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

48–168PS 2009

NETWORKING AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 1, 2009

Serial No. 111–17

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 1, 2009

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member,

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Christopher L. Greer, Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NCO/

NITRD)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Biography .......................................................................................................... 21

Dr. Peter Lee, Incoming Chair, Computing Research Association (CRA); Professor and Head, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

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

Biography .......................................................................................................... 31

Dr. Deborah Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing; Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34

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

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 38

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Christopher L. Greer, Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NCO/

NITRD) .................................................................................................................. 52

Dr. Peter Lee, Incoming Chair, Computing Research Association (CRA); Professor and Head, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University ......................................................................................................................... 58

Dr. Deborah Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing; Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles ............................................................................................... 61

Mr. Amit Yoran, Chief Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation .................... 62

Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Mr. Amit Yoran, Chief Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 66

Biography .......................................................................................................... 68

(1)

NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ACT OF 2009

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon

[Chair of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Networking and Information

Technology Research and

Development Act of 2009

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009. The legislation is based

on findings and recommendations included in a recent assessment of the program

conducted by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

(PCAST) and proposes changes to the research content and planning and implementation mechanisms of the program.

A section-by-section summary of the legislation is attached as an appendix to this

memo.

2. Witnesses:

• Dr. Chris L. Greer, Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and

Information Technology Research and Development (NCO/NITRD)

• Dr. Peter Lee, Professor and Head, Computer Science Department, Carnegie

Mellon University

• Mr. Amit Yoran, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation

• Dr. Deborah Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, University of California, Los Angeles

3. Overarching Questions:

• Does the legislation ensure that the NITRD program is positioned to help maintain U.S. leadership in networking and information technology? What are industry’s priorities for the NITRD program and are they adequately addressed in the

legislation? What are the research community’s needs for this program and are

they adequately addressed?

• Does the legislation address the key recommendations of the recent PCAST assessment for making the NITRD program more effective and more relevant to the

research needs and opportunities in information technology?

• Are there key research gaps or program management concerns not covered in this

legislation? Are the mechanisms for industry and academic input into the planning process sufficient?

• Does the legislation effectively implement the PCAST recommendation for support

of large-scale, multi-disciplinary research and development projects? What are the

most appropriate mechanisms to undertake these projects? Are the requirements

for these projects sufficient to encourage industry/university partnerships?

4. Background

NITRD Program

The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD)

program, originally authorized in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L.

102–194), is a multi-agency research effort to accelerate progress in the advancement of computing and networking technologies and to support leading edge computational research in a range of science and engineering fields. The 1991 statute

established a set of mechanisms and procedures to provide for the interagency planVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
4

ning, coordination, and budgeting of the research and development activities carried

out under the program.

The NITRD Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council

(NSTC) is the working body for interagency planning and coordination and includes

representatives from each of the participating NITRD agencies as well as the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). For FY 2009, 13 federal agencies contributed

funding to the NITRD program; however additional agencies that do not contribute

funding participate in planning activities. The FY 2009 budget request for the

NITRD program was $3.548 billion, an increase of $0.207 billion or approximately

six percent, over the FY 2008 level of $3.341 billion. A summary of the major research components of the program and funding levels by major component and by

agency is available at: http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2009supplement/index.aspx

The National Coordination Office (NCO) provides staff support for the NITRD

Subcommittee and the program’s advisory committee and serves as the public interface for the program.

PCAST Assessment

In August 2007, PCAST completed an assessment of the NITRD program and

issued a report entitled, ‘‘Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology R&D

in a Competitive World’’ [http://www.nitrd.gov/pcast/reports/PCAST-NITFINAL.pdf].

The PCAST report includes several findings and recommendations related to the

research content of the program, as well as suggestions for improving the program’s

planning, prioritization and coordination. The recommendations from the PCAST report include:

• Federal agencies should rebalance their NITRD funding portfolios by increasing support for important problems that require larger-scale, longer-term,

multi-disciplinary R&D and increasing emphasis on innovative and therefore

higher-risk but potentially higher-payoff explorations.

• As new funding becomes available for the NITRD program, disproportionately

larger increases should go for:

Æ research on NIT systems connected with the physical world (which are

also called embedded, engineered, or cyber-physical systems);

Æ software R&D;

Æ a national strategy and implementation plan to assure the long-term

preservation, stewardship, and widespread availability of data important

to science and technology; and

Æ networking R&D, including upgrading the Internet and R&D in mobile

networking technologies.

• The NITRD agencies should:

Æ develop, maintain, and implement a strategic plan for the NITRD program;

Æ conduct periodic assessments of the major components of the NITRD program and restructure the program when warranted;

Æ develop, maintain, and implement public R&D plans or roadmaps for key

technical areas that require long-term interagency coordination and engagement; and

Æ develop a set of metrics and other indicators of progress for the NITRD

program, including an estimate of investments in basic and applied research, and use them to assess NITRD program progress.

• The NITRD National Coordination Office should support the development,

maintenance, and implementation of the NITRD strategic plan and R&D

plans for key technical areas; and it should be more proactive in communicating with outside groups.

Cyber-Physical Systems

The top recommendation of the PCAST report for new research investments in the

NITRD program is in the area of computer-driven systems connected with the physical world—also called embedded, engineered, or cyber-physical systems (CPS). CPS

are connected to the physical world through sensors and actuators to perform crucial monitoring and control functions. Such systems would include the air-trafficcontrol system, the power-grid, water-supply systems, and industrial process control

5

systems. On a more individual level, they are found in automobiles and home health

care devices.

Examples of CPS are already in widespread use but growing demand for new capabilities and applications will require significant technical advances. Such systems

can be difficult and costly to design, build, test, and maintain. They often involve

the intricate integration of myriad networked software and hardware components,

including multiple subsystems. In monitoring and controlling the functioning of

complex, fast-acting physical systems (such as medical devices, weapons systems,

manufacturing processes, and power-distribution facilities), they must operate reliably in real time under strict constraints on computing, memory, power, speed,

weight, and cost. Moreover, most uses of cyber-physical systems are safety-critical:

they must continue to function even when under attack or stress.

There is evidence that CPS will be an area of international economic competition.

For example, the European Union’s Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence and Systems (ARTEMIS) program, funded by a public-private investment of 5.4 billion euros (over $7 billion in mid-2007 dollars) between 2007 and

2013, is pursuing R&D to achieve ‘‘world leadership in intelligent electronic systems’’ by 2016.

Recent Amendments to NITRD Program [included in COMPETES Act]

A 1999 assessment of the program found that the sponsored research was shifting

too much toward support for near-term, mission focused objectives; that there was

a growing gap between the power of high-performance computers available to support agency mission requirements and those supporting the general academic research community; and that total federal information technology investment was inadequate. In response to that report, the Committee developed legislation that became part of the COMPETES Act (section 7024(a) ) and amends the 1991 Act in two

significant ways: requires the advisory committee to conduct periodic evaluations of

the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the program and requires OSTP to develop and maintain a roadmap for developing and deploying very high-performance computing (high-end) systems necessary to ensure

that the U.S. research community has sustained access to the most capable computing systems.

5. Witness Questions

All witnesses were asked to give their views on the provisions of the bill, including any recommendations for ways to improve it. The list of overarching questions

(item 3 above) was included in the invitation letters of all of the witnesses except

Dr. Greer.

Dr. Greer

Dr. Greer was asked to please provide an update (since his last testimony before

the Committee in July, 2008) of any significant changes to the NITRD Program and

any actions the NITRD agencies have taken or plan to take in response to the recommendations of the 2007 PCAST report. In addition, he was asked to answer the

following specific questions:

• The NITRD subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council is

in the midst of developing a strategic plan. Please describe those efforts and

how, if at all, they address the requirements for strategic planning as described in the legislation. In particular, what are the current mechanisms for

industry and academic input into the planning process, and how is the

NITRD subcommittee addressing the need for the NITRD program to place

more emphasis on higher-risk, long-term projects? What is the timeline for

completing the strategic plan?

• Please describe the current responsibilities and activities of the National Coordination Office (NCO). How do those responsibilities and activities compare

to the responsibilities and activities required for the NCO in the legislation?

In particular, how has the NCO responded to the 2007 PCAST recommendation for improved communication with and outreach to outside groups?

6

SUMMARY

DRAFT NETWORKING AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ACT OF 2009

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

‘‘Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009’’.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM PLANNING AND COORDINATION.

PERIODIC REVIEWS.—Responds to the PCAST report recommendation to require

the NITRD agencies to periodically assess the NITRD program contents and funding

levels and make changes as appropriate. Also requires that the program content include activities authorized under section 3.

STRATEGIC PLAN.—

• Responds to the PCAST report recommendation to require the NITRD agencies to develop and periodically update (three-year intervals) a strategic plan

for the program. The characteristics and content of the strategic plan are described.

• Adds to the responsibilities of the OSTP Director oversight responsibility to

see that the strategic plan is developed and executed effectively.

• Specifies that the annual report now required for the NITRD program explicitly describe how the program activities planned and underway relate to the

objectives specified in the strategic plan.

REPORT.—Specifies that the annual report now required for the NITRD program

include a description of research areas supported in accordance with section 3, including the same budget information as is required for the Program Component

Areas.

SEC. 3. LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH IN AREAS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.

Generally addresses the PCAST recommendation to increase the NITRD investment in larger scale, high-risk/high-payoff, and multi-disciplinary research. These

competitive awards must be made through collaborations between at least two agencies.

Characteristics of the projects supported include:

• collaborations among researchers in academic institutions and industry, and

may involve nonprofit research institutions and federal laboratories;

• when possible, leveraging of federal investments through collaboration with

related State initiatives; and

• plans for fostering the transfer of research discoveries and the results of technology demonstration activities to industry for commercial development.

Authorizes support of activities under this section through interdisciplinary research centers that are organized to investigate basic research questions and carry

out technology demonstration activities

SEC. 4. CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS.

The first PCAST recommendation regarding NITRD program content was for developing and implementing a plan for research on cyber-physical systems.

Directs that cyber-physical systems be one of the areas supported in accordance

with SEC. 3. Specifies R&D objectives and types of activities authorized based on

the PCAST recommendations and the results of the community workshops (CPS

Steering Group).

Requires the NCO Director to convene an industry/university task force to explore

mechanisms for carrying out collaborative research and development activities for

cyber-physical systems through a consortium with participants from academic institutions and industry. The goal of the task force is to develop recommendations for

the structure and mode of operation of a joint industry/university research consortium and to report the recommendations to Congress. This provision is based on the

recommendations of the Boeing witness (Winter) at July 31, 2008 hearing.

7

SEC. 5. NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE.

This section formally establishes the National Coordination Office; delineates the

office’s responsibilities; mandates annual operating budgets; specifies the source of

funding for the office, which mirrors the current practice; and stresses the role of

the office in developing the strategic plan and in public outreach and communication

with outside communities of interest, following the PCAST recommendations.

8

Chair GORDON. This hearing will come to order, and good morning.

Welcome to today’s hearing on the Networking and Information

Technology Research and Development, or as it is commonly

known, NITRD Act. Last year this committee held an oversight

hearing on the NITRD program. At that hearing we heard from a

panel of expert witnesses on the findings of a recent assessment of

the program carried out by the President’s Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology. The PCAST recommendations and the testimony of the witnesses served as a basis for the legislation proposal we are reviewing today.

Last week there was a symposium at the Library of Congress

celebrating the achievements of computing research. During the

opening session of the symposium, one speaker cited a New York

Times article to illustrate how far computing has come to demonstrate how profoundly information technology has changed our

lives.

The article contained a laundry list of life-changing innovations

over the last 30 years. Notably, two-thirds of the items on the list

such as the Internet, open-source software and laptop computers,

were the result of advances in information technology research.

This result clearly demonstrates that information technology is a

major driver of the economy and growth and that advances in the

field have the potential to dramatically influence all aspects of our

lives from manufacturing and health care to education and entertainment. In short, research and networking information technology translates to U.S. scientific, industrial and military competitiveness.

The legislative proposal we are reviewing today responds to two

categories of concerns expressed by the PCAST assessment: the

strength of NITRD program’s planning and coordinating functions

and the balance of the research portfolio.

First, the legislation addresses the PCAST recommendations to

strengthen the planning, coordination and prioritization components of the program by requiring the development and periodic

update of a strategic plan that will create a vision for information

technology R&D allowing for continued technological breakthroughs in maintaining U.S. leadership.

Next, the legislation addresses the PCAST recommendation for

increased support of large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research by creating large-scale R&D rewards that not only encourage collaboration among the NITRD agencies but also promote collaboration between the academic and industry researchers. Past

achievements have shown that these large-scale, long-term partnerships are a recipe for success.

Many of the technical advances that led to today’s computers and

the Internet evolved from past research sponsored by industry and

government, often in partnership and conducted by the industry,

university and federal labs.

And finally, the legislation highlights the need for increased research in the area of cyber-physical systems. Cyber-physical systems such as the power grid and home health care devices are computer-driven systems connected with the physical world. The prevalence of these systems is likely to increase but technical advances

9

are needed to realize their full potential. The legislation calls for

an industry/university task force to explore the mechanisms for

carrying out collaborative R&D in this important area, and while

there has been breathtaking progress in the field of information

technology, I believe the best is yet to come.

[The prepared statement of Chair Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR BART GORDON

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing on the Networking and Information

Technology Research and Development, or as it is commonly known, the NITRD Act.

Last year, this committee held an oversight hearing on the NITRD program. At that

hearing we heard from a panel of expert witnesses on the findings of a recent assessment of the program carried out by the President’s Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology (PCAST). The PCAST recommendations and the testimony

of the witnesses served as the basis for the legislative proposal we are reviewing

today.

Last week, there was a symposium at the Library of Congress celebrating the

achievements of computing research. During the opening session of the symposium

one speaker cited a New York Times article to illustrate how far computing has

come and to demonstrate how profoundly information technology has changed our

lives.

The article contained a laundry list of life changing innovations over the last 30

years. Notably, two-thirds of the items on the list, such as the Internet, open-source

software and laptop computers, were the result of advances in information technology research. This result clearly demonstrates that information technology is a

major driver of economic growth and that advances in the field have the potential

to dramatically influence all aspects of our lives from manufacturing and health

care to education and entertainment. In short, research in networking and information technology translates into U.S. scientific, industrial, and military competitiveness.

The legislative proposal we are reviewing today responds to two categories of concern expressed by the PCAST assessment: the strength of the NITRD program’s

planning and coordination functions and the balance of the research portfolio.

First, the legislation addresses the PCAST recommendation to strengthen the

planning, coordination, and prioritization components of the program by requiring

the development and periodic update of a strategic plan that will create a vision for

information technology R&D, allowing for continued technological breakthrough and

maintaining U.S. leadership.

Next, the legislation addresses the PCAST recommendation for increased support

of large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary research by creating large-scale R&D

awards that not only encourage collaboration among the NITRD agencies, but also

promote collaborations between academic and industry researchers.

Past achievements have shown us that large-scale, long-term partnerships are a

recipe for success. Many of the technical advances that led to today’s computers and

the Internet evolved from past research sponsored by industry and government,

often in partnership, and conducted by industry, university, and federal labs.

Finally, the legislation highlights the need for increased research in the area of

cyber-physical systems. Cyber-physical systems such as the power grid and home

health care devices are computer-driven systems connected with the physical world.

The prevalence of these systems is likely to increase, but technical advances are

needed to realize their full potential. The legislation calls for an industry/university

task force to explore mechanisms for carrying out collaborative R&D in this important area.

While there has been breathtaking progress in the field of information technology

I believe the best is yet to come. A brilliant young scientist who participated in last

week’s symposium is putting to good use a program he invented to distinguish between a human user and a computer and prevent SPAM e-mail. Now when you type

the distorted text at the bottom of a Web registration form you are helping to

digitize books that were written before the computer age. This type of ingenuity is

the perfect example of why many believe information technology R&D is still in its

infancy.

The witnesses before us today have extensive expertise in networking and information technology, and I look forward to their comments on our legislative proposal.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to appear before the Committee this morning and I look forward to your testimony.

10

Chair GORDON. Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Hall for an opening statement.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chair, thank you, and before I make an opening

statement, we are always proud when we have people in the audience that are related to us and are praying for us and working for

us, and Mele ́, who wrote this opening statement for me, her mother

is in the audience. Her name is Sandra Freeman and she is from

Greenville, South Carolina, but she has been skiing in Boulder,

Colorado, since the first of the year, and I am told that Colorado

is made up of people from Iowa that don’t want any more Texans.

I don’t know if that it right or not. Welcome, and thank you, Mr.

Chair, for allowing us to recognize her.

Thank you, Chair Gordon, for scheduling this hearing to receive

testimony on draft authorization legislation for the Federal Government’s Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program. Currently the NITRD, as they are called, program provides a primary mechanism by which Federal Government

coordinates the Nation’s more than $3 billion of unclassified networking and information technology research and development investments. As I stated in our last hearing, given the ever increasing amounts of networking and information technology that affects

our everyday lives, from power grid and water purification systems

to automotive improvements and air traffic control equipment, to

home health and care and health care devices and educational software programs, for all that it is important that we not only continue to support these R&D efforts but also make sure that this

program is appropriately coordinating with our classified cyber security initiatives as well. In fact, I believe that this is of vital importance to our homeland security and to our economy.

It is my understanding that at this moment a computer worm

called Conficker C may be affecting millions of computers in ways

that we can’t even completely identify yet, and whether this pans

out to be a serious threat or simply a perceived threat, the ability

for people to create this kind of computer havoc is a real problem.

So I would suggest that non-classified cyber security efforts are just

as important. Hopefully our witnesses will discuss and address that

today as well.

I know that your staff has been working diligently with ours to

put together good, solid legislation and I appreciate this bipartisan

effort. The draft before us is a culmination of recommendations

from the PCAST report, feedback we received from numerous organizations and witness testimony received in the hearing held on

this topic last year. So I am sure we will learn today that there

are yet more ways we can improve this bill and I hope that we can

continue to work together to ensure that it moves forward in a bipartisan fashion and with bipartisan support, and our Chair, I

think, is a champion of that type of support.

I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses today and

their recommendations about how we can make an already exemplary interagency program even better.

I yield back my time and I thank the Chair.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for scheduling this hearing to receive testimony on

draft authorization legislation for the Federal Government’s Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program. Currently, the

NITRD program provides the primary mechanism by which the Federal Government

coordinates this nation’s more than three billion dollars of unclassified networking

and information technology (NIT) research and development (R&D) investments.

As I stated in our last NITRD hearing, given the ever increasing amounts of networking and information technology that affect our everyday lives from power grid

and water purification systems to automotive improvements and air traffic control

equipment to home health care devices and educational software programs, it is important that we not only continue to support these R&D efforts but also make sure

that this program is appropriately coordinating with our classified cyber security

initiatives as well. In fact, I believe that this is of vital importance to our homeland

security and to our economy.

It is my understanding that at this moment, a computer worm called Conficker

C may be affecting millions of computers in ways that we cannot even completely

identify yet. Whether this pans out to be a serious threat or simply a perceived

threat, the ability for people to create this kind of computer havoc is a real problem.

So, I would suggest that non-classified cyber security efforts are just as important.

Hopefully, our witnesses will address that today, as well.

I know that your staff has been working diligently with mine to put together good,

solid legislation, and I appreciate this bipartisan effort. The draft before us is a culmination of recommendations from the PCAST Report, feedback we have received

from numerous organizations, and witness testimony received in a hearing held on

this topic last year. I am sure we will learn today that there are yet more ways

we can improve this bill, and I hope that we can continue to work together to ensure

that it moves forward in a bipartisan fashion and with bipartisan support.

I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses today and their recommendations about how we can make an already exemplary interagency program even better.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening

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

point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.

Advanced computer networks are the wave of the future.

As technology has improved, we are better able to predict the paths of hurricanes,

the force of tsunamis, or even the trajectory of comets.

Advanced computing is a broad area of active research. The Texas Advanced Computing Center, in Austin, has scientists who are using supercomputers to simulate

airflow and manage shock waves for next-generation, hypersonic aircraft.

Other researchers there have been working to understand the process by which

enzymes convert plant matter into energy, with the goal of creating more efficient

enzymes. Then we could more quickly convert waste to energy.

High speed computers have also enabled scientists to develop realistic models of

the human lung.

Teams of Texas researchers are working to develop a new tool to image, understand, and diagnose how air flows through the thousands of branching passageways

of the lung, and how abnormalities can lead to illness.

There are so many useful applications for high speed computers and advanced

networks.

The Federal Government invests more than $3 billion on the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program.

It is essential that such a large investment is spent wisely.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recently provided

recommendations on how to improve our federal efforts in computer network research.

A key recommendation was to support high-risk, multi-disciplinary research. I

support this suggestion.

For far too long, federal investments have been made in ‘‘safe research,’’ or research that has a certainty of getting a result.

12

The negative consequence is that science moves along at an incremental snail’s

pace.

Investments in high-risk research may never come to fruition or payoff. However

we must support research of this nature.

Scientists must be unfettered to think more creatively. Then, they have the freedom to tackle big questions that sometimes take more time and more experimentation to answer.

As a previous Chair of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee, I have

long been a strong supporter of this kind of research.

I want to welcome today’s witnesses.

We value your feedback on draft legislation regarding the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program.

Chair GORDON. Let me thank our witnesses for being here. We

are one witness short right now. We have experienced sometimes

that getting through the line downstairs can slow people down.

There can be other problems. And so we will certainly treat that

witness with respect if they come in later and do it in whatever is

the appropriate way. Also, I want you to know that there is a busy

schedule here in Congress today too. The lack of bodies in the seats

is not a lack of interest. This is a very important issue and they

will be following it with their staffs, and you are right, Mr. Hall,

this has been a good bipartisan start. Mele ́ has been an integral

part of putting this together as usual and she is very important to

this committee.

So at this time I want to introduce our witnesses. First, Dr.

Chris Greer is the Director of the NITRD National Coordinating

Office, Dr. Peter Lee is the Head of the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University, and Dr. Deborah Estrin is the

Director of the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing at UCLA.

Thank you for being here. As you know, we try to keep the oral

statements to five minutes but this is an important area and we

are not going to take you out with a hook because we want to hear

what you have to say. Your written testimony will be included as

a part of the record, and I probably at the end of the day have a

couple of more questions that I am going to give to you that you

then can respond back in writing. Again, we want to get this right.

So we will start with Dr. Greer.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTOPHER L. GREER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE FOR NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(NCO/NITRD)

Dr. GREER. Good morning. My name is Chris Greer. I am the Director of the National Coordination Office for the Networking and

Information Technology Research and Development Program, and

hereafter I will refer to those as NCO and NITRD by their acronyms, respectively, to keep this brief. With Dr. Jeanette Wing of

the National Science Foundation, I also co-chair the NITRD subcommittee. I thank Chair Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and

the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to come before

you today to discuss the NITRD program and the Committee’s

draft Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009.

My written testimony provides comprehensive response to the

questions the Committee posed in preparation for this hearing, and

in my oral comments I want to focus on two specific points.

13

First, we view the recommendations of the President’s Council of

Advisors on Science and Technology, the PCAST, and this committee’s interest as helpful in further improving the NITRD framework. Our goal, as yours, is to enable the NITRD program to serve

the Nation even more effectively in the future. Since I last appeared before you eight months ago, we have continued our vigorous response to the full spectrum of the PCAST recommendations. Our strategic planning process provides an example of that.

The plan we are designing comprises elements operating at multiple levels, embraces the emphasis areas identified by PCAST, focuses significantly on opportunities for large-scale, long-term R&D,

and benefits from a diversity of means for community input including a request for information published in the Federal Register,

presentations at scientific and technical meetings, individual oneon-one interviews and small group discussions, a public strategic

planning forum, webcasts globally and an opportunity for public

comment on the draft text. The NCO is the focal point for supporting this planning process, the spectrum of outreach efforts that

inform the plan, the response to the other PCAST recommendations and of course the full range of NITRD program activities. The

NCO is currently developing its own strategic plan to further

strengthen its capabilities in support of the NITRD program.

Now, the second point I wanted to make this morning is the critical importance of balance in the NITRD portfolio. The vision of

previous amending legislation from this committee and of the

NITRD agencies over the years has been for a balanced portfolio,

one that recognizes that hardware innovations are constrained

without corresponding advances in software. The use of advanced

networks will be limited without improvements in security and in

reliability. The massive data sets will not drive progress if the data

cannot be preserved, accessed and used for increased understanding and so on. I urge the Committee to continue its history

of crafting a framework that enables the NITRD portfolio of investments to respond to our nation’s changing IT needs and opportunities. This includes recognizing the contemporary scope of the

NITRD program, positioning emphasis areas in the context of the

full NITRD landscape, providing for an advisory committee with

the expertise to offer strategic guidance on emphasis and balance

to the program and to the President, and encouraging strategic,

large-scale, long-term research in all agency contexts.

So thank you for your work on the reauthorization legislation

and for the opportunity to appear before you today. We at NITRD

and the National Coordination Office, many of the outstanding

staff of whom are behind me today including Ernest McDuffy, who

is the Associate Director, Diane Theese and Virginia Moore, who

are Office Leaders. Thank you for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Greer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTOPHER L. GREER

Good morning. I am Chris Greer, Director of the National Coordination Office

(NCO) for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development

(NITRD). With my colleague, Dr. Jeannette Wing of the National Science Foundation (NSF), I co-chair the NITRD Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Committee on Technology. I want to thank Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and the Members of the Committee for the opportunity

14

to come before you today to discuss the multi-agency NITRD Program and the Committee’s draft Networking and Information Technology Research and Development

Act of 2009.

The NITRD Program—now in its 18th year—provides a coordinated view of the

Government’s portfolio of unclassified investments in fundamental, long-term research and development (R&D) in advanced networking and information technology

(IT). All of the research reported in this portfolio is managed, selected, and funded

by one or more of the 13 member agencies under their own individual appropriations. The Program’s current research areas are high-end computing, large-scale

networking, cyber security and information assurance, human-computer interaction

and information management, high-confidence software and systems, software design and productivity, and socioeconomic, education, and workforce implications of

IT. IT R&D advances in these areas further our nation’s goals for economic competitiveness, energy and the environment, health care, national defense and national security, and science and engineering leadership.

IT R&D research is performed in universities, federal research centers and laboratories, federally funded R&D centers, private companies, and nonprofit organizations across the country. The NITRD agencies—consisting of the member agencies

and a number of other participating agencies and offices—work together to ensure

that the impact of their efforts is greater than the sum of the individual agency investments. This synergy is accomplished through interaction across the government,

academic, commercial, and international sectors using cooperation, coordination, information sharing, and joint planning, in selected areas where the agencies can

identify significant leverage, to identify critical needs, avoid duplication of effort,

maximize resource sharing, and partner in investments to pursue higher-level goals.

Program history in brief

The 18-year history of the NITRD Program includes three previous legislative

acts. The first, the High-Performance Computing (HPC) Act of 1991 (Public Law

102–194), launched the Program, establishing a framework that combined research

goals with specific requirements for interagency cooperation, collaboration, and partnerships with industry and academia. This framework has withstood the test of

time, enabling the Program to address its responsibilities under legislation to:

(A) establish the goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing research, development, networking and other activities; and

(B) provide for interagency coordination of federal high-performance computing

research, development, networking, and other activities undertaken pursuant

to the Program.

The next two acts—the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (Public Law

105–305) and the America COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–69)—formally

extended the scope of responsibilities for interagency coordination to include humancentered computing; flexible, extensible, inter-operable, and accessible network technologies and implementations; education, training, and human resources; and other

areas.

In its first annual report to the Congress in 1992, the Program—then called High

Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC)—reported an estimated 1991

multi-agency investment of nearly $490 million across eight federal agencies and

four Program Component Areas (PCAs). Today, the NITRD Program coordinates

among 13 member agencies that, together, invest more than $3 billion across eight

PCAs, each coordinated by an Interagency Working Group (IWG) or Coordinating

Group (CG) of member and participating agency program managers. (See Appendices 1 and 2 for a list of the current NITRD agencies and PCAs and a NITRD organizational chart.)

While these numbers reflect sustained and significant budgetary growth over the

past 18 years, I believe that the Program is more than just the sum of the investments. The vision of previous amending legislation and of the NITRD agencies over

the years has been for a balanced portfolio of investments—a portfolio that recognizes that hardware innovations are constrained without corresponding advances in

software; the use of advanced networks will be limited without improvements in security and reliability; massive data sets will not drive progress if the data cannot

be preserved, accessed, and used for increased understanding, etc.

The recent recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology (PCAST) for adjustments in technical priorities and increases in largescale, long-term investments underscore the need to continuously rebalance the

NITRD portfolio in a fast-moving IT landscape. I urge the Committee to support a

15

1Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive World. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, August 2007, Washington, D.C. Available

at http://www.nitrd.gov/Pcast/reports/PCAST-NIT-FINAL.pdf

framework that enables the NITRD portfolio of investments to respond to our nation’s changing IT needs and opportunities.

Response to the Committee Request

The invitation to testify here today included a request to address one topic and

respond to two specific questions. Responses are provided in the numbered sections

that follow.

Topic 1. ‘‘[P]rovide an update (since your last testimony before the Committee in July, 2008) of any significant changes to the NITRD Program and

any actions the NITRD agencies have taken or plan to take in response to

the recommendations of the 2007 PCAST report.’’

We view the recommendations of the 2007 PCAST report assessing the NITRD

Program1 as helpful in further improving the NITRD framework. Our goal, as yours,

is to enable the NITRD Program to serve the Nation even more effectively in the

future. Our activities over the past eight months in response to the PCAST recommendations are summarized by topic below.

a) Strategic Planning

The NITRD Program is engaged in a robust process, including extensive public

input, for developing a comprehensive, five-year strategic plan. Details of this process are described below in the response to the Committee’s questions on this topic.

The contents of this strategic plan will guide our subsequent roadmapping process,

including review of the structure of the NITRD Program. We expect the strategic

plan to be completed later this year. However, it is important to remember that this

strategic plan must complement and integrate the legislatively mandated strategic

plans of the member agencies.

b) Education and workforce issues

With regard to the PCAST’s education and workforce recommendations, SRI

International is nearing completion of a NITRD-commissioned fast-track study of

international education and workforce trends that we will use to inform the NITRD

strategic plan.

We also moved ahead last summer, under the aegis of the Social, Economic, and

Workforce implications of IT (SEW) Coordinating Group (CG), to convene a September 2008 workshop of federal program managers who have responsibilities related to networking and information technology education and workforce development. Since that meeting, a task force of the participants has been working with

SEW to develop content for the strategic plan on the federal role in IT education

and workforce development.

Moreover, in the strategic planning process we are discussing not just technologies and applications but the educational preparation of both technology workers and technology users. We devoted the first session of the public forum to education issues to emphasize their role in our considerations.

c) Rebalancing the NITRD portfolio

Our responses to the PCAST recommendations to increase emphasis on largescale, long-term efforts and on cyber-physical systems, software, digital data, and

networking are summarized individually below.

1. Large-scale, long-term efforts: The strategic planning process is explicitly

designed to target PCAST recommendations on portfolio balance and emphasis areas such as large-scale, long-term, and high-risk investments. The planning thus is cast at a high level that can build on the existing strategic plans

of our member agencies by focusing very directly on challenges that no single

agency can meet on its own. In fact, we view the identification of these challenges as the principal goal of the NITRD strategic planning process and the

necessary foundation to enable the member agencies to establish NITRD priorities and initiate roadmaps for specific research thrusts under the plan. We

anticipate developing roadmaps by NITRD research area, as PCAST recommended, and will provide these separately rather than in the strategic

plan, allowing different update cycles for the different types of plans.

16

2Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development, Interagency Task Force

on Advanced Networking Research and Development, September 2008. Available at http://

www.nitrd.gov/Pubs/ITFAN-FINAL.pdf

2. Cyber-Physical Systems: We appreciate the Committee’s interest in cyberphysical systems and agree with the Committee on their importance. As we

detail below, there are a number of ongoing activities under existing NITRD

structures that are focusing on this area already. However, we are concerned

with the precedent of including a specific application of NITRD research in

this bill.

A comprehensive plan for assessing national R&D needs in the complex lifeand safety-critical technologies called cyber-physical systems was initiated

prior to the PCAST assessment and is yielding positive results. In this plan,

the High Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS) CG has a leadership role

in convening researchers and companies across three selected sectors and industries comprising medical devices, transportation systems (air, rail, auto),

and energy (which includes SCADA control systems). Our goals in identifying R&D challenges in each sector are to identify both opportunities for

targeted investments and, more importantly, fundamental challenges common across the sectors that may merit large-scale, long-term, multi-agency

investments. The first sector report—on high-confidence medical systems—

has just been published (March 2009). For high-confidence transportation

systems, the first in a series of workshop reports is expected in April 2009

with the NITRD analysis to follow that. An energy sector workshop is slated

for June 2009; it follows a previous workshop on SCADA systems. These sector reports will be used to analyze common challenges that are potential targets for interagency investments.

Through its workshop series, HCSS is establishing communities of interest

for the first time—such as among researchers, medical clinicians, hospital

administrators, industry representatives, and government regulators with a

stake in improving the quality and increasing the capabilities of IT-enabled

medical devices and systems, and among designers, safety experts, engineers, and academic researchers involved in the aviation, automotive, and

rail sectors. This is an example of the broad outreach being undertaken by

the NITRD Program.

3. Software: The NITRD Program’s Software Design and Productivity (SDP)

CG is revitalizing its collaborative agenda and interagency activities under

new leadership from NSF and NIST. I participated last week in an NSFsponsored ‘‘software sustainability’’ conference that signals that agency’s continuing high interest in the challenges of improving the quality, performance,

and cost-effectiveness of software. The reality that these challenges make

slow advances across the spectrum of networking and information technology

applications is a leitmotif of NITRD strategic planning discussions.

4. Digital Data: A number of NITRD agency representatives participated in,

and served as co-chairs for, the Interagency Working Group on Digital Data

(IWGDD) chartered by the NSTC in 2006 to ‘‘develop and promote the implementation of a strategic plan for the Federal Government to cultivate an

open inter-operable framework to ensure reliable preservation and effective

access to digital data for research, development, and education in science,

technology, and engineering.’’ Such a plan, with NITRD participation, was

recommended by PCAST. The IWGDD, representing more than two dozen

agencies, delivered its report—Harnessing the Power of Digital Data for

Science and Society—to the NSTC in January 2009. The report addresses the

substance of the PCAST recommendation. It provides essential conceptual

foundations and proposes structural scaffolding for rationalizing federal roles

and responsibilities in managing and maintaining critical scientific data on

behalf of the Nation.

5. Networking: PCAST endorsed the development of a Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development. That plan, prepared by a

task force of NITRD agency members and others pursuant to a January 2007

charge from the Director of OSTP, was posted in draft on the NCO web site

in August 2007 for public comment and published in final form by the NCO

in September 2008.2 The document serves as an overarching guide for planning and coordination in the LSN Coordinating Group. For example, DOE/

SC and NSF, with LSN and NCO support, hosted a ‘‘Networking Research

17

Challenges’’ workshop shortly after the plan’s issuance to elicit the views of

the broader industry and academic networking research communities about

the plan and key R&D priorities. The report of that workshop is currently

being prepared for publication.

The LSN Coordinating Group also is addressing PCAST’s recommendations

on strengthening the infrastructure for large-scale data resources and increasing network security and reliability. The group is coordinating cross-domain performance measurement to enable improved management and security on networks. It is also fostering the development, use, and sharing of

standardized tools and infrastructure for large-scale distributed access, data

transfer, and collaborations.

Question 1. ‘‘The NITRD subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council is in the midst of developing a strategic plan. Please describe those efforts and how, if at all, they address the requirements for

strategic planning as described in the legislation. In particular, what are

the particular mechanisms for industry and academic input into the planning process, and how is the NITRD subcommittee addressing the need for

the NITRD Program to place more emphasis on higher-risk, long-term

projects? What is the timeline for completing the strategic plan?’’

We believe the strategic planning process currently underway addresses the requirements for strategic planning as described in the draft legislation. However, the

planning process is mindful of the need to complement and integrate the legislatively mandated strategic plans of the member agencies.

The process currently in place provides for public input at each phase of the planning effort. Input at the outset was obtained through a Request for Information published in the Federal Register in August 2008, posted on our web site, and announced through a broad distribution to the community. This input and discussions

by the NITRD strategic planning team were used to define an initial conceptual

framework for the plan. Input on this conceptual framework was obtained at a public, webcast forum held in February 2009. The input we have received has been excellent and we are using this to significantly revise the framework and develop draft

text for public comment in June/July 2009. Depending on the nature of the comments, we may either go forward with a final version—if minor revisions are required—or re-release for public comment—if major revisions are needed.

Question 2. ‘‘Please describe the current responsibilities and activities of

the National Coordination Office (NCO). How do these responsibilities and

activities compare to the responsibilities and activities required for the

NCO in the legislation? In particular, how has the NCO responded to the

2007 PCAST recommendation for improved communication with and outreach to outside groups?’’

The PCAST concluded that the NCO had been ‘‘effective’’ in its support of the

NITRD Program. I believe that the main areas of the NCO’s effectiveness are in its

role as:

• The focal point for coordination and policy development for the Federal

NITRD Program, facilitating the various Program elements (e.g., CGs and

IWGs) and activities and fostering collaboration among federal agencies, university researchers, industry, and other members of the IT community.

• A source of timely, high-quality, technically accurate, in-depth information on

IT R&D accomplishments, new directions, and critical challenges that IT

leaders, policy makers and the public can use to maximize social and economic benefits.

• A team of technically expert, service-oriented professionals committed to advancing the mission of the NITRD Program.

The categories of activities the NCO supports are:

• Logistical/staff and expert technical support for regular meetings of the IWGs

and CGs

• Expert technical and professional writing support for the annual NITRD supplement to the President’s budget

• Logistical/staff and expert technical support for annual planning meetings of

the PCAs to assess progress and identify priorities and activities for the coming year

• Logistical/staff, expert technical, and professional writing and graphics support for task groups and others developing federal reports and strategic plan

18

documents for IT R&D; includes support for the Senior Steering Group developing coordination and leap-ahead plans for the Federal Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI)

• Expert technical and management support for procurement, management,

and oversight of contracted studies, reviews, and reports

• Logistical/staff, expert technical, and professional writing support for public

and government workshops and other meetings

• Expert outreach through participation in appropriate government and nongovernment meetings and workshops and on-site visits to industrial, academic, and non-profit entities

• Expert outreach through response to requests for information from corporate,

academic, international, and other inquirers

• Liaison between the NITRD Program and OSTP and OMB on NITRD issues.

A 2008 self-study of a 20-month period revealed that in an average month the

NCO: supports more than seven IWG, CG and community of practice meetings; supports an average of one and a half workshops; participates in one workshop; supports two writing projects; and supports two studies or reviews.

In 2008, more than 350 government employees participated in NCO-supported

NITRD events. Highlights for the past 12 months include producing the President’s

Budget Supplement, creating the coordination and leap-ahead plans for the CNCI

effort, publishing the Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development and the High Confidence Medical Devices reports, producing a lessons-learned

report for PCAST, launching an SRI study of the IT education/workforce landscape,

publishing four requests for information (RFIs) in the Federal Register for public

input to the NITRD strategic plan and the CNCI cyber leap year activities, and conducting a webcast public forum for input to the NITRD strategic plan.

This range of activities and responsibilities is similar to that envisioned in the

Committee’s draft 2009 NITRD legislation with the exception of two areas: coordination with State IT R&D activities and coordination of the proposed task force.

In its 2007 assessment, the PCAST recommended that the NCO ‘‘develop and implement a plan for supporting the development, maintenance, and implementation of

the NITRD strategic plan and R&D plans.’’ In response, NCO supported a two-day

kickoff retreat for strategic planning by the NITRD community and supports bimonthly meetings of the NITRD strategic planning team. The team issued an RFI

for public input in August 2008, developed a conceptual framework for the plan

based on this input, conducted a webcast public forum for input on the framework,

is now organizing a forum of government participants for similar input, and is entering the writing phase to produce text for public comment. Similar support for the

roadmapping process is planned for the second half of this calendar year.

The PCAST recommendation also provided that NCO should develop plans for

supporting the ‘‘planning and coordination of larger, longer-term multi-disciplinary

projects; greater interaction with academia, industry, and international entities; the

planning of national workshops and preparation of workshop reports; and overall

improved communication with NITRD NCO stakeholders.’’ We have launched an allhands effort to develop the first-ever NCO strategic plan to address the responsibilities that are appropriate for the NCO. The plan will be shared with the NITRD

community, with NSTC, OSTP, and OMB, and then with the public. I have set a

deadline of October 1, 2009 for completing this NCO plan.

Comments on draft NITRD 2009 legislation

We greatly appreciate the Committee’s interest in NITRD and its continuing efforts to strengthen the Program. We share your commitment to the success of the

NITRD enterprise. In the spirit of shared goals, we would like to offer a few comments intended to be helpful as the Committee considers legislation. Since the Administration is still in the process of formulating its research and development priorities, it would be premature for me to comment in detail on the relative priorities

implied in the draft legislation. Therefore, my comments below focus on the organizational elements of the draft legislation.

a) Scope of the Program

The Program’s founding legislation, the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991,

focused principally on high-performance computing and networking. This focus was

reflected in the extensive use of the phrase ‘‘high-performance computing’’ throughout. Subsequent amending legislation significantly broadened the scope of the Program and facilitated rebalancing of the portfolio. While these previous amendments

(and the current draft) redefined the meaning of the phrase ‘‘high-performance comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
19

puting,’’ the phrase itself remains embedded in the text. As a result, a reader not

attentive to special definitions and, instead, relying on the common meaning of the

phrase may be misled. For example, Section 101(b)(1) (Advisory Committee) describes ‘‘an advisory committee on high-performance computing.’’ If the words are

misinterpreted, the resulting committee may be too narrowly focused to serve the

intended function.

We respectfully request that the Committee consider replacing the phrase ‘‘highperformance computing’’ with ‘‘networking and information technology’’ wherever

appropriate throughout the text in order to clarify current legislative intent.

b) Cyber-physical systems

As evidenced in my description above of our extensive cyber-physical systems efforts, the NITRD agencies are seriously engaged in this area. Significantly, however,

we feel that cyber-physical systems are best addressed in the context of a balanced

portfolio.

Because the scientific basis of networking and information technology is inherently multi-disciplinary, the more complex the IT systems, the greater the number

of cross-cutting technical issues. NITRD’s strength is that its research areas are not

so narrowly focused that topics become isolated. Each PCA includes many interrelated subject matters, and a number of these—multi-dimensional modeling, for example, or system inter-operability—are shared interests across the PCAs. Such interests often lead to collaborative planning activities and/or research projects drawing diverse technical contributions from different PCAs. For example, the National

Security Agency (NSA) is an active participant in the HCSS workshop series, not

due to a focus on cyber-physical systems per se, but rather on the design, certification, and operation of extremely secure and reliable software and systems; for

NSA, cyber-physical systems represent one instantiation of technology with requirements it cares about.

c) Advisory Committee

We believe that to perform its function the proposed advisory committee should:

(1) be charged with providing strategic advice and not just Program assessment;

(2) possess deep technical expertise relevant to the full range of NITRD areas;

and

(3) be in position to provide advice to the President.

The first of these criteria could be addressed in the draft legislation by adding

to the current list of advisory committee responsibilities the strategic functions currently referenced elsewhere in the draft text. The second and third could be met by

chartering the advisory committee as a subcommittee to PCAST.

d) Large-scale research in areas of national interest

The NITRD strategic planning process is explicitly designed to target PCAST recommendations on portfolio balance and emphasis areas such as large-scale, longterm, and high-risk investments. However, we believe this emphasis area is best

considered in the context of the full scope of the NITRD Program. In particular, investments that meet the relevant criteria should be considered across all of the

PCAs and should be complementary to and supportive of other investments being

made by the NITRD agencies and by others throughout the IT R&D landscape.

The draft legislation also provides that ‘‘projects shall be carried out by a collaboration of no fewer than two agencies participating in the Program.’’ This could be

interpreted to exclude large-scale investments by any single NITRD agency or

through partnerships between a NITRD agency and any non-NITRD entity. This

may not be the intention of the Committee and clarification of the Committee’s intent would be very helpful.

Thank you for your interest in NITRD, your work on the reauthorization legislation, and for the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to working with you to strengthen the NITRD Program.

20

21

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHRISTOPHER L. GREER

Dr. Chris Greer is Director of the National Coordination Office (NCO) for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program.

The NCO reports to the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President. Dr. Greer is on assignment to the NCO from his position as Senior Advisor for Digital Data in the NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure. He

recently served as Executive Secretary for the Long-lived Digital Data Collections

Activities of the National Science Board and is currently Co-Chair of the Interagency Working Group on Digital Data of the National Science and Technology

Council’s Committee on Science. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee

for the National Archives and Records Administration’s Electronic Records Archive

and a member of the Digital Library Council of the Federal Depository Library Program.

Dr. Greer received his Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley and did his postdoctoral work at CalTech. He was a member of the

faculty at the University of California at Irvine in the Department of Biological

Chemistry for approximately 18 years where his research on gene expression pathways was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National

Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. During that time, he was

founding Executive Officer of the RNA Society, an international professional organization.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Greer, and we are glad the guys

that get the work done are here today too.

Dr. Lee.

22

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER LEE, INCOMING CHAIR, COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (CRA); PROFESSOR AND

HEAD, COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

Dr. LEE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall

and other Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the NITRD program. My name is Peter Lee.

I am, as you mentioned, the Head of the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University. I am also the incoming Chair

for the Board of Directors of the Computing Research Association,

which is the key representative organization for over 30 industry

labs and government organizations and 225 academic institutions

in computing research.

You mentioned the symposium last week, Computing Research

that Changed the World. I had the great privilege to attend that

symposium, which was co-sponsored by several Members of your

committee. It was a fantastic showcase for about 20 years of past

advances in IT research, advances that have really touched every

part of our lives, advanced our economy and enabled innovation in

a multitude of scientific and engineering fields such as mapping

human genome, creating the World Wide Web and Google and even

now digitizing the world’s books so everyone can access them. For

all these past successes, what I found most exciting was that we

are still in our infancy. We are on the cusp of major new advances

in media and communication technologies, new tools for managing

energy and the environment and new technologies for improving

health care. The pace of innovation is really breathtaking.

Looking ahead, the question that enters my mind is, who will

lead in future innovations. Today many countries are investing

heavily in facilities, education and research in network and information technology. Consider, for example, the emerging field of

cyber-physical systems that you had mentioned in your opening remarks. This is the science of computing systems tightly integrated

with the physical world, and this promises to enable new advances

in transportation, medicine and many other areas, even consumer

products such as toys. It is no secret that the Europeans today are

investing heavily, many billions of dollars, in fact, in cyber-physical

systems today. We here look to industry but industry is not able

to support the kind of speculative research in such emerging areas

to the level that is necessary. Thus, your support, our government’s

support for this type of research, as the NITRD program is designed to provide, is crucial for remaining competitive. Given the

strong track record of university and industry partnerships in information technology, I am confident that these investments will be

paid back many times over.

The current legislation thankfully strengthens the NITRD program by addressing many of the key recommendations in the 2007

PCAST assessment. I applaud this. However, I still think that

there are major challenges, particularly for university-based IT research. I would like to address just a couple of them with you

today.

First, today, a staggering 86 percent of all academic computer

science research funding comes from the National Science Foundation. As my written testimony explains, the lack of a broader base

23

1The symposium web site can be found at http://www.cra.org/ccc/locsymposium.php

of agency support leads to several problems including making researchers less likely to propose the kinds of high-risk, high-return,

multi-disciplinary research that we all recognize as necessary. I

therefore recommend achieving a broader base of support for our

university-based research by urging more agencies to take greater

responsibility for advancing both fundamental and multi-disciplinary IT research.

Second, the PCAST assessment recommends that NITRD encourage innovation and risk taking, and in fact, the legislation encourages this by promoting both large-scale and multi-disciplinary research. I would also like to urge the agencies to develop patience,

the patience for long-term, sustained and stable funding. This will

be key to re-energizing high-risk innovative proposals.

And then finally, an area that deserves special mention is the

pipeline of talent in information technology. Simply put, we are not

attracting enough good people into the field. This problem is particularly acute with women and under-represented minorities. In

my written testimony, I offer several recommendations from the

computing research community that would bring a federal focus to

issues in computer science education at the K–12 level and this

would enable emerging concepts in computational thinking to make

their way into the education of all Americans.

So in summary, network and information technology research

and development is a field full of amazing opportunities and is a

cornerstone for our future competitiveness. By encouraging broader

agency support and stable, long-term university-based research

support along with a healthy pipeline of talent, we can ensure U.S.

leadership into the future.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to address the NITRD program. My written testimony includes many more details about the points I have raised here as

well as answers to the questions you have posed in writing. Thank

you for your time and attention.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER LEE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this

opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the research content, planning,

and implementation mechanisms of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program. I am Peter Lee, incoming Chair of the

Board of Directors for the Computing Research Association (CRA). The CRA is widely recognized by the U.S. computing research community as its representative organization, with a membership of over 225 academic institutions, 30 government and

industrial laboratories, and the leading professional societies in the computing field.

I have been actively involved in computing research for the past 22 years as a

Professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Today I am the Department Head for Carnegie Mellon’s Computer Science Department. I am also the Vice-Chair of the

DARPA Information Science and Technology (ISAT) advisory board; a member of

the National Research Council’s Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

(CSTB); and a member of the CRA’s Computing Community Consortium (CCC).

On March 25, 2009, I had the great privilege to participate in a special symposium held at the Library of Congress entitled, Computing Research that Changed

the World: Reflections and Perspectives,1 which was organized by the CCC and cosponsored by several Members of your committee. The symposium, which was attended by members of academia, industry, and the government, reviewed the past

two decades of ‘‘game-changing’’ advances in networking and information technology

24

2 Jorgenson, Dale W., Mus S. Ho, and Kevin J. Stiroh. Productivity, Volume 3: Information

Technology and the American Growth Resurgence. MIT Press. 2005. 3 Atkinson, Robert D., Andrew S. McKay. Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. 2007. http://www.itif.org/files/digital¥prosperity.pdf 4 Jorgenson, Dale W., Mus S. Ho, and Kevin J. Stiroh. Productivity, Volume 3: Information

Technology and the American Growth Resurgence. , pp. 46–48. MIT Press. 2005. 5http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

(henceforth referred to as ‘‘IT’’) and provided a forum for discussing how to foster

these kinds of advances into the future. The presentations and discussions at the

symposium made clear the astonishing importance of IT research:

• Advances in IT are transforming all aspects of our lives. Virtually

every human endeavor today has been touched by information technology, including commerce, education, employment, health care, energy, manufacturing, governance, national security, communications, the environment, entertainment, science, and engineering.

• Advances in information technology are driving our economy. IT research has shown an extraordinary ability to create transferable technologies,

resulting in remarkable growth in the industrial IT sector over the past two

decades. The impact of IT research on the Nation’s industrial base is not restricted to just the IT sector; information technology has been a driver for economic growth in nearly every sector, since every industry is now ‘‘powered’’

by advances in IT. Recent analysis suggests that the remarkable economic

growth the U.S. experienced between 1995 and 2002 was spurred by an increase in productivity enabled almost completely by factors related to IT.2 The

processes by which advances in information technology enable productivity

growth, enable the economy to run at full capacity, enable goods and services

to be allocated more efficiently, and enable the production of higher quality

goods and services are now well understood.3

• Advances in information technology are enabling innovation in all

other fields. In business, advances in IT are giving researchers powerful

new tools, enabling small firms to significantly expand R&D, boosting innovation by giving users more of a role, and letting organizations better manage

the existing knowledge of its employees.4 In science and engineering, advances in IT are enabling discovery across every discipline - from mapping

the human brain to modeling climatic change. Researchers, faced with research problems that are ever more complex and interdisciplinary in nature,

are using IT to collaborate across the globe, and to collect, manage, and explore massive amounts of data.

The most exciting aspect of the Computing Research that Changed the World symposium was that it showed that networking and information technology is still in

its infancy. In all likelihood, the most important advances in IT are still ahead

of us. We are on the cusp of new media and communication technologies, new tools

for managing our energy and environment, new technologies for improving health

care, and even entirely new paradigms for scientific discovery. Worldwide there appears to be no slowdown in the pace of innovation, the production of new ideas, and

the discovery of additional opportunities to advance the economy and improve the

quality of life for all people through IT.

Several months ago, the National Academy of Engineering unveiled 14 Grand

Challenges for Engineering for the 21st century.5 The majority of these—the majority of the ‘‘Grand Challenges’’ for all of engineering—have either substantial or predominant information technology content:

• Secure cyberspace

• Enhance virtual reality

• Advance health information systems

• Advance personalized learning

• Engineer better medicines

• Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

• Reverse-engineer the brain

• Prevent nuclear terror (to a great extent a sensor network and data mining

problem).

And there are many more information technology challenges of equally high impact:

25

6President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive World. 2007. http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/nitrd review.pdf 7 National Science Foundation. FY 2008 Budget Request to Congress. 2007. http://

www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2008/pdf/EntirePDF.pdf

• Empower the developing world through appropriate information and communication technology

• Revolutionize transportation safety and efficiency

• Build truly scalable computing systems, and devise algorithms for extracting

knowledge from massive volumes of data

• Engineer advanced ‘‘robotic prosthetics’’ and, more broadly, enhance people’s

quality of life

• Instrument your body as thoroughly as your automobile

• Engineer biology (synthetic biology)

• Revolutionize our electrical energy infrastructure: generation, storage, transmission, and consumption

• Achieve quantum computing.

It is impossible to imagine afield with greater opportunities to change the world.

For me, the inescapable conclusion is that leadership in information technology is essential to the Nation. Today, many countries are investing heavily

in facilities, education, and research in IT. Industry today is not providing support

for long-term, speculative research; hence, government coordination and sponsorship

research is the foundation for maintaining our leadership.

It is against this backdrop that I would now like to consider the four questions

you have asked me to address here today.

Question 1: Does the legislation ensure that the NITRD program is positioned to

help maintain U.S. leadership in networking and information technology? What are

the research community’s needs for this program and are they adequately addressed?

Advances in networking and information technology enable advances in science,

economic growth, and quality of life. A key element of the NITRD program involves

fostering communication and coordination across thirteen federal agencies where IT

is relevant, thereby creating a diverse ecosystem for IT R&D spanning across many

areas. The current legislation strengthens the program by addressing several key

recommendations from the 2007 assessment of the NITRD program by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).6

While the coordination provided by NITRD has proven effective, adequate funding

diversity for IT research in universities has proven to be quite challenging. Over the

past twenty years, two federal agencies have been dominant in university-based IT

research: the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Most of the other NITRD agencies—for example,

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and

the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—have invested far less in university-based

IT research, choosing instead to leverage the NSF and DARPA efforts. IT research

would be strengthened by urging agencies such as NIH, DOE, and DHS to

take greater responsibility for advancing IT in areas specifically relevant

to their missions, particularly via university-based research.

Furthermore, for academic IT research, policies at DARPA have left NSF standing

largely alone. Frequent ‘‘go/no-go’’ program reviews and an overly aggressive approach to security classification have greatly reduced our leadership in the IT area

and limited the DOD’s access to the best minds in the country. The overall effect

is the significant reduction in university participation in DARPA IT programs. Indeed, today NSF provides 86 percent of the federal support for academic research

in computer science,7 a far greater proportion than for any other field.

26

8Peter Lee and Randy Katz. Re-envisioning DARPA. CCC whitepaper. http://www.cra.org/

cec/initiatives.php

In my own analysis of the situation,8 the dramatic reduction of DARPA from the

IT R&D ecosystem has had several a damaging effects. To a significant extent, increases in NSF funding for IT research at the start of this decade merely offset decreased DARPA academic engagement, thereby diminishing the possibilities for

transformative impact of that funding. Coupled with increased competition for research funding, many researchers have become more risk averse. Increasing participation by DARPA or another agency in university-based research in

fundamental IT would strengthen IT research in all agencies. This would

provide greater leverage for increases in IT investments in NSF, NIH, DOE, and

other agencies. Furthermore, the traditional DARPA model of higher-risk ventures

within the context of focused program objectives provided a unique set of strategic

advantages - an important feature of a strong R&D ecosystem.

Question 2: Does the legislation address the key recommendations of the recent

PCAST assessment for making the NITRD program more effective and more relevant

to the research needs and opportunities in information technology?

I am encouraged that the draft addresses many key recommendations of the 2007

PCAST assessment. I believe the provisions of that assessment will certainly make

the NITRD program more effective in meeting the needs and opportunities in networking and information technology R&D. The PCAST assessment noted that the

most critical need is to ‘‘rebalance the NITRD investment portfolio to include more

long-term, large-scale, multi-disciplinary IT R&D.’’ In this respect, the explicit focus

on supporting such large-scale multi-disciplinary research is greatly welcomed. However, it is equally important to maintain strong investments in core IT research, in

balance with multi-disciplinary research. As we learned at the symposium on Computing Research that Changed the World, strength in multi-disciplinary research is

based on a foundation of strong core research. To the extent that core research activities are often conducted by single investigators or small groups, this also implies

a balance between large-scale and small-scale efforts.

The legislation includes cyber-physical systems (CPS) research and development,

as recommended in the PCAST assessment. One can observe that many of the grand

research challenges listed earlier involve a deep embedding, coordination, and control of networking and information technologies with the physical world, making it

clear that CPS is indeed an emerging area of opportunity. It is critical that the legislation is phrased to reflect the full breadth CPS. CPS pertains not just to

man-made devices, but to any IT-enabled combination of physical sensing and actuation devices in the real world.

One of the most important recommendations of the PCAST assessment pertains

to the oversight and review of NITRD investment and accountability against the

27

9 National Research Council. Innovation in Information Technology. National Academies

Press. 2003. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record¥id=10795&page=5 10President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. Cyber Security R&D: A Crisis of

Prioritization. 2005. http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050301¥cybersecurity/

cybersecurity.pdf 11General Accountability Office. National Cybersecurity Strategy: Key Improvements Are Needed to Strengthen the Nation’s Posture. GAO–09–432T, March 10, 2009, http://www.gao.gov/

products/GAO-09-432T

program’s strategic plan. Specifically, the legislation specifies the re-establishment

of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), functioning

as a separate Presidential advisory committee of academic and industry leaders. As

Daniel Reed testified before this committee in 2008, ‘‘an independent PITAC is

needed that can devote the time, energy, and diligence to ongoing assessment of successes, challenges, needs and opportunities in information technology.’’ In such a fast-moving field offering so many opportunities for universityindustry partnerships, such focused oversight is crucial for maximizing the payoff

of NITRD investments.

Question 3: Are there key research gaps or program management concerns not covered in this legislation? Are the mechanisms for industry and academic input into

the planning process sufficient?

The legislation encourages large-scale, multi-disciplinary research. It is equally

important to have a renewed emphasis on long-term research, through sustained, stable funding, is critical for re-energizing high-risk, high-impact

proposals. As the National Research Council’s ‘‘tire tracks’’ figure shows,9 there

can be long incubation periods for game-changing technologies. Providing the ‘‘patience’’ for such incubation is a key function of the NITRD program. As the 2007

PCAST assessment recommends, NITRD should ‘‘rebalance our research portfolio to

encourage greater innovation and risk taking.’’

Another area of emerging need and opportunity is cyber security, as pointed out

in a 2005 report from the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee10

and, more recently, in a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office.11

Addressing the Nation’s pressing needs in cyber security will require a broad, coordinated effort. Agencies such as DARPA that have invested significantly in cyber

security can play a key role by broadening to the larger academic research community, thereby achieving what PITAC referred to as ‘‘fundamental research on civilian

cyber security.’’ To first approximation, aside from NSF the funding for cyber security research at universities has been too modest relative to the threats that the Nation faces. I suggest that an explicit focus on cyber security that coordinates

the efforts of multiple agencies and enables full participation by academia

should be considered.

An area that deserves special attention, as pointed out in the 2007 PCAST assessment, is to increase the pipeline of talent in IT to meet both the demands

of industry as well as future IT research, with a particular focus on women

and under-represented groups. Simply put, today we are not attracting enough

people into computing education and careers, and this problem is particularly acute

with under-represented groups. Recently, in a letter written by the ACM and joined

by CRA and the National Center for Women & Information Technology, we urged

that this crucial talent pipeline be strengthened by expanding and coordinating existing efforts within the NITRD program. We believe this can be done in ways that

also gain better leverage for these efforts. Four specific recommendations were:

• Promote computing education, particularly at the K–12 level, and increased

exposure to computing education and research opportunities, especially for

women and minorities as core elements of the NITRD program;

• Require the NITRD program to address education and diversity programs in

its strategic planning and roadmapping process;

• Expand efforts at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to focus on computer science education, particularly at the K–12 level through broadening

the Math Science Partnership program; and,

• Enlist the Department of Education and its resources and reach in addressing

computer science education issues.

Each of these recommendations would bring a federal focus to issues in computer science education at the K–12 level, enabling emerging concepts in

‘‘computational thinking’’ to make their way into the education of all Americans.

28

12 National Research Council. Evolving the High-Performance Computing and Communications

Initiative to Support the Nation’s Information Infrastructure. National Academies Press. 1995.

http:;%www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record¥id=4948 13President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. Information Technology Research:

Investing in Our Future. 1999. http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/report/pitac¥report.pdf 14 National Research Council. Innovation in Information Technology. National Academies

Press. 2003. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record¥id=10795 15See http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record¥id=10795&page=5 16See http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record¥id=12174&page=R1

Question 4: Does the legislation effectively implement the PCAST recommendation

for support of large-scale, multi-disciplinary research and development projects?

What are the most appropriate mechanisms to undertake these projects? Are the requirements for these projects sufficient to encourage industry/university partnerships?

It is encouraging to see that the legislation explicitly recognizes the importance

of large-scale, multi-disciplinary research and development projects, and provides for

direct support for such activities. Key to the role that IT plays in enabling innovation is the role of the IT R&D ecosystem that enables innovation. A 1995 study by

the National Research Council12 describes the ‘‘extraordinarily productive interplay

of federally funded university research, federally and privately funded industrial research, and entrepreneurial companies founded and staffed by people who moved

back and forth between universities and industry.’’ That study, and a subsequent

1999 report by the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee13

,emphasized the ‘‘spectacular’’ return on the federal investment in long-term IT research and development. Indeed, a 2003 NRC study14 identified 19 multi-billion-dollar IT industries—industries that are transforming our lives and driving our economy—that were enabled by federally sponsored research.15 This year, National Research Council completed a study on Assessing the Impacts of Changes in the IT

R&D Ecosystem.16 The study makes four recommendations:

1. Strengthen the effectiveness and impact of federally funded IT research.

2. Remain the strongest generator of and magnet for technical talent.

3. Reduce friction that harms the effectiveness of the U.S. IT R&D ecosystem,

while maintaining other important political and economic objectives.

4. Ensure that the US has an infrastructure for communications, computing,

applications, and services that can enable U.S. IT users and innovators to

lead the world.

Significant progress towards encouraging large-scale, multi-disciplinary

research this can be obtained by launching a second Information Technology Research (ITR) program in the NSF CISE Directorate, as rec- ommended in the 2007 PCAST assessment. Between FY 2000 and FY 2004, the

original ITR program added $218 million to what is today (FY 2008) an NSF CISE

budget of $535 million which constitutes 86 percent of the federal support for academic research in computer science. (ITR also added $77 million to other Directorate’s budgets.) ITR was managed as a distinct program, and had a particularly

important impact in encouraging longer-term, larger-scale, multi-disciplinary IT

R&D focused on areas of particular opportunity.

In summary, networking and information technology research and development is

the cornerstone of America’s future infrastructure and economic competitiveness. By

a. encouraging broader agency support for advancing IT R&D,

b. restoring investment in long-term, stable university-based research in IT,

c. balancing core and multi-disciplinary research activities,

d. increasing the pipeline of IT talent, especially from under-represented

groups,

e. bringing federal focus to K–12 computer science education, and

f. launching a second NSF ITR program,

we can ensure U.S. leadership in IT R&D and contribute real solutions to many of

the challenges facing our nation today. Federal investments, as enabled by the

NITRD program, are paid back many times as the field’s ability to create effective

university-industry partnerships and transferable technologies has shown time and

again. The proposed legislation makes much-needed changes to the NITRD program

and will help us meet many of the challenges facing us today. In order for the U.S.

to remain the world’s leader, further improvements will be needed; the proposed legislation makes a good first step.

29

Mr. Chairman, thank you and this committee for your interest in the future of

the NITRD program and its importance to innovation and U.S. competitiveness.

Thank you for your time and attention. At the appropriate time, I would be pleased

to answer any questions you might have.

30

31

BIOGRAPHY FOR PETER LEE

Peter Lee is the head of the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon

University. He joined the CMU faculty in 1987, immediately after completing his

doctoral studies at the University of Michigan.

Peter Lee is an active researcher, educator, administrator, and servant to the academic community. His research contributions lie mainly in areas related to the foundations of software reliability, program analysis, security, and language design. He

has published extensively in major academic journals and international symposia,

with several of his papers receiving ‘‘test of time’’ awards for their seminal contributions to the field. Peter Lee is the recipient of several research awards, including

the ACM SIGOPS Hall of Fame Award, for the seminal contribution of ‘‘proof-carrying code’’ in computer systems research. He is an elected fellow of the Association

for Computing Machinery.

As the head of the Computer Science Department, Peter Lee oversees one of the

top computing research organizations in the world. In addition to its substantial research program, the department offers highly rated doctoral and undergraduate programs in computer science, with the Ph.D. program consistently ranked among the

top in the U.S. Prior to assuming his current position, Dr. Lee was briefly the Vice

Provost for Research. In this role, he provided administrative oversight and strategic guidance for the university’s research activities, an enterprise that exceeds

$400M in annual expenditures. From 2000 to 2004, Peter Lee was the Associate

Dean for undergraduate programs in the School of Computer Science. During this

period, Dr. Lee shepherded the rise of Carnegie Mellon’s undergraduate computer

science programs to national prominence, including a #2 ranking in the Gourman

Report and a six-fold increase in the number of women enrolled.

Peter Lee is dedicated servant to the computing community. He is the incoming

Chair of the Board of Directors of the Computing Research Association and chairs

it’s Government Affairs Committee. He also sits on the CRA’s Education Committee.

He is a member of the Computing Community Consortium Council, the National Research Council’s Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, and the Defense

Research Projects Agency’s Information Science and Technology Board (where he is

the Vice-Chair). Dr. Lee is called upon as an expert in diverse venues, including distinguished lectures at major universities, memberships on senior government advisory panels, corporate and university advisory boards, and court testimony (such as

the Sun v. Microsoft ‘‘Java lawsuit’’). He maintains the CSDiary weblog.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Lee.

And now we will hear from Dr. Estrin.

STATEMENT OF DR. DEBORAH ESTRIN, DIRECTOR, CENTER

FOR EMBEDDED NETWORKED SENSING; PROFESSOR OF

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

Dr. ESTRIN. Thank you, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member

Hall for inviting me as well to testify before your committee on this

important legislation. I am a Professor of Computer Science and

Electrical Engineering at UCLA and the Founding Director of an

NSF-funded multi-disciplinary Science and Technology Center for

Embedded Networked Sensing, CENS, which was established in

2002. CENS’ research agenda falls under the umbrella of cyberphysical systems.

After reviewing the NITRD legislation as requested, I concluded

strongly that the bill addresses the key recommendations of the

PCAST assessment and in the process addresses important needs

of networking and information technology research communities.

Moreover, the focus on cyber-physical systems will have an impact

that extends into the country’s commercial leadership, into the

sciences and into public policy. In these oral comments I will emphasize two aspects of the legislation: the nature and importance

of cyber-physical systems and the role of multi-disciplinary centers

in realizing the research agenda.

32

Technological advances of the past two decades enable us to combine sensing, computation and wireless communication in integrated devices that can then be placed in situ up close to physical

phenomena whether embedded in engineered systems such as the

power grids and factory floor systems where they monitor power

consumption and indications of malfunctioning components or embedded in natural systems such as depleted forests and water resources, measuring physical and chemical parameters such as temperature and pollutants, or in human systems such as devices worn

on the body monitoring activity and physiological indicators. Cyberphysical systems are created through a synthesis of technologies including embedded sensing, sensor actuator controls, mobile sensing

as well as human-computer interfaces. All of these will be advanced by the proposed NITRD focus on cyber-physical systems research and together they will bring us closer to the promise of revolutionary advances in our management of the physical world.

First, embedded sensing brings much needed understanding of

physical processes and informs critical decisions. For example, the

National Ecological Observatory Network, NEON, an MREFC

project, is comprised of in situ sensing systems which capture and

transmit measurements into web-based data management and

geospatial modeling systems in real time. This powerful and programmable observing system will employ a broad spectrum of sensor types from the simplest temperature sensor to the highest resolution digital imagers. And it will greatly promote our understanding of ecosystems and thus inform critical issues in resource

management and land-use policy.

Second, when sensing is combined with automated actuation in

a tight control loop, we enter a new regime in which physical processes can be managed and manipulated at the time scale of the

physical phenomenon, not just at the time scale which human

beings are able and available to react. For example, systems that

implement precise and localized management of water and power

resources can manage real-time inputs and demands on the system

and make adjustments to resource treatment and distribution in

real time.

Third, mobile sensing presents tremendous economies to cyberphysical systems because by moving a sensor through an environment, you can achieve high spatial resolution measurements that

are not achievable or affordable with fixed sensors alone. Mobility

can take multiple forms, a Pan-tilt-zoom camera for both ecological

and built environments or human-carried devices for personalized

measurements of human exposure and interaction.

And fourth, most cyber-physical systems are part of larger systems with humans in the loop. They are designed to be used by humans as real-time interactive systems to inform both short-term

and long-term decisions and actions. Moreover, the proximity of

these systems to people raises the need to attend to privacy in their

design, deployment and usage and this is another area in which

government-funded research can contribute significantly.

So in summary of this first of my two points of my testimony,

the proposed support for cyber-physical systems in the NITRD legislation will greatly enhance our ability to address the design challenges of high-impact physically coupled systems by supporting reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

search in robust and reusable, scalable and validative components,

algorithms and integrated subsystems. It will thereby enable

broad-scale, powerful and programmable environmental observing

systems.

I want to say a few words before closing about my second point,

which is the role of multi-disciplinary research centers in realizing

this vision. Multi-disciplinary research centers offer scope as well

as scale and they require extended timelines in addition to increased funding. In my research center, CENS, the most important

results have been iterative where we began by applying existing

technology in an innovative manner to the application scientist observational needs and then based on the resulting experience identified the most important areas for the next phase of innovation.

This style of work has great potential for serendipitous results

where you end up in places you did not expect and having learned

tremendously more in the process.

We have also found consistently that the nature of these applications in this multi-disciplinary iterative work attracts a wider

range of students. We believe this is because the social utility is

very evident and is naturally integrated into the design discussions. We speculated that this social utility would end up appealing

and attracting more women to computer science, for example, and

we were not disappointed. Our center averages consistently double

the percentage of women involved in our programs relative to the

rest of the department, and that is 30 percent as opposed to 12 percent.

Finally, multi-disciplinary centers can contribute significantly to

collaborative agency programs where a technology creation agency

could partner with a mission agency to help bridge the gap between

funding of the basic ideas and early prototypes and systems that

can actually be used and run through trials and exploration before

commercialization. A good example of this would be a large-scale,

let us say million-person mobile sensing system that supports preventative and chronic health management and research. Today’s

mobile phones can easily report activity, location and prompted

user input such as pain, diet, medication and other self-reports and

such a project coordinated between, for example, the NSF and mission-oriented needs of the NIH and the CDC could prototype and

pilot a privacy-preserving, population-scale system that would drive

innovation in privacy and security of electronic health records, data

analysis infusion and computer-human interaction while also providing unprecedented data sets and an experimental platform for

public health and epidemiological studies.

So finally in conclusion, cyber-physical systems cover a broad and

important range of networking and information technologies and

will be essential in meeting some of the key environmental, economic and quality-of-life challenges facing our nation and the

world. A broadly focused cyber-physical systems research program

in NITRD balanced between fundamental and applied projects,

leveraging university, agency and corporate R&D efforts will go a

long way towards ensuring the United States continues to hold a

leadership position in this critical field.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide my testimony on this important issue. I am pleased to answer any further

34

1Moore’s Law is the projection that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit will increase exponentially, doubling approximately every two years, that was first

noted by Intel Co-Founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and has held true to the present day.

questions you might have as you and your colleagues on the Committee move the legislation forward.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Estrin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH ESTRIN

Personal Introduction

Thank you Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for inviting me to testify

before your committee on this important legislation. I am a Professor of Computer

Science and Electrical Engineering at UCLA, and the founding Director of an NSF

funded Science and Technology Center for Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS),

established in 2002. I was educated at MIT and experienced my early career at USC

supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). During the past decade I became involved in

multi-disciplinary work in an area that falls under the umbrella of cyber-physical

systems. I also served on DARPA’s Information Science and Technology Study

Group (ISAT) and NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering

(CISE) Advisory committees and currently sit on the National Research Council’s

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) and have participated in

numerous studies over the years.

In the invitation to testify at today’s hearing, Mr. Chairman, you asked whether

I believe the legislation you have proposed will help ensure the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program (NITRD) is positioned to

help maintain U.S. leadership in networking and information technology. Having reviewed the legislation, I believe the bill addresses the key recommendations of the

PCAST assessment, and in the process, addresses important needs of networking

and Information technology research communities. I also believe that the focus on

cyber-physical systems in the legislation will have an impact that extends into the

country’s commercial leadership, into the sciences, and into public policy.

In this testimony I will emphasize a few issues I think are key in responding to

the questions you posed: cyber-physical systems; the importance of experimental,

purpose-driven research and opportunities for cross-agency projects; and the importance of multi-disciplinary centers in realizing a research agenda and creating effective opportunities to attract and engage a more diverse student body in IT research.

The importance of NITRD and Cyber-Physical Systems

The Computing Research Association’s Computing Community Consortium hosted

a symposium last week here on Capitol Hill, where an all-star cast of computer scientists reviewed the importance of information technology and how the advances

that are now essential to science, government and citizens, are a direct result of federal support for research, particularly from NSF and DARPA. I was pleased to be

invited to participate.

In my session on ‘‘Computing Everywhere,’’ we focused in particular on how computing extends beyond the processing and sharing of knowledge encoded in text and

numbers, to direct measurement, management, and manipulation of physical phenomena.

We often hear how miniaturization and Moore’s law1 has enabled the growth, proliferation and scaling of computational capabilities. Our computing power has become exponentially more powerful over time as our devices become smaller and

more powerful. So the computer that once occupied the back room, then moved to

the desktop, now fits in our pocket, or can be embedded in sensor rich devices.

These developments enable us to combine sensing, computation and wireless communication in integrated devices, that can be placed in situ, up close to physical

phenomena. Whether embedded in:

• Engineered systems such as power grids and factory floor systems monitoring

power consumption and indications of malfunctioning components.

• Natural systems such as depleted forest and water resources, measuring

physical (e.g., climate) and chemical (e.g., pollutants) parameters.

• Human systems such as devices worn on the human body monitoring activity

and physiological indicators.

35

Across this wide array of applications, the ability to observe physical processes

with such high spatial and temporal fidelity will allow us to create models, make

predictions, and thereby manage our increasingly stressed physical world.

Cyber Physical Systems are created through a synthesis of technologies, including: embedded sensing systems, sensor-actuator control, mobile sensing, and human

computer interfaces. All will be advanced by the proposed NITRD focus on cyberphysical systems research and together will bring us closer to the promise of revolutionary advances in our management of the physical world.

• Embedded sensing brings much needed understanding of processes and informs critical decisions. For example, the National Ecological Observatory

Network (NEON) and Ocean Observing Initiative (OOI) MREFC projects are

primarily embedded sensing systems in that they are comprised of in situ

sensing systems which capture and transmit measurements into web-based

data-management and geospatial-modeling systems, in real time. These powerful and programmable observing systems will employ a broad spectrum of

sensor types (from the simplest temperature sensor, to highest resolution digital imagers), and will greatly promote understanding of ecosystem and ocean

dynamics, and thus inform critical issues in resource management and land

use policy. Similarly, in the context of observing systems for the built environment, transportation related embedded sensing systems, for example, are

being installed along major roadways to capture real time traffic information

and inform real-time driving patterns and longer-term planning.

• When sensing is combined with automated actuation in tight control loops,

we enter a new regime in which physical processes can be managed and manipulated at the timescale of the physical phenomena, not just at the

timescale on which human beings are able and available to react. For example, biomedical systems can measure physiological parameters and based on

the readings automatically adjust drug dosage (e.g., insulin pump) or system

function (e.g., prosthetics). Similarly, systems that implement precise and localized management of water and power also can measure real-time inputs

and demands on the system, and make adjustments to resource treatment or

distribution in real time.

• Mobile sensing presents tremendous economies to cyber-physical systems

because by moving a sensor through an environment you can achieve high

spatial resolution measurements that are not achievable with fixed sensors.

Mobility takes multiple forms. Pan-tilt-zoom cameras are useful in both ecological and built-environment settings. Unmanned Arial Vehicles are emerging for practical use in surveying natural and urban settings. Vehicle-mounted sensors on public transportation vehicles, can capture data specific to traffic, but more generally can take advantage of the natural coverage that these

vehicles provide to measure other parameters such as air quality. And finally,

human-carried devices offer tremendous opportunity for individual and aggregate measurements related to human exposure and interaction. Mobility presents tremendous coverage benefits but does call for more sophisticated internal operation of the system.

• Most cyber-physical systems are part of larger systems with ‘‘humans in the

loop,’’ operating on human timescales. For example, all of the cyber-physical

applications described above require visualization of the observed data and

physical system. They are designed to be used by human users as real time

interactive systems to inform both short- and long-term decisions and actions.

Moreover, in some cases, human assistance and augmentation is desired to

contribute additional data feeds to the system that cannot be fully automated

(e.g., laboratory based analyses of manually-collected samples). Finally, the

proximity of these systems to people raises the need to attend to privacy in

their design, deployment and usage, which is another area in which research

can contribute significantly.

In summary, cyber-physical systems cover a broad and important range of networking and information technologies and are essential to meeting the key challenges facing the Nation, and the planet as a whole, including: the need for cleaner

and more efficient manufacturing, transportation, and energy production and distribution; water treatment and conservation; personalized health management,

treatment, and care; and preservation and recovery of key ecosystems and services.

The proposed support for CPS in the NITRD legislation will greatly enhance our

ability to address the design challenges of physically-coupled systems by supporting

research in robust and reusable, scalable and validated components, algorithms, and

36

integrated sub-systems to enable broad scale, powerful and programmable environmental observing systems.

Importance of federally funded research to U.S. leadership

Federally funded research is directly responsible for today’s technologies and the

technologies we’ll deploy tomorrow. Indeed, the development of every major sub-sector of the IT industry bears the stamp of federally-supported research, usually research supported at U.S. universities In fact, perhaps the most important aspect of

federally supported university-led research is that it generates both the ideas of tomorrow and the people necessary for turning those ideas into reality. These are the

students and researchers who generate the ideas that will power the innovations

of tomorrow.

One of the great success stories of federally funded research in information technology in my own research area has been the growth of entirely new sectors and

phenomenally successful commercial companies in support of the use of computing

everywhere. These are companies like Apple that has revolutionized the design of

personal technologies, and Nokia that has proliferated sophisticated mobile technology around the world at such a rate that now there are over three billion cell

phones and Nokia sold devices at the rate of 16 million per quarter in 2008. At the

same time, the existence of this strong commercial sector has not lessened the need

for federally funded research dollars. While these companies are spending, in some

cases, considerable dollars investing in research and development, that investment

is almost always focused on reasonably short-range development efforts—generally

the next product cycle or two. Federal support, particularly at U.S. universities, is

essential for the long-range research necessary to advance the field and enabling the

game-changing technologies of the next 10–20 years.

Even if, and that’s a big if, commercial investment in R&D was high enough to

maintain a healthy flow of new, long- and mid-term technology innovation, the role

of federal dollars would still be essential. One of the reasons it is so essential to

maintain a healthy investment in publicly funded technology research is so that

issues of public good, which cannot always be the primary drivers in a commercial

enterprise, can shape our technology; not to prevent commercialization and private

investment, but rather to promote it in a form that addresses externalities such as

open interfaces and privacy preserving architectures. Moreover, innovation can be

focused in areas that don’t yet have established revenue streams or business models, such as aspects of ecosystems science, for example.

This research ecosystem I’ve described—the interplay between federal support for

university research and commercial research and development efforts—has been, as

the National Research Council declared back in 1995, ‘‘extraordinarily productive.’’

But in order to keep it as productive as possible, it’s important to keep it as finely

tuned as possible. Balanced ecosystems are essential in nature, in our diets, in our

financial portfolios, and in our research. Currently our research ecosystem is lacking

balance on both ends of the research time horizon. On the one hand there is a need

for more basic research that explores foundational algorithmic capabilities. On the

other hand, there is also a need for bold, experimental, purpose-driven research

with discovery that comes from synthesis, problem solving and use. Space missions

and the Internet are both excellent examples of the latter approach. And much of

the work funded under NSF’s highly successful Information Technology Research

(ITR) program, which ran from 2000 to 2004, had this latter quality.

While there is a need for far out, theoretical work that disconnects from constraints—indeed, the PCAST assessment concluded that the portfolio is currently

imbalanced in favor of low-risk projects and that too many are small-scale and

short-term efforts—there is also a need for work that explores applying what is possible now but on a grand scale and to grand problems. Such projects lead researchers to uncover the ‘‘interconnection between the pieces’’—and not just between technologies, but between technology and people, and in the case of cyber-physical systems between technology and nature as well! This research offers further value

added relative to commercial R&D when it serves non-monetized applications such

as environmental monitoring and public health, thereby creative innovative technologies for the under-served markets, while providing the technologists with the integrative experience they can only get when their technology or system is deployed

and used.

The role of multi-disciplinary research centers

Multi-disciplinary research centers offer scope, as well as scale, i.e., extended

timelines in addition to increased funding levels. Multi-disciplinary research, by definition, requires that you have more people at the table, and also produces its most

37

important results when there is enough time for the collaboration to iterate and

thereby expand on its own findings. In my research center, CENS, the most important results have been iterative: where we began by applying existing technology

in an innovative manner to the application scientist’s observational science problem,

and based on the resulting experience identified the most important areas for the

next phase of innovation. Two key innovations from the center came about in this

way—the use of mobile sensing to achieve high spatial resolution, and the development of smart cameras as ‘‘biological’’ sensors for flora and fauna. It was only by

engaging in this collaborative iterative process between the application scientists

and technologists that these innovative solutions emerged. This style of work has

great potential for serendipitous results where you end up in places you did not expect, having learned tremendously more. Through this we have discovered other

new opportunities for addressing pressing problems—for example, using the mobile

phone as an instrument for personal and participatory sensing, e.g., for congestionbased pricing on highways, personalized and precise management of medication,

and individualized behavior shaping to combat avoidable health care burdens such

as obesity.

Education opportunities also flourish in centers. At CENS we developed a handson research experience for undergraduates and high school students interested in

the application of information technologies to environmental and urban sensing. We

have had tremendous success with the program. It has been a source of innovation

within the research agenda, and has produced excellent students, many of whom decided as a result to continue their studies in graduate school, and who are demographically more diverse than the equivalent populations in their local engineering

schools. However, we also learned that these programs scale up better than they

scale down. With a core of coordinated programming and staffing you can support

a wide range of projects and students. However if you support only a few students,

we found that they do not get the same structured social setting for their research,

without generally unsustainable Inputs from the supervising faculty and graduate

students.

We have also found consistently that the nature of these applications attracts a

relatively diverse student population—perhaps because the social utility is very selfevident and is explicitly a part of the design discussions. We speculated that this

social utility would end up appealing and attracting more women and we were not

disappointed—our CENS averages for women students are consistently double that

of the rest of the school.

Finally, multi-disciplinary research centers in pursuit of cyber-physical systems

and applications could contribute greatly to collaborative agency programs where a

technology creation agency could partner with a mission agency to help bridge the

gap between funding of the basic ideas and early prototypes, and systems that can

actually be used and run through trials and exploration before commercialization:

• A good example of this would be a large scale, ∼million-person, mobile-sensing

system that supports preventative and chronic health management and research. Today’s mobile phones can easily report activity, location, and prompted user input (e.g., pain, emotional state, and other self-reports). Such a

project, coordinated between the NSF and the mission oriented needs of NIH

and CDC, could prototype and pilot a privacy-preserving, population-scale

system that would drive innovation in privacy and security of electronic

health records, data analysis and fusion, and human computer interaction,

while also providing unprecedented data-sets for public health and epidemiological studies.

Another example opportunity would be for multiple user agencies with overlapping needs to launch development of an innovative sensor type that is not being

brought to market because revenue streams are not large enough to justify the capital investment by commercial enterprise.

• Development of specific sensors for environmental monitoring is a good example. There is not a large enough commercial market to drive development and

production of miniaturized, high precision, nitrate sensors for example which

are critical to both ground water testing systems, coastal margin ecosystem

health, and terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle characterization. In this case,

a coordinated effort between the NSF and the mission-oriented needs of EPA,

USGS, NOAA, USDA to develop and produce such a sensor could have significant long-term ecological benefit to the country.

38

Conclusion

I was pleased to see the inclusion of cyber-physical systems as an area of emphasis in the PCAST assessment of 2007 and I’m pleased to see its inclusion in the

NITRD legislation under discussion today. As I noted above, cyber-physical systems

cover a broad and important range of networking and information technologies and

will be essential in meeting some of the key environmental, economic, and quality

of life challenges facing our nation and the world. A broadly focused cyber-physical

systems research program in NITRD, balanced between fundamental and applied efforts and leveraging university, agency, and corporate research and development efforts will go a long way towards ensuring that the United States continues to hold

a leadership position in this critical field.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide my testimony on this

important issue. I am pleased to answer any further questions you might have as

you and your colleagues on the Committee move this legislation forward.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DEBORAH ESTRIN

Deborah Estrin is a Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at

UCLA. She holds the Jon Postel Chair in Computer Networks, and is Founding Director of the National Science Foundation funded Center for Embedded Networked

Sensing (CENS). CENS’ mission is to explore and develop innovative, end-to-end,

distributed sensing systems, across an array of scientifically and socially relevant

applications, from ecosystems to human systems. Estrin is currently exploring Mobile Personal Sensing systems that leverage the location, acoustic, image, and attached-sensor data streams increasingly available globally from mobile phones; with

particular emphasis on human and environmental health applications and on privacy-aware architectures. Estrin’s earlier research addressed Internet protocol design and scaling, in particular, inter-domain and multi-cast routing. She received

her Ph.D. in 1985 from MIT and her BS in 1980 from UC–Berkeley, both in EECS.

Estrin currently serves on the National Research Council’s Computer Science and

Telecommunications Board (CSTB) and was previously a member of the NSF National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Advisory board, the NSF CISE Advisory Committee, and DARPA–ISAT. Estrin was selected as the first ACM–W Athena

Lecturer in 2006 and was awarded the Anita Borg Institute’s Women of Vision

Award for Innovation in 2007. She was elected to the American Academy of Arts

and Sciences in 2007 and to the National Academy of Engineering in 2009. She is

a fellow of the IEEE, ACM, and AAAS and was granted Doctor Honoris Causa from

EPFL in 2008.

DISCUSSION

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Estrin. I agree, it is the discovery

that you are not expecting that is oftentimes more important than

the breakthrough that you originally sought.

Dr. Lee, I want to go back a little bit to your discussion about

what is going on around the rest of the world and the competition

that we might have, and you say Europe is really the center or

where most of the research is going on outside the United States?

Dr. LEE. Yes, that is correct.

Chair GORDON. And are there any lessons learned—what they

are doing that we need to be incorporating? And typically what

they will do is, they will have more of a focus on, you know, breakthroughs in two or three different areas. Is that what they are

doing there, and if so, where?

Dr. LEE. Yes. So indeed, one model that I think is very interesting, particularly in the European efforts in hybrid systems,

which is roughly speaking their analog to cyber-physical systems,

they have a very focused mission orientation in some of their research programs.

Chair GORDON. Is this E.U. or is this a particular country?

Dr. LEE. This is E.U., and in the—so, for example, in one major

initiative, they would like cyber-physical systems or hybrid systems

39

that would eliminate any possibility of collisions in the high-speed

rail systems throughout Europe and so this provides a grand challenge framework but associated with those large programs are subprojects that provide sustained, long-term basic research funding.

Chair GORDON. And what is their vehicle for collaboration?

Dr. LEE. So they have multi-university research teams.

Chair GORDON. It is university based. Does industry play much

of a role?

Dr. LEE. Industry does play a role, and in fact, in the large mission programs, industry is required to play a role but they are in

our parlance sub-awards to the prime awards that are given to the

university-based teams. This allows the university teams to really

think beyond the leading edge but still provide a long-term partnership with industry to provide a smoother or a greased track, so

to speak, for technology transfers.

Chair GORDON. I want to pose a question to all of you. The legislation calls for an industry/university task force to explore collaborative research models for cyber-physical systems. Are there other

research areas where public-private partnerships would be particularly appropriate and what characteristics are necessary for a successful industry/university collaboration in networking and IT? Dr.

Estrin, do you want to start us off?

Dr. ESTRIN. Certainly. I think successful efforts—everyone needs

to be getting something out of the process to get true engagement.

An interesting example of something like that is where industry

has the capacity to construct things, let us say, a highly sensitive

sensor type that is needed by a broad range, but they are not going

to do it on their own because the commercial market doesn’t yet

exist but perhaps there are truly needs for such a sensor—pose it—

in health, in ecology, in cleanup of contaminated water, and so by

bringing together researchers, agencies that have a need, an industry that has the capacity but wouldn’t otherwise produce such a device because the commercial market doesn’t yet exist, you can bring

those three together in very successful ventures and the number of

the things, projects I would foresee would have that similar quality

where you bring in the capacity of the commercial enterprise but

focusing on problems that are needed for public good that don’t yet

have the market to have them do it on their own.

Chair GORDON. And what about the intellectual property? I

mean, does that get worked out between the universities and industry relatively smoothly or what happens there?

Dr. ESTRIN. In my experience, that works out even more smoothly when the government is involved from the beginning because it

keeps people from even thinking about trying to be greedy in the

shorter-term. In the end we found first to market understanding

the technology is the way to go. We benefited so much from open

work. So we do all of our work open and without IP protection.

Since this is for the public good, you would want——

Chair GORDON. Is that fairly well universal here in the United

States, that attitude?

Dr. ESTRIN. It is not—I think it is broad enough and people have

seen enough success from it that it is certainly a practical thing to

pursue, an important role for government.

Chair GORDON. Dr. Lee, do you want to add anything there?

40

Dr. LEE. Yes. I think that many of the major challenges that

computing research is really poised to contribute to, and let me just

mention three: cyber security, energy and health care. These are

sources of grand challenge, problems that university and IT-based

research alone won’t be able to solve and so partnerships, particularly partnerships with stakeholders and typically these stakeholders would often be industrial organizations, seem absolutely

crucial. I would like to emphasize again though that universities,

if we are looking at beyond the leading edge of technology, universities leading in this are absolutely crucial, and I would just bring

your attention to the last year’s DARPA urban challenge where the

top three winners of the DARPA urban challenge robot race were

in fact university teams that had significant industry support but

the universities were leading.

Chair GORDON. Dr. Greer, do you want to conclude on that topic?

Dr. GREER. A couple of things I would add to the comments you

already heard. The characteristics of successful efforts are really

twofold. All involve bring their capabilities to the table and that all

realize real value from the interaction. Those are the key issues

that have to be addressed. In addition to the areas Dr. Lee described, the whole area of software development, design and engineering is a rich one for multi-sector collaboration, in fact, probably

requires that networking capability, security, reliability. The vast

majority of the networking capability around the globe belongs to

the private sector, certainly in this country, than to the government. There are examples of effective cooperation of this type. The

Semiconductor Research Corporation is an example of a consortium

where it provides neutral ground for all the parties to reach agreement, for example, a common legal framework which everybody

who wants to participate has got to buy into, so that I think is another important value.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Greer.

Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Greer and Dr. Lee, are all of the federal agencies involved

with NITRD pulling their, what we call their weight in this? What

agencies could be doing more and in what area, and whether or not

you believe it is a function of funding or is something else involved?

Dr. Greer, do you want to take a shot at that first?

Dr. GREER. In my written testimony in the appendix is the list

of member agencies and participating agencies. That is a list of 28

federal agencies all told. That is a remarkable set of federal agencies willing to participate in the program. I think that is a very

strong signal that there is broad interest. The member agencies are

the ones that contribute to our budget. Again, there are 13 of those.

Our experience is that the networking and information technology

issues touch on the missions of all of the federal agencies in one

form or another and so we encourage their participation and actively seek it as well.

Mr. HALL. Well, is that—are they listed because they are participating, the 28?

Dr. GREER. That is right. They are listed because they have on

the left-hand side the ones that contribute to the NCO budget, on

41

the right-hand side those that participate in other ways in the

NITRD program activities.

Mr. HALL. And are there other federal agencies that are involved

that could also be on that list?

Dr. GREER. I certainly think—as I said, almost all federal agency

missions touch on this and I think part of our responsibility is to

find those areas where agencies not now participating could realize

value from participating.

Mr. HALL. I guess I will ask all witnesses whether or not the

draft version of the legislation that is before us today helps to

achieve an appropriately balanced portfolio, and if not, what is

missing or what has been given too much attention? Dr. Greer, do

you want to take a shot at that again?

Dr. GREER. Sure. Let us take one specific example, cyber-physical

systems. As Dr. Estrin has eloquently pointed out, that touches on

a very broad range of issues and even the definition of a cyberphysical system ranges from a chip in your car to the National Ecological Observatory Network, quite a range of things. The software

for achieving those capabilities, the reliability issues, networking,

all of those things go into realizing success in the area of cyberphysical systems and so an important issue is not to view them as

isolated from all of the challenges across the networking information technology landscape but as one of the key priority and goal

areas in that landscape.

Dr. LEE. I have one comment.

Mr. HALL. Dr. Lee.

Dr. LEE. Yes. Thank you. I think on the subject of balance, one

area that perhaps could use more emphasis, I think the legislation

does very well in emphasizing large-scale multi-disciplinary research and that is in response to the PCAST assessment. We

shouldn’t forget though that for all of the wonderful technologies

that we see, there is literally an iceberg, a gigantic amount of core

research in fundamental algorithms and technologies, and that emphasis on the core I think should have equal weight in the legislation.

Mr. HALL. Dr. Estrin, you gave a very detailed and inclusive

opening statement. Do you have anything to add to what either of

these gentlemen have said, and if something is missing, what’s

missing, and if something is given too much attention, what is, and

if something is not given enough attention, what is it?

Dr. ESTRIN. I will be brief. As was mentioned in the opening

statements, I think language about security and privacy would belong and would be a great addition.

Mr. HALL. About a brief an answer as I have ever gotten out of

anybody. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Since you have got a little

bit of time left, Dr. Greer, could you finish up on your question?

You were saying there needs to be more outreach to other agencies.

How would you suggest that—you know, who determines where

they are and how should that outreach be made?

Dr. GREER. Of course, the legislation that this committee has

provided says that the President and the Director of OSTP decide

who in the end is a member of the NITRD program so there is——

42

Chair GORDON. Just in case they were busy that day, I mean,

what would you—you know, how would we do this internally?

Dr. GREER. And what we do at the National Coordination Office

is, we go to our agency counterparts, explain the role of the NITRD

program, its value to the agencies, identify appropriate points of

contact and start that dialogue, invite them to our meetings, share

our reports with them.

Chair GORDON. Okay. I see. Thank you.

Ms. Woolsey is recognized.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to these

wonderful witnesses. You have each said something about the ability of the United States to lead in science, math, technology, information technology in particular, that we have to have an educated

workforce. So my question and we will go right down the line, how

are we doing? And there are three Members on this committee,

Congressman Wu, Dr. Ehlers and myself who are senior Members

on the Education and Labor Committee as well, so my question,

what can we be doing better to encourage an increase for the recruitment and the education of women and minorities in particular

but in general all individuals interested in this field that is so important to us? And finally, where does it start in the education system? Does it start at the Ph.D. level or does it start in the 8th

grade or the 6th grade? So we will start with you, Dr. Estrin, because actually we want—I am the author of Go Girl, which encourages young girls from the 8th grade on to stay involved in science,

math and technology and we are going to have a hearing in my

committee and I want you to be one of the witnesses. Let us start

from you and go up the stream from there.

Dr. ESTRIN. I am delighted this issue is being taken so seriously,

and certainly a Ph.D. is far too late. We have far too few people

available in the pipeline by then. We must start earlier. Eighth

grade is just about right. Of course, we need excellent childcare, we

need good prenatal nutrition, we need everything that feeds up to

the 8th grade but 8th grade is about the time that these young people start forming their ideas about what they want to do. Something we have been trying to do is put an authentic face on information technology, explaining that it is not just this transparent

set of mechanisms that happened behind your screen but rather it

is a way to help save the planet, help save your community, and

I have no formal evidence on that subject, but as I said, many people who are entering and selecting careers who might otherwise select to become doctors and now we have greater than 50 percent

in pre-med in medical schools who are women and our intention is

to draw some of those bright, engaged committed individuals from

that community.

And finally, the same thing holds when you look at first-generation students becoming the first generation to get college degrees.

There again tends to be a commitment to the world, to their community and they want something and they are on the front lines

doing that. And certainly information technology innovations are

really very much about that.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you.

Dr. Lee.

43

Dr. LEE. Thank you very much for this question. It is really an

issue that has caused a great deal of anxiety, I would say, in the

academic research community. I believe and many of my colleagues

believe that computational thinking is necessary for any educated

person in the same way that mathematical thinking or global

thinking is becoming necessary for any educated person in our society, and this really has to start, I believe in the K through 12 system and maybe the 8th-grade level is about right. The National

Science Foundation actually has begun a number of important initiatives. One that I would call attention to is the Math Science

Partnership Program, and there are ideas to expand this in order

to improve K through 12 computing education, and this would undoubtedly increase access and participation by women and minorities further upstream.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. Do I have time for Dr. Greer?

Chair GORDON. Certainly.

Dr. GREER. Very quickly, I would say that that this is one of the

largest challenges to the NITRD landscape and my agency colleagues agree. It should be a centerpiece of our strategic plan. It

should address the entire pipeline including curricula that are inspiring, that put science in the computer science curriculum, that

show the opportunity for IT innovation to benefit people, individuals and our society as a whole and teachers who are prepared to

engage students on that ground.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Before turning the microphone over, I have to be

clear. I don’t think we start teaching math in the 8th grade. I just

know that by the 8th grade we know there are kids that are very

talented that we want to keep in the system. Thank you very

much.

Chair GORDON. Ms. Woolsey, your leadership in helping pass the

America COMPETES will help move this ball down the field very

much.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That is true. Thank you.

Chair GORDON. Dr. Roscoe Bartlett was here a little bit earlier,

and in talking with him, he mentioned that his son, who he

claimed was smarter than him and even smarter than his mother,

which was apparently even a greater accomplishment, is a graduate of Carnegie Mellon and was very complimentary of what you

do there.

Mr. Akin is recognized.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you. Mr. Chair, a couple of questions. They are

a little bit related. The first is, with the proposal before us, do we

have the adequate mechanisms to ensure that patent rights and

national security, particularly the patent right piece is the first

part of my question, is that—because we are doing a lot of sort of

network types of development. Do we still protect patent rights appropriately?

Dr. GREER. Clearly that is a challenge in the evolving IT landscape and I think it is one that this Congress will need to consider.

For the most part, it is outside the portfolio of the NITRD program;

it is cooperation on R&D, but it surely plays into our ability to

interact with the academic and commercial sector, a very important

part of what we need to be able to do. So I think there are major

challenges here that constrain progress.

44

Mr. AKIN. I think my next question is a bigger one and a harder

one because one of my other committee assignments is on the

Armed Services Committee, and we have taken a look at sort of

unique forms of warfare and one of the most threatening and one

that we appear to be largely unprotected against is the whole hacking into networks. I am not a whiz on computers although I used

to work for IBM but my son is with the Marine Corps and he is

a communications guy and he said we are absolutely wide open in

this area. My understanding is, there are hundreds or even thousands of attacks every day from China directed toward our information systems and hacking into them. One rather big situation I

think was in the news. It was two days ago or so in a number of

different countries where computers that had very sensitive information had been infiltrated with software which was downloading

all of this sensitive information and it was tracked back to China,

which is no big surprise. Are we doing enough in that security because the hearings that I held as a Subcommittee Chair indicated

that there is good news and bad news. The good news is, we can

hack into anybody’s stuff. The bad news is, they can all hack into

ours.

Dr. LEE. It is in fact I think imperative that we somehow find

a way to bridge across classification levels in order to allow more

university-based researchers to participate in solving this problem.

As it stands now, many university researchers are really not able

to effectively participate in those programs and that then ends up

excluding a large amount of our technology base.

Mr. AKIN. So what you are saying is, is that there are some solutions that could help us in this area but because of the fact that

they are coming from a university direction that it is hard for them

to connect with things like the systems that we are actually using

nationally?

Dr. LEE. That is right. To give a concrete example, can we access

data for access patterns to apply the latest machine learning algorithms to help understand these attacks. Even access to data is

now an issue.

Mr. AKIN. I don’t totally understand what you are saying but you

are saying that we have got more of this stovepipe stuff where one

part of our Nation is not talking to another. We are not using all

of the resources available to us. I gather that is what you are saying.

Dr. LEE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. AKIN. How would you then change that? Would you say that

you would maybe put in some sort of a provision so that the Department of Defense would have more aggressive work with the—

I know at the Naval Academy they do—you know, they have red

team come in and hack and all that kind of stuff. My son just loved

that. But are you saying more of those kinds of programs would be

helpful?

Dr. LEE. I think that would in fact do quite a lot. There are some

natural defenses that just come out of new networking core research, new research and operating systems and software but as it

stands now, there is a virtual gulf that separates classified programs from open programs, and that gulf ends up creating a split

45

personality, so to speak, in how we approach these cyber security

problems.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair GORDON. We should have had your son as a witness today.

Mr. AKIN. I bet he would have had some questions. I don’t know

about a witness.

Chair GORDON. Dr. Griffith is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question that

hopefully you can shed some light on. At what level of the cell can

you introduce this technology? At what level of the organism, when

we are talking about health care, can you begin to measure? Can

you measure outside the cell membrane, nuclear membrane? Are

you down into the DNA, RNA? I know that sequencing was critically important in your area or it was critically important to us,

but where are we now in general? Anybody can answer that.

Dr. LEE. Well, this is a very large question. In fact, there is ongoing information technology research that is literally trying to treat

DNA sequences as computer code, literally programming DNA sequences in order to understand from the ground up exactly what

all of these things mean, and that is kind of a bottom-up approach

from actually the top-down approach of looking at natural organisms, so we are very, very far down into the biochemistry today.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you.

Yes, please.

Dr. ESTRIN. So in the laboratory and even laboratory-based analyses, again, very far down that path, in terms of worn systems, systems that you might wear all the time, current state of technology

isn’t there. You are measuring higher-level physiological, perhaps

measuring blood glucose, perhaps capturing other physiological parameters. Those are actually quite easily accessible now whereas

the more detailed DNA analysis is happening through collected

samples and then in the laboratory. But these things advancing together help science in understanding of health tremendously because you can do that analysis in the lab but understand the exposures that people have had during the course of their everyday life.

Mr. GRIFFITH. I think it is a great selling tool, by the way, for

young students to know that the advances in our computer technology have led to incredible advances in the care of patients, and

I think that is attractive to them and it attracts them in, just as

the greening of America or saving our ecosystem, so we appreciate

you all being here. Thank you.

I yield back my time.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Griffith.

Let us see. Mr. Hall says he doesn’t have any questions at this

time. So Mr. Davis, you are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I will be very brief.

As I heard the questions engaging in those back and forth and our

concern about China being able to tap into our most sensitive systems that we have and find information, obviously we can do the

same thing but do you see any way where we can ever prevent

that? As we talked about the information superhighway, the highways in my district are interstates so you go both ways on them.

I am just wondering, is there any way that we can perfect—that

46

we would be able to block out with a certainty, that no one would

be able to tap into our information?

Dr. LEE. So thank you for that question. In fact, today’s Internet,

just to take that as one key part of our information technology ecosystem, was designed to be completely open, to be that interstate

that allows free traffic in all directions literally without even any

kind of traffic control. This was fine in the early going. We have

come to depend on it now and it is well past time to rethink what

the next generation Internet should be, and in fact, there are concepts on the drawing boards that would provide large test beds to

experiment with new architectures for the Internet that could in

fact be much more secure.

Dr. ESTRIN. I would like to add a comment. Having been around

in those early days as the Internet was being designed in that very

open process, some people look back and say that was a mistake.

I think of it a little bit more as, you take a child, you introduce

them in childcare, they start to be exposed, you know, to viruses

and such things and they build up some antibodies. You don’t keep

them in a bubble. And in that process of having the Internet open

and accessible, we have started to develop a stronger set of ideas

of how you begin to protect yourself from these attacks and you—

I don’t know that we will see the day that we will be completely

immune but I think we can be much better in terms of our treatment of addressing these kinds of viruses and infections and building healthier immune systems, if you will, for our systems. I would

just like to say that a critical component of that is that we build

systems whose security measures are actually usable by everyday

people. A lot of the technology that ends up in critical government

parts of the systems comes from the commercial side because it is

less expensive, it has so much functionality to it, and so it is very

important for our national security that our commercial and consumer information technology systems are built with important

and the latest security ideas and that those security ideas are actually usable, that the configurations and the defaults are ones that

everyday people can do the right thing and the protective thing because that technology ends up coming back into our national security systems.

Mr. DAVIS. So in essence you are saying in the near future there

is a possibility, a probability, likelihood that we will be able to protect our most sensitive information to keep someone else from tapping into it, either of you?

Dr. ESTRIN. I think we will be able to do better and I don’t see

that as being something that is an absolute guarantee. We always

have to remain vigilant.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.

Chair GORDON. Mr. Davis, Dr. Bartlett has been out consulting

with his son for questions so you are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. I am sorry that I couldn’t have been

here for your testimony and the discussion. I worked eight years

for IBM Corporation. As I mentioned to Dr. Lee, my youngest son,

youngest of 10, chose to go to his university for his doctorate, which

was ostensibly in chemical engineering but he went there because

his interest is in computers and they hired him at Sandia Labs because of his expertise in computers. I have a growing concern that

47

we are becoming too dependent on computers. They now are involved in almost everything we do. When the hacker comes in, he

wants you to know that he broke into your house so he pulls out

the dresser drawers and strews the stuff all over the floor so that

you know he was there. When the really bad guys come to your

house and break in, they don’t even want to disturb the dust on

the dresser. They don’t want you to know they were there. Several

years ago—I am senior Member on the Armed Service Committee.

Several years ago we commissioned several of our people to pretend

that they were bad guys and see if they could break into our military computers. They did that 3,000 times. We caught them twice.

Now, we are much wiser because of that but so are the bad guys,

when they make mistakes and they figure out what they need to

do next time so as not to make the mistake. I have a growing concern that they are just testing us with the viruses and the worms

that they put in our computers now and I am concerned that in the

operating systems, which I think we have trouble determining

whether they are germ-free, that there could be a sleeper there

that becomes active only with a big ramp-up in activity which is

an emergency when you really need them. Shouldn’t we have some

redundancy in our society? Today we have essentially no redundancy. If the computers are down—and one thing that would bring

all of our computers down is a single nuclear weapon detonated

300 miles high over Iowa or Nebraska and the Russian generals

tell us that would produce 200 kilovolts per meter, which is 100

kilovolts per meter at the margins of our country. That of course

would fry all of our microelectronics so you are essentially in a

world in which the only person you can talk to is the person next

to you, unless you happen to be a ham operator with a vacuum

tube set, a million times less susceptible. And the only way you can

go anywhere is to walk unless you happen to have an Edsel or a

similar kind of car. Shouldn’t our society have some sort of redundancy? When something is really, really important in our military,

we always build in redundancies so if we lose the primary, we still

can function. We can’t function without computers, can we?

Shouldn’t we have a redundancy?

Dr. LEE. Congressman Bartlett, let me start by saying that your

son, congratulations on his accomplishment, and I should say that

I applied to Carnegie Mellon hoping to do my own Ph.D. studies

there and was not admitted, so I am very impressed with your son.

So indeed, I think that we are facing some significant challenges

as you say, and the redundancy is the most simple thing that we

could imagine doing. Indeed, Wall Street uses redundant systems

for precisely the reasons that you——

Mr. BARTLETT. Redundant computer systems?

Dr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. They are all down under some scenarios.

Dr. LEE. That is true, and indeed, simple redundancy turns out

to give you maybe one layer of protection, but in basic computer

science algorithms research, and we saw this at the symposium at

the Library of Congress last week, there are far more sophisticated

concepts in the general area of redundancy and diversity that could

lead to a great deal more reliability and robustness.

Mr. BARTLETT. I don’t know where we go——

48

Chair GORDON. You have got them all scared.

Mr. BARTLETT. I am just more and more concerned that the more

sophisticated we become in using computers, the more vulnerable

we are.

Dr. ESTRIN. It is a clearly valid concern. In the scenario you

gave, which is clearly disastrous from all perspectives, just addressing the bringing back of the information technology and such, it

is—while it is about the United States, it is, we know from security, that when you do backups, you don’t just keep backups locally.

You also ship some backups off to a remote location. I am from Los

Angeles. We have all sources of natural disasters there. We always

do our backups off-site, and in that sense, I would expect that there

are programs within our government as well that has backup of

key data sets and key resources off-site so that one way that you

deal with this problem is to allow yourself to do rapid restructuring, rapid build-up of a replacement infrastructure.

Mr. BARTLETT. An all computer replacement infrastructure?

Dr. ESTRIN. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. I am asking, shouldn’t we have another fallback redundancy?

Dr. ESTRIN. Certainly from a government infrastructure, community infrastructure, I think your fall-back are a well-trained citizenry and people and governments. I am not sure what form that

takes in the information transfer. I think it is a very interesting

question how we think about starting to bring up our capacity, relying again on the human beings.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chair, I can help the gentleman if he would like.

For a fall-back redundancy, I still have my Big Chief tablet and

cedar pencil.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I think Dr. Bartlett has got

the beginnings of a good screenplay.

Mr. Luja ́n, you are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I want to go back

to the importance in the questioning with collaboration with some

of the entities that have capabilities, whether it is through our laboratories with the emphasis in DOD and DOE.

Dr. Estrin, you said that it was important that the commercial

aspect of this drive the security of the experience and what can be

done to protect the networks with the Federal Government. Can

you elaborate on that a little bit?

Dr. ESTRIN. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that it should

drive. Clearly you have to have classified activities and government-focused activities. What I meant is that if you look empirically and historically you see the adoption of commercial technology

in our everyday government business, both classified and unclassified, and so since we know that there is technology that the government wants to bring in from the commercial sector, it is important

from the government’s interest that the technology that is being

produced in the government sector has built into it good forms of

security and usable forms of security. Does that clarify?

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Absolutely, and I appreciate that very much, and

that is really the basis for the line of questioning.

49

Dr. Lee, you mentioned the importance of the collaboration between entities. I think Mr. Akin asked a question along those lines

about how are we collaborating with all of the efforts and the investment that has been made in so many of these areas and with

your experience, and I would ask Dr. Greer the same question,

with your experience, how can we truly move forward where we are

collaborating more, where we are supporting more tech transfer,

where we take advantage of the investments that we made within

laboratories with the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Office of Science and others to utilize that brain trust and

that expertise to move forward with some of the modeling that can

take place, the supercomputing capabilities in all aspects, especially in the area of energy, disease, smart grid applications, developing the necessary software and security with their experience

with the number of threats that they experience on a daily basis

as well.

Dr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. Indeed, just recently, the former

CIO G6 of the U.S. Army, Steven Boutelle, informed me that during his tenure the U.S. Army had moved to a position where over

80 percent of the software and networking technology employed by

the U.S. Army today is commercial off the shelf, COTS, and this

raises a specific question about how we can certify the security and

trustworthiness of commercial systems. This goes all the way down

even to the hardware and the circuitry. And in fact, as Dr. Greer

had mentioned and emphasized before, much of this is really core

research in areas related to software development, software analysis and networking, and I believe that if we are able to increase

the base of agency support for academic research, right now we are

at 86 percent coming from the National Science Foundation. If we

are able to expand into other areas, DARPA and other defense

agencies and DOE, we will be able to provide a wider range of attacks on this problem and really come to grips with our needs, particularly in this security-related and trustworthiness-related area.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Dr. Greer.

Dr. GREER. I would second what Dr. Lee has had to say in the

sense that inherent in your question are a number of basic research challenges that the NITRD agencies are currently investing

in including issues of software assurance, validation and

verification and how can you ensure that a software package being

delivered does what it is purported to do, that the system doesn’t

have any Trojan horses and so on. That is an example of a very

basic research question. In the end, what we are striving for is research and development informed by implementation and implementation informed by research and development. So there is a

cycle and an interaction that has go on there. That is all about

communication amongst the various groups, and that is what is important to us.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Dr. Greer.

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the fact that this is coming forward and the importance of COMPETES that you stressed as well,

and as we look to see how we can incorporate the federal laboratories into the educational component but specifically in the area

when we are talking about large-scale research in areas of national

importance and we characterize those, I truly believe that if we

50

harness that energy and we are able to expose so many of our

young people when they are in junior high, even elementary and

high school, to some of the research taking place at our national

laboratories, include them into that field where we can take advantage of those opportunities, really use them as a hub to expand our

university system and those capabilities as it translates to solving

some of our large-scale problems is something that we can truly do.

So I appreciate the inclusion of those in the Act.

Chair GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. You are absolutely correct. Our National labs are a tremendous resource, and by the synergy of them working with universities and private sector is going

to make a big difference in our country. In the COMPETES bill,

we did address some of this so that there will be collaboration

where both teachers and students can go into the labs and hopefully those teachers come back and get the kids excited.

Before we close, is there anyone else that would like to ask another question? If not, I want to thank our witnesses. This has

been a very good hearing. You have provided us very good information. This is not as high profile as climate change and energy independence and health care but it is important to all those areas, and

we hope that this bill will help us to move forward.

Let me also say that we welcome any further comments you

might have in terms of our bill, and we welcome also comments

from the audience here and for those who are listening over the

Internet or watching for this transcript, and the record will remain

open for two weeks for additional statements from Members and

for answers to any of the follow-up questions the Committee may

ask of the witnesses.

So the witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(51)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

52

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Christopher L. Greer, Director, National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NCO/NITRD)

Questions submitted by Chair Bart Gordon

Q1a. There is a growing concern that the educational programs in networking and

information technology are insufficient to prepare our future IT workforce.

Please describe the NITRD program’s current efforts to improve networking

and information technology education at both the secondary and post-secondary level.

A1a. In FY 2008, NITRD agency investments in the Social, Economic, and Workforce (SEW) Implications of IT and IT Workforce Development Program Component

Area totaled $118.7 million, including the following education-related efforts:

• Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI). This major National Science

Foundation (NSF)-wide, five-year initiative is intended to revolutionize the

conduct of science and engineering by infusing computational thinking and

methods across the disciplines both in laboratory research and at all stages

of education and training. Funded activities include exploration of interactive

virtual learning environments that maximize students’ cognitive capacities

and learning styles as well as IT for reliable identification of developmental

and learning disorders.

• NIH’s National Library of Medicine (NLM) bioinformatics and biomedical

informatics training. This ongoing program, which supports a variety of doctoral and postdoctoral training fellowships at academic institutions across the

country, was set up to develop a cadre of scientific professionals with expertise both in IT and informatics and in biomedical science; the effort has led

to recognition of bioinformatics as a significant specialization in biomedicine

and institutionalization of biomformatics training programs in academia.

• Computational science graduate fellowship program (DOE). This ongoing activity supports students pursuing doctoral degrees in scientific or engineering

disciplines with an emphasis in high-performance computing. The fellows

gain hands-on high-end computing experience working with computational

and disciplinary scientists at national laboratories.

• The NSF Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate’s Pathways to Revitalized Undergraduate Computing Education

(CPATH). Begun in 2007, CPATH is focused on developing a computationally

skilled workforce that can maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the 21st

century. The program is supporting multi-sector activities to identify strategies for improving undergraduate computing education; grants for adopting,

extending, and evaluating innovative undergraduate programs; ‘‘transformation’’ projects that model new academic structures and cultural approaches; and a Distinguished Education Fellows effort, which brings outstanding professionals into the curriculum planning process.

• Broadening Participation in Computing (NSF). The goal of this effort begun

in 2005 is to develop effective undergraduate and graduate-level recruitment

and retention strategies to increase the number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents receiving post-secondary degrees in the computing disciplines,

with an emphasis on students from communities with longstanding underrepresentation in computing. The program also seeks to improve computing

research and education opportunities for all students.

• The Education and Workforce Program (NSF). This program invests in education initiatives for women (the Advancement of Women in Academic Science

and Engineering Careers, or ADVANCE program), graduate student fellowships (GRF), graduate STEM Fellows, Integrative Graduate Education and

Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) and REU Sites.

• Cyberlearning and impact of IT on education practice (NSF). NSF supports

activities to provide new opportunities for using cyberinfrastructure as a platform fir student learning experiences. It also supports the study of the impact

of IT on teaching and learning.

• Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program (NSF). All core computing programs at NSF participate in the CAREER Program, which emphasizes the integration of research and education.

53

Q1b. To what extent has the Department of Education been involved in the Social,

Economic, and Workforce program component area of NITRD?

A1b. The Department of Education has only occasionally participated in SEW activities in recent years. The NCO is currently working to develop contacts within

the agency and exploring possible avenues to encourage its participation.

Q1c. Additionally, please describe how the NITRD strategic plan will address networking and information technology education to ensure an adequate workforce.

A1c. As I noted in my April 1 testimony, education and workforce challenges are

envisioned as a central element of the NITRD strategic plan. Two NITRD activities

are providing inputs to the plan directly on this theme: a fast-track study comparing

international IT education and workforce data, and draft education goals for the

plan being developed by SEW with an ad hoc interagency group. The latter effort

began in September 2008 with a Collaborative Expedition Workshop on strategic

leadership for networking and IT education; the participants were Federal managers with education-related responsibilities from non-NITRD as well as NITRD

agencies. The workshop was designed to promote coordination among NITRD programs with educational missions and identify candidates for a working group to develop the draft strategic plan educational goals.

Questions submitted by Ralph M. Hall

Q1. One of our witnesses in a previous NITRD hearing called out the oversized role

of the NSF in supporting academic NIT research, noting that this single agency

provides 86 percent of the funding in this area. What do We gain or lose by having a single agency dominate funding? How can we assess whether specialization like this is leading to greater efficiency for the program overall or creates

stovepipes that slow down overall progress?

A1. Each agency’s NITRD investments support the particular mission of the agency.

NSF has the unique mission of promoting the health of the science and engineering

research and education enterprise in this country and has traditionally focused on

the academic sector. Thus, NSF leads among NITRD agencies in investments in

basic research in mathematics and computer science in the academic sector. However, the Department of Defense is the largest investor (56 percent) in applied re- search in math and computer science in the academic sector (source: NSF SRS,

2005–2007; NSF 09–309).

Advantages of having the federal agency whose mission is most closely tied to

basic research at academic institutions take the lead role in academic IT R&D include familiarity with the relevant community and its processes and deep expertise

in the fundamental research challenges. A potential disadvantage is that the interests and perspectives of the other agencies may be overshadowed. Among the goals

of the NITRD program is to support the kind of close information sharing and cooperation among agencies that can ensure that all agencies’ interests and perspectives are considered.

From the perspective of the NITRD portfolio as a whole, investments are fairly

widely distributed across the member agencies. For example, NSF accounted for 28

percent of the 3.3 billion in estimated FY 2008 NITRD spending reported in the FY

2009 NITRD budget supplement. The Department of Defense (OSD, DARPA, and

NSA combined) accounted for 37 percent; NIH accounted for 15 percent; and DOE

(FE/NE/NNSA/SC) accounted for 13 percent; NASA, NIST, NOAA, EPA, and NARA

together accounted for seven percent.

Q2. You suggested in your testimony that the recent PCAST recommendations reflect

the need for a framework that enables the NITRD portfolio of investments to respond to our nation’s changing IT needs. Does the draft legislation provide for

the flexibility and responsiveness you feel is necessary? Are there any areas

where the suggested language would throw up a roadblock?

A2. In the current High-Performance Computing Act as amended, the topic areas

that make up the Program are listed together in Section 101. This allows a balanced

view of the scope of the Program and emphasizes the critical inter-dependencies

across all of the topic areas. However, the draft legislation placement of both cyberphysical systems and long-term, large-scale research in separate sections rather

than in Section 101, could be a significant roadblock to research progress in these

areas and encourage unnecessary duplication of effort.

Section 104(b)(2) of the draft legislation includes as a criterion that large-scale

projects ‘‘shall be carried out by a collaboration of no fewer than two agencies parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
54

ticipating in the Program.’’ This phrasing could be misinterpreted to discourage critical large-scale investments by any one agency or by agencies outside the Program.

Q3. How much stimulus funding will be devoted to NITRD programs and activities,

and is OSTP/OMB or the NCO undertaking any special efforts to ensure this

funding is fully coordinated and spent wisely?

A3. OMB is collecting data on restoration and recovery act spending on NITRD

goals, and OSTP and OMB have worked closely with the NITRD agencies in planning effective spending under the restoration and recovery act.

Q4. How successful have the Federal agencies been at figuring out ways to interact

with one another through computer systems, particularly since September 11,

2001, when it became evident how important it could be to homeland security?

A4. The OMB Office of eGovernment and Information Technology and the Federal

CIO Council are better positioned to comment on current IT deployment and implementation. I can comment, however, on how some of the results of NITRD agency

investments are improving the IT landscape:

• Identity management across domains. Shibboleth is a standards-based

open software suite that enables federations of networks—such as those linking together the academic networks of U.S. universities—to authenticate

users on any participating campus through a secure ‘‘single sign-on’’ interface.

Developed by Internet2 researchers funded by NSF’s Middleware Initiative,

Shibboleth has both raised the security level of campus networks and increased the ease of inter-campus resource sharing, allowing sites to make informed authorization decisions on access to protected online resources while

preserving privacy.

• Distributed computing. Globus and Condor are software packages, developed with funding by NITRD agencies, that each has significantly enhanced

U.S. distributed computing capabilities in this decade. The Globus concept

originated in DOE/SC research in the late 1990’s on how to enable networks

not just to transmit data but also to make advanced scientific resources (such

as telescopes, microscopes, high-end computers, large-scale physics equipment, and data repositories) accessible to researchers regardless of their location. The result was ‘‘grid computing,’’ made possible by an open suite of software tools called the Globus Toolkit for managing a secure distributed computing environment. Condor, developed by University of Wisconsin researchers with NSF support, is cunning scalable software for maximizing the use

of computing cycles on distributed machines—from small computing clusters

to large-scale grids. By parallelizing tasks, scanning for free cycles on

networked computers, and directing the scheduling of those cycles for jobs,

Condor minimizes idle computer time and speeds certain types of massively

parallel research tasks, such as the identification of effective cellular binding

sites for promising new medicines.

• Cyber threats and malware detection. Two developments funded by

NITRD agencies—the Protected Repository for the Defense of Infrastructure

Against Cyber Threats (PREDICT) and the Cyber Defense Technology Experimental Research (DETER) network—have improved the ability of public- and

private-sector enterprises to understand their cyber vulnerabilities and improve their defenses against cyber attacks. The secure PREDICT archive

makes available to authorized cyber security researchers and developers real

data sets from attacks on U.S. networks. Such data, normally closely held, are

an invaluable resource for designing hardware and software to prevent attacks and/or mitigate damage to systems and networks. The DETER

testbed—a 1,000-node virtual network isolated from the Internet—provides

an equally critical component for improving U.S. cyber security. DETER enables researchers to test innovative security approaches and experiment with

a broad range of hardware and software strategies in a realistic environment.

DARPA plans to develop a more advanced facility to expand upon this important work.

• Efficient and reliable development methods. DOD’s Systems and Software Producibility Collaboration and Experimentation Environment

(SPRUCE) is a three-year collaborative effort among federal, industry, and

academic researchers to establish a hardware/software testbed and evaluation

infrastructure to improve the timeliness, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of

DOD procurements of software-intensive systems such as aircraft.

55

• Improved network performance. NITRD’s Joint Engineering Team (JET)

plays a key year-round role in maintaining U.S. research networks and their

global connections. JET, which includes members from federal agencies, industry, academia, and other groups with an interest in high-performance research networking, coordinates networking activities, operations, and plans

among multiple federal agency operational and research networks. Among its

multiple ongoing responsibilities are: planning for network access points

(NAPS, 12 gigaPoPs, STARLight, etc.); security; coordinating Optical Networking Testbeds; high-performance research connectivity; international connections; traffic monitoring; performance measurement; new technology deployment (e.g., IM); and developing recommended best practices (e.g., 9000

Byte MTU frames).

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Does the draft legislation help to achieve an appropriately balanced portfolio?

If not, what is missing or has been given too much attention?

A1. In the current High-Performance Computing Act as amended, the topic areas

that make up the Program are listed together in Section 101. This allows a balanced

view of the scope of the Program and emphasizes the critical inter-dependencies

across all of the topic areas. I believe the Program has benefited over many years

from this broad balance in the networking and IT R&D portfolio, which recognizes

that hardware innovations are constrained without corresponding advances in software; the use of advanced networks will be limited without improvements in security and reliability; massive data sets will not drive progress if the data cannot be

preserved, accessed, and used for increased understanding; etc.

Rather than continuing this important means for achieving balance, the draft legislation places both cyber-physical systems and long-term, large-scale research in

separate sections rather than in Section 101, suggesting that these topics may be

separate from, rather than integral to, the other elements of the Program. Development and deployment of cyber-physical systems are, for example, heavily dependent

on continuing advances in dynamic mobile networking technologies; high-confidence

methods, techniques, and tools to achieve reliability, verification, validation, and assured security and privacy; and in the scientific foundations of hardware and software. R&D in these topics is germane to multiple NITRD PCAs. Because of these

inter-dependencies and the need for balanced efforts, both cyber-physical systems

and long-term, large-scale research might best be included as integral elements of

Section 101.

Q2. The PCAST Report calls for a number of ways to improve interagency coordination? Do all of you agree with those.recommendations? Do you have additional

ideas on how coordination could be improved?

A2. The PCAST assessment included six recommendations for improved coordination. All six are being addressed by NITRD and the NCO, as summarized briefly

below:

• Develop a strategic plan for the NITRD Program—Currently midway in

the planning process

• Conduct periodic assessments of the NITRD Program Component

Areas and restructure the NITRD Program when warranted—Evaluation of the PCA structure is expected to begin once the new strategic plan is

in place

• Develop public R&D plans or roadmaps—R&D plans are scheduled to be

developed under the new strategic plan upon its completion

• Develop a set of metrics and other indicators of progress for the

NITRD Program—These will be included in the strategic plan and R&D

plans process

• NITRD NCO should develop and implement a plan for supporting the

development, maintenance, and implementation of the NITRD strategic plan—An NCO strategic planning process is underway, with completion expected in Fall 2009

• The NITRD NCO should be more proactive in communicating with

outside groups—

Æ Implemented new policy: All NCO staff travel now includes outreach visit

to academic or commercial counterparts

56

Æ Increased opportunities for public input: Four RFIs issued in current

year; globally webcast public forum for strategic plan

Æ Increased one-on-one meetings with commercial partners (e.g., Telcordia,

Microsoft, and IBM visits)

Æ Explored increased coordination with the Federal CIO Council through

the Federal Agency Administration of Science and Technology Education

and Research (FASTER) Community of Practice

Q3. What are the main challenges facing the education pipeline supplying the workforce for the research community and the information technology industry? In

what ways do you think the NITRD program can address these challenges?

A3. Based on the current reports on this topic and dialogue with experts, I see three

categories of challenges:

• At the K–12 level, the issues are complex. Computer science has often not

been part of the curriculum or, where it has been included, has been focused

on programming and/or computer literacy. Many K–12 teachers have no formal training in computer science. Many schools do not have the resources to

help their teachers and to provide 21st century computing environments (including high-bandwidth Internet access). At all levels, the central role of computation in many scientific fields is not well addressed in the computer

science curriculum today.

• At the undergraduate level, additional efforts are needed to promote and support the participation of women and minorities. If they are not part of the

pipeline in the early years, they will not become part of the skilled IT workforce our country needs to remain competitive.

• Finally, there exists a widespread misperception of computer scientists as

solely programmers, who work in isolation on abstract code—and today are

subject to employment out-sourcing. This misperception of IT career paths

may be especially discouraging to women, but it has also depressed computer

science enrollments over all and has inhibited a wide range of efforts to attract women and minorities to the field. We need to highlight the exciting opportunities in computer science to address important societal and scientific

challenges.

Among the programs to address these challenges are the CPATH and ADVANCE

programs described above, the Department of Energy’s Computational Science Fellows Program, the Broadening Participation in Computing Program at NSF, and

others. Efforts within the computing community include the development of additional components to the computer science Advanced Placement (AP) exam and the

work of the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) to develop model curricula. Efforts to expand on these activities through cooperation and coordination

are described in my response to question 4, below.

Q4. What actions is the NITRD program taking to address computing education

issues, particularly at the K–12 level? What additional agencies and/or resources need to be brought to bear to create the most effective strategies to address these issues?

A4. Education and workforce development have emerged as key elements in our

NITRD strategic planning discussions. As I commented in my response to Chairman

Gordon’s question, a small interagency working group led by SEW is focusing on

these elements of the strategic plan.

In addition, the NITRD NCO is currently exploring the potential for a three-way

partnership to address the education and workforce challenges. In our current

thinking, the elements of this partnership would include:

• NITRD agency program managers, division directors, and others with education/training/workforce investments and/or responsibilities. (Last September’s Collaborative Expedition workshop was designed to create connections

and strengthen ties in this community.)

• Department of Education counterparts with close ties to the education community. (NCO is currently interacting with agency leadership to examine this

possibility.)

• Professional organizations with active programs in computer science education, including curriculum development—e.g., Computer Science Teachers

Association (CSTA) of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), The

Computing Research Association (CRA), the National Science Teachers AssoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
57

ciation (NSTA). (For example, we will meet with an ACM/CSTA delegation in

a few weeks to discuss ideas.)

Q5. What efforts are being made within OSTP to encourage other agencies to become

more involved in the NITRD program and to ensure that those currently participating are pulling their weight?

A5. I have not discussed this matter with the new leadership of OSTP and, thus,

cannot comment on that aspect of your question. However, I and Associate NCO Director, Ernest McDuffie, have taken a number of steps over the last 12 months to

strengthen and expand agency participation in the NITRD Program. We have:

• met with DHS representatives to brief them on the NITRD Program and the

potential value of becoming a core member of the Program (DHS staff already

participate extensively in NITRD activities as valued participating members);

• worked with DOD representatives to forge closer ties to Army, Air Force, and

Navy service research organizations;

• established connections with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and

facilitated their active engagement as participating NITRD constituents; and

• met with representatives of DOE’s CIO Office to brief them on current

NITRD activities.

58

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Peter Lee, Incoming Chair, Computing Research Association (CRA);

Professor and Head, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. One of our witnesses in a previous NITRD hearing called out the oversized role

of the NSF in supporting academic NIT research, noting that this single agency

provides 86 percent of the funding in this area. What do we gain or lose by having a single agency dominate funding? How can we assess whether specialization like this is leading to greater efficiency for the program overall or creates

stovepipes that slow down overall progress?

A1. The two dominant federal agencies in the development of the discipline of computing and the resulting innovation in IT have been the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In addition to the NSF and DARPA, research and development in supercomputing was supported in large part by the Department of Energy (DOE), though much of that funding went to industry or non-academic operations of universities. The fact that these

agencies have had significantly different approaches to funding IT R&D has been

an overall benefit to the discipline. Historically, NSF has focused on funding smaller

awards to the individual investigator; in the process ensuring a broad range of research in the field was performed. DARPA, created in response to the Soviet launch

of Sputnik and charged with insuring the Nation was never caught ‘‘flat-footed’’ by

a technologically superior adversary again, has historically focused on larger awards

and building communities of researchers to address critical research problems—creating centers of excellence, many of which formed the basis of some of the top computer science departments in the country. In addition, funding opportunities at

other mission-oriented agencies—NASA, Department of Energy, Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Research Labs—meant university researchers had a number

of possible outlets for their ideas, and consequently, many good ideas that may have

otherwise gone unfunded found their way into the knowledge base.

But in addition to a diversity of funding sources, the discipline (and, by extension,

the Nation) has been well-served by especially visionary program managers, especially at DARPA, drawn from university and industrial research labs who knew the

discipline well and were given the flexibility to take risks with the research they

supported with their program funds. As the National Research Council noted in the

2002 Innovation in Information Technology report:

This style of funding and management allowed researchers room to pursue new

venues of inquiry. The funding style resulted in advances in areas as diverse

as computer graphics, artificial intelligence, networking, and computer architecture. As that experience illustrates, because unanticipated outcomes of research

are so valuable, federal mechanisms for funding and managing research need

to recognize the inherent uncertainties and build in enough flexibility to accommodate mid-course changes.

Unfortunately, there is significant concern building within the academic computing research community that DARPA has lost much of what made it so important to the discipline by adopting policies that discourage university participation

in defense-related IT R&D. Of particular concern is DARPA’s recent focus on shorter-term research efforts, its implementation of a ‘‘go/no go’’ decision matrix for

DARPA-funded research projects, the classification of research on certain topics (for

example, cyber security, an area in which I know this committee has been particularly active), and restrictions on the participation of foreign nationals (e.g., U.S.

graduate students who are not U.S. citizens).

The idea of ‘‘scheduling’’ breakthroughs or demonstrable results on 12-month

timelines results in research that is evolutionary instead of revolutionary, with potential grantees only proposing research they can be sure will deliver results within

the shorter timeframe.

There are, of course, important reasons for classifying federal research, especially

when it’s clear that the research might reveal our capabilities or vulnerabilities.

However, it should also be understood that there are real costs—including that the

research is unavailable for public dissemination and scrutiny, and that many university researchers, arguably some of the best minds in the country, are no longer

able to contribute to the work. In the case of classifying Defense Department cyber

security research, there is another significant cost to bear as well. The military (and

the government overall) has a huge dependence on our nation’s commercial infraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
59

structure, but classifying the research in a range of areas, including information security, AI, computer vision, embedded networks, and more means that it is largely

unavailable for use in protecting this commercial infrastructure.

A related problem has been the increasing inability of foreign nationals (for example, many graduate students) to participate in some of this type of research. The

restriction of foreign nationals should not be applied blindly, but instead based on

a careful analysis of risk/benefit issues per research topic or project.

Failure to act to broaden the base of support for academic computing research will

jeopardize U.S. leadership in IT, and constrain the pace of U.S. innovation across

the economy, imperiling many of the gains those innovations have enabled.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Does the draft legislation help to achieve an appropriately balanced portfolio?

If not, what is missing or has been given too much attention?

A1. The draft legislation identifies cyber-physical systems (CPS) as an area of opportunity and importance to the Nation’s leadership in information technology. CPS

is clearly going to be extremely important. However, this IT subfield is still in its

infancy, and thus it is critical that the legislation promote a broad definition, going

well beyond the science of computer-controlled physical devices (such as cars, airplanes, and other machine controllers) and into all systems in which IT and the

physical world are tightly coupled. To take just one example, consider a network of

sensors embedded into a natural area, for the purpose of understanding the effects

of climate change. Such systems directly address our nation’s challenges in energy

and the environment, and give a glimpse at the tremendous opportunities in CPS.

An area that has been difficult to address in a coordinated manner is cyber security. There is no doubt that the Nation is at risk, as we have become increasingly

dependent on the reliability and trustworthiness of our networks and information

technology systems. As suggested in the recent report issued by the National Research Council’s CSTB, ‘‘Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace,’’ federal funding for harder, long-term research challenges in cyber security is lacking, with most

funding today being targeted instead towards short-term problems, or on fixing already-existing systems. Almost no funding has been expended on radical new ideas

of system architecture and design of systems that might be more securable yet capable of meeting necessary mission requirements. This has hampered attempts to

build a solid science base for cyber security—something that is sorely needed if we

are to develop the innovative solutions that will protect our IT assets in the future.

Q2. The PCAST Report calls for a number of ways to improve interagency coordination. Do all of you agree with those recommendations? Do you have additional

ideas on how coordination could be improved?

A2. I agree with the recommendations called for in the PCAST Report. The strategic plan that is described in the legislation, as it is developed, should address

interagency coordination directly, with each section of the plan specifying how such

coordination should be achieved, as appropriate.

Q3. What actions is the NITRD program taking to address computing education

issues, particularly at the K–12 level? What additional agencies and/or resources need to be brought to bear to create the most effective strategies to address these issues?

A3. On March 17, 2009, CRA joined with the Association for Computing Machinery

and the National Center for Women and Information Technology in providing a series of recommendations to the Committee to bolster computing education in the

NITRD program. The three organizations believe the current bill could expand and

better leverage and coordinate existing education efforts within the NITRD program.

Specifically, they recommended that the bill:

• Promote computing education, particularly at the K–12 level, and increased

exposure to computing education and research opportunities for women and

minorities as core elements of the NITRD program;

• Require the NITRD program to address education and diversity programs in

its strategic planning and roadmapping process;

• Expand efforts at the National Science Foundation to focus on computer

science education, particularly at the K–12 level through broadening the

Math Science Partnership program; and,

60

• Enlist the Department of Education and its resources and reach in addressing

computer science education issues.

Computing and the innovations it yields are critical to the domestic economy.

However, the current NIT workforce pipeline will not satisfy the demands of an industry that includes some of the country’s most innovative and successful companies. It is crucial that K–12 students are exposed to computer science education.

The PCAST report noted some of the concerns of the computing community in this

regard, arguing that K–12 science and mathematics preparation is weak, and students and parents are exposed to a negatively skewed view of computer science and

engineering. This was reinforced by a recent National Academies study of the information technology research and development ecosystem, which says, in part:

Concerns about the generation of talent are exacerbated by the poor state of the

kindergarten though grade 12 (K–12) IT/computing education system in the

United States. In its report The New Education Imperative: Improving High

School Computer Science Education, the Computer Science Teachers Association

correctly assess the situation as one in which knowledge of computer science is

as essential as any of the traditional sciences, but in which curriculums, leadership, funding, professional development for teachers, and fluency objectives for

students are all deficient.

The diversity of the pipeline also remains a major concern. Participation rates

among women and minorities in computer science are among the lowest of any scientific field. In 2008, only 17 percent of Advanced Placement (AP) computer science

test-takers were women, even though women represented 55 percent of all AP testtakers. Participation in computer science AP tests among under-represented minorities has increased in the past decade, but it is only at 11 percent, compared to 19

percent of all AP test-takers.

NITRD has a Program Component Area (PCA) that includes education activities

and specifically mentions the 21st Century workforce and K–12 education as strategic priorities. However there is little specific attention to these issues within the

PCA or prioritization within the NITRD program in general. Most education funding

is from NSF. The Department of Education does not participate in the NITRD program at all. And, the NSF activities appear to lack involvement with some of the

key programs within NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate, which are

focused on strengthening K–12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics

education, including the Math Science Partnership program.

The public investments in K–12 education are largely based on outdated visions

of education, curriculum and the skills that high school graduates should master.

Simply put, we must do more to strengthen computer science and related curricula

to expose and attract a more diverse population of students to computing and to

support teachers of computer science at the K–12 level. Given the national education and workforce needs, it is short-sighted to rely on a relatively small federal

agency and effort to address K–12 issues in computer science education. It is imperative that specific investments in computing education are authorized and funded.

Addressing this in the NITRD reauthorization would be a welcome and appropriate

step toward strengthening the computer science education pipeline and supporting

the critical innovations it brings to industry and the economy.

61

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Deborah Estrin, Director, Center for Embedded Networked Sensing;

Professor of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. One of our witnesses in a previous NITRD hearing called out the oversized role

of the NSF in supporting academic NIT research, noting that this single agency

provides 86 percent of the funding in this area. What do we gain or lose by having a single agency dominate funding? How can we assess whether specialization like this is leading to greater efficiency for the program overall or creates

stovepipes that slow down overall progress?

A1. NSF has enough diversity internally that I have not seen evidence of stovepipes

or a slowing down of progress. They have been a tremendously affective steward of

the IT R&D dollars and process. They have been particularly effective when they

have had adequate funds to support multi-disciplinary and experimentally oriented

research such as under the ITR program. However, it is a huge burden on NSF to

be the only game in town for IT research and given the clearly evidenced importance of this technology to all aspects of economy and society, additional funding

through partner agencies is warranted.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Does the draft legislation help to achieve an appropriately balanced portfolio?

If not, what is missing or has been given too much attention?

A1. I believe that the draft legislation does in fact represent an appropriately balanced research portfolio.

Q2. The PCAST Report calls for a number of ways to improve interagency coordination? Do all of you agree with those recommendations? Do you have additional

ideas on how coordination could be improved?

A2. As to interagency coordination, I would highly encourage a continued emphasis

in this direction and suggest seeking input from representatives from the research

community (such as those who provided testimony at this hearing, as well as from

domain scientists representing the other mission oriented agencies) as to particular

projects and opportunities that seem most promising from a technological opportunity and scientific need perspective.

62

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Amit Yoran, Chief Executive Officer, NetWitness Corporation

Questions submitted by Chair Bart Gordon

Q1. In your written testimony you indicate that the Department of Homeland Security is investing approximately $19.5 million in cyber security research. Do you

think DHS could leverage their investment more effectively if they were to become a full member of the NITRD program? Are research areas that DHS is not

actively pursuing that they should be?

A1. While only a small amount, the DHS investment is efficiently invested and

NITRD membership would not impact their investment significantly. DHS participates in all of the NITRD activities and so is coordinating within the interagency

process. The DHS S&T investment is very broad for the funding they have. They

are limited more by their budget than in the ability to pursue other research areas.

Q2. In your written testimony you indicate that while certain areas of research

should remain classified the vast majority of networking and information technology research should be unclassified. Can you describe what research should

remain unclassified and how classification has affected the networking and information technology R&D ecosystem?

A2. The only research and development that should be classified is that which is

specific to certain operational missions. Because most academic and small business

researchers do not have clearances, they are unable to participate in classified research programs. Over the past decade research in this area has been classified,

leaving out the innovative ideas of small business and academia. Additionally, classified research seldom results in commercial products, which has also impacted the

transition of government-funded research into the marketplace. Most classified research efforts should be transitioned to unclassified programs and only specific use

cases remain classified. This transition will lead to better research and result in

greater benefit to the cyber defense mission.

Q3. In your testimony you state that the U.S. cannot match the large-scale investments China and India are making in networking and information technology

R&D, but we can maintain our leadership through innovation. Can you compare

the level and types of investments being made by our international competitors?

What strategic investments should we be making to maintain our innovative

edge?

A3. The OECD recently ranked the United States 22nd in the percentage of GDP

devoted to non-defense research. According to Steven Ezell of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), ‘‘compared with other industrialized democracies, the U.S. Government invests relatively little in innovation-promotion efforts.

In fiscal year 2006, the Federal Government spent a total of $2.7 billion, or 0.02

percent of gross domestic product, on its principal innovation programs and agencies

[.]. . . if the United States wanted to match Finland’s outlays per dollar of GDP,

it would have to invest $34 billion per year.’’ In an article in Physics Today published in late 2006, Cong Cao, Richard Suttmeier, and Denis Fred Simon analyzed

China’s 15-year science and technology plan. They point out that, ‘‘according to the

‘‘Medium- to Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology,’’

China will invest 2.5 percent of its increasing gross domestic product in R&D by

2020, up from 1.34 percent in 2005; raise the contributions to economic growth from

technological advances to more than 60 percent, and limit its dependence on imported technology to no more than 30 percent.’’ This plan also includes ambitious

goals in the areas of developing Chinese scientific thought leadership and domestic

Chinese innovation. While this is covering the broad spectrum of Science and Technology, it is clear that these countries are making the necessary strategic investments. To start with, we should increase our government funded research programs

by an order of magnitude. Such an investment would revitalize the entire R&D ecosystems, including small business, venture capital, etc. While we cannot match dollar for dollar the investment of China and other nations, we can rely on innovative

approaches and entrepreneurial functions in the United States to yield more efficient results with the funds we do chose to invest.

63

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. One of our witnesses in a previous NITRD hearing called out the oversized role

of the NSF in supporting academic NIT research, noting that this single agency

provides 86 percent of the funding in this area. What do we gain or lose by having a single agency dominate funding? How can we assess whether specialization like this is leading to greater efficiency for the program overall or creates

stovepipes that slow down overall progress?

A1. The major drawback of having this single agency dominate the funding in this

area is that NSF funds only basic research solely with academics and non-profits.

Therefore, a majority of the funded research never makes it into the development,

transition, and commercialization pipelines. Other government agencies, such as

DHS S&T, have broad programs that includes the full research, development, test,

evaluation, and transition (RDTE&T) spectrum and these programs are hampered

when the majority of funding is given to NSF. Assessment of efficiency in the R&D

environment is a difficult task. Current NSF assessment is usually based on the

number of academic papers written and the number of granted degrees. These statistics do not provide a measure of progress. Other agencies can measure the impact

by number of products developed, transitioned, and commercialized, which is an excellent measure for those program, but not applicable to NSF. There are many

sources for development capital in the United States, of which the Federal Government is one. The government does have a larger role to play in fundamental research, where commercial entities typically investment with shorter-term expectations of commercialization.

Q2. You stated in your testimony that ‘‘care must be taken to no expend limited resources trying to enter the security product development business, especially via

classified venues.’’ Please elaborate. Are you concerned that DHS and/or other

agencies may be attempting to develop their own cyber security hardware and

software and sell it to (or force it upon) the private sector?

A2. DHS does not currently have a classified research program. The concern is that

other agencies, e.g., DARPA, are creating ‘‘Government-Off-The-Shelf (GOTS)’’ products that are competing with the private sector. Additionally, there are intelligence

agencies that are producing GOTS products and requiring their usage by other

agencies as part of the current CNCI program. Many of these technologies are already available from the private sector and the government is not considering these

solutions, instead they are spending their limited funds to create their own competing solutions. Furthermore, any such GOTS solutions are expected to be developed in classified environments where any possible benefits they make possible are

not delivered to the private sector. The intelligence community should work with

private industry to better refine the products and capabilities to address the government cyber requirements. Use cases and signature sets can remain classified so as

to protect sources and methods. The resulting improvement in security products will

better enable the private sector and critical infrastructures to better protect themselves.

Q3. The White House is publicly calling for a ‘‘national public-private partnership’’

on cyber security, which some believe may focus on regulating private sector

cyber security standards and protocols. Separately, legislation has been introduced in the Senate that would ‘‘establish enforceable cyber security standards’’

that ‘‘would be applicable to both government and the private sector.’’ Do you

think this is a good idea? Why or why not?

A3. The government should be concerned about protecting its infrastructure and

government data. As the largest consumer of IT and IT security products, any good

standards and practices that the government requires will be embedded eagerly into

security products and assist private industry in better protecting itself. In isolation

the private sector has other interests, including profitability which sometime preclude it from aggressively adopting new security standards. Public-private partnerships are necessary going forward, but they can only be effective if they are clearly

defined, with measurable objectives and clear value propositions for all participants.

Q4. How successful have the Federal agencies been at figuring out ways to interact

with one another through computer systems, particularly since September 11,

2001, when it became evident how important it could be to homeland security?

A4. The information sharing environments of the government are still not working

effectively. The recent resignation of Rod Beckstrom described some of the continuing problems in this area, some of which are technical and others cultural and

political. In addition, the sharing of information with the private sector has not adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:23 Jul 10, 2009 Jkt 048168 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\040109\48168.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

vanced very far. There have been many instances where the private sector has had

information, but have not shared it with the government because there is no value

proposition for sharing, and in many instances significant exposure.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Does the draft legislation help to achieve an appropriately balanced portfolio?

If not, what is missing or has been given too much attention?

A1. Because the National Coordination Office (NCO) and the NITRD program is

solely an oversight activity, the legislation doesn’t guarantee a balanced portfolio.

Each of the agencies that participate in the NITRD program has their own budgets,

none of which are ‘‘controlled’’ by the NCO and NITRD. To truly force a balanced

portfolio across all agencies, there needs to be some centralized entity that has the

ability to control agency budgets, thus, ensuring that agencies do not focus only on

their needs or ‘‘pet projects.’’

Q2. The PCAST Report calls for a number of ways to improve interagency coordination. Do all of you agree with those recommendations? Do you have additional

ideas on how coordination could be improved?

A2. For the most part these recommendations are good. However, there doesn’t appear to be significant coordination between OSTP and the NCO and this is then not

reflected to the interagency working groups of the NITRD.

(65)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

66

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMIT YORAN

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Science and Technology on ‘‘Networking and Information Technology Research and Development.’’

My name is Amit Yoran and I am the CEO of the NetWitness Corporation, a company providing next generation cyber security monitoring technologies to the U.S.

Government and the private sector, and in delivering critical infrastructure cyber

protection to the Nation. I also serve as a member of the CSIS Cyber Commission

advising the 44th Presidency and on numerous security industry advisory bodies.

I have served as the first Director of the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD)

in standing up the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US–CERT)

and Einstein program at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as CEO and

advisor to In-Q-Tel, as founder and CEO of Riptech, an innovative cyber security

company, and as manager of the Vulnerability Analysis Program (VAP) of the U.S.

Department of Defense’s Computer Emergency Response Team (DOD CERT). I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the United States

Military Academy at West Point and a Master of Science in Computer Science from

The George Washington University.

Over the past fifteen years, automation and the use of computer systems has permeated every aspect of modern life. Our nation is entirely reliant upon computer

systems and networked technologies in everything from national security and intelligence activities to commerce and business operations to power production and

transmission to personal communications and correspondences.

Today’s Internet has become one of the unifying fabrics driving globalization at

an increasingly accelerated pace. Beyond its role as the pervasive communications

medium, computer based automation and technology are the driving forces behind

every major industrial and economic base in the world. Simply put, computer technologies and communications represent the greatest threat to and opportunity for

our nation.

Networking and Information Technology Research and Development

(NITRD)

The United States leads the world in networking and information technology

(NIT). In recent years competitors in China and India have been investing strategically in large scale NIT research and development efforts. The U.S. leadership position is primarily driven by and can only be maintained by continuing with a broadly

diffused and highly innovative industrial base in networking and information technologies. Simply put, we will lose if our efforts are reduced to long-term direct and

linear competition. The competitive landscape overseas includes large scale, well coordinated and deliberate investment into NIT research, development and education

programs, which we cannot match. It is, in fact, our innovation which is necessary

for continued leadership in technology. The NITRD program, which invests approximately $3.5 billion, is a key component by which the U.S. Government contributes

to defining the federal need and contributing to national efforts in these areas.

Research or Development Balance and Focus

In order for NITRD to provide the maximum benefit to the government and the

Nation, it must work hand in glove with industry ingenuity and entrepreneurship.

Every year through corporate programs and private industry, billions of dollars are

invested in improving network and information technologies. According to the National Venture Capital Association, ‘‘Since 1970 venture capitalists have invested

more than $466 Billion into more than 60,700 companies.’’ Most of these investments are iterative improvements to technologies and methods which are known

and are intended to develop and commercialize them, thereby making them broadly

available. U.S. Government networking and information technology needs align very

closely with those of private industry. These areas of alignment are broad, including

large scale processing, networking and storage platforms, human computer interaction, data and knowledge management, software and systems design, cyber security and information assurance (which include resiliency, integrity and confidentiality), and workforce issues. Only in isolated instances are Government needs

unique or do they differ from those of industry. In cases where they differ slightly

or in cases where the government-specific requirements represent a significant

enough commercial opportunity, private industry will evolve to meet those unique

needs as well. Technologies developed by private industry not only fuel economic

growth, they provide for technologies better supported in the field, more nimble to

evolve as requirements change and ultimately lower the total cost of ownership.

However, only in rare instances does the private sector invest in fundamental or

67

long-term research activities, which must remain the focus of Federal Government

R&D activities.

Classified Versus Unclassified Research and Development Activities

NITRD funds unclassified activities. Nearly all U.S. Government funding for NIT

research should occur at an unclassified level. In certain areas government-use

cases of technology must remain legitimately classified, but the fundamental research behind these networking and information technology efforts must occur at

the unclassified level. The vast majority of promising researchers do not hold adequate security clearances, which serves to significantly limit the talent pool for classified research. Fundamental research efforts when classified also prevent the Nation from leveraging the innovation outside of the privileged few. This holds true

for adoption by the private sector, NIT advantage and growth in private industry

and consequently also a decrease in overall economic efficiency and competitiveness

of the Nation. Classified research programs lack the adequate public review and debate necessary to assure that the programs are designed optimally, contain the

highest level of innovation, and are well-aligned with and informed by the total body

of knowledge of the NIT community. In the rare cases where R&D projects must

be classified, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),

which has the appropriate clearances, should work to ensure proper coordination

and non-duplication with unclassified R&D efforts.

Cyber Security R&D

The current paradigm in cyber security is not likely to change significantly

through private sector efforts in areas such as improved security products, monitoring and incident response capabilities. While the private sector makes significant

investment in needed incremental product, application and protocol improvements;

fundamental research is required to meaningfully improve the security of the cyber

and critical infrastructures.

According to the CSIS Commission work, ‘‘The Federal Government plans to

spend about $143 billion in 2009 on R&D. We estimate that two-tenths of one percent of that will go to cyber security.’’ An inherently government investment must

drive long-term research agendas in cyber security, where private sector focus on

shorter-term commercialization limits gains to those of a more tactical and incremental nature.

NITRD programs will receive $3.5 billion for research and development, and cyber

R&D will receive approximately $300 million. Beyond the $260 million reported by

NITRD as being focused on cyber R&D, the Department of Homeland Security allocated an additional $19.5 million for 2009 in S&T programs for cyber that is not

included in NITRD figures. Funding for research and development is politically complex and many of the groups who should be benefiting from it are not. A $300 million investment in cyber security is inadequate. DHS’ embarrassing lack of attention

to cyber programs simply fails any semblance of judgment and mocks their role as

sector specific or lead agency on cyber matters. As cyber R&D portfolio manager at

DHS, Doug Maughan has been very successful given an untenable lack of resources.

The Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative (CNCI) calls for increased near- and

longer-term R&D activities. Care must be taken to not expend limited resources trying to enter the security product development business, especially via classified

venues. Rather, the government must guide and assist in articulating functional requirements for the development of technologies that can help us best address the

sophisticated cyber threat environment. These requirements must inform a broad

reform of our sourcing methods for networking and information technologies so that

they are procured, deployed and maintained in a more secured state. By appropriately relying on industry for development, we can avoid the problem of government development efforts stranding enterprise cyber defenders without the benefits

of product management, maintenance or professional support. The resulting improvement in security technologies will not only benefit the government in protecting its systems, but will also benefit the Nation’s critical infrastructure operators and rest of the shared Internet fabric that joins our digital world.

A national research and development technology agenda must both identify the

most promising ideas and describe the strategy that brings those ideas into fruition,

recognizing that these activities must work hand in glove with private industry. The

agenda must also jump-start a multi-disciplinary effort. By incorporating other disciplines that are greatly affected by cyber, we can better understand the security

implications of their reliance on cyber and also help identify creative methods for

addressing critical shortcomings.

68

The INFOSEC Research Council’s ‘‘Hard Problems’’ list identifies several areas in

need of immediate funding and action;

1. Global-Scale Identity—Identification required to produce an infrastructure

capable of and reliable for commercial and national security purposes

2. Insider Threat—All security technologies and approaches rely practically on

modeled behavior of external bad actors. This runs contrary to a majority of

the security data, which shows damaged caused by insiders to be orders of

magnitude more frequent and costly

3. Availability of Time-Critical Systems—Implementing effective security for

systems where timeliness, performance and availability are higher priority

services than security (i.e., control systems)

4. Scalable Secure Systems—The development of large-scale secure systems

where individual components or dependencies may be flawed or compromised

5. Situational Understanding and Attack Attribution—Determining the current

state of security for large scale and complex systems and being able to conduct assessments and provide attribution for security incidents

6. Information Provenance—Developing systems and methods to determine and

manage the integrity of information and information systems

7. Security with Privacy—Designing methods and processes to improve security

while preserving or enhancing privacy through granularity of activities and

systems improvements

8. Enterprise-Level Security Metrics—Scalable methods to determine or represent security or risk are needed in order to optimize resource allocation

and decision-making.

Conclusions

In the areas of networking and information technologies Congress and the Obama

Administration can meaningfully improve the impact of federal investment.

1. Focus on fundamental research that is currently unfunded, but necessary to

assure America’s long-term competitiveness.

2. Except in rare instances, networking and information technology research

and development should be conducted in an unclassified fashion.

3. While spending more on cyber security research and development activities

in their aggregate is desirable, a redistribution of resources from government

custom cyber security technology development to research activities would

substantively increase the likelihood of discovering the paradigm changing

methods which might take us out of the current cycle of tactical cat and

mouse increments.

4. The Department of Homeland Security should invest meaningfully in cyber

security research and development. The Intelligence Advanced Research

Projects Activity (IARPA) should focus on top intelligence community problems, such as attack attribution, which may represent a hard problem, but

does not represent significant overlap with the research needs of many other

federal department and agency missions. Nor is attribution a research requirement of the private sector.

5. In a much needed redistribution of priorities from tactical government development efforts to the funding of fundamental research, a series of creative

and lower cost programs can help the government better understand and leverage the emerging development efforts of private industry. As an innovative example of one such program, In-Q-Tel, a government funded, non-profit,

venture capital entity actively reviews hundreds of innovative, venture capital-backed, emerging technologies each year from around the Nation and selectively brings them to the Intelligence Community. These technologies can

address near-term requirements or solutions the IC would otherwise likely

fund costly development efforts to address. This innovative model not only

assures efforts are informed by private industry, it also helps the government leverage capital already invested in the development of new technologies and spurs economic growth. Such innovative approaches can be used

for greater alignment with industry.

BIOGRAPHY FOR AMIT YORAN

Amit Yoran serves as the Chairman and CEO of NetWitness Corporation, a leading provider of network security analytic products. He is a Commissioner of the

69

CSIS Commission on Cyber Security advising the 44th Presidency and serves on

several industry and national advisory bodies. Prior to NetWitness Mr. Yoran

served Director of the National Cyber Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security, and as CEO and advisor to In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the

CIA. Formerly he served as the Vice President of Worldwide Managed Security

Services at the Symantec Corporation. Mr. Yoran was the co-founder of Riptech, a

market leading IT security company, and served as it’s CEO until the company was

acquired by Symantec in 2002. He formerly served an officer in the United States

Air Force in the Department of Defense’s Computer Emergency Response Team.

Mr. Yoran is an independent director on the boards of innovative security technology companies Boards, including; Guardium, Digital Sandbox, and IronKey. He

previously served on the board of Cyota until the company’s acquisition by RSA in

2006, Guidance Software (GUID) through the company’s successful IPO in 2007 and

as an advisor to Intruvert Networks until the company’s acquisition by McAfee in

2003.

Mr. Yoran received a Master of Science degree from the George Washington University and Bachelor of Science from the United States Military Academy at West

Point.

Æ