375. 

Transformational Facilities and Infrastructure 

World-class tools and facilities are every bit as essential for discovery. Our strategy is to invest in tools that promise significant advances in a field and to make 

them widely available to a broad cross-section of investigators. 

For FY 2008, NSF proposes one new start in the Major Research Equipment and 

Facilities Construction account (MREFC): Advanced LIGO (AdvLIGO), a gravitational wave observatory that will improve by a factor of 10 the sensitivity of current 

earth-based facilities. Observations made with this instrument could revolutionize 

the field of theoretical physics. 

Scientific breakthroughs that are just over the horizon will require speeds and 

abilities that even today’s supercomputers cannot produce. The development of a 

petascale computing capability will continue to be an important priority for NSF. 

27 

Our commitment to support cyberinfrastructure remains equally steadfast. These 

investments will optimize high-end computing and cyberinfrastructure for science 

and engineering applications—and contribute to the Nation’s competitiveness in 

many other ways. 

Funding for the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program increases by 

about $24 million to a total of $114 million. In addition, we will raise the maximum 

level of funding within MRI from $2.0 million to $4.0 million. These funds support 

the design and acquisition of mid-size instruments that are every bit as essential 

as their big brothers. 

International Polar Year (IPY) 

As the lead agency supporting Polar research, NSF will provide U.S. leadership 

for IPY activities through support for an intense research and public education effort. The budget request includes nearly $59 million for these activities. 

In the Polar Regions, we are discerning the outlines of environmental change, 

from sea ice extent, retreating glaciers, shifting patterns in flora and fauna, to environmental observations by Arctic natives. Such change—whether environmental, biological or social—has implications for the rest of the globe. Polar change ripples 

across the planet on a spectrum of time scales, through the atmosphere, oceans, and 

living systems. 

We do not yet fully understand the causes of what we are observing. Now is the 

time to change this, for new tools make possible the needed observations and synthesis of knowledge. They range from satellites to ships to sensors, and from 

genomics to nanotechnology, information technology, and advances in remote and 

robotic technologies. 

For these reasons, climate change research and environmental observations will 

be a major focus for NSF IPY activities. Much of this research will support the goals 

of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Because the scope and scale of climate 

change is global, U.S. scientists will collaborate with scientists from around the 

world. 

Another IPY research effort will explore how life functions and survives in the extremes of the polar regions. A surprising diversity of life flourishes in the McMurdo 

dry valleys of Antarctica, for example. Research will focus on microorganisms at various scales, but will include a diversity of organisms. Research on humans in polar 

environments will advance our understanding of our species’ place in the complexity 

of polar phenomena. 

IPY offers an excellent opportunity for outreach and education to raise public understanding of science and engineering and NSF will continue to support such efforts. 

Stewardship 

Also among our 2008 priorities is Stewardship—our commitment to support excellence in science and engineering research and education by maintaining a capable 

and responsive organization. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the success 

of our post—award and pre—award oversight and merit review process depends entirely on our program officers and program directors. They all know that the optimal 

use of limited public funds relies on two conditions: Ensuring that research is 

aimed—and continuously re-aimed—at the frontiers of understanding; and certifying 

that every dollar goes to competitive, merit-reviewed, and time-limited awards with 

clear criteria for success. When these two conditions are met, the Nation gets the 

most intellectual and economic leverage from its research investments. 

Our 2008 Budget request would provide adequate funding for operations and 

award management i.e., salaries and expenses), particularly in the information technology field, which is critical to the agency functioning as efficiently as possible. We 

need to maintain our investments in productivity-enhancing tools, including 

cybersecurity, and modernization of information technology as well as continue to 

provide post-award oversight. I applaud Members of this Committee for their support for full funding of our FY 2008 budget request. 

NSF has just completed a new strategic plan for 2006–2011. As a direct result 

of the strategic planning process, NSF has established eight new multi-year objectives for stewardship. We will strengthen our traditional partnerships and develop 

new collaborations with other agencies and organizations. We will also expand efforts to broaden participation from underrepresented groups and institutions in all 

NSF activities. 

NSF leads Federal agencies in funding research and education activities based on 

competitive merit review, with over 88 percent of its research and education funding 

going to awards selected through a competitive merit review process. Improving the 

28 

transparency, consistency, and uniformity of the merit review process is a priority 

for 2008 and into the future. 

An objective for 2008 is establishing the Research.gov portal site—a one-stop 

website for grantees seeking Federal funding. The portal will also help research 

agencies share grants management best practices as part of the Grants Management Line of Business. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve only touched upon some of the variety and richness of the 

NSF portfolio. NSF research and education efforts contribute greatly to the Nation’s 

innovation economy and help keep America at the forefront of science and engineering. At the same time, NSF-supported researchers produce leading edge discoveries 

that serve society and spark the public’s curiosity and interest. Extraordinary discoveries coming from dozens of NSF programs and initiatives are enriching the entire science and engineering enterprise, and making education fun, exciting and 

achievement-oriented. 

Scientists can now peer back in time to the early years of the universe, from its 

explosive formation to its dark ages, to its first stars and mini-galaxies. Seeing this 

far into the past is a remarkable feat of science and engineering creativity and 

imagination. It is imperative that we also use our knowledge to illuminate the future. The ultimate reason for the science and engineering enterprise is to put knowledge to work for the growth of the economy and the well being of society. 

At the beginning of the 21st century, America has the world’s best cadre of scientists and engineers. We have some of the finest academic institutions anywhere. 

And maybe most importantly, we have a half century of experience working to perfect what is commonly acknowledged as the most successful system for supporting 

research, coupled with educating our scientists and engineers. 

As this century plays out, there will be an increasing number of competent players in the global competition for ideas, talent, and innovation. In this context, 

‘‘globalization’’ is shorthand for a complex, permanent, and challenging environment 

that calls for sustainable, long-term responses, not just short-term fixes. The nation 

needs bold efforts, at the most demanding levels of creative enterprise, to sustain 

a leadership role in the global economy. 

In these shifting sands, I believe that America can continue to be on the leading 

edge of ideas and research that can chart the global path for the next half century. 

We want our universities and businesses to continue leading the world in discovery 

and innovation. That means cultivating our strengths—U.S. leadership in fundamental discovery—including high-risk, high-reward transformational research— 

state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure, and a world-class S&E workforce. These 

strategies can help us reinvent American competitiveness in the 21st Century. 

But make no mistake. Staying at the forefront of discovery and innovation will 

require sustained investments. In a science and technology based world, to retreat 

from the frontier is to put the Nation at peril. 

NSF is committed to cultivating a science and engineering enterprise that not 

only unlocks the mysteries of the universe but that addresses the challenges of 

America and the world. The National Science Foundation looks to the future with 

these important considerations in mind, and we have crafted our 2008 budget to address them. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I hope that this brief overview 

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

in the national interest. I look forward to working with you in months ahead, and 

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

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Dr. Bement. 

Dr. Jeffrey? 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. JEFFREY. Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I’m pleased to present the President’s 2008 budget request for NIST. 

This is a strong budget that will further enhance our ability to 

support the measurements and standards needs of U.S. industry 

and universities. 

29 

NIST has a long history of being at the forefront of new innovations through our measurements and standards. In 2003, the National Academy of Engineering identified the greatest engineering 

achievements of the 20th century. NIST measurements and standards were integral to the successful development and adoption of 

virtually every one. 

Nineteen retrospective studies of economic impact show that, on 

average, NIST labs generated a benefit to cost ratio of 44 to 1 to 

the U.S. economy. The high rate of return results from the fact 

that new measurements or standards benefit entire industries or 

sectors of the economy, as opposed to individual companies. 

For example, NIST researchers recently developed new measurement techniques that cut up to 80 percent of the cost and time for 

industry to develop advanced materials. As one industry scientist 

put it, ‘‘NIST scientists are re-awakening a major element of creativity that analytical science almost lost.’’ NIST also operates 

world-class user facilities. Last year, approximately 2,000 researchers from 60 different industries leveraged the NIST Center for 

Neutron Research or the NCNR. A National Academy of Sciences 

report describes the NCNR’s capability to image an operating fuel 

cell as, ‘‘A considerable achievement, and one of the most significant analytical advances in the fuel cell realized in decades.’’ Industry scientists have stated that the research performed at the NCNR 

has allowed them to jump 5 years ahead in fuel cell development. 

To prepare for the future, NIST is working with industry to identify critical measurement barriers to innovation, evaluating its 

physical infrastructure, forming new and strengthening existing 

partnerships, and updating the way it stimulates the knowledge 

transfer from its labs to industry and academia. 

The increased funding provided through the budget request will 

directly support innovative advances in broad sectors of the economy, as well as improve the safety and quality of life for our citizens. 

For example, the research initiatives will speed the development, 

and foster the adoption of nanotechnology products, and provide 

the physical measurements to ensure their safety, accelerate the 

revolutionary economic potential, in exploiting the unique properties of the quantum world, provide confidence and reduce uncertainty in measurements supporting global climate change models, 

reduce the risk to communities as they encroach on hurricaneprone coasts and fire-prone wild land urban interface regions, and 

enhance safety of new and existing structures from the catastrophic impact of earthquakes. 

To meet the demands for measurements at ever-smaller scales, 

at faster rates, and with more accuracy requires excellent laboratory and user facilities. The budget request, therefore, includes capacity and capability improvements at both our Boulder campus 

and the NCNR. 

The budget request for MEP is identical to last year’s request, 

and is a reduction of $58.3 million from the 2006 enacted. I recognize the difference in priority between the Administration and Congress, regarding the Federal funding level for the MEP program. 

One thing you can be certain of, regardless of the final appropriaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
30 

tions, NIST will execute the program in the most effective manner 

possible to support the Nation’s small manufacturers. 

No funds for ATP are requested in the President’s 2008 budget, 

the 2006 enacted budget was consistent with the phase-out of the 

program. Since the 2007 Continuing Resolution, however, included 

funding for ATP, we have initiated a new competition. 

In summary, recent NIST measurements and standards research 

have enabled innovations now embedded in the iPod, body armor, 

saving the lives of domestic law enforcement officers and our service men and women overseas, and diagnostic screening devices for 

cancer patients, making their treatment more targeted and accurate. The results of NIST research can be found in virtually every 

manufacturing and service industry. 

For more than a century, NIST research has been critical to our 

Nation’s competitiveness. The increased funding requested for 

NIST will directly support innovations in broad sectors of the economy that will, quite literally, define the 21st century. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jeffrey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE

OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Ensign and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am pleased to appear before you today to present the President’s FY 2008 Budget 

request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This is a 

strong budget for NIST and it will further enhance NIST’s ability to support the 

measurement and standards needs of U.S. industry and universities. The FY 2008 

request of $640.7 million includes $594.4 million for NIST’s core (encompassing 

NIST’s research and facilities) and $46.3 million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The budget for the NIST core represents an 11 percent increase over the President’s FY 2007 request and a 21 percent increase over the FY 

2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110–5). This funding supports NIST’s mission to 

promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement 

science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. 

NIST’s Impact on Innovation and the Economy 

NIST has a long history of being at the forefront of new innovations through our 

high-impact measurements and standards. In 2003, the National Academy of Engineering identified 20 of the greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century— 

including automobiles, aircraft, lasers, computers, and the Internet. NIST measurements and standards were integral to the successful development and adoption of 

virtually every one. Now NIST is paving the way for the greatest achievements of 

the 21st century which are still yet to be imagined. 

NIST’s measurement science and standards form part of the foundation upon 

which innovation is built. Just as the Nation’s physical infrastructure (e.g., roads 

or power grid) define the Nation’s capacity to build and transport goods—the Nation 

has an innovation infrastructure which defines the Nation’s capacity to innovate. 

And investment in long term basic research like that done at NIST is an integral 

component of the innovation infrastructure. As stated in the National Academy of 

Sciences’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm, ‘‘The power of research is demonstrated 

not only by single innovations but by the ability to create entire new industries.’’ 

NIST researchers are world leaders in their fields. They frequently arrive at the 

‘‘cutting edge’’ of science before anyone else. And once there, they partner with industry and academia to identify and overcome barriers that can slow or even halt 

the progress of new innovations. With the proposed FY 2008 budget, NIST will continue developing the measurement and standards tools that enable U.S. industry to 

maintain and enhance our global economic competitiveness. 

NIST continues to meet the Nation’s highest priorities by focusing on high impact 

research and investing in the capacity and capability of our user facilities and labs. 

This emphasis is validated by the high rate of return to the Nation that the NIST 

31 

labs already have demonstrated. Nineteen retrospective studies of economic impact 

show that, on average, NIST labs generated a benefit-to-cost ratio of 44:1 to the U.S. 

economy. The high rate of return results from the fact that new measurements or 

standards benefit entire industries or sectors of the economy—as opposed to individual companies. 

NIST supports U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness primarily through 

its measurements, standards, and national user facilities. Recent NIST successes 

highlight the importance of each of these critical components and illustrate how 

NIST’s labs are able to return such a large benefit to the nation: 

Measurements—NIST researchers recently developed new measurement techniques that allow for rapid and cost-effective assessments of advanced materials 

that are used in a range of products from new detergents to improved adhesives 

for next-generation electronics. Previously, it could cost industry $20 million to 

develop and understand the characteristics of one new material. With this NIST 

measurement advance, the cost and time are estimated to have been cut by 80 

percent. To facilitate the transfer of this technique to industry, NIST organized 

an open consortium now consisting of 23 members that are learning to use and 

adapt these new measurement techniques. As a scientist from Honeywell International put it, ‘‘. . . NIST offers an invaluable resource to show what can be 

done, and how to go about it. NIST Combinatorial Methods Center scientists are 

reawakening a major element of creativity that analytical science almost lost.’’ 

Standards—Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize manufacturing. 

And one of the most promising nanomaterials is the carbon nanotube. Carbon 

nanotubes have unique electronic and mechanical properties that lend themselves to a variety of applications, ranging from the development of stronger 

and lighter materials to nanowires and transistors for miniature electronics. Regardless of the potential application, the quality of the materials is paramount. 

Unfortunately, current production techniques for carbon nanotubes result in 

products with high levels of uncertainty in their quality and uniformity. To address this concern, NIST is currently developing a carbon nanotube reference 

material. This reference material, when deployed, can be used by any nanotube 

manufacturer to validate their product’s quality, purity, and consistency and accelerate the adoption of carbon nanotubes into more sophisticated devices. 

National User Facilities—NIST operates world-class user facilities that benefit 

the entire U.S. research community. Last year, approximately 2,000 researchers 

from 60 different industries across the country leveraged the NIST Center for 

Neutron Research (NCNR). One recently developed application of the NCNR 

was to image the interior of operating fuel cells to help improve the efficiency 

and durability of these devices. Large and small companies involved in the manufacture or use of hydrogen fuel cells, including General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, Dupont, and PlugPower, have benefited from this new capability. The 

NCNR is the premier facility in the world providing this capability. A National 

Academy of Sciences report describes the NIST efforts in regards to fuel cell 

technologies as ‘‘. . . a considerable achievement and one of the most significant 

analytical advances in the membrane fuel cell realized in decades. The NIST facility offers the entire fuel cell community unique research opportunities that previously eluded them.’’ Industry scientists have stated that the research performed at the NCNR has allowed them to jump 5 years ahead in terms of fuel 

cell development. 

The President recognized NIST’s critical role for the Nation as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The ACI describes NIST as: ‘‘. . . a high-leverage Federal research agency that performs high-impact basic research and supports the successful technical translation and everyday use of economically significant innovations . . .’’ Under the ACI, overall funding for NIST’s core, the National 

Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science is together 

slated to double by 2016. 

Preparing for the Future 

The 21st century will be defined by technology innovations that fundamentally 

change the products and services available, the way they are manufactured and provided, and the impact on our quality of life. These advances will arise from basic 

research now beginning in, for example, nanotechnology, quantum science, and alternative energies—all areas in which NIST has a strong and increasing focus with 

its investments. 

The goal of increasing physical sciences research at NIST (along with that supported by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy’s Office 

of Science) provides a unique opportunity to strategically establish the programs, 

32 

plans, and infrastructure that will more than double the impact that NIST has on 

the economy. To prepare for the future, NIST is working with industry to identify 

critical measurement barriers to innovation, evaluating the capacity and capability 

of NIST’s physical infrastructure, forming new and strengthening existing partnerships, and updating the ways it stimulates the knowledge transfer from its labs to 

industry and academia. 

For example, over the past year, NIST worked with over 1,000 experts from industry and universities to identify measurement barriers to innovation in a number 

of critical industry sectors. Over 700 technical barriers were identified, analyzed, 

and documented in a report. NIST is now in the process of working with industry, 

universities, and other government agencies to address many of these identified barriers over the coming years. 

In terms of facilities, NIST has conducted a rigorous evaluation of its laboratory 

capacity and capabilities on its Boulder, Colorado, campus. This review found facilities’ shortfalls in our ability to meet both current and projected industry and university needs in a number of important areas. Examples include the high-speed and 

high-frequency measurements required for electronics, defense, and homeland security; measurements and tests at the single atom level; and improved methods for 

measuring time, an area expected to vastly improve navigation and positioning systems. Each technical area was evaluated in terms of necessary laboratory conditions 

(to include stability of temperature, vibration, and humidity, as well as air cleanliness). As a result of this assessment, new laboratory space to meet the Nation’s 

needs well into the 21st century is proposed in the FY 2008 budget (Boulder Building 1 Extension). 

NIST also serves industry and academia by being a steward of world-class user 

facilities. As part of the ACI, NIST identified two important opportunities first 

called out in the FY 2007 budget and enhanced in the FY 2008 budget—increased 

capacity and capability of the NIST Center for Neutron Research and creation of 

the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. Both of these facilities are 

designed to stimulate progress in support of our Nation’s economic competitiveness. 

The ACI provides NIST the opportunity to further promote U.S. innovation and 

industrial competitiveness. With focused, world-class research and facilities, NIST 

will have a greater impact on the 21st century economy than it did even over the 

past century. 

FY 2008 President’s Budget 

The increased funding provided through the FY 2008 request will directly support 

innovative advances in broad sectors of the economy as well as improve the safety 

and quality of life for our citizens. The following table summarizes the proposed FY 

2008 budget. In this table we show both the FY 2007 President’s budget and the 

FY 2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110–5) for comparisons as different baselines. 

Budget Summary Showing Both FY 2007 President’s Request and P.L. 110–5 as Baselines 

[$ million] 

FY 2007 

President’s 

Request 

FY 2007 

Continuing 

Resolution 

(P.L. 110–5) 1

FY 2008 

President’s 

Request 

Change 

Between FY 

2008 and FY 

2007 Request 

Change 

Between FY 

2008 and 

P.L. 110–5 

STRS (Labs) 467.0 432.8 500.5 33.5 67.7 

CRF (Facilities) 68.0 58.7 93.9 25.9 35.2 

Core Subtotal: 535 491.4 594.4 59.4 102.9 

ITS (MEP + ATP) 

Subtotal: 46.3 183.6 46.3 0 (137.3) 

TOTAL: 581.3 675.1 640.7 59.4 (34.4) 

1Totals for FY 2007 do not include the 50 percent of the pay raise that was included in P.L. 110–5. 

The FY 2008 budget was formulated with the FY 2007 President’s request as the 

baseline. Since P.L. 110–5 provides a smaller budget for the NIST core (STRS and 

CRF) than the FY 2007 President’s request by $43.6 million, some proposed initiatives in FY 2007 that will not receive full funding are implicitly contained within 

the President’s FY 2008 request. New initiatives and program increases are described in more detail below: 

33 

Scientific and Technical Research Services (STRS) 

Enabling Nanotechnology from Discovery to Manufacture (+$6 million) 

The potential market for products containing nanomaterials is estimated at over 

$1 trillion by 2015. Because of their small size—a thousand times thinner than a 

human hair—nanoscale products require entirely novel ways to characterize their 

physical properties and fully exploit their unique characteristics in the manufacture 

of new products. 

In FY 2007, NIST began a major initiative to address the measurement barriers 

hindering rapid development of nanotechnologies. A new NIST Center for Nanoscale 

Science and Technology (CNST) has been established that combines both research 

and a state-of-the-art nanofabrication and nanometrology user facility. 

The research initiatives proposed in FY 2008 will build on recent NIST advances 

by: 

• Developing ways to measure strength, stress, strain, optical, and electronic 

properties of nanostructures to improve processes and understanding of failure 

mechanisms; 

• Creating three-dimensional, high-resolution imaging methods that reveal details 

of structure, chemical composition, and manufacturing defects and allow researchers to view nanostructures as they interact with their environment; 

• Simulating nanoscale phenomena with computer models to allow economical development of production methods for complex nanodevices; and 

• Producing the measurement techniques required to address the interagency efforts to characterize nanotechnology impacts to our health, safety, and environment. 

Measurements and Standards for the Climate Change Science Program (+$5 million) 

The climate is changing. Determining how fast it is changing, and understanding 

the complex relationships between all the environmental variables is a critical objective of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Many different climate monitoring systems in space, in the air, and on the ground are currently monitoring solar 

output as well as trapped and reflected heat by the Earth’s atmosphere. These systems are operated by many countries and research groups. Establishment of absolute calibration and standard references will allow accurate intercomparisons of 

these systems, will help identify small environmental changes occurring over many 

years, and will reduce uncertainties in the data input to global climate change models. 

With the proposed FY 2008 funding, NIST will, working in coordination with 

other agencies, develop: 

• An international irradiance measurement scale to be used in rigorously calibrating satellite light intensity instruments prior to launch to ensure sufficient 

accuracy to allow valid comparisons among results from different instruments 

or from data sets taken over different periods of time; 

• New instrument design strategies and quality assurance programs to optimize 

accuracy and stability of satellite-based irradiance measurement systems; 

• Techniques for generating specific types of aerosols in the laboratory, measuring 

aerosol optical and physical properties, and for simulating aerosol properties 

that cannot yet be measured in the laboratory; and 

• A database of critically evaluated data on aerosol properties collected at NIST 

and elsewhere. 

Enabling Innovation Through Quantum Science (+$4 million) 

Unlike the laws of physics that govern our ‘‘every day’’ world, the laws of physics 

that govern the quantum world of atoms, electrons, and light particles are fundamentally different. These quantum particles are able to interact in ways that according to human experience would seem impossible. For example, a quantum particle can actually be in two different places simultaneously. 

Conceptualizing these phenomena is difficult to say the least, but developing ways 

to exploit them for the development of technologically significant innovations is even 

more challenging. NIST, however, has world-class scientists who are leaders in the 

emerging field of quantum information science. Three NIST scientists have won 

Nobel Prizes in the last 10 years based on their work in this field. Many of the best 

minds in physics today believe that applications of quantum science will transform 

the 21st century just as integrated circuits and classical electronics revolutionized 

the 20th century. 

34 

The proposed FY 2008 initiative will build upon NIST’s significant expertise in 

this area, and leverage the collaborations established in the recently created Joint 

Quantum Institute between the University of Maryland, NIST, and the National Security Agency. NIST proposes to accelerate the potential of the quantum world for 

enhancing our Nation’s competitiveness through research into: 

• Quantum ‘‘wires’’ that use ‘‘teleportation’’ techniques to reliably transport information between the components of a simple quantum computer; 

• Quantum memory analogous to the random access memory of today’s computers 

to allow more complex logic operations; 

• Quantum conversion processes that transfer information from one form of quantum information to another (for example, ways to transfer information about 

the quantum characteristics of an atom to a photon); and 

• Quantum based measurement tools such as optical clocks and single electron 

counters. 

Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities (+$4 million) 

The past few years have reminded us that both natural hazards—including extreme winds, storm surge, wildland fires, earthquakes, and tsunamis—as well as 

terrorist actions, are a continuing and significant threat to U.S. communities. The 

disaster resilience of our physical infrastructure and communities today is determined in large measure by the building codes, standards, and practices used when 

they were built. Many of these legacy codes, standards, and practices—which have 

evolved over several decades—are oversimplified and inconsistent with current risk 

assessments. As construction and rebuilding costs continue to rise, there is increasing recognition of the need to move from response and recovery to proactively identifying and mitigating hazards that pose the greatest threats. 

The proposed FY 2008 initiative will, working in coordination with other agencies, 

develop: 

• Standard methods to predict losses, evaluate disaster resilience, and estimate 

cost-to-benefit of risk management strategies at the community and regional 

scales that local officials can use to evaluate and mitigate risks via land-use 

planning and practices; 

• Decision-support tools to modernize codes, standards, and practices consistent 

with the risk; 

• A validated ‘‘computational wind tunnel’’ for predicting extreme wind effects on 

structures; and 

• Risk-based storm surge maps for the design of structures in coastal regions. 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction (+$3.25 million) 

Many earthquakes strike without warning. Within the U.S., more than 75 million 

people are located in urban areas considered to be of moderate to high risk of earthquakes. Just the economic value of the physical structures within these regions— 

not including the potential loss of life and economic disruption—is valued at close 

to $8.6 trillion. To address this threat Congress has provided longstanding support 

for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program which NIST coordinates 

across the Federal Government. 

This initiative will enhance the safety of: 

• New structures by establishing and promoting performance-based standards for 

entire building designs and by accelerating the adoption of basic research into 

the model building codes, standards, and practices; and 

• Existing structures through research on actual building performance in earthquakes; developing structural performance models and tools; and establishing 

cost-effective retrofit techniques for existing buildings. 

Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) 

Building 1 Extension (B1E)—Enabling Sustained Scientific Advancement and 

Innovation (+$28 million) 

When President Eisenhower dedicated the NIST facilities in Colorado in 1954, no 

one imagined that half a century later scientists would be manipulating matter 

atom-by-atom. Such technological advances require increasingly complex and difficult measurements—to be able to observe, characterize, and create structures at 

ever smaller spatial scales. As the structures shrink in size, small fluctuations in 

temperature, humidity, air quality, and vibration begin to distort the results. We 

are now at the point where laboratory conditions are inhibiting further advances in 

some of the most promising areas of research for the 21st century. 

35 

The $28 million proposed in the FY 2008 budget will leverage previously proposed funds ($10.1 million) in the FY 2007 budget to construct state-of-the-art laboratory 

space that will meet the stringent environmental conditions required for 21st century scientific advances. An additional $38.1 million will be needed in FY 2009 to 

complete the project. With a total cost of $76.2 million, the Building 1 Extension 

is the most cost-effective approach to enabling world-class measurement science in 

support of some of the country’s most important economic sectors. 

NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Expansion and Reliability Improvements (+$19 million) 

The NCNR is widely regarded as the most scientifically-productive and cost-effective neutron facility in the U.S., and serves more scientists and engineers than all 

other U.S. facilities combined. Neutron scattering techniques, in which beams of 

neutrons are used as probes to see the structure and movements of materials at the 

smallest scales are critical in a wide range of applications that will define the 21st 

century including nanotechnology, alternative energies, and understanding the 

structure of biological molecules. Because of the unique properties of neutrons for 

probing materials and their applications to some of the most advanced technologies, 

a significant shortage of neutron beam capacity and capability exists in the U.S. to 

satisfy the demands of industry and academia. 

This initiative begun in FY 2007 is the second-year of a planned five-year program to expand significantly the capacity and capabilities of the NCNR. The program includes the development of a new neutron cold source together with a new 

hall to house the guide tube, modernization of the control system, and five new 

world-class neutron instruments. The specific FY 2008 funding will complete construction of the new guide hall. 

Industrial Technology Services 

Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) ($46.3 million—no change from FY 2007 President’s request; –$58.3 million from P.L. 110–5) 

The MEP program is a partnership between the Federal Government and local 

officials to provide assistance to small and medium sized manufacturers around the 

country. Surveys taken of companies 1 year after receiving MEP assistance indicate 

a significant financial benefit accrued to the individual company. 

The Federal Government is an important partner in the MEP program. Specifically, the Federal Government: 

• Develops new services and programs in response to the evolving manufacturing 

environment and propagates them throughout the network; 

• Evaluates and ensures high-quality performance of every member of the network; and 

• Ensures that small manufacturers remain the focus of the effort. 

The above Federal role can be accomplished within the requested budget. The reduction of Federal funds to the local centers may have to be compensated through 

a combination of increased fees derived from the benefits accrued by individual companies and cost-savings in the operations of the centers. 

Advanced Technology Program (ATP) ($0—no change from FY 2007 President’s 

Request) 

No funds for ATP are requested in the President’s FY 2008 budget. The FY 2006 

enacted budget and the 109th Congress’ House mark and Senate Appropriations 

committee mark were consistent with the phase-out of the ATP program. The last 

new awards were made in 2004 and sufficient funds were available in the carryover 

to complete all awards and provide government oversight. 

The FY 2007 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 100–5) includes funding for the ATP 

program. NIST will work with Congress to ensure the funds are executed in the 

most effective manner to promote U.S. industry’s competitiveness. 

Summary 

Measurements and standards are the bedrock upon which any economy stands. 

Our founding fathers recognized this. The Constitution assigns the Federal Government responsibility to both issue money and to ‘‘fix the standards of weights and 

measures.’’ The two are actually more similar than they might seem at first glance. 

All economic transactions rest fundamentally on trust—trust between two parties 

that a given amount of something is worth a given amount of something else. Helping to create that trust for innovative new technologies is the common theme that 

runs through all of NIST’s proposed FY 2008 research initiatives. Each helps build 

a missing or inadequate measurement base—a rigorous, accepted way of quanVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
36 

titatively describing something—that improves confidence in scientific results or improves the quality, reliability or safety of innovative products. Recent NIST measurements and standards research have enabled innovations now embedded in the 

iPod, body armor currently saving the lives of domestic law enforcement officers and 

our service men and women overseas, and in diagnostic screening devices for cancer 

patients making their treatment more targeted and accurate. The results of NIST 

research can be found in virtually every manufacturing and service industry. 

For nearly 106 years, NIST research has been critical to our Nation’s current and 

future competitiveness. The increased funding in the President’s FY 2008 budget for 

the NIST core will directly support technological advances in broad sectors of the 

economy that will quite literally define the 21st century—as well as improve the 

safety and quality of life for all our citizens. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Dr. Jeffrey. 

Thank you, all of you, I appreciate it. 

I guess we’ll do a loose 5-minute round, and try to, since there 

are only three of us here now, see what happens, four of us. 

Each of you has come before the Committee and obviously articulated what you think you can do, these programs are very important, and we obviously respect and appreciate what you’re doing. 

And we all understand that you have to operate within constraints. 

You’re the top science standards/research spokespeople for the 

Nation but, as I listen to you say, in a very direct way, and albeit, 

the President’s budget for 2008 has a request of $143 billion for the 

R&D funding. Analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science shows that 58 percent of that budget, $83 billion, is going to defense-related R&D, $60 billion or 42 percent for 

non-defense, and the request is very heavy on development, about 

$82.8 billion totally. 

Even after the proposed increase in the ACI agencies, NSF, 

NIST, DOE Office of Science, funding for basic and applied science 

research overall would fall 2 percent. R&D at NASA and ACI 

would, for the new space vehicle, rises, but the request for domestic 

R&D at other agencies would also fall, with cuts of 10.8 percent for 

the Department of Agriculture, 9.5 percent for NOAA, and a continued decrease in R&D funding for the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

How do we reconcile this sense that you come in and say, ‘‘Well, 

this is overall increase,’’ in fact, here’s a chart—I wish I had it 

blown up, I apologize that I don’t, you can’t really see if from there, 

but maybe you can see some colored lines. This is 2001 here, you 

see the high line for NIH when we did the doubling, and the trend 

line has been downward since then. These are in inflation-adjusted 

dollars, now inflation-adjusted dollars are what everybody has to 

deal with, the reality of what can you purchase and what do you 

get, even though the dollars may go up. 

Likewise if you look in other sectors, NSF goes slightly up, and 

down in USDA, and very much down in DoD S&T. The bottom line 

is, we’re not growing in the basic and applied research areas. Isn’t 

that dangerous for our long-term competitiveness? 

Dr. MARBURGER. There’s no question that basic research is a primary Federal obligation, Federal role, and that the ACI and similar initiatives have a focus on basic research. 

Regarding the specific numbers and the details of the budgets for 

this year, and the budget behaviors, there’s no question the President has attempted to restrain spending, and within the existing 

resources has set priorities that do emphasize basic research in 

37 

areas that have been historically underfunded, relative to their importance to—— 

Senator KERRY. Such as what, doctor? 

Dr. MARBURGER. Such as physical sciences and mathematics, 

computer sciences, in particular, which have been underfunded 

with respect to some other areas of science. And the ACI specifically calls out these three priority agencies, which have been mentioned here today, for special treatment. 

That is not to say that the other areas do not also enjoy priorities, I believe that the—that the expenditures through the Department of Defense are extremely important to maintain our competitiveness in technology, and I also believe that the expenditures for 

things like climate change, and environmental studies, Earth observations are extremely important, and this budget attempts to 

identify priorities in those areas and fund them at levels that 

maintains our leadership in precisely these areas. 

Senator KERRY. If I could just interrupt you for a second. We had 

already agreed, Congress and the President, on a NSF authorization in 2002 that promised a 5-year doubling effort by 2007. In effect, the 2007 request fell nearly $4 billion short of the previous 

doubling target. So it’s not sufficient, it seems to me, to come in 

and say, ‘‘We’re going up,’’ when we’re actually not meeting the 

goal we set. 

Dr. MARBURGER. I believe this budget does request appropriate 

amounts for the National Science Foundation. We would like to see 

us on a doubling track, as the Initiative very clearly states, and 

we’re disappointed that—— 

Senator KERRY. Why are we not? What’s the precedent of priority, in your judgment, that we’re not doing that? 

Dr. MARBURGER. The—I’m sorry, I don’t understand—— 

Senator KERRY. You said, ‘‘There are priorities here, the reflection of priorities.’’ Does this reflect the request that you put in? Did 

you ask for the full doubling? 

Dr. MARBURGER. The, the—I’m sorry, the ACI has a doubling for 

these agencies over a period of 10 years on a schedule that we’ve 

circulated in the policy documents for this Initiative. The President 

has funded the National Science Foundation at above-inflation 

rates, during the previous several years. Now under the ACI, which 

clearly responds to a number of reports and expert committees and 

advice, the President is requesting funding on a doubling track. 

And that’s, that’s very clear. We’re disappointed that Congress has 

failed to enact the ACI through the Continuing Resolution, falls 

short by nearly a half a billion dollars, and we’d like to get that 

back on track, and move ahead. 

Senator KERRY. What I’m trying to wrestle with here is the disparity between the discussion about where the priorities ought to 

be, and then where the funding is. Because the overall budget for 

NSF, I can see, increases, that I understand. But, the education 

and human resource budget, which seems to be central to the goals 

that we’ve talked about, decreases. I’m trying to figure out how you 

reconcile that. 

Dr. MARBURGER. The President has requested increases for those 

areas in this budget, and we believe that those increases are appropriate for the goals and the existing programs within the National 

38 

Science Foundation. We think that it is appropriate for the National Science Foundation to have programs in this area, and the 

President has requested funds for them, commensurate with the 

aims of those programs. 

Senator KERRY. Well I seem to see here that there’s a NSF Education and Human Resource decrease of 5.8 percent, from $797 million in 2007, down to $750 million in 2008, despite the fact that 

the President, as you said, is promoting STEM education, and Congress has authorized new education programs. The money itself is 

going down. 

Dr. MARBURGER. My understanding is that the President has requested increases in key programs in the National Science Foundation for these—we have the Director of the National Science Foundation here, he might be able to clarify the details of this. But, the 

President is committed to improving both K through 12 education, 

and education in other sectors that lead to STEM workforce increases. 

Senator KERRY. Well, let me ask this—— 

Dr. MARBURGER. Not only through the National Science Foundation, but also through the Department of Education as well, and 

other appropriate agencies. 

Senator KERRY. Dr. Bement, maybe you can help us here. Some 

of the most effective programs within NSF, aside from the scientific 

discovery, are the education and human resource programs, you’d 

agree with that? 

Dr. BEMENT. Fully agree. 

Senator KERRY. And those programs are specifically designed to 

try to attract students to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, which we’ve all heard from each of the Senators is a critical 

focus, a priority. 

But the 2008 budget, if you exclude the Experimental Program 

for Competitive Research, the EPSCoR Program, which was transferred to the Director’s Office last year, if you set that aside, the 

fiscal year funding for the core EHR Programs has declined, from 

$844 million to, a request now of $750 million. I’m trying to see 

how you reconcile that. 

Dr. BEMENT. Senator, most of that decline is in one program, 

that’s the Math and Science Partnership Program—— 

Senator KERRY. And what’s the judgment about that program? 

Dr. BEMENT. I’m sorry? 

Senator KERRY. What is the judgment about that program that 

would bring about a decline? 

Dr. BEMENT. I think the program has been very effective—— 

Senator KERRY. Then, isn’t that a priority, according to what 

we’ve said, to get more students capable in math? The Chairman 

was here a moment ago, he talked about math, science performance, the numbers of engineers, et cetera? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, since the beginning, the Math and Science 

Partnership Program has been a partnership with the Department 

of Education, and it was a matter of judgment what that balance 

should be over time. The role of the National Science Foundation 

has been to carry out research and development in terms of pedagogy and instructional materials and so forth, that would meet the 

goals of No Child Left Behind, and would stimulate performance 

39 

against those goals. And we have demonstrated that we have improved performance in the programs that we have funded, all of 

which have been peer-reviewed, they’re all competitive. 

Now, the question is, in terms of scalability, and in terms of 

transferability, in building up the impact of those programs, it requires resources well beyond what the NSF can provide, and it 

would be inappropriate for the NSF to do the scalability and the 

transferability, that ought to be a partnership with the states. And 

we do partner with the State Math and Science Partnership Program, funded by the Department of Education, so that’s been a 

very close partnership, and those—those priorities have changed 

over the last 4 or 5 years, the net result has been a decrease in 

the NSF part of the overall program. 

Dr. MARBURGER. But an increase in the Department of Education 

programs that fund similar STEM-oriented teaching improvements. 

Senator KERRY. Do you know how much, by how much? 

Dr. MARBURGER. I don’t have the details, I’ll be glad to provide 

them. 

Senator KERRY. We’ll look forward to, maybe we can—— 

[The information previously referred to follows:] 

Department of Education Funding for the Math and Science Partnerships Program: 

FY 2008 (requested): $182.1 million 

FY 2007: $182.2 million 

FY 2006: $182.2 million 

FY 2005: $179.5 million 

FY 2004: $149.1 million 

FY 2003: $100.3 million 

FY 2002: $12.5 million 

Department of Education Funding for other programs supporting related STEM-oriented teaching improvements at the K–12 level (Math Now, Advanced Placement, 

Adjunct Teachers): 

FY 2008 (requested): $397 million 

FY 2007: $37 million 

FY 2006: $32 million 

FY 2005: $30 million 

FY 2004: $24 million 

FY 2003: $23 million 

FY 2002: $22 million 

Dr. MARBURGER. But, the idea is to continuously increase investment in No Child Left Behind, and the Math and Science Partnership, in particular. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. My time is up. 

Senator Sununu? 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much. Let me at least start by 

talking about a very different subject—invention. And, in particular, I want to call your attention to language in the House competitiveness bill, and this gets at one of the concerns that I was 

raising about dilution of mission from investment in basic science 

and mathematics. There is a provision in the House bill that called 

for research on innovation and inventiveness. And, I would like 

each of you just to comment on how this kind of initiative can be 

defined, and whether or not you think National Science Foundation 

money ought to be carved out for this purpose. 

40 

It says, ‘‘In carrying out its research programs on science policy, 

and the science of learning, National Science Foundation may support research on the process of innovation, and the teaching of inventiveness.’’ Now, again, my personal experience here is limited, 

although I worked for 4 years in a manufacturing capacity for a 

gentleman named Dean Kamen, who I honestly believe is the most 

gifted inventor I’ve ever met. Dean has some weaknesses, he has 

a very limited wardrobe, for example, for those that have met 

him—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SUNUNU.—but he is a brilliant inventor. He’s also a college dropout. And, it’s my experience that it’s very difficult to really 

characterize where this gift comes from. And, in fact, the only common denominator I think you can find among great inventors is— 

especially on the technology side—an interest, an interest in technology, in science, in mathematics. I get back to the basic concern 

I raised earlier, that that is driven, that’s inspired in 5th grade and 

6th grade and 7th grade and 8th grade, and I know it was in Dean. 

And, it’s a great concern to me to start carving out resources at 

the National Science Foundation to try to characterize or quantify 

the unquantifiable. 

And, I’ll offer one other example, before I ask you each for a comment, and that is, one of the other great inventors of our time, and, 

in a slightly different area of technology, that is, software development, is a gentleman named William Gates, some of you may have 

heard of him—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SUNUNU. He is also a college dropout. Now, there are 

some people, maybe, without a great technical background, and 

some people I know with a great technical background that would 

love to take those data points, extrapolate, and start encouraging 

kids to drop out of college, because that’s obviously a determining 

factor in becoming a great inventor, but that’s not the case. That’s 

obviously not the case. 

The point is, it’s so hard to characterize the gift, but again, both 

of them—whether you’re Bill Gates or Dean Kamen, the key is an 

interest in technology, an interest in science, an interest in what 

makes things work, and that didn’t start when they were freshmen 

in college, just prior to dropping out, it didn’t start when they were 

seniors in high school. It started much earlier than that. Comments? Dr. Marburger? 

Dr. MARBURGER. As a matter of policy, we have no complaints 

about, or concerns about NSF investing in researchers to study 

issues like this, about what is it that leads to innovation, we think 

that’s important. The concern would be to, a carve-out, or some 

limitation on NSF’s ability to direct, or not to direct, funding in 

that area. We think that the National Science Foundation does 

support useful research on what it takes to do innovation on social 

sciences that are relevant to innovation and competitiveness, but 

we would like not, to see them not constrained to spend a fixed portion of their budget on any area, but rather to leave it up to the 

judgment of the community that does the work. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

41 

Now, this is indeed a focus of NSF’s investment in education, to 

teach creativity and innovation through hands-on learning, through 

inquiry-based learning, and also to couple informal education with 

formal education so that children have experiences in and outside 

the classroom that stimulate their curiosity and inventiveness. 

I can tell you that we’re seeing this now happen in pre-school, 

in early grades—I’ve attended some classes in 6th grade where 

they’re teaching engineering, for example. And this is, what I 

think, will stimulate inventiveness. 

We also, through our social science program, are looking at what 

constitutes creativity and inventiveness, and that will couple into 

our education programs. 

A lot has to do with cognition, child development, learning what 

science children can learn early, and also how to evaluate their 

learning in those subjects. 

Dr. JEFFREY. Thank you. Obviously, I have nothing to add over 

my two colleagues who I agree with completely, so—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Getting back to the issue of the carve-out, though, and that is my 

principle concern, is that Congress not start directing the National 

Science Foundation where to put its money, how much and in what 

time sequence. And again, in the House bill there are 3.5 percent 

of the funds required to go to early career awards for science and 

engineering researchers. 

I know this is a program that you value, but not only is there 

a requirement that 3.5 percent go to those career grants, but 

there’s also 1.5 percent that has to go to the graduate education 

and research grant program, there’s a minimum award size set at 

$80,000 for 5 years, would you like to speak to this issue of micromanagement, and whether or not the limitation on your flexibility 

is a cause for concern? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, I would, and thank you for that question. 

Prioritization within the Foundation is an organic process, it’s a 

daily process. Some of our priorities are handed down by the Congress, by the Administration, and our job is to put together the best 

programs and the best science to address those priorities. 

In addition to that, we get priorities from the community, in 

terms of what science is worthy of supporting, where the frontier 

is moving forward, and in many cases, where opportunities far exceed the available resources, they also have to help us in 

prioritizing where those resources go. 

Those priorities are reviewed by the National Science Board, by 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Along with setting priorities is balancing 

our program. Balance between support for Education and Human 

Resources versus Research and Related Activities. Balance between 

support for young investigators versus more senior investigators. 

Balance between instrumentation and tools, and discovery research. 

That balance can very easily be upset. And when we get carveouts and when we get language that sets dollar amounts or dollar 

limits, it under-optimizes, if you will, the overall program at the 

NSF, and the effectiveness of the overall investment. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

42 

One final question, Dr. Marburger, I mentioned the 34 different 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Programs, supported 

by the National Science Foundation, dozens of others in different 

parts, and at different Departments and agencies within the Federal Government. There’s also a proposal in our Senate competitiveness bill to have the Department of Energy work to establish 

specialty schools for science, math and engineering. Could you comment on both of these issues? One, what is the Administration’s 

perspective on the number of Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Math Programs, education programs, what can be done to better coordinate their activities? And second, do you think the Department of Energy is the best agent for working to develop and 

create specialty schools for math and science? 

Dr. MARBURGER. Senator, thank you for the question—there’s no 

question that there are too many of these programs, and they really need to be consolidated and optimized, and the Administration 

is beginning to do that through a process that’s jointly sponsored 

by the Office of Management and Budget—— 

Senator KERRY. When you say too many of these programs, too 

many within various agencies, government-wide? 

Dr. MARBURGER. There are approximately 100 of these programs, 

and multiple programs within each agency and they have not been 

uniformly assessed or coordinated in the past. And, we’re just beginning to do that. 

This Committee will be pleased to note that the National Science 

Foundation comes out rather high on the ratings, they know how 

to do these programs and they’re pretty effective. Not every agency 

is set up to do this. Specifically, with respect to the Department of 

Energy, there are assets in the Department of Energy, the National 

Laboratories are fascinating places, they provide mentoring for 

science projects and so forth, teacher training, but I believe that 

the most important mission of the Department of Energy is the 

basic research and the operation of the facilities that they provide—these missions are essential to the future competitiveness 

and innovation of our Nation, and they need to be funded more 

than they are today. 

And, when it comes to priorities, that would be our first priority—getting the money back into the Office of Science laboratories and programs, and letting them respond to the science community regarding the priorities for funding. 

Education would not be my first choice as a function or a mission 

for the Department of Energy. It’s an ancillary function that needs 

to be managed very carefully in the context of their overall program. I believe that the new programs that are proposed for the 

Departments of Energy and Education have the potential for diffusing any new resources that we have available to put into that 

agency. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Pryor? 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, please let Senator Thune go, he 

was here before me, and I can stay for a few more minutes, so 

please let him go. 

Senator THUNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

43 

I’m particularly interested in—our Nation’s energy policy. I come 

from a state that’s rich in renewable energy sources such as biofuels and wind, but it’s not simply a parochial issue for me. I think 

energy research and energy policy are very much connected to our 

national security, and I guess I would ask whether or not the U.S. 

is doing enough basic research today to get us to energy independence, via clean, renewable sources during my lifetime, and if not, 

what more or what else should we be doing. 

Dr. MARBURGER. Let me just venture a short response to this. 

One of the reasons that we would like to see the budget of the Department of Energy Office of Science increase, is that they have a 

lot to offer on basic research for materials and processes that feed 

into energy independence and climate change issues. And this is 

why it’s so important to maintain the pace of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative. Unfortunately, we did not maintain that pace for the Department of Energy Office of Science this 

past year, and I hope we can catch up again this year. They have 

a very important role to play there. Obviously, we’re not investing 

as much as we should be in that area, the President has requested 

funds to correct that. 

Dr. BEMENT. I would say that more attention needs to be given 

to basic research. Certainly the efficiency of solar cells could be improved. It may be a point of diminishing return, but we’re seeing 

opportunities for improving their overall effectiveness. 

We’re seeing science being applied to how to make plants more 

susceptible to cellulose breakdown for ethanol production, through 

modification. We’re also seeing breakthroughs in fuel cell technology, where you could begin to match power cycles, which has 

been illusive in the design of fuel cells. 

Energy is an important enough area where basic research from 

more than one agency is critically important. The research that the 

NSF supports goes to support graduate students at universities, 

those will be the people who will take that knowledge into the private sector, and be very innovative in taking new concepts, new 

ideas, and developing whole new approaches to renewable energy 

generation, and energy sustainability in general. Not only how to 

generate energy, but how to conserve it, as well. 

Dr. JEFFREY. If I could just add a few words to that, of course, 

there are a number of programs, for example, that are under the 

ACI that are very high priority. I mentioned in my opening statement, some of the work at the NIST Center for Neutron Research 

and the impact that being able to use neutrons to image fuel cells 

have made a huge increase in their efficiency and productivity. 

That’s a major priority for us under the ACI and we did get adequate funding under the 2007 Continuing Resolution to stay on 

track on that program. 

Another is supporting a hydrogen fuel initiative, to allow for hydrogen to actually be used as a portable fuel. There’s a lot of work 

that needs to be done there, that we’re doing in conjunction with 

the Department of Energy, that was not fully funded, unfortunately, under the 2007 Continuing Resolution, but again, we hope 

to be back on track in 2008. 

I’d like to add and follow up on a thought of Dr. Bement’s, as 

well, that in addition to some of the bio-fuels work and hydrogen 

44 

work, there’s also energy reduction work—how do you actually 

have more efficient lighting? How do you actually have better insulations to reduce the demand, as well as to increase the supply of 

alternative energies? These are all areas that, I know, all of the 

agencies mentioned under ACI are heavily involved in. 

Senator THUNE. Well, I just don’t think we can hardly do enough 

in that area. And I know that there have been estimates that there 

is enough wind generated in my State of South Dakota alone to 

meet the electricity needs of 10 percent of the people in the entire 

country. And so, we are obviously very interested in pursuing some 

of those things, but as I said, it’s not a parochial issue, I think it’s 

an issue that has a bearing on our energy independence, the energy needs that we have as a Nation, and the need for good, clean, 

renewable energy. 

Some people might argue there’s probably enough wind in Washington, D.C. to meet the needs of 10 percent of the people. But, my 

point is, we have to stay ahead in that area, and we have so many 

reasons for doing it. I would appreciate your continued dialogue 

with us about some of the things that are going on in areas that 

I see, as great opportunities for our country in terms of renewable 

energy. 

Mr. Bement, I just—in your written testimony, you mentioned 

that National Science Foundation leads Federal agencies in funding research and education activities based on competitive merit review, with over 88 percent of it’s research and education funding 

going to awards selected through a competitive merit-review process. 

We’ve seen this merit-review process in competition, up close, in 

South Dakota recently, there’s a—as you know—an NSF selection 

process ongoing to develop a deep underground science and engineering laboratory. A decision on that particular project is due out 

very soon and as much as I’d like to, I won’t lobby you for South 

Dakota’s location—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. I respect very much the merit-based and peerreview process that you use and undertake for this project and for 

others. 

But, I did want to ask you a question about it, because you mention in your testimony that you want to continue to improve on the 

selection process in 2008, by enhancing transparency and uniformity to the merit-review process. And, I would just ask you what 

types of improvements you’re considering, and how would those 

changes impact projects that are currently receiving funding, or already selected for future funding? 

Dr. BEMENT. I think with regard to transparency, it’s a question 

of making sure that the community knows well what our criteria 

stand for in merit review, and that we have an ongoing dialogue 

so that they meet those requirements in their proposals. We put 

much of that information on the website, but we have to communicate it in many more ways so that there’s a clearer understanding of what it takes to be successful. 

We also have what we call NSF days. As a matter of fact, when 

I leave this hearing, I’ll be going down to Oak Ridge to meet with 

principal investigators from universities, as well as representatives 

45 

from the private sector to provide outreach in how to be successful 

in working with the National Science Foundation through our 

merit-review process. 

With regard to consistency, we need to continue to work on consistency across the Foundation. Our program officers do have the 

responsibility of recommending awards. Program officers from different directorates have different viewpoints on what constitutes 

an outstanding or excellent merit review. We need to share those 

practices and that information across the Foundation so that we 

can lift the quality of our merit review generally. 

Senator THUNE. I appreciate that response. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his 

forbearance, and I yield back my time. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. 

Senator Pryor? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I may, Dr. Marburger, I’d like to start with you and talk about 

nanotechnology. I just have two or three quick questions for you on 

nanotechnology. 

I notice that Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley has talked about how 

nanotechnology could enable a sustainable world of clean energy, 

water, agriculture, et cetera. Do you see nanotechnology as an important part of the future when it comes to clean energy and the 

environment? 

Dr. MARBURGER. Yes, sir, Senator. Nanotechnology promises improvement of many materials and processes that are related to energy, not only on the energy conservation side, for example, in 

making chemical reactions and the production of chemical products, more efficient, but also in connection with increasing battery 

storage capacity, and other characteristics of fuel cell, primarily 

through the materials enhancements, and products that use less 

energy, and use it more efficiently. 

Senator PRYOR. OK, great. Given that, do you think that Congress should direct more Federal agencies to focus their nanotechnology resources, if you will, to working on energy, water, et cetera, 

environmental issues? Or, do you think that, just allowing things 

to work the way they are now that the resources will find their way 

to the problems? 

Dr. MARBURGER. Nanotechnology is such a broad field that there 

are very many opportunities and it’s difficult to see, sometimes, 

from which part of this field you will get the results. So, for example, people working on biomass, are working with molecular-level 

machinery, that may turn out—serendipitously—to have an influence on some other application. 

So, when it comes to basic research, I favor letting the science 

community determine the direction and the course, I don’t favor 

top-down direction. We try to avoid it ourselves, in the Executive 

Branch. This is one area that has such a broad impact that we 

want the scientific community to let us know. 

Senator PRYOR. Great, that’s helpful. 

46 

There’s something called the Nanotechnology Environmental and 

Health Implications Working Group, and as I understand it, I 

think that you may call it the NEHI Working Group, the NEHI 

Working Group is developing research strategy, with priorities, 

timelines, budgets, et cetera. When can we expect to have the benefit of that work product? 

Dr. MARBURGER. My understanding is that that’s a high-priority 

project, and I don’t want to commit to a time, because I haven’t 

asked them, specifically, where they are, but my understanding is 

that they’re working aggressively on this, and I expect something, 

certainly, during this calendar year, and almost certainly well before that. 

Senator PRYOR. OK, great. 

Dr. Bement, let me turn to you, if I may, in looking at the geography when it comes to R&D and EPSCoR, things like that, when 

looking at the map, the geography, I notice that there are clusters 

of research that are done on the East Coast, West Coast, Upper 

Midwest, but there are areas in the country that don’t have much 

of that. 

Is geographical diversity—is that a worthy goal? In other words, 

do you think that good ideas really don’t have any geographical 

boundaries, or do you think it makes sense to have them concentrated in certain clusters around the country? 

Dr. BEMENT. Absolutely, I agree with you, Senator. There seems 

to be a misconception that all of the talent in the world exists in 

a few, top research universities, but one has to keep in mind that 

the Ph.D. graduates from those universities go elsewhere in the 

country to teach, and many of them go to places in the United 

States where they want to be located, some want to go to smaller 

institutions, because they have more freedom and flexibility. So 

you’ll find talent broadly distributed throughout the United States. 

And more to the point of your question, the National Science 

Foundation could not meet its obligations under the American 

Competitiveness Initiative without involving every state in the initiative. 

Senator PRYOR. And I would welcome your thought on how we 

should have the EPSCoR Program and others to try to improve, 

you know, some sort of geographical diversity—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR.—I don’t know if you have thoughts today or if 

you just want to get back to us. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I do have thoughts today, I’d be glad to get 

back with you, and—— 

Senator PRYOR. That’d be great. 

Dr. BEMENT.—discuss it more broadly. 

Senator PRYOR. I’d like to, because that is probably a longer discussion than we really have time for today, but I’d love to visit 

with you about it. 

The last thing I have is really a question that in some ways is 

off the subject, but I think is very relevant, and if I may, Dr. Jeffrey, I’ll start with you since I haven’t picked on you yet. The Congress, once again, will soon enter a discussion on immigration policy. Before this very distinguished panel leaves, I’d like to get each 

one of your thoughts on things that we need to be looking for when 

47 

we are evaluating America’s immigration policies and things we 

need to have in our minds as we listen to this debate. So, if you 

want to start, and if all three could answer. 

Dr. JEFFREY. Thank you very much. I believe that there are definitely aspects of the immigration policy that directly impact our 

ability as a Nation to remain competitive. And, when you look at 

the history of a lot of the science within this country, a lot of the 

Nobel Prize winners—many of these were immigrants coming into 

this country. 

One of the things for me to be able to do my job at NIST, as well 

as others, we try to bring in the best and the brightest from around 

the world. And, it would be great to be able to make that an easy 

access, and to then encourage retention of some of the best and the 

brightest talent within the United States, helping to support missions that are important to the U.S. 

And, so as the immigration debate goes forward, remembering 

the goals, also, of attracting and retaining the best and the brightest around the world, I think, is an incredibly important part of our 

competitiveness. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, with regard to collaborating with the very best 

scientists around the world, and tapping the best talent for a graduate education in this country, it’s important that we keep the barriers low, not only for visas, but also for immigration. I think that 

expresses my point of view. 

Dr. MARBURGER. The President’s American Competitiveness Initiative has a specific provision for improving the immigration environment for highly trained people in the technical areas that are 

important for our competitiveness. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Pryor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

For the past half century, the United States investment in basic research has 

been the engine that drives our economy. In 1945, Vannevar Bush submitted his 

report Science—The Endless Frontier to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that 

spurred the creation of a system of public support for university research that endures to this day. 

The connection between basic research and the economy is straightforward. Basic 

research produces the discoveries that through innovation and manufacturing become the products that transform and strengthen our economy. 

The goal of basic research is not to publish the most scientific papers, receive the 

most patents, or win awards. The goal is to discover new scientific ideas, principles, 

and theories. In a global economy, with instantaneous access to information, the 

United States runs the risk of other nations innovating faster that we do and ending up with the ‘‘commercial fruits’’ of our ‘‘scientific labor.’’ 

I support the recommendations of the National Academies report Rising Above the 

Gathering Storm and I am a cosponsor of the America COMPETES Act. I hope that 

this legislation will begin to restore our science research infrastructure and competitive edge. At the same time, I am concerned about our ability to rapidly translate 

scientific discoveries through innovation into new commercial products and technologies. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and Senator Kerry for chairing this 

hearing. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator, I appreciate it. 

I’m a little pressed here because I have to get over to a Finance 

Committee meeting momentarily, but I want to try, if I can, to 

cover a couple of questions, and see where we are. 

48 

Dr. Bement, in 2005, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued America’s Lab Report, Investigations into High School Science. And they found, ‘‘the quality of current laboratory experience is poor for most students,’’ and then ‘‘A 

revision in lab activities would help students to better develop 

skills and cultivate an interest in science.’’ It referred to the declining condition of schools, and their science facilities. Can you share 

with me what NSF’s response has been to that report? 

Dr. BEMENT. We’re very favorable to the report, and agree with 

all of the recommendations and findings in the report, and through 

our programs, we try to respond to that. Not only in trying to upgrade laboratories, but also to provide training to teachers, and 

how best to teach in the laboratory, to get the best benefit from the 

investment. 

Clearly, we can provide supplements to many of our grants that 

can go, not only to improving laboratories, but also explore where 

laboratories can be more cost-effective using modern technology, information technology for example. 

Senator KERRY. Do you have a specific, or is there a targeted program based on that, that’s trying to really lift people’s focus, and 

focus energies on it. 

Dr. BEMENT. I don’t know that we have—we do have one targeted program, and that’s the program we call ITEST, which is to 

bring information technology into the classroom. It meets many of 

the requirements that would also be necessary for effective use of 

laboratory resources, as well. 

But, I guess I would have to say, that’s the only example I can 

think of. 

Senator KERRY. I’ve been in some of these schools, and I’ve had 

science teachers sort of point out to me, you know, ‘‘Senator, it’s 

really hard to do what we’re trying to do, this is not state-of-theart,’’ and so forth. And I think it’s pretty tough to encourage kids 

around the country to be serious about science, and think we’re serious, if these are the facilities that they’re operating in. I think 

that your input on this can be particularly persuasive to our colleagues here in terms of expenditures and otherwise. I’d urge you 

to—— 

Dr. BEMENT. Senator, it does also occur to me that we are working with the National Governor’s Association in trying to deal with 

some of these issues, and most of our Math and Science Partnerships deal with this issue in partnership with the states. So, hopefully, as a partnership, we can begin to address many of these 

issues. It’s certainly high on our agenda, it is something we discuss 

regularly with State officials, and I agree with you entirely, it’s important. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Dr. Jeffrey, with respect to the Manufacturing Extension Program, everybody in the country knows what’s happened to certain 

states, the manufacturing base, the jobs. During the period that 

the Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to cut it, we’ve actually used it to add or retain more than 12,000 manufacturing jobs 

in Massachusetts alone. 

The Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposes very dramatic cuts to this program, from $104 million down to about $46 million. Why, given 

49 

its benefits and contribution to competitiveness is it repeatedly 

under assault? 

Dr. JEFFREY. Well, thank you Senator. 

The program we view as an effective program, it’s a question of 

priorities. As mentioned—one of the core priorities that we have is 

increasing the basic science research, which creates new industries, 

supports new industries—the Manufacturing Extension Partnership works at a company by company level, it does that effectively. 

We believe that the Federal Government, the role that we play in 

that, is really to help ensure that new skills are generated that can 

get propagated throughout the centers; that there’s a quality control to ensure that the centers operate effectively; and that there 

is enough of a focus that is kept on a small manufacturing base, 

which is a critical component. 

We believe with the budget that was proposed, we can do that 

from the Federal Government. And then, it gets into the 

prioritization, where the other funds are necessary, where we believe there’s greater leverage from the Federal investment in the 

basic science. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I understand your drawing that distinction. But, I think there’s a fairly strong base of support here, and 

obviously each year we’ve had a different point of view in the Congress, bipartisanly. 

What about with respect to the Massachusetts program, there 

was a policy difference between NIST, you folks and the IG, has 

that been resolved, on the audit? 

Dr. JEFFREY. If you’re referring to the 2003 audit—— 

Senator KERRY. Right. 

Dr. JEFFREY.—that has been resolved, and Massachusetts MEP 

has been notified. 

Senator KERRY. We should be able to proceed forward with that? 

Dr. JEFFREY. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. Great. Well, I appreciate it. There are a few 

other questions, I want to leave the record open for a couple of 

weeks, just to follow up if any colleagues also have questions or 

weren’t able to be here. 

We appreciate it, I know these are complicated budget times. I 

might just comment that there was a revision on the budget done 

by CBO which suggests that we will not, in fact, be in balance by 

2012, just for the record so you’re aware of that, we obviously have 

to operate within that. But, I hope that we can continue the cooperation which we’ve obviously appreciated. We do consider these 

entities that you represent among the most important in our Government, and really vital to our economic future. I know you know 

that, and as a committee we know that. We look forward to working with you, and we appreciate the job you’re doing under obviously constrained circumstances. 

Thank you for being here today, we stand adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(51) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

DR. WILLIAM A. JEFFREY

Question. It appears that NIST has been slow to market the user facility to industry. When will the user facility be available to outside users? Will NIST researchers 

help companies improve their nanoscale materials or merely provide a characterization service? Has NIST developed a standard agreement that clearly defines fees 

and intellectual property ownership? 

Answer. The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) exemplifies 

NIST’s core mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by 

advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance 

economic security and improve our quality of life, The CNST endeavors to provide 

science and industry with the necessary measurement methods, standards, and 

technology to facilitate the development and productive use of nanotechnology from 

discovery to production. In this way, we hope to drive innovation in nanotechnology 

and the related frontier areas of science and technology. 

To achieve this mission, the CNST contains the Nanofab, a state-of-the-art facility 

that provides advanced nanofabrication and measurement instrumentation on a feebased, shared use basis. It includes tools for patterning semiconductor and other 

materials via photolithographic, electron beam, ion beam, or nanoimprint lithographic methods as well optical, electron, and ion based measurement tools. It is 

located in both a 16,000 square foot clean room (which includes 8,000 square feet 

of class 100 space) and in an adjacent laboratory building (216) of NIST’s Advanced 

Measurement Laboratory (AML) complex. 

The CNST Nanofab has recently opened to all users. It currently has in excess 

of 150 internal NIST users who are taking advantage of the state-of-the-art Nanofab 

on a fee-based, shared use basis. CNST staff is actively reaching out to potential 

external users to facilitate the growth in external use over the next year. The CNST 

staff has created a range of standard agreements that clearly define fees as well as 

issues related to intellectual property rights. Under at least one of the arrangements, external users may maintain sole ownership of their intellectual property 

rights. 

Finally, the CNST provides a flexible menu of services to the external research 

community, which can be leveraged to best meet their individual needs. As discussed above, external users can have access to the CNST Nanofab user facility on 

a fee-based shared use basis. This would include access to the Nanofab’s technical 

staff that can assist the users in taking full advantage of the capabilities of the laboratory space and equipment. In addition, users can, if they choose, partner with 

CNST researchers in joint research teams, focused on areas of common interest related to improving nanostructures and devices. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

DR. JOHN MARBURGER III 

Question 1. The United States competes with other countries for ideas, talent, and 

resources. Emerging economies are rapidly increasing their R&D investment. As a 

percentage of GDP, the U.S. Federal investment in physical sciences and engineering research has dropped by half since 1970. In 2005, the U.S. high technology industries employed 5.6 million people. Starting in 2001 the U.S. has run a high-tech 

trade deficit that continues to widen. 

In many fields, what was once viewed as a linear process of innovation from basic 

research, through scale-up, to commercialization is now much more complex. Scientific discoveries reported in the literature or patents are instantaneously available 

around the globe. The U.S. needs to be more nimble and faster in translating these 

scientific ideas and discoveries into new products and technologies before our comVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78569.TXT JACKIE
52 

petitors do so. Do we have a good understanding of the innovation process and the 

barriers to innovation? 

Answer. There is a great deal of on-going research aimed at gaining a better understanding of the conditions that foster, drive and enable innovation. Despite some 

progress in describing the innovation process in limited areas, it remains a field of 

inquiry with a great deal of potential. 

Question 2. What implications would a better understanding of how innovation occurs have on science and technology policy? 

Answer. Innovation is a hallmark of successful research and development and a 

trait that should be fostered. If a solid, scientific basis for innovation could be established it would allow us to formulate science and technology policy with more focused goals and give us tools to better evaluate the outcomes. 

Question 3. What new models, pilot programs, or experiments for accelerating the 

innovation of high risk/high reward R&D would you suggest the Federal Government try? 

Answer. An important long term goal of the American Competitiveness Initiative 

is to foster innovation by ensuring that basic physical sciences are appropriately 

funded thereby increasing the chances that fundamental discoveries will fuel innovation. The decision to undertake specific programs and experiments is best left to 

agency leadership in consultation with scientists. 

Question 4. An important aspect of U.S. efforts to maintain and improve economic 

competitiveness is maintaining a capable scientific and technological workforce. 

Science and engineering occupations are projected to grow by 21 percent from 2004 

to 2014, compared to a growth of 13 percent in all occupations during the same time 

period. 

The increased presence of foreign students in graduate science and engineering 

programs is a concern to some in the scientific community. Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering programs has not kept pace with that of 

foreign students. Also, a significant number of university faculties in the scientific 

disciplines are foreign, and foreign doctorates are employed in large numbers by industry. Do you think the United States should be concerned that our universities 

are educating foreign students who then go back to their home countries and compete with the U.S.? 

Answer. The U.S. system of higher education, the best in the world, will continue 

to attract high quality students from around the world. Some of these students will 

stay in the U.S. after receiving their degree, some will return to their home country 

and some will seek opportunities elsewhere. The U.S. should make every effort to 

retain the best of these students while accepting the fact that many of them will 

not stay. Many of those who go elsewhere will use their American education to build 

better trading partners and allies for us. 

Question 5. Do you have recommendations for policy changes so that the United 

States can retain the best and brightest foreign students to work in America? 

Answer. The American Competitiveness Initiative recognizes the importance of retaining qualified foreign students with sections that focus on education, workforce 

training and immigration. These complex issues should continue to be addressed by 

Congress and the Administration. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. JOHN MARBURGER III 

Question. Please provide a summary of the manner in which the National Aeronautics Research Policy established pursuant to P.L. 109–155 contributes to and enhances the Nation’s competitive posture through an emphasis on basic research. 

Answer. The National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy approved by 

President Bush on December 20, 2006 and effectuated by Executive Order 13419 

‘‘National Aeronautics Research and Development’’, provided the Nation with the 

overarching goal ‘‘to advance U.S. technological leadership in aeronautics by fostering a vibrant and dynamic aeronautics R&D community that includes government, industry, and academia.’’ The Policy will contribute to U.S. competitiveness 

by providing lasting, long-term policy guidance to the Federal Government’s aeronautics R&D activities which will cultivate an R&D environment that enables a 

globally competitive U.S. aeronautics enterprise. Consistent with this, Executive 

Order 13419 states that ‘‘continued progress in aeronautics . . . is essential to 

America’s economic success and the protection of America’s security interests at 

home and around the globe.’’ Hence, both the statutory Policy and Executive Order 

53 

clearly recognize the link between the Nation’s interests and the need for advancing—not merely maintaining—its technological leadership in aeronautics. 

The Policy’s inclusion of basic research activities are captured primarily through 

its clarification of roles and responsibilities of the departments and agencies conducting aeronautics R&D in a section devoted to ‘‘stable and long-term foundational 

research’’. While foundational research does consist of basic research, it also encompasses many aspects of applied research that require continued long-term scientific 

study in order to advance a strong technology base in aeronautics that will not only 

benefit Federal departments and agencies, but also the Nation’s broader aeronautics 

enterprise. 

Lastly, it should be noted that the Policy does not place an emphasis solely on 

foundational research. Of interest to the topic of the Nation’s competitive posture, 

the Policy includes general guidelines for the interaction between the Federal Government and the commercial sector. The Policy also lays out guidelines to Federal 

departments and agencies for advanced aircraft systems development and air transportation management systems—key elements that will allow our Nation to maintain its mobility through the air that is vital to economic stability, growth, and security. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. Please provide a detailed summary of actions taken by the Foundation 

which would increase its focus on basic research in response to the American Competitiveness Initiative. 

Answer. The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) sets out a bold challenge, 

calling for expanded Federal investment to drive innovation and sharpen the Nation’s competitive edge. NSF’s investments in research and education encompass all 

of the ACI’s goals. 

For the 2007 Fiscal Year NSF has set priorities that will strengthen the science 

and engineering enterprise through investments in frontier research, the workforce, 

education, and cutting-edge research tools. Examples include: 

• Cyberinfrastructure—Cyberinfrastructure is likely to be a key factor determining research excellence for many years to come. NSF has increased funding 

for cyberinfrastucture research and will begin the acquisition of a leadershipclass high performance computing (HPC) system optimally configured to enable 

an orderly progression toward petascale level science and engineering computation and data processing. This investment is critical to NSF’s multi-year plan 

to provide and support a world-class computing environment that will make the 

most powerful HPC assets broadly available to the science and engineering community. 

• Sensors for the Detection of Explosives—NSF is investing in fundamental research on new technologies for sensors and sensor systems to improve the detection of explosives, including Improvised Explosive Devises (IEDs). Related research will target advances in the analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of 

data gathered from sensors, as well as the integration of this data with information available from a wide variety of other fields and sensing systems. 

• Advanced Materials—Fundamental research in advanced materials underpins 

competitiveness across the spectrum of technologies on which society depends, 

ranging from communications and computers to medicine, energy, transportation, civil infrastructure, security and national defense. NSF’s advanced materials investments include new materials in electronics to reduce the need for internal cooling fans, polymer gels to power tiny machines and sensors to detect 

leaks from hydrogen-fueled vehicles. 

Fiscal Year 2008 priorities target investments in concrete scientific, engineering, 

and educational challenges of major significance to the Nation and the world. Rapid 

progress in these areas will generate new concepts and tools, with far-reaching applications, lay the foundation for next-generation tools and technologies, and develop 

educational strategies to engage students and prepare them to excel in a fast-changing, global environment. One targeted investment is Cyber-enabled Discovery and 

Innovation (CDI). This is a new NSF-wide investment to broaden the Nation’s capability for innovation by developing a new generation of computationally based discovery concepts and tools to deal with complex, data-rich, and interacting systems. 

The rapidly emerging world of peta-scale computers, massive data flows, and databases pose exceptional challenges that require capabilities well beyond those available today. CDI aims to explore radically new concepts, approaches, and tools at the 

54 

intersection of computational and physical or biological worlds to address such challenges. New means of computational discovery will augment the traditional discovery-innovation loop with novel computational concepts to aid knowledge discovery, analysis, and experimentation. This will accelerate the discovery of knowledge buried in massive datasets, creation of models to understand complex phenomenon, and understanding of rare events. 

NSF’s commitment to the ACI is further underscored in its Strategic Plan for FY 

2006 to FY 2011, which outlines key steps and new investments at the forefront of 

discovery, learning, and innovation. The four strategic outcome goals established in 

the plan shape the overall investment strategy of the NSF: 

• Discovery—Foster research that will advance the frontiers of knowledge, emphasizing areas of greatest opportunity and potential benefit and establishing the 

Nation as a global leader in fundamental and transformational science and engineering. 

• Learning—Cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering 

workforce, and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens. 

• Research Infrastructure—Build the Nation’s research capability through critical 

investments in advanced instrumentation, facilities, cyberinfrastructure, and 

experimental tools. 

• Stewardship—Support excellence in science and engineering research and education through a capable and responsive organization. 

The plan charts an ambitious course for the future, stressing investment opportunities that promise to stimulate innovation, contribute to economic growth, and provide exceptional returns on America’s investment in frontier research and education. 

Question 2. Has the NSF undertaken any effort to better focus its consideration 

of grants and awards toward addressing the Nation’s challenges in the fields of 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics? Please provide details of those 

efforts. 

Answer. The cornerstone of NSF’s organic act is ‘‘to promote the progress of 

science, the national health, prosperity and welfare, and to secure the national defense.’’ The NSF Strategic Plan for FY 2006–2011 views this mission in the context 

of current challenges facing the Nation, and it specifically identifies investment priorities under the agency’s four strategic goals: Discovery, Learning, Research Infrastructure, and Stewardship. These priorities are based on a range of inputs, including Congressional interests, Administration priorities, and interagency initiatives to 

address national needs. These are given further focus through NSB studies, community workshops, and NSF’s budget formulation processes. Current research efforts 

address some of the Nation’s most critical challenges such as nanotechnology, climate change, earthquakes, and hazard reduction. 

Question 3. I understand NSF has recently taken steps to enable unsolicited proposals for support of research aboard the International Space Station. Please provide details about this initiative. 

Answer. NSF is part of a task force of seven Federal agencies which has developed a strategy for using the International Space Station National Laboratory as 

a venue for further inspiring teachers and students in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The basic idea is that young people of the 

Nation in various settings will devise experiments, talk with astronauts, and monitor space station events that will inspire and educate them and their teachers 

across the country. The task force’s education development concept looks at ways 

to use the Space Station’s U.S. segment to support future projects and develop partnerships for education payloads, or experiments, with other Federal agencies. 

Question 4. The National Research Council recently, recommended that the Federal Government establish a program of Innovation Inducement Prizes similar to 

the DARPA autonomous vehicle grand challenge or the privately funded Ansari XPrize. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Engineering awarded the $1 million Grainger Challenge Prize for Sustainability to Professor Hussam of George 

Mason University for an inexpensive, easy to-make system for filtering arsenic from 

well water. 

Designed properly, Innovation Inducement Prizes could be a new way to stimulate 

innovation on hard to solve societal and technological problems. Many universities 

and companies compete for these prizes and the overall body of knowledge grows. 

Do you think Innovation Inducement Prizes could be a useful experimental model 

to try as a pilot program to stimulate innovation on some very specific, hard to solve 

problems? 

55 

Answer. Not for the NSF. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 NSF awarded a grant to the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the concept of developing an NSF Innovation Inducement Prize. Discussions held by the NAS Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy and Global Affairs were completed in August 2006 with 

a resulting report published in January 2007. 

While the report was supportive of the concept of inducement prizes for applied 

research and areas of research that had a clear target, the report recognized the 

challenges of this type of effort to the NSF mission and traditions. NSF focuses its 

energies on supporting research frontiers of all types and thus supports those people 

who attack the frontiers of knowledge. Moreover, the report concluded that, ‘‘the 

agency is seen as working primarily through the competitive award of grants to academic scientists and engineers for self-initiated proposals about how to advance 

basic knowledge of natural and social phenomena. It has limited experience in supporting innovations intended to solve societal problems and no experience in administering innovation prize contests.’’ 

While the NAS report attempted to list some possible candidates or targets for 

a prize, it also recognized the challenge to NSF to initiate the management of such 

an activity. Considering these issues and budgetary constraints, the NSF has elected not to pursue a prize program. 

Question 5. If not the NSF, what agencies would be best suited to sponsor and 

manage an Innovation Inducement Prize program? 

Answer. The agencies that might be suited to sponsor and manage an Innovation 

Inducement Prize program would be those in whose domain the specific applied research target area falls, such as defense, energy, or space. 

Question 6. The Rising Above the Gathering Storm report sounded the clarion call 

for the need to improve our graduation numbers in science, technology, engineering, 

and math (STEM) across all grade levels from kindergarten through graduate 

school. The United States has allowed our competitive advantage to erode by not 

supporting K through college STEM education. In 2003, U.S. tenth graders ranked 

18th in mathematics and 24th in science out of the 30 OECD countries. Only 17 

percent of U.S. undergraduate student are studying science and engineering. The 

comparable numbers for China are 52 percent, South Korea 41 percent, and Taiwan 

38 percent. 

The America COMPETES Act authorizes substantial increase in STEM funding 

at all levels of our education system. This funding must be applied wisely and strategically. Has the NSF analyzed the STEM initiatives in the America COMPETES 

Act and do you believe that these new and bolstered programs will result in more 

students going into science, engineering and math programs and a reversal in our 

worldwide rankings? 

Answer. NSF’s programs in education emphasize the importance of recruiting and 

retaining U.S. students into STEM fields. In accordance with the recommendations 

from the recent report from the Academic Competitiveness Council, we are currently 

working to ensure our efforts in STEM education work in concert with similar programs in other agencies and also with those of state and local entities. Key to these 

efforts will be the development of critical evaluation tools so that programs can be 

assessed and effectiveness measured. 

Question 7. How do we get students interest in STEM? Do we need to change the 

curriculum or how we teach science and math? Are we creating enough scholarships, 

fellowships, and young faculty research grants to attract and retain the best and 

brightest students into these scientific fields? 

Answer. We believe that improving the curriculum and reaching students at an 

early age in order to encourage their interest in science, especially before middle 

school, is a promising strategy for attracting students to the STEM fields and increasing interest in STEM careers (Fadigan & Hammrich, 2004; National Research 

Council, 2007; Tai, Liu, Maltese, & Fan, 2006) There is evidence that a relationship 

exists between early engagement and the pursuit of careers in science (e.g,, Tai et 

al., 2006). Further, there is accumulating evidence that instructional materials focusing on experimental inquiry rather than stressing fact memorization can create 

and sustain interest in science and mathematics (see National Research Council, 

2007). 

References 

Fadigan, K.A. and P.L. Hammrich (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational 

and career trajectories of female participants of. an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(8): 835–860. 

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through 

56 

Eighth Grade. Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse, 

Editors. Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral 

and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Tai, R.H., Liu, C.Q., Maltese, A.V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers 

in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144. 

Æ