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

74–060PDF 2012

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NASA 

AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 

Serial No. 112–80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, April 26, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chair, Subcommittee on 

Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Marion Blakey, Chair, Aeronautics Committee, NASA Advisory Council, and 

President, Aerospace Industries Association 

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

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

Dr. Wesley Harris, Chair, Committee to Assess NASA’s Aeronautics Flight 

Research Capabilities, National Research Council, and Charles Stark Draper Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

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

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

Dr. John Tracy, Chair, National Research Council’s Aeronautics Research 

and Technology Roundtable, and Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice 

President of Engineering, Operations and Technology, The Boeing Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51 

Discussion 57 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............................. 72 

Ms. Marion Blakey, Chair, Aeronautics Committee, NASA Advisory Council, 

and President, Aerospace Industries Association .............................................. 81 

Dr. Wesley Harris, Chair, Committee to Assess NASA’s Aeronautics Flight 

Research Capabilities, National Research Council, and Charles Stark Draper Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology ............................................................................................................ 87 
Page

IV 

Dr. John Tracy, Chair, National Research Council’s Aeronautics Research 

and Technology Roundtable, and Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice 

President of Engineering, Operations and Technology, The Boeing Company ....................................................................................................................... 92 
(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NASA 

AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION 

DIRECTORATE 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

will come to order. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview of NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Budget 

for Fiscal Year 2013.’’ In front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures 

for today’s witness panel. I recognize myself for five minutes for an 

opening statement. 

Today’s hearing will examine NASA’s fiscal year 2013 Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate budget request. I first want 

to thank our witnesses for taking their time from their busy schedules to appear before the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. I 

realize you and your staff devoted considerable effort preparing for 

your appearance, and I want to assure you that your wisdom and 

expertise will be of immense help to our Committee today and in 

the months and years ahead. 

Aeronautics research and development, and the technologies they 

spin off, are critical to our national security and to the ongoing success of our Nation’s aerospace industrial base, which is our country’s greatest source of exports. No other enterprise has played a 

greater role producing innovative aeronautics technologies than 

NASA. 

Since its founding nearly 100 years ago as the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics, NASA technologies have made possible 

today’s domestic civil and military aerospace industries. Across the 

spectrum, from fundamental research in airfoil designs, materials 

research, and high-speed flight to highly integrated systems research activities such as turbine engines and innovations in air 

traffic management technologies, NASA’s cadre of scientists and 

engineers have helped sustain the preeminence of American aerospace products, providing an enormous source of high-paying jobs. 

Our position, though, is being challenged by the emergence of 

aerospace industries abroad. If our domestic industry is to maintain leadership in the years ahead, it is essential that research and 

development continue to produce more efficient, cleaner and robust 

aircraft, not only to distinguish our products from competitors, but 

to preserve the role of aviation as the safest, fastest, most convenient and most environmentally benign source of transport. 

The growth of overseas competition occurs at a time when 

NASA’s aeronautics research and development funding is on the 

decline and continues to shrink, chiefly for reasons related to agency budgets. The fiscal year 2013 request of $551 million is $18 million below current levels. Today’s aeronautics spending accounts for 

about three percent of NASA’s overall budget, compared to about 

seven percent of the budget in fiscal year 2000. 

During the middle of the last decade, in an effort to address declining budgets, NASA aeronautics research and development was 

restructured to focus most of ARMD’s portfolio on foundational research. In the years since, the agency has been able to leverage industry investment in a number of research areas, but a report recently issued by the National Research Council concludes that continuing down the path of emphasizing foundational research no 

longer makes good sense, and instead recommends that NASA reinstitute a cadence of relatively inexpensive flight research pro-
10 

grams that are of a higher order of scale and sophistication than 

being currently flown. 

To offset the costs of flight research, the NRC proposes that 

NASA phase out the majority of its lower-priority aeronautics activities. The report also stresses the intrinsic value of flight research, suggesting that the agency will be able to mature technologies to a higher level, thus ensuring their adoption by industry. 

I look forward to discussing ARMD’s research strategy and the 

NRC report, and gaining our witnesses’ insights on the best path 

forward. 

I want to again thank our witnesses for appearing here today. 

We have an excellent group of experts, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN STEVEN M. PALAZZO

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing on NASA’s FY 2013 Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate budget request. I want to thank our witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules to appear before the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. I realize you and your staff devoted considerable effort preparing for 

your appearance, and I want to assure you that your wisdom and expertise will be 

of immense help to our Committee today and in the months and years ahead. 

Aeronautics research and development, and the technologies they spin off, are 

critical to our national security, and to the ongoing success of our Nation’s aerospace 

industrial base, which is our country’s greatest source of exports. No other enterprise has played a greater role producing innovative aeronautics technologies than 

NASA. 

Since its founding nearly 100 years ago as the National Advisory Committee for 

Aeronautics, NASA technologies have made possible today’s domestic civil aviation 

industry. Across the spectrum from fundamental research in airfoil designs, materials research, and high-speed flight to highly integrated systems research activities 

such as turbine engines and innovations in air traffic management technologies, 

NASA’s workforce of scientists and engineers have helped sustain the preeminence 

of American aerospace products, providing an enormous source of high-paying jobs. 

Our position, though, is being challenged by the emergence of aerospace industries abroad. If our domestic industry is to maintain leadership in the years ahead, 

it’s essential that research and development continue to produce more efficient, 

cleaner, and robust aircraft, not only to distinguish our products from competitors, 

but also to preserve the role of aviation as the safest, fastest, most convenient, and 

most environmentally benign source of transport. 

The growth of overseas competition occurs at a time when NASA’s aeronautics 

R&D funding is on the decline and continues to shrink, chiefly for reasons related 

to agency budgets. The FY 2013 request of $551 million is $18 million below current 

levels. Today aeronautics spending accounts for about three percent of NASA’s overall budget, compared to about seven percent of the budget in FY 2000. 

During the middle of the last decade, in an effort address declining budgets, 

NASA aeronautics research and development was restructured to focus most of 

ARMD’s portfolio on foundational research. In the years since, the agency has been 

able to leverage industry investment in a number of research areas, but a report 

recently issued by the National Research Council concludes that continuing down 

the path of emphasizing foundational research no longer makes good sense, and instead recommends that NASA reinstitute a cadence of relatively inexpensive flight 

research programs that are of a higher order of scale and sophistication than being 

currently flown. 

To offset the costs of flight research, the NRC proposes that NASA phase out the 

majority of its lower-priority aeronautics activities. The report also stresses the intrinsic value of flight research, suggesting that the agency will be able to mature 

technologies to a higher level, thus ensuring their adoption by industry. 

I look forward to discussing ARMD’s research strategy and the NRC report and 

gaining our witnesses’ insights on the best path forward. 

I want to again thank our witnesses for appearing. We have an excellent group 

of experts, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 
11 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Costello for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I welcome our witnesses here today and look forward to hearing their testimony. 

As Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee, I am very much aware of NASA’s importance to the U.S. aerospace and aviation, particularly with the 

development of NextGen, the next generation air traffic control system. Both Marion Blakey and I worked very closely together on 

NextGen, and I am looking forward to talking to her and asking 

her some questions about NextGen. 

NASA’s contributions have will make possible significant reduction in controller workload, and an estimated $300 million per year 

in fuel savings with fleet-wide deployment at the busiest airports. 

These contributions will save fuel and reduce noise by enabling 

more efficient arrivals and are evidence of how investments in research today will produce significant dividends tomorrow. 

Through the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, Congress tasked 

NASA with maintaining a strong aeronautics research portfolio 

that focused on fundamental research through systems research. 

However, for the past several years, NASA has not received the 

necessary funding to fulfill those objectives. This is unfortunate, 

given NASA’s integral role in enabling the strength of the U.S. 

aerospace industry and, in partnership with FAA, the safety of the 

flying public. Yet the industry faces continued challenges such as 

increasing congestion of the Nation’s airspace system, maintaining 

safety in the face of increasing travel demand, and mitigating the 

negative impacts of aviation on the environment, whether noise, increasing energy consumption, or harmful emissions. 

NASA’s aeronautics research programs are addressing these 

challenges and have made significant progress. It is important to 

learn more about this progress because these challenges are at the 

crux of our transition to NextGen, and we must focus on NextGen 

research that will meet these challenges. 

Our witnesses today will probably agree with me that carrying 

research to the level of maturity that allows the results to be 

transitioned to the users, whether private or public sector, is critical and requires a greater level of investment than is currently 

being made. If promising technologies and operational concepts 

aren’t matured to the point that they can be transitioned to the 

users for further development or implementation, the Nation will 

never receive the full benefit of the investment that it has made 

in research. I understand that we are in tough economic times, but 

I hope that this hearing will illustrate how NASA’s aeronautics research provides a sizable return on the taxpayer’s investment. So 

I am eager to hear from our witnesses today on how we can ensure 

that NASA’s aeronautics research remains vibrant, relevant to the 

Nation’s needs, and contributes to maintaining U.S. leadership in 

the aviation world. 

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

forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] 
12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing on 

the FY 2013 budget request, challenges, and priorities for Aeronautics, and I welcome our witnesses. 

Congress has asked NASA to maintain, and I quote from the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, ‘‘a strong aeronautics research portfolio ranging from fundamental research through systems research.’’ More importantly, the Act stresses NASA’s need 

to perform research in airspace capacity, environmental sustainability, and aviation 

safety. 

For the past several years, however, NASA has not received the necessary funding 

to fulfill those objectives. This is unfortunate, because NASA has an integral role 

in enabling the strength of the U.S. aerospace industry and, in partnership with 

FAA, the safety of the flying public. 

As Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure’s Aviation 

Subcommittee, I am keenly aware of NASA’s importance to U.S. aerospace and aviation. A strong aerospace industry enables the United States to defend itself, compete 

in the global marketplace, maintain a highly skilled workforce, and provide safe and 

secure travel to all Americans. According to the latest figures available, aviation 

manufacturing and services accounted for $445 billion in direct and indirect economic activity in 2006. Aviation provided the Nation with a trade surplus of $57.4 

billion in 2008 

The explosive growth of aviation over the last several decades has also brought 

its own set of challenges. These include dealing with the increasing congestion of 

the Nation’s airspace system, the need to maintain safety in the face of increasing 

travel demand, and the need to mitigate the negative impacts of aviation on the environment—whether noise, increasing energy comsumption, or harmful emissions. 

NASA’s aeronautics research programs are addressing these challenges, and I 

hope to learn more about their progress, because these challenges are at the crux 

of the major transition underway in modernizing the Nation’s air transportation 

system—NextGen. We must focus on NextGen research that will ensure that the 

Nation’s air traffic management system will be able to meet anticiapted demand 

while preserving safety and making the whole experience a lot more pleasant than 

it is now for the average traveler. We also need to focus on developing technologies 

that can make aircraft much more energy efficient and produce lower levels of 

harmful emissions. And we need to focus on research that will ensure that we maintain the high level of safety that we have enjoyed in our aviation sector. 

However, the continued decline in NASA’s aeronautics funding is making it difficult to maintain an aeronautics research program that will be capable of stepping 

up to the challenges the Nation’s aviation sector is facing. 

Our witnesses today will probably agree with me that carrying research to a level 

of maturity that allows the results to be transitioned to the users—whether private 

or public sector—is critical and requires a greater level of investment than is currently made. If promising technologies and operational concepts aren’t matured to 

the point that they can be transitioned to the users for further development or implementation, the Nation will never receive the full benefit of the investment that 

it has made in that research. 

I understand that we are in tough economic times. But I hope that this hearing 

will illustrate how NASA’s aeronautics research provides a sizeable return on the 

taxpayer’s investment. 

So I am eager to hear from our witnesses on how we can ensure that NASA’s aeronautics reseach remains vibrant, relevant to the Nation’s needs, and contributes 

to maintaining U.S. leadership in aviation. 

Mr. Chairman, we must keep aeronautics a priority. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Costello. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses, and 

then we will proceed to hear from each of them in order. 

Our first witness is Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator for 

NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, a position he 

has held for four years. Previously, he served as Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Aeronautics for four years, and he served in re-
13 

search and executive positions at the Glenn Research Center in 

Ohio. Dr. Shin received a doctorate in mechanical engineering from 

Virginia Tech. 

Our second witness is Ms. Marion Blakey, Chair of the NASA 

Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee. Ms. Blakey is currently 

President and Chief Executive Officer of the Aerospace Industries 

Association. Previously, she served as Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration as Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and has held a number of other senior positions in the executive branch. Ms. Blakey is a graduate of Mary 

Washington College. 

Our third witness is Dr. Wesley Harris, who chaired the National 

Research Council’s Committee to Assess NASA’s Aeronautics Flight 

Research Capabilities. Dr. Harris is the Charles Stark Draper Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as head of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT from 2003 to 2008 and prior to 

that served as NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics from 

1993 to 1995. He earned his bachelor’s degree in aeronautics engineering from the University of Virginia and his master’s and doctorate degrees in aerospace from Princeton. 

Our final witness will be Dr. John Tracy, who serves as Chair 

of the National Research Council’s Aeronautics Research and Technology Roundtable. Dr. Tracy is Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President for Engineering, Operations and Technology for 

The Boeing Company. Dr. Tracy has spent most of his career at 

Boeing in a variety of senior management positions. He received 

his Ph.D. in engineering from the University of California-Irvine, 

and he is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and 

the Royal Aeronautical Society. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each. After all witnesses have spoken, Members of the 

Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Shin, to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAIWON SHIN, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AERONAUTICS 

RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SHIN. Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Costello and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify on NASA’s aeronautics research program and the R&D challenges in aeronautics. 

Aviation is an integral part of our daily lives, a critical part of 

the foundation of our economy, and a source of strength in the 

global market. You are watching the visualization of actual airline 

flights around the globe and in the United States. This self-tour is 

called Future ATM Concepts Evaluation Tool, or FACET, developed 

by NASA, which won NASA’S 2010 Government Invention of the 

Year. This is a very important research tool that benefits both 

NASA and FAA for understanding and designing a more efficient 
14 

National Airspace System. In addition, it provides all of us a true 

appreciation for the complexity of today’s air transportation system 

and challenges we are facing. 

Although the Nation’s air transportation system is safe and efficient, it faces several national-level challenges. Improving mobility 

is a challenge because it requires increasing capacity while saving 

fuel. Our Nation spent over $70 billion in 2010 on aviation fuels. 

A related challenge is to limit the environmental footprint of aviation. We must reduce the emissions and minimize aircraft noise. 

Today’s air transportation system is the safest mode of transportation. It is essential to ensure that the current safety level is 

maintained and even improved as the system is becoming more 

complex and automated. 

This short video shows how flights are placed in holding patterns 

as a storm system is moving into the very busy New York airspace. 

Some of the holds start as far away as the Pennsylvania and Ohio 

state line. Many of the incoming international flights with very low 

fuel left on board zigzag to delay their arrival into New York. 

Flight delays and cancellations are costing the country an estimated $31 billion each year. 

To address these national-level challenges, the pressure for technological improvement is mounting. The U.S. aviation industry currently enjoys a strong position in the global market. Technological 

superiority has been a key enabler, bringing a positive trade balance of over $40 billion per year. The aviation industry provides 

high-tech and high-paying jobs that Americans are proud to have, 

accounting for nearly one million jobs. The critical challenge and 

opportunity facing the U.S. aviation industry is to retain this leadership in this growing and increasingly complex market through infusion of new technology. 

NASA-developed technologies are in the DNA of almost all of the 

modern civilian and military aircraft. NASA continues to lay the 

foundation for the future of flight by exploring new ways to manage air traffic, build more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly airplanes, and ensure aviation’s outstanding record. Investment 

in aeronautics technology stimulates the economy and contributes 

to the Nation’s global competitiveness through the creation of new 

products and services. 

To accomplish this comprehensive research agenda, NASA’s 

budget provides $551 million to the Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate in fiscal year 2013. Our research agenda has been created in partnership with the broader aerospace community. NASA, 

the FAA and five other federal agencies together are defining the 

vision to the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or 

NextGen, and establishing the roadmap to get there. NASA aeronautics seeks to enhance implementation and the capabilities of 

NextGen, innovating both air traffic management and vehicles to 

achieve the full potential of NextGen and lead the country with a 

vision and revolutionary capabilities for the Nation’s future aviation system. 

To enhance implementation and the capabilities of NextGen, 

NASA and the FAA have established research transition teams, or 

RTTs, to develop joint research plans, fund our respective portions, 

and facilitate handoff from NASA to FAA of the research results. 
15 

A recent GAO report identified RTTs as a federal best practice for 

interagency collaboration. 

One such RTT example is NASA’s Efficient Descent Advisor technology. By enabling airplanes to descend on the optimal continuous 

path, this technology will save fuel and reduce noise for neighboring communities. NASA estimates $300 million in fuel savings 

per year if EDA is implemented fleet-wide at the Nation’s busiest 

airports. This type of capability not only will help more efficient operations but also will show the airlines the return on investment 

they can achieve by equipping the aircraft with NextGen avionics. 

NASA’s innovative technologies such as lighter and more durable 

composite materials and structures; low-emissions combustor technologies; lightweight, durable, high-temperature alloys for turbine 

sections of engines; and chevron nozzles to reduce engine noise can 

be seen in new products entering the market today. These new vehicles hold the promise of reducing fuel consumption to 20 percent, 

longer operational life, and lower maintenance costs, all due to infusion of advanced technology. 

Today, we are continuing our tradition of being the innovative 

engine in aeronautics R&D to help achieve the full potential of 

NextGen. For example, we are exploring new aircraft configurations like the hybrid wing body shown in this video, as seen from 

the chase-plane camera. Studies show that this kind of new configuration, combined with lightweight composite materials and advanced engines, can reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent and reduce the noise footprint to one-sixth of what it is today. We have 

successfully completed over 90 flights with this X–48 test bed. 

We are also leading the country today with a fundamental understanding and new concepts to meet new emerging challenges 20 

and 30 years from now. For example, NASA has funded industryacademia teams to develop new vehicle concepts that could achieve 

our aggressive efficiency and environmental goals in the future. 

Those teams also created technology development roadmaps to help 

NASA and industry to prioritize research investments in the coming years. 

NASA does not build aircraft engines or air traffic management 

systems. Through our cutting-edge research, we develop the concepts, tools, and technologies that enable continuous innovation in 

aviation. We focus on priority research challenges of greatest relevance to the community where NASA has a unique contributing 

role and can have the greatest impact. We invest in a balanced 

portfolio of analytical research, research through high-fidelity stimulation, ground testing and flight demonstration and validation. 

We challenge the aeronautics community to think big and to reach 

far by developing new concepts for flights such as those represented on the table in front of me. U.S. companies are well positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA 

research, turning them into commercial products benefiting the 

quality of life for our citizens, providing high-quality jobs, and enabling the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. 

Thanks so much for allowing me to represent NASA aeronautics 

today. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shin follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Shin. 

I now recognize Ms. Blakey for five minutes to present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MARION BLAKEY, 

CHAIR, AERONAUTICS COMMITTEE, 

NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND PRESIDENT, 

AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BLAKEY. Thank you, Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Costello. I am delighted to be here with you and other Members of the Committee. I also want to say how grateful I am to be 

able to discuss NASA’s aeronautics budget and programs for the 

coming year because they are tremendously important. 

I am Marion Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 

Aerospace Industries Association, the Nation’s premier trade association for aerospace and defense manufacturers. However, today I 

am not here representing AIA but representing instead the chairmanship and committee of the NASA Advisory Council’s Aeronautics Committee. 

The Aeronautics Committee reports to NASA’s Advisory Council 

and meets approximately three times a year. Our job is to review 

NASA’s aeronautics research and testing programs and provide 

independent advice to the council and NASA leadership, including 

Dr. Shin. Although we review NASA’s programs with an independent critical eye, we do have an excellent working relationship 

with Dr. Shin and his staff, and we appreciate their ongoing support. 

Mr. Chairman, overall, ARMD provides important support to the 

Nation’s aeronautics research efforts. NASA takes the lead in fundamental research into revolutionary aircraft concepts. They take 

a comprehensive, integrated look at systems-level solutions and 

they have unique testing facilities that really exist nowhere else. 

They push the boundaries of our aeronautical knowledge and transition new hardware and software to the marketplace. 

You ask whether ARMD research matches up with the needs of 

industry. On balance, I do believe Dr. Shin’s office is pursuing the 

right research with the right priorities. Let me touch on three examples, if I might: environmental research, UAS integration, and 

NextGen programs. 

NASA is heavily involved in research to make our aviation system more environmentally friendly. U.S. manufacturers lead the 

world in developing quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft. The industry has agreed to a cap on carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft, 

which is called carbon-neutral growth, by the year 2020. This is 

very aggressive and, believe me, is well beyond what any other 

global industry has agreed to, and NASA is helping us achieve 

those goals. For example, the Environmentally Responsible Aviation, ERA, project is developing advanced air vehicle concepts that 

could reduce fuel burn by 40 percent, cut aircraft noise to stage IV 

levels and below, and cut nitrous oxide emissions by 75 percent. 

NASA aeronautics is also an important player in our efforts to 

develop and certify alternative jet fuels. NASA is also involved in 
29 

unmanned aerial systems, UAS, and their integration into the national airspace. As you know, recent legislation requires that UAS 

systems be integrated into the NAS by the year 2015—very aggressive. NASA is working with the FAA to develop an interagency 

roadmap for UAS integration. Because this work is evolving so rapidly, the aeronautics committee that I chair established a special 

UAS subcommittee this past December, and we are going to have 

more to say on this as the committee works, but it wholeheartedly 

supports NASA’s UAS activities. 

The third and final area that I would like to highlight is 

NextGen. We see that there is real potential for NASA-developed 

technologies to contribute to NextGen and tools like NASA’s Efficient Descent Advisor that Dr. Shin just mentioned, and the Airborne Merging and Spacing tool are very important parts of this effort. These technologies demonstrate NextGen’s value in our terminal airspace and they are mature enough to transfer to operational use. In fact, EDA transitioned to FAA for operational use 

just last November. 

Mr. Chairman, for a final moment, let me address NASA’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget request. The request is $17.9 million below the 

current year, including a reduction of $20 million. This is in 

hypersonics research. In 2006, only six years ago, hypersonics programs were funded at $70 million. Under the President’s budget for 

next year, it would be cut to $4.5 million. Maintaining an effective 

hypersonics program will be a challenge if additional funding is not 

provided. Therefore, we are very pleased to see that the House Appropriations Subcommittee has just recommended that these cuts 

be rejected because we believe hypersonics research is very important in today’s world. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes my summary, and I look forward 

to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Blakey. 

I now recognize Dr. Harris for five minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WESLEY HARRIS, CHAIR, 

COMMITTEE TO ASSESS NASA’S AERONAUTICS 

FLIGHT RESEARCH CAPABILITIES, 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 

AND CHARLES STARK DRAPER PROFESSOR 

OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, Members 

of the Committee, colleagues, I am Wesley Harris, Chair of the National Research Council’s Committee to Assess NASA’s Aeronautics 

Flight Research Capabilities. It is a pleasure to come before you to 

speak to you about the work of the committee. In 2011, NASA 

asked the National Research Council to undertake a study of 

NASA’s flight research capabilities. I am here to report the results 

of that study. 

Our committee consists of members of industry and academia, 

former NASA aerospace officials, aircraft designers, test pilots, and 

even an Apollo moon walker. We met several times throughout 

2011. We visited NASA centers involved in flight research. We 

heard from numerous NASA and industry representatives. We received extensive cooperation from the agency for which we, the 

committee, are very grateful. 

Many people may not be aware that unmanned aerial vehicles 

are a vital part of America’s national security and a highly dynamic part of our aerospace industry, something and somewhere 

that the United States remains the world leader. What few people 

realize, however, is that during the 1990s, NASA played a major 

role in making this happen by supporting the development of multiple advanced UAV designs with efficient and effective aeronautical flight research, thereby spawning industry that is still active today. This was an industry where the United States was behind. It now leads. NASA played a major role in that, and we believe that NASA should receive recognition for this achievement. 

Flight research is only one part of a healthy aeronautics research 

enterprise. It is absolutely vital. Flight research is vital. It stands 

in value equal to that of wind tunnel testing, to theory and simulation. A common-held misconception is that flight research is something that comes at the end of a research program. However, in 

many cases, it is necessary for that research to occur, that is, flight 

research to occur in the middle of the program. For instance, it is 

very common in the aeronautics R&D world to update sophisticated 

computer simulations based upon data collected by actually flying 

a vehicle. 

Since the middle of the past decade, NASA has dramatically reduced its flight research to focus more on ground-based investigations and activities in what NASA describes as its fundamental research program. In the committee’s opinion, most flight research 

today can be characterized as limited in scope, such as putting a 

new structure on or under the wing of an existing airplane, for ex-
39 

ample, an F–15, or flying a small-scale UAV. There are limited 

flight vehicles currently flying, that is, aircraft specifically designed 

for research such as the famed X planes. NASA has tremendous potential and capital resources. However, the committee concluded 

that those resources could be better used to conduct the kind of 

flight research that would expect and inspire more future generations of aeronautical engineers and that is required to make advances on the frontiers of knowledge and functionality. 

Our committee recommended that NASA should start from two 

to five focused, integrated, high-risk, high-payoff programs with 

total budgets of $30 million to $50 million per vehicle per program 

over three years. In order to achieve progress of fundamental aeronautics as well as other relevant related military requirements, we 

recommend that these priority-focused programs should be drawn 

from the high-priority research areas identified in the 2006 NASA 

Research Council Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics. 

The committee concluded that additional funding for aeronautics 

was not a prerequisite for NASA to be able to begin to implement 

these recommendations. This can be done if the agency begins to 

phase out its lower-priority aeronautics activities, a process that we 

believe would facilitate implementing two to three new vehicles. If 

aeronautics receives additional funding, NASA could implement 

three to five vehicles. Naturally, there is a tradeoff between size of 

individual projects and the number that the agency could pursue. 

An ambitious UAV project, for example, could be built at the lower 

end of the range, while a more ambitious pilot vehicle could be 

built at the higher end. We encourage the agency to aim high in 

its ambitions. 

The committee also recommended NASA aeronautics research 

projects have a defined path to flight, essentially a roadmap that 

indicates how they intend to conduct actual flight research. The 

like of such roadmaps leads to many current projects being canceled before they can be pursued to the flight phase and their 

progress is subsequently lost. 

Our committee notably did not recommend more money for 

NASA’s aeronautics program. However, we do believe that it could 

benefit from additional funding. If NASA’s budgets shift only one 

percent from its total funding to aeronautics research, it would enable substantial new research in several vital areas of prime national interest. But in the current fiscal environment, we also believe the aeronautics program could benefit from reordering its priorities, establishing focused goals and eliminating several lowerpriority research programs if flight research is to be a priority activity. 

During the course of the study, the committee received inputs 

from industry including Boeing, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, 

Aurora Flight Sciences and other companies. Despite what I believe 

is a common perception that aeronautics is so mature that NASA’s 

research role should be limited, it is not an attitude that we encountered when we receive input from industry. Quite to the contrary, the attitude that industry presented to us is one in which 

NASA can play a vital role in helping to develop technologies that 

industry is too risk-averse to address. They want NASA to be in-
40 

volved doing what NASA does best and what they believe industry 

cannot do. 

When asked the question of why should NASA be involved in 

aeronautics research, particularly conducting flight research, the 

committee concluded that industry in these economic and political 

times cannot and will not take on full-cost risk of moving technologies from laboratory to operations. NASA’s founding charter 

tasked the agency to help within this process. NASA’s role is to develop requirements and asset capabilities for the next research vehicles and then work with industry to build and test those aircraft. 

NASA is a highly capable organization with many excellent people 

in the area of aeronautics research. The contributions the agency 

has made and continues to make in aeronautical research are significant and, in my personal opinion, quite important. NASA’s aeronautics research directorate should be more broadly recognized for 

these contributions. We were asked, the committee, to look at the 

area of flight research, and having conducted our study, we believe 

that we as a Nation have an opportunity to accomplish much more 

in this research area of prime importance if given the opportunity. 

If we give NASA the tools to take flight, we believe, they will soar. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Harris. 

I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Tracy, for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN TRACY, CHAIR, 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL’S AERONAUTICS 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ROUNDTABLE, AND CHIEF 

TECHNOLOGY OFFICER 

AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, 

OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, THE BOEING COMPANY 

Mr. TRACY. Good morning, Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member 

Costello, and Members of the Committee. On behalf of The Boeing 

Company, I thank you for your continued support of NASA. You 

have enabled NASA to create a balanced aeronautics portfolio that 

continues to enhance the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the 

world’s aviation community. It is an honor to participate on this 

distinguished panel and provide Boeing’s view on aeronautics research and the efforts of NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. 

In my role as Chief Technology Officer for Boeing, I have the 

great challenge to help our company identify how to invest in our 

future. The topic is central to Boeing’s existence as we work to 

build on a 96-year legacy of technical achievement. These investments enable our role as a global leader in technology and innovation and ensure that our 172,000 employees design and create cutting-edge products sought by customers worldwide. We agree with 

the current NASA aeronautics policy, which states that the agency 

should focus on safer, more secure, efficient and environmentally 

progressive air transportation system. We also support the strategy 

of NASA’s investments in the fundamental basic questions of how 

to improve the technology of our process to more complex systemslevel questions of how best to integrate those new technologies in 

operational concepts. 

My written testimony fully addresses the three questions that 

were asked by the Committee. For this hearing, I would like to 

summarize these responses. I will begin by discussing what I believe are the three biggest challenges in aerospace and how well 

ARMD’s research portfolio and resources address them. 

The first challenge is the wholesale change to the Air Traffic 

Management System. We are working with partners worldwide to 

improve today’s global air traffic management system in order to 

enhance aviation safety, improve operational environmental efficiency, and enable continued growth in global air travel. Our view 

of a transformational system is based on satellite navigation that 

takes advantage of sophisticated airplane flight management systems and other advanced technologies. NASA is a critical member 

of the FAA NextGen team, which is implementing a plan for the 

ongoing transformation of the National Airspace System from 

ground-based to satellite-based. 

The second challenge is aviation systems and solutions that are 

environmentally responsible. We at Boeing are committed to improving the environmental performance of our operations, our products and service and our factories. Our new 787 Dreamliner air-
49 

plane burns 20 percent less fuel and has a noise footprint that is 

as much as 60 percent smaller than today’s comparable airplanes. 

The technology areas in which we are engaged include fuel efficiency and noise reduction, sustainable aviation biofuels, more efficient flight operations, and airplane production and recycling. 

These areas align with the aims of NASA’s environmentally responsible aviation program, whose goals include noise reductions of 

42 decibels below current levels, a 75 percent reduction in emissions, and a 50 percent reduction in fuel burn below today’s standards. 

The third challenge is advanced testing and evaluation by analysis and simulation for integrating complex aviation systems and 

accelerating their verification and validation. A future NASA focus 

on fundamental technologies and multidisciplinary processes for 

faster and more efficient design and certification through high-fidelity virtual testing would increase opportunities to develop and 

field new vehicle systems. Software development and certification 

is a large and growing cost to civil aviation. This complex systems 

engineering including verification and validation and fundamental 

software engineering needs to be addressed through long-term research. 

Now I would like to address ARMD’s strategy of supporting a 

broad portfolio of research and the question as to whether ARMD 

at its current funding levels would be more effective by focusing its 

resources on high-priority activities such as flights that Dr. Harris 

mentioned. In our view, NASA has done an excellent job of addressing the critical subset of aviation issues in its broad portfolio. 

The agency continues to work with aeronautics stakeholders to 

prioritize current initiatives within budget constraints. This fundamental research is the seed corn that forms the basis for next-generation capabilities. But in light of current funding levels, NASA 

has been limited in its ability to do flight research, which is key 

to the next step in maturing its fundamental research into a dynamic flight regime. Based on historical costs associated with flight 

demonstration, further emphasis in this activity would need to be 

above and beyond the budget level that NASA ARMD receives for 

this critical research. 

Lastly, I would like to offer my perspective on whether ARMD 

advances technologies to a state of maturity that enables their 

adoption by industry. The commercialization of aeronautics knowledge into products and services for the market is the responsibility 

of private industry. NASA has played an invaluable role in creating 

a foundation of knowledge that can be deployed by industry to 

serve the public. For instance, NASA, like its European counterpart, has been funding research into improving the Air Traffic 

Management System. It is critical, of course, that the collaborative 

NASA and industry research activity be consistent with the obligations of our trade treaties but there is much valuable work for 

NASA to promote within these bounds. 

In closing, funding NASA’s aeronautics activity in a balanced 

portfolio is, in our opinion, the right approach. NASA’s work supports efforts to advance the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the 

Nation’s aviation system and the work NASA is doing for improving the environmental footprint for aviation is absolutely critical 
50 

for our country’s future. The balanced portfolio will help America 

strengthen its global stature as a leader in technology. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify in front of this 

Committee today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tracy follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Tracy, and I thank the panel 

for their testimony. I will remind members that Committee rules 

limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point open 

the round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Shin, I am going to have three related questions. First, how 

does NASA ensure that its portfolio of fundamental research 

projects remains relevant and that research projects don’t become 

stale? Second, what mechanism does NASA have in place to determine when fundamental research should be advanced to a higher 

level or, alternatively, to cease further investment in research results if they are disappointing? And third, as you look across your 

portfolio, what is an appropriate balance between fundamental and 

higher integrated levels of research? 

Dr. SHIN. Thank you, Chairman. I think, on the first question, 

we have now several national-level guidance documents starting 

from national aeronautics R&D policy and plan, which we as a Nation never had for almost 100 years since the Wright brothers powered flight was accomplished. So that policy and plan was developed by all the departments and agencies that have any stake in 

aeronautics R&D and certainly NASA, DOD, FAA and Commerce 

and Homeland Security are pretty major players there. So out of 

those goals and objectives identified in the national-level document, 

we have constructed our research portfolio aligned with that and 

also we have Joint Planning and Development Office, the JPDO, 

which is consisted of seven Federal Government agencies. So I 

think, in terms of identifying the national challenges, many of the 

witnesses spoke about the same kind of areas for national needs— 

safety, NextGen, environmental impact and energy-efficient aircraft. I would be happy to report to you, Chairman, the NASA programs are well aligned with those national-level challenges. To further the relevance, we have reorganized aviation safety program 

and airspace systems program in the last three years and we are 

also reorganizing, in the process of reorganizing fundamental aeronautics program this year. So we are far more focused and streamlined and much more relevant to users’ needs, and there are ample 

evidence that we are transferring technologies to the users. So a 

longwinded answer but that would be my response to the first 

question. 

And higher-level activities, if we don’t produce intended results 

from sort of low-technology readiness-level research, how do you 

phase that out or cancel that activity? I think that was your second 

question. I would like to describe our research portfolio and endeavor as organic. Certainly, the research needs to be nimble because we don’t know how the research will pan out. That is the 

major high risk of high-payout research. So we do have a rigorous 

review process both at the research centers and headquarters periodically, and as I am speaking, we are actually conducting a sixmonth review at headquarters of all our projects. So going through 

these reviews, we make sure that progress is being made, and if 

we don’t make the intended progress, we certainly take the lessons 

out of it and then we phase the activities. We have done many of 

those to date. 
58 

In terms of balance between fundamental research and a little 

higher level of research, I believe within the given budget that 

Congress graciously allowed us to have $570 million this year. 

Within that budget, I believe the proportion between fundamental 

research and integrated system-level research is about right from 

all the community inputs and discussions we had, and given my experience, having been in aeronautics for 20-some-odd years, I think 

it is very important to note that maintaining fundamental research 

is crucial for the future of our aviation industry as Dr. Tracy pointed out, that you don’t want to eat your seed corn to beef up higherlevel research if the funding is such that you have to make a balance. Sorry for the long answer. 

Chairman PALAZZO. No, thank you, Dr. Shin. 

I now recognize Mr. Costello for five minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We all recognize that 

we are facing many challenges with the federal budget because of 

deficits, but I think we also recognize, at least most people in the 

industry, that the historical decline of NASA’s aeronautics budget 

has had a negative impact on the industry. And I am wondering 

if the aeronautics program at NASA was given sustained funding 

over a period of time as opposed to just an infusion of funds in one 

fiscal year, what would be the most productive use of the additional 

funding? And I would ask Dr. Shin, what would you do with the 

additional funding if you knew that you were going to see an increased funding level over the next five years as opposed to the infusion of funds one year and then a reduction the following year? 

What would the number one priority be? 

Dr. SHIN. Thank you, Ranking Member Costello. I think the 

number one priority would be in my view, again, doing more flight 

research and bringing X plane into our research mix. We do have 

a few test paths, but I think we can certainly do more. So that 

would be my most priority, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Ms. Blakey, I would ask the same question of 

you. One, first, would you agree with most in the industry that the 

historical decline of aeronautical funding has had a negative impact, number one, and number two, if, over the next five years or 

so, if we saw an increased level of funding to NASA, what do you 

think the number one priority should be for the agency to do with 

the additional funding? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Certainly there is no doubt about the fact that our 

technological advances, which is what this country is known for, 

would have gone much faster, and it is hard to know what we don’t 

know, what we didn’t do because of the rather precipitous decline 

in NASA’s budget. As we all understand, they were well above $1 

billion for many years and over $2 billion, and now we are in the 

$500 million range. You cannot have that kind of reduction without 

having a major impact in terms of our innovation and technologies 

across the aviation and aeronautics industry. Flight research is 

critical. There is nothing that substitutes for building it and flying 

it. 

And in the area that I highlighted, hypersonics, there is tremendous potential. I will show you something because I saved this. 

This is a brochure from 1986, and it shows our plans for the national aerospace plane. It is a beautiful thing, and this is what our 
59 

country had in mind and President Reagan called for, but we simply were not able to engage in this at the time, and hypersonics 

still offers a potential for continent-to-continent rapid flight, propulsion into space and really inspiring young people in a way that 

we haven’t seen since the Apollo program. So I would suggest, let 

us not leave this behind; it is a part of fundamental research and 

it should be a part of flight test. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask another question of you, Ms. Blakey. 

You and I have worked together on NextGen through the Aviation 

Subcommittee. One of the problems that the FAA has had, and it 

has been cited as to why NextGen has fallen behind on the schedule, on the proposed schedule, by both the FAA and the JPDO, is 

that the FAA underestimated the complexities of the software development to implement NextGen. With NASA’s vast knowledge in 

developing automated systems, I wonder if there is anything in 

your opinion that NASA could be doing to help the FAA with this 

problem? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, I will be honest about this, because I was 

there at the early stages of NextGen when we were looking for 

more research capability out of NASA, and because NASA at that 

point had a very strong emphasis on fundamental basic research 

and not taking it to the higher TRL levels, we found a gap, and 

I talked to Mike Griffin about it and others at the time because I 

think that would have helped FAA advance itself much more quickly. 

I will say this. As you know, in my current position, I have reason to work with a lot of very fine minds in the defense arena, and 

I have heard more and more their comments about NextGen, saying it is the most complex development program they have run 

across, and you know what the military in this country has done. 

So it is not easy. I do want to caution on that, and I think there 

are inevitably, therefore, schedule slips that occur. 

But that said, NASA’s current approach to transferring software 

that works in terms of a lot of the capabilities of NextGen, it really 

is a vital asset. So I hope we will be able to keep it up. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Harris, you mentioned in your testimony that 

the Committee didn’t recommend additional funding. I wonder, 

going back to my first question, if the agency knew that over the 

next five years that they were going to receive sustained funding 

and increase, what would be the number one priority in your opinion? Where should they direct that money? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you for the question. The Committee was, I 

thought, very firm in its position in terms of a focus on flight research that would lead to substantial advancement of aeronautics 

for the less. We examined three cases in depth. We also looked 

across all of the programs within ARMD. We firmly believe that resources should be directed toward those highly focused, highly integrated projects that require flight research that would lead to a 

spawning of an industry. 

For example, business jets. How do we move NASA to flight research to ensure that we can fly within limits of the sonic boom 

that it is not a nuance or a noise inhibitor? That, we believe, is a 

major breakthrough that we are on the edge of, and if we move forward with that and similar kinds of research, we will enable the 
60 

development of more high-skilled, high-wage jobs, more market 

share for our industry, a positive return to our taxpayers’ investment. 

If NASA were to obtain sustained funding, it should continue to 

focus or should focus on high-payoff flight research that leads to an 

advancement of our industry. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

a bit perplexed by this; we all are. We have half the budget for the 

federal budget is being borrowed now. We are spending that much 

more than we are taking in. It is over $1 trillion a year. So I imagine everybody in this room knows that something has to be done, 

and it seems that every time you are a member of a committee that 

focuses on one aspect of the budget, it is always the other guys who 

need to be cut. 

I think $500 million is a lot of money, and I know it is less than what we had before. It was less than the $1 billion that we had 

before. First of all, let me ask Dr. Shin. How many people will be 

laid off as a result of this? 

Dr. SHIN. No one would be laid off, sir, because the current budget has been stable for the past three or four years. So we have 

budgeted or constructed our work and the work force to the budget. 

So no one will be laid off. This budget reduction that some of the 

witnesses mentioned happened years ago. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So actually the reduction from $1 bil- lion to $551 million will not result in a layoff of federal employees? 

Dr. SHIN. No, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I think that is important. I mean, I 

don’t understand why it is when the private sector has to cut back 

that people are let go, realizing that they can no longer afford their 

work, but we can’t seem to let go of any federal employees. 

Let me ask about the private sector here, especially Boeing company. First of all, if Boeing was going to have this reduction in the 

amount of money available to Boeing, I would imagine there might 

be a few layoffs, is that correct? 

Dr. TRACY. Mr. Rohrabacher, in a commercial setting, I think 

that is true. If there are reductions in budget, then you have to 

find ways to balance the books. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You might even reduce the number of 

projects that you were working on. 

Dr. TRACY. Yes, sir, that is true. I am an engineer, not an economist, sir, so forgive me. My feeling is that the NASA budget that 

we are talking about here is an investment to try and drive, from 

our perspective, a large sector of the economy. I believe that commercial aviation is probably the largest contributor to positive balance of trade, and it literally is a significant fraction—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No doubt about it. 

Mr. TRACY [continuing]. Of major post-domestic product. So that 

is why we are interested, because this research does make a great 

contribution to that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I am not sure. If we can actually cut 

the budget and you don’t have to let anybody off, I mean, this is— 

I know you are an engineer, and engineers, maybe if you could 
61 

make the same thing with fewer people, I mean, we are keeping 

the same people. Usually you would say you are going to have to 

be doing less. If you have less money, you have less personnel. 

Let me just suggest that there is a lot of research going on in 

the private sector, and maybe Ms. Blakely could tell us about that, 

research that is going on in the private sector. Can they pick up, 

can companies like Boeing and others pick up hardware costs? It 

sounds like to me if you are not going to reduce the number of people working, what we are reducing is wind tunnels and things such 

as that. Is it possible that the private sector could pick up those 

capital costs that are now being funded by the government? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, Congressman Rohrabacher, as you know from 

a number of the companies that you know very well, they do tremendous amounts—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They do. 

Ms. BLAKEY [continuing]. Of R&D work. And they also work in 

close partnership with NASA. They lease the use of those wind 

tunnels, pay good private-sector money to be able to take advantage of what essentially is an investment the government made to 

make this early innovation happen. Tremendous amounts of R&D 

go from our companies into the air and fly. What they are not able 

to do though is this very fundamental basic research which is 

where government always has had an important role. That then 

translates to the kind of technological advantage we enjoy worldwide. But it has always come, almost always, and I won’t say always because there were the Wright brothers. I don’t think they 

were working on a government grant. But the fact of the matter 

is a great deal has come from the military’s research and from research at NASA. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that while I 

am very supportive of the development technology, that my guess 

sometimes when people cut back, sometimes it makes different operations demand more efficiency. That is what happens in the private sector. It is a little bit disconcerting to know that we are cutting back, and there isn’t any change in personnel. That does not 

reflect to me the way things should go. 

And one last note and that is if we spent $551 million on this 

research, my guess also is that we are providing a subsidy to those 

countries that steal our technology and steal the research. Thus, 

we are not just carrying the load for our own businesses. We are 

carrying the load for China’s new space program. Hunky dory. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SHIN. Sir, could I offer just one thought? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure, go right ahead. 

Dr. SHIN. I want to make—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Proceed. 

Dr. SHIN. Yes, I want to make sure that my response earlier was 

not misunderstood. When aeronautics budget was close to $1 billion 

or a little bit over $1 billion back in late 1990s, of course we had 

a lot more people working on aeronautics. So I want to make sure 

that the response that I provided to you, sir, was for $570 million 

level budget, that has been going on three or four years. And because of that, the reduction happened many years ago and the 
62 

number of workforce working on aeronautics has come down quite 

a bit. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah, I don’t quite understand that. I 

thought we were talking about budget reduction here. 

Dr. SHIN. That budget reduction happened many years ago, several years ago. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I wonder if my friend from California would 

yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, actually, it is the Chairman’s time. Mr. 

Chair. 

Chairman PALAZZO. We are being pretty flexible with the fiveminute rule today, so if Mr. Rohrabacher wants to—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure, go right ahead. 

Chairman PALAZZO [continuing]. Give you what time he has left. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I want to clarify a point here just for my information, because I think Mr. Rohrabacher makes some pretty good 

points here, but one is that this isn’t a $500 million reduction from 

one year to the next. This has gone back three or four years. Two, 

I don’t know the level of funding that NASA uses out of when you 

were at $1 billion or if you are at $551 million. How much of that 

money actually stays in the agency and supports employees inhouse versus what you contract out to many private-sector companies that are members of Ms. Blakey’s association? Am I wrong 

about that? Is all the $551 million, if that is what the funding level 

is, does that all stay in house or you contract out with Boeing and 

many other companies to do research with NASA, is that correct? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes, that is very correct. We do support in-house capability because that is one of the charters for NASA aeronautics. But 

roughly I think about 40 to 45 percent goes out to out-of-house to 

certainly industry and universities and others. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses 

today. I just want to point a couple of things out for the record, 

that in 2004 the research budget was roughly seven percent of the 

overall agency budget, and by this time, it has leveled off to three 

percent. That is more than double a reduction in the research 

budget, at a time when in 2006 the Decadal survey actually recommended enhancing areas of research that we are focused on 

today, and I think that that is an important reminder to us, that 

we had a Decadal survey done of the needs in civil aeronautics 

with recommendations, and we have done exactly the opposite in 

terms of funding those areas of recommendation that we paid for 

in 2006. So I don’t really get that but I offer that for the record. 

Dr. Harris, in your testimony, you indicated the maturity of the 

industry, and I think that that is true. But the question for me 

really is about the future of our leadership in aeronautics and in 

whether we are able to, in a robust way, develop new and innovative technologies that are dependent on core research to continue 

our competitive advantage. And so to me these are questions that 

are really about the future. 

And I think, you know, going to some other issues that are not 

the jurisdiction of this committee about expanding and making per-
63 

manent research and development tax credits and enhancing a domestic manufacturing credit that I think would greatly benefit both 

the stability of what we are doing in research but also the growth 

in aeronautics. Now, that said, there is something about fundamental core research that each of you has offered testimony for our 

record. Dr. Tracy, I think in your testimony you indicate that Boeing spent about $3.9 billion in R&D. How much of that is fundamental research? 

Dr. TRACY. Congressman Edwards, that amount you mentioned 

does include both product development and technology. We don’t 

publically break out the split between the two, but it is a substantial number measured in billions, the amount that goes toward 

technology. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But that goes toward fundamental research, toward basic research? 

Dr. TRACY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so would you say, though, Ms. Blakey, that 

in the industry, I mean, as you have indicated, that part of the reason that you are able to spend, that a lot of the industry is able 

to spend money on its core research is also because you are dependent on the research that comes out of NASA and out of the aeronautics research, and if that had to be then put onto the backs of 

the industry, is it your view, Ms. Blakey, that the industry would 

be able to do all of that? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, Boeing, of course, is in a very powerful position to make these kinds of investments. But remember, the industry is populated by thousands and thousands of smaller businesses. 

Innovation in this country is driven significantly by small businesses, but they are not able to do the kinds of things that involve 

big investments and test facilities and work at the most academic 

level that really is undertaken by NASA with the university community. That is not what a small business can do, but they can 

pick up the advances there and then bring them into the marketplace. And that is what is a very exciting chain that goes on. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Tracy? 

Dr. TRACY. Congresswoman Edwards, Dr. Harris talked about 

the maturity of the field, because it is 100 years old, but there is 

no shortage of things to work on. The progress that we are making 

today in aviation, aeronautics in particular, is absolutely outstanding and it is astounding. And so we count on being able to 

work jointly with NASA to investigate some of the higher-risk 

things. It probably won’t see commercial use for 20 years, but we 

need to have work going on them today to make sure that the pipeline is filled, and some of these very advanced technologies will be 

ready when companies like ours are able to commercialize them. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And I think that you draw the same conclusion 

that if we don’t do that, we will look 100 years down the line and 

not have made the kinds of advancements that will actually allow 

our domestic industry to be at the top of its game the way that it 

is today, isn’t that right? 

Dr. TRACY. Yes, ma’am, I agree completely. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then I just want to ask Dr. Shin about the 

hypersonic research program because there has been an indication 

that perhaps the Department of Defense would then assume some 
64 

of that or all of that research agenda. Can you tell me whether you 

really believe that that is appropriate and perhaps, Ms. Blakey as 

well, if you could indicate whether there have been some issues or 

challenges with fully marrying a DOD agenda with what needs to 

take place in the civilian sector. 

Dr. SHIN. Yes, Congresswoman. I think the first point I would 

like to convey to you is our relationship with DOD in hypersonic 

area has been very prosperous in the past couple decades, to say 

the least. So with the priority exercise that we have gone through 

with the NASA budget in proposing reduction in hypersonic doesn’t 

mean that we didn’t know each other and didn’t work together and 

all of a sudden something will fall off the cliff. 

So I will propose one good example which was U.S. Air Force program called X–51, and that was built upon the technological accomplishments that NASA made through X–43 program. I am sorry to 

throw all these numbers. But X–43 for the first time in history 

demonstrated that we can fly supersonic and self-ignited combustion could happen in a hypersonic regime. So someone mentioned 

to me, an expert in the hypersonic area mentioned to me, that igniting the combustor in this hypersonic speed would be like trying 

to light a candle in the hurricane. I think that is a very good analogy. 

So we flew 10 seconds in hypersonic, self-ignited mode. U.S. Air 

Force built upon that technology, and now X–51 flew minutes and 

especially on not hydrogen fuel but carbon fuel, hydrogen fuel that 

is a conventional fuel, and be able to build upon the technology. 

So to getting to your question, we have been in good collaboration with DOD for years, so with this reduction on the NASA part, 

certainly the partnership needs to be elevated into higher level, 

more like reliance level. But we have been discussing—I personally 

am engaged in several discussions with officials in DOD and Air 

Force, and we are doing our best not to damage the collaboration, 

certainly with DOD and for the competency for the country. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BLAKEY. One thought to add to that from the vantage point 

of looking at the situation of DOD very closely as we do every day, 

the Budget Control Act has taken $487 billion out of the DOD 

budget. The upcoming prospect of sequestration is another half-trillion. We know that the operational aspects of DOD’s budget will 

continue to require to be funded and that therefore means that it 

is the investment accounts, the R&D, which is where those cuts 

will take place. I believe, as Dr. Shin outlined, that there is the 

best intent in the world to try to keep so much going that supports 

it. But in the reality of the world that we are facing in terms of 

DOD’s own budget, it is an extremely bleak picture. So I think we 

should bear that in mind. 

And things such as you are highlighting, the R&D tax credit, 

that could make a real difference. The United States has dropped 

to 16th in the world in terms of the way we support private-sector 

R&D. So looking outside the federal budget but trying to be supportive, I would urge this Committee to keep that in mind. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Go ahead, Doctor. 

Dr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to Congresswoman Edwards’ concern regarding DOD’s support for hypersonics? First of 
65 

all, of all the flight regimes, it is hypersonics that requires, that 

cannot make advances without flight research. There is no way you 

can advance hypersonics with ground testing facilities or computations, simulations alone. Flight test is absolutely critical. 

In terms of the budget or the responsibility being shifted entirely 

to DOD, I would recommend that that is not a capital idea, that 

NASA needs to maintain a capability in hypersonics. Why? It is 

such a critical field that once you leave it, the cost to rebuild it is 

enormous and it costs money as well as time. I firmly believe 

NASA should maintain a presence in hypersonics. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Clarke from Michigan. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Just a general question to any panel member. It is regarding opportunities 

that you see in NASA’s aeronautics research that could be easily 

commercialized, any low-hanging fruit that can help us create jobs 

in the near future. 

Dr. HARRIS. May I take that one? Sir, the committee that reviewed NASA’s flight research capabilities identified an area of 

great opportunity, mainly the development of a supersonic business 

jet. The requirement in terms of flight research is to demonstrate 

a reduction in the impact of the sonic boom. We feel that the Nation, industry and NASA has progressed to a point where we are 

able to do that in a reasonable length of time. That would generate 

an opportunity to build business jets, a new industry, one that 

would lead to high-skilled, high-wage jobs that would have a tremendous impact on our economy, and I would say would offer opportunities to sell such airplanes worldwide. 

Mr. CLARKE. Dr. Harris, is there anything that needs to be done 

to help advance this commercialization? 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, yes. I think we have to demonstrate through 

flight tests that we can fly supersonic biz jets over land without 

being a nuisance in terms of the sonic boom produced. And that is 

a flight test requirement that it has to be demonstrated in flight, 

and I think NASA should have the opportunity to demonstrate 

that. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you. Anyone else have any suggestions? 

Ms. BLAKEY. There is tremendous potential in the unmanned 

aerial systems in domestic use of air space, cargo, all sorts of security, homeland security monitoring. This is an area that we will see 

a proliferation of vehicles if we could just get over a few problems 

that we are trying to solve right now. So that would be one. 

And I would also say alternative jet fuels that NASA is working 

on. There is a huge market there because we are going to be moving to that, and we would like to see that those companies in distribution come out of the United States. 

Mr. CLARKE. What are the difficulties you think we need to overcome right now to best commercialize that research? 

Dr. SHIN. I think as Dr. Harris and Ms. Blakey mentioned, 

NASA aeronautics has been really diligently working with industry 

to make sure that technologies are transferred effectively and timely. During my oral testimony, we showed many of the NASA technologies that have been transferred to industry and turned into 

commercial products for the past several decades. We are continuing that role, and Ms. Blakey mentioned about UAS. We have 
66 

a project, started last year, trying to make the UAS access to national air space, civil UAS. That is what I am talking about, not 

military UAS, and so many of the NASA capabilities and concepts 

and tools will be able to work with FAA to help speeding the access 

of UAS into NASA. And now the opportunities are just really limitless there, as Ms. Blakey just alluded, that from high altitude, long 

endurance, observation to—some people even conceive even a pizza 

delivery, but I think that is a little too far-fetched. 

But the opportunities are just boundless. So I think that is what 

we would like to do. We push the boundary and develop new capabilities to open up the market so our country stays ahead of all this 

aviation sector, not just dwelling in what we do best right now, but 

keep on investing in the future, as Congresswoman Edwards so accurately pointed out, pushing the boundary and putting it out there 

in the future so industry can stay and remain in the leadership position for decades to come. 

Mr. CLARKE. When it comes to the development of these unmanned surveillance vehicles, what is the timeframe that you 

think we—how long would it take before this could be commercialized? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. So our project has a plan to make impact from 

2015 to next 10 years. So that is our target, and we do need to remember that DOD has an enormous amount of experience operating UAS. So we got to build upon that experience and knowledge 

to transition to a civil UAS, and I think working with FAA, DOD, 

and also Homeland Security, we are up to the task, and we certainly will do our best to make that impact from 2015 and out. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. At this time we are 

going to go into a second round of questions, and I now recognize 

myself for one question. 

There is a lot of discussion this week on certain cyber security 

bills. When you talk to a lot of our military leaders, they say the 

things that keep them up at night is a short list, and cyber security 

and cyber warfare is one of those. 

So Dr. Tracy, some of your comments about the future system architecture designs in your testimony was noteworthy. You go on to 

say current and future generation aircraft, their flight management 

systems and ATM systems, are highly dependent upon highly complex software and hardware, digital system to operate. What is 

being done today to protect current generations of automation systems, and how severe a threat is cyber security? And where does 

our Nation’s expertise reside for this type of research? 

Dr. TRACY. Chairman Palazzo, thank you for the opportunity to 

talk about cyber security. We and all of the industry take the 

threat as very serious. We invest significant resources in understanding what the threats are, where they are coming, and we 

work very hard to mitigate them. The threats could be toward our 

infrastructure, which is used to run the company or any other company, and then also you have to always be on the alert that people 

aren’t trying to attack systems that you might have on the airplane. 
67 

We go to a great extent to verify that the network architecture 

on all our platforms is secure and that software can’t be injected 

into those systems through some unapproved path. 

We work jointly with the Department of Defense and other government agencies to both understand the threat and come up with 

mitigation plans for taking care of those threats in both our infrastructure and in our platforms. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Costello for 

a question. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Shin, you and Ms. 

Blakey touched on the unmanned aircraft system, the UAS. They 

are playing more of a role every day in public missions with border 

patrol, military training, weather monitoring, and we are seeing 

companies that are being created and jobs being created today and 

for the future for our unmanned aircraft. As you know, after 23 extensions, we finally have an FAA reauthorization bill that was 

passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, and 

it requires the FAA, by the middle of next month, to determine how 

to expedite the licensing process of certain government unmanned 

aircraft. But it also requires the FAA to develop a plan later this 

year, a comprehensive plan, for the integration of private, unmanned aircraft systems into the U.S. airspace system by 2015. 

So my question, Dr. Shin, is NASA currently working with the 

FAA in order for them to implement what is required under the 

FAA reauthorization bill, and is there anything that you are doing 

now or can be doing in the future to meet these timelines? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes, sir. A NASA project is working on separation assurance, piggybacking and collaborating with—the DOD has been 

working very hard, and also communication. We talked about cyber 

security a little bit, and I think UAS has a big importance when 

keeping that communication line secure and safe and also the certification end of it that we are working with FAA to support that. 

And then also human factors, man and machine interaction in 

those areas. 

So these are all very critically important areas, research areas, 

that NASA is working to provide support to the community and in 

particular FAA. But I am also a member to UAS executive committee as you are well aware of. The DOD, FAA, Homeland Security and NASA, the founding members, and I think we have made 

a lot of progress, the special permit process between DOD and 

FAA, and also NASA has been working with FAA, UAS office and 

the safety office there to make sure that we are connected in identifying the critical issues that FAA has been working on. 

So as an example, last year on the JPDO’s oversight, Department 

of Defense, NASA and FAA and a couple other agencies also participated. But three agencies were the main workhorses to generate 

this interagency, national UAS research, technology, and demonstration roadmap. So that is a very important piece of work that 

will guide all these participating members in the Federal Government. But we have to build upon that. That shouldn’t be the end 

of our interagency efforts. 

So through X–COM, through JPDO, I think there are structures 

in place for our government agencies to work together. 
68 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher for a question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. First of all, Ms. 

Blakey, what is the depreciation schedule for your industry in 

terms of purchasing new equipment, new machines? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I will have to get back with you for that. I don’t 

have it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe our gentlemen? 

Dr. TRACY. Same answer. I will have to get that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note, depreciation schedules are 

really important for innovation, and perhaps even more important 

than a direct subsidy to a specific company for a specific research 

job. It is an enabler, and I understand that the Japanese have a 

depreciation schedule that permits them to write off the cost of new 

equipment and machines immediately and that our companies are 

faced with a much greater burden. But I certainly would like to 

know the statistics on that. There is some reform that we could do 

that would have some dramatic impact and not have a major impact on the budget. 

Let me suggest this, Mr. Chairman. We are sort of taking a microscope and looking at the impact of trying to balance the budget. 

Well, maybe we don’t need a microscope. Maybe we just sort of step 

back and take a look at the picture here, and I don’t think that we 

would have any trouble financing any of these research projects 

and keeping all of this equipment that we need to help our private 

sector verify the technological things, that they are research 

projects. They are the wind tunnels and the various electronics 

that provide basic research verification, et cetera. I don’t think we 

would have a lack of money if we perhaps weren’t spending $3 billion a year on a huge, huge rocket that may never go into service. 

$3 billion. The SLS Orion project which will take an incredible 

amount of time, and if you look at other NASA projects of this 

scope, we will probably be way over budget. Anyway, just take a 

step back because we have this mammoth program staring us right 

in the face, and that is what is draining the money here. It is not 

even a balanced budget. It is having grandiose plans when we can’t 

take care of fundamentals. 

We also have a telescope project now that is almost $700 million 

a year. That is over $3.5 billion being extracted out of the NASA 

budget. These are huge expenditures, and while I certainly support 

the telescope and we have seen these incredible expansions of the 

actual cost that we were promised on these things. 

Anyway, I would hope that we are a little bit more cautious 

when we get ourselves involved in mega-projects because they will 

impact on micro-projects like this. 

One last thought on drones. Drones are going to really—you got 

the radical left in this country who decided that having a drone in 

the air is more of a threat to their privacy than to having a helicopter pilot in the air in a helicopter. This type of irrationality is 

up to us to combat, and that doesn’t cost a penny. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for their 

valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the 
69 

witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

statements from Members. The witnesses are excused, and this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
71 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Responses by Dr. Wesley Harris 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Æ