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

61–958 2010

INVESTING IN THE FUTURE: R&D NEEDS TO 

MEET AMERICA’S ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHALLENGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 

Serial No. 110–48 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Dr. Susan Hockfield, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ............ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Dr. Stephen Forrest, Vice President for Research, University of Michigan ....... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 78 

Dr. Daniel Kammen, Professor, University of California at Berkley .................. 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Dr. Jack Fellows, Vice President, University Corporation for Atmospheric 

Research ................................................................................................................ 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 84 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

INVESTING IN THE FUTURE: 

R&D NEEDS TO MEET AMERICA’S 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHALLENGE 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Cleaver and McNerney. 

Staff present: Ana Unruh-Cohen and Jonathan Phillips. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all for being here at the hearing that 

we are going to have today on Investing in the Future: R&D Needs 

to Meet America’s Energy and Climate Challenges in the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

America is a Nation of innovators. From the Founding Fathers 

to the YouTube creators, our country has always cultivated entrepreneurs with an idea about the next big thing. Since World War 

II, the Federal Government has recognized that it is in the Nation’s 

interest to invest in fundamental research and development to help 

keep the economic engine of innovation running. 

Today, we are confronted with challenges to our national security, our economic security and our environmental security that all 

stem from our over-reliance on fossil fuels. The imperative to move 

to a clean, renewable energy system is clear. The need for robust 

science to guide our way is obvious. 

Because of past investments in energy and climate research and 

development, we have the tools and technologies to begin tackling 

the climate crisis now. Energy saving technologies abound. Alternative energy sources are looming. Wind, solar and geothermal energy sources are taking market share away from fossil fuel. Hurricane tracking and forecasting helped us prepare for the arrival of 

Gustav, Hanna and now Ike. But in order to achieve the significant 

reductions in carbon dioxide necessary to avoid truly catastrophic 

climate change and respond to the serious impacts that we can no 

longer avoid, we must invest in further research and development. 

The United States once led the world in the development and 

production of renewable energy technologies. Just as the United 

States once led the world in broadband technologies. After years of 

neglect, we are now losing these races, struggling to stay close to 

our competitors in Japan, Europe and even China. The bitter truth 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

is that now we are buying technology from abroad that in many 

cases were developed here in our own universities. In 25 years, 

U.S. energy R&D has fallen from 10 percent of total R&D down to 

2 percent. Instead of building our R&D endowment, we have been 

slowly chipping away at it. This trend must be reversed. 

Some have argued that it is premature for the United States to 

adopt a domestic cap on global warming pollution because we lack 

the technology to achieve it. That view is wrong as a factual matter, but, more fundamentally, it reflects a view of America that I 

do not recognize. As we have heard at numerous Select Committee 

hearings, technologies exist now that will allow us to make tremendous progress. Enacting legislation will provide a driver for the deployment of the existing technology and an incentive for the development of new technology. 

America is a can-do nation. We answered the call to put a man 

on the moon, to crack the human genome, to build a national information infrastructure. With the resources generated by a cap and 

invest system, we can increase our energy and climate R&D investment. 

Climate legislation will also send a strong signal to our most 

vital resource, our Nation’s students. As we have seen here on Capitol Hill and today’s witnesses from our top universities can attest, 

young people today are bursting with ideas on how to bring about 

the green energy revolution. When I was a student, the Soviets’ 

launch of Sputnik made us all want to study science. The government responded with significant investments in R&D and trained 

the next generation of scientists and engineers. 

Once again, there is a threat from above us, the dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is time for us to respond 

to that threat and unleash America’s creative genius on this global 

challenge. 

We heard the delegates at the Republican convention chant 

‘‘drill, baby, drill’’. What the Nation should really be chanting to 

our students, scientists and engineers is ‘‘dream, baby, dream’’. 

And in order to make these dreams a reality, we must increase our 

investment in energy and climate research and development and 

adopt the policies to make it clear that the green energy revolution 

has begun. 

That completes the opening statement of the Chair. We now turn 

to recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, for 

his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 61958A.001
4 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 61958A.002
5 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The title of this hearing is Investing in the Future: R&D Needs 

to Meet America’s Energy and Climate Challenges; and I frankly 

can’t think of a more important hearing or a more pathetic situation in the United States when I consider our R&D budget. We are 

investing I think less than one-sixth trying to save the planet 

Earth than we did trying to get to the moon. And, you know, Stephen Hawking said we should prepare to go to other planets. I 

would prefer just to save this one, and I think we can even do it 

cheaper. 

I had some good news and bad news. A couple of weeks ago, I 

went out to Golden, Colorado, and looked at the National Renewable Lab there, which is a great place. It was really intriguing, saw 

some amazing things. Saw two plug-in hybrid cars parked underneath about a 15-by-20 PV cell array, and the two plug-in hybrids 

could be powered by 8 hours apiece just on that array that could 

fit on top of your rooftop. It was pretty encouraging to see the 

amazing things going on there. 

But what I noted about the National Renewable Energy Lab was 

that it was about the size of a small junior high school. It would 

fit into the janitorial locker of the Pentagon, and it was sort of the 

focus of the Nation’s efforts to save the planet from, you know, potential doom due to global warming and all the security threats we 

have. And it really put in perspective to me how sad our R&D 

budget is. 

Just—if I could hold up this chart here. 

This is a comparison of the charts showing the R&D budget for 

our Defense Department, showing, from 1960, the spike up to 

about $84 billion. This is the R&D budget for our security issues, 

which is obviously important. 

The middle chart shows our R&D budget in health care that has gone up from, you know, 1 or 2 in ’60 up to about $28 billion now. 

And then you compare it to our entire energy budget—this budget is not just for clean energy but our entire energy budget for everything, dirty coal, everything else. It is now at about $3.5 billion, 

20 times less than our DOD budget. And arguably the best thing 

we can do for our security is rid ourselves from foreign oil. And yet 

we have this pathetically small—it has actually gone down since 

the mid ’80s. You can see this decline from here to here. 

So even though we have this triple threat—security, global 

warming and job loss—we have a pathetic R&D budget; and this 

has to be ramped up exponentially, I believe, to take advantage of 

the technologies that are now in pre-commercialization stage. 

So I think this is a very timely hearing. We have a lot of work 

to do, and we have got to have a source of funding for this R&D 

program. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There has been a great deal of discussion, certainly on Capitol 

Hill, with regard to the need for encouraging the utilization of renewables like wind and biomass and solar. And the tragedy—and 

I think my two colleagues have already mentioned—is that the 

R&D spending has been abysmal, and I think one of the roles that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

this committee should play is continuing to sound the alarm in addition to securing as much factual information as possible. 

Martin Luther King in 1966 said, it may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transgression is not the noisiness 

of the so-called bad people but the appalling silence of the good 

people. It may be that our generation may have to report that our 

generation did not do what it should do. We need to speak louder 

as the children of light than the children of darkness. 

And so I think that we must continue to call out what we see 

as a diabolical misdirection of our Nation. We are not spending the 

kind of money that we need to spend on research and development. 

If we are, in fact, serious about saving this planet—and I am. I 

have children, and I want all of them to have children, and I would 

like for them to have children—then I think we need to do what 

is necessary. There is no nation on this planet with the capability 

of doing what the United States can do. We are simply not doing 

it. 

So I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 61958A.003
8 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome the very distinguished panel here this morning, discussing an issue that I feel very strongly and passionately 

about. I spent my entire career in the new energy technology business, and I had the opportunity and privilege of participating in 

the development of wind energy technology from its very infancy 

into what it is now, a successful business. So I see that as an example of the kind of opportunities that are available for our young 

men and women who get involved and are willing to do the hard 

work that it takes to master these sciences. 

In order to inspire them, we need to be willing to spend the 

money here in the Federal Government. We have authorized a doubling of R&D budgets over the next 10 years, but the appropriations aren’t following those authorizations. So we are not meeting 

from the Congress, from the United States government, we are not 

meeting our responsibilities. And we need to have a panel of such 

experts to convince us to do that. So please feel free to say what 

needs to be said. Inspire our young people to participate, and let’s 

get the show on the road. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

All time for opening statements has been completed. 

I would now like to recognize our first witness, Dr. Susan 

Hockfield, the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During her time at MIT Dr. Hockfield has encouraged collaborative work across traditional discipline boundaries in order to 

pioneer new areas of interdisciplinary study and keep the Institute 

at the forefront of innovation. She has won many awards. 

It is our honor to have you with us here today. Doctor, whenever 

you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN HOCKFIELD, PRESIDENT, 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Markey, members of the 

committee. On behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

I am grateful for the chance to highlight the overwhelming importance of funding basic energy research. I will echo the comments 

of all of yours and my own. 

As you know, since before World War II, MIT has served the Nation as an honest broker on complex technical issues and also as 

a source of breakthrough research. In the past year, as part of the 

MIT initiative on energy, we have delivered landmark reports on 

coal, nuclear and geothermal energy, which have helped to inform 

congressional action. Our faculty is now preparing similar reports 

on cap and trade policy, on solar energy, on natural gas, on nuclear 

infrastructure and waste disposal and overall energy technology 

policy, as well as continuing our pioneering work on technologies 

that will help make those options real. 

Today, however, I am here to talk about the research funding required to achieve an energy revolution. 

We all know the United States is tangled in what we call a triple 

knot of difficult problems. First, we have a shaky economy that has 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

been battered by volatile energy prices, a loss of good jobs and 

threats to our global technology leadership. Second, we face a geopolitical situation weighed down by issues of energy consumption 

and security. And, third, there is mounting evidence that global climate change is upon us. 

Each knot is daunting on its own, and the three are profoundly 

tied together. Fortunately, I believe that we have the power to loosen all of these knots at once, with a dramatic new level of Federal 

investment in energy R&D. If one advance could transform America’s prospect, it will be having a range of clean, renewable and low 

carbon energy technologies ready to power our cars, our buildings, 

and our industries at scale, while creating jobs and protecting the 

planet. 

If we want to own those future technologies, there is only one 

path; and it is research. Yet in the last several decades, Federal 

funding for energy research has dwindled to the point of irrelevance. In 1980, 10 percent of Federal research dollars went to energy; and today, when we really need energy answers, it is an embarrassing 2 percent. From 1980 to 2005, the major OECD countries also diminished their investments but at an average of 39 percent. But in the U.S. our cuts were more drastic. We reduced R&D 

support by 58 percent. 

And we cannot count on private industry to do the job either. 

Since 1980, research investments by U.S. energy companies paralleled the drop in public research. By 2004, corporate R&D stood 

at just $1.2 billion in today’s dollars. And while this level might 

suit cost-efficient, mature technologies around fossil fuel-based energy, it is wildly out of step with any industry that depends on innovation. 

Pharmaceutical companies invest 18 percent of their revenues in 

R&D. Semiconductor firms invest 16 percent. Even the auto industry invests 3.3 percent. But U.S. energy companies invest less than 

a quarter of 1 percent of revenues in R&D. With that level investment, we can’t expect an energy revolution. And while we would— 

and we do—welcome a recent surge in venture funding for green 

technologies, the fact is that venture money flows not to revolutionary research but to near-market-ready ideas, the very end of 

the ‘‘D’’ in R&D. 

What is the lesson here? It is a simple one. It is that while industry must support development and commercialization, only government can prime the pump of research. Congress funded the basic 

research that spawned the IT revolution and the biotech revolution. 

Today, to spark an energy revolution, Congress must lead again. 

Now why should you or the taxpayers believe that this investment will work? It is because the same kind of research investment 

has paid off so spectacularly before. I could call on any number of 

examples, but let me just give you one. 

Over the past 30 years, Congress has allowed the NIH—has supported the NIH to invest $4 per year per American in cardiac research. That investment has cut death from stroke and heart attack by 63 percent. Imagine the same payoff measured in electric 

cars, safe nuclear technology or a smart new grid. The potential 

here from the economy to global security to the climate is absolutely boundless. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

Yet of course we are not the only ones to have noticed. If we fail 

to make major strategic investments in energy research now, we 

will swiftly forfeit the advantage to our competitors. From China 

and India to Germany and Japan, other countries have the money 

and the motivation and they are chasing the technology almost as 

fast as we are. We must make sure in the energy technology markets of the future we have the power to invent, produce and sell 

and not the obligation to buy. 

So how much should we invest in energy R&D? Let’s start with 

how much or, frankly, how little the Federal Government spends 

today. 

We saw your charts, Congressman; and I will say—just repeat it 

with some numbers. 

The total depends on which programs you count. But recognized authorities put the number for 2006 at between $2.4 and $3.4 billion. Just to scale that for comparison, it is less than half of what 

our major pharmaceutical company spends on R&D every year, less 

than one half of every company’s expenditures. In today’s dollars, 

it is about 2 percent of the total price of the Apollo program. 

A range of experts, including the business-led Council on Competitiveness, reports Federal energy research must climb to 3 or 

even 10 times the current level. In my view, the Nation needs to 

increase energy R&D sharply, moving promptly to triple the current rates and then increasing further as DOE builds the capacity 

to translate basic research to the marketplace. 

To establish firm funding guidelines, I believe that industry, government and universities must come together to create a detailed 

energy R&D roadmap. Speaking for MIT and I know for other research universities, we would be honored to help design a strategic 

plan. 

Let me close with a short vignette. 

In 1940, when Germany invaded France, President Roosevelt had 

a visit from a man named Vannevar Bush, who was then Chair of 

the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics and was formerly 

Vice President and Dean of Engineering at MIT. His message to 

President Roosevelt was simple. For America to win the war, it had 

no choice but to make aggressive, focused investments in basic 

science. 

The case was so compelling, President Roosevelt approved it in 

10 minutes. From radar to the Manhattan Project, the investments 

in innovation that decision unleashed were the military tools that 

won the war. What is more, that same Presidential decision 

launched the enduring partnership between the Federal Government and the Nation’s great research universities, a partnership 

that has vastly enhanced America’s military capabilities and national security. It has launched many of our most important industries, produced countless medical advances and spawned virtually 

all of the technologies that define our modern quality of life. 

Vannevar Bush’s essential insight was his appreciation for the 

value of basic research in powering innovation. I believe that we 

stand on the verge of a global energy technology revolution; and 

the question before us is, will America lead it and reap the rewards? Or will we surrender the advantage to other countries with 

clearer vision? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

Today, as we face the deeply linked challenges of economic insecurity, energy insecurity and global climate change, we should see 

in this little bit of history a profoundly hopeful, practical path to 

America’s future through rapid, sustained, broad-based and intensive investment in basic energy research. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hockfield, very, very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Hockfield follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 61958A.004
13 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 61958A.005
14 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 61958A.006
15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 61958A.007
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Dr. Stephen Forrest, who is 

the Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan. He 

is a physicist by training. He has made many important contributions in the area of communications, semiconductors and, more recently, highly efficient lighting appliances. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you feel comfortable, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN FORREST, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

RESEARCH, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. FORREST. Thank you, Chairman Markey. 

Transforming our fossil fuel economy into one based on renewable carbon-free solutions is a national priority of the highest magnitude. Solutions to this problem are not simple, and there is no 

single path to energy security, reduce carbon emissions and low energy costs. Nevertheless, America’s research universities, homes to 

the highest-risk innovation and discovery, are ready and eager to 

join in a partnership with government and industry to solve what 

is the largest single problem confronting us in the 21st century. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. has not responded proportionately to the 

magnitude of the crisis. Today, alternative energy research is only 

.02 percent of our GDP. In comparison, for example, to Japan, 

where it is four times that amount. In fact, only 1.6 percent of all 

Federal R&D goes to energy research. 

To put this in perspective, the past 5 years of the DOE budget, 

which includes money that goes for the large network of national 

labs, has averaged $8.9 billion, compared to $28.1 billion for the 

NIH and $73.5 billion for defense. This is remarkable considering 

that the immense U.S. energy industry, a nearly $2 trillion industry, is bigger than either health or defense. Given how underfunded 

we are at the present and how unprepared we are to meet the urgent challenges facing us, we can only conclude that Federal investments are not nearly enough. 

DOE itself has been crucial to advancing energy research. Its 

network of national labs has long guided energy research to our 

Nation’s immense benefit; and initiatives like, for example, DOE’s 

solid state lighting program, which supports both industry and academia, already has produced successes that will soon make the 

very inefficient incandescent bulb obsolete for interior lighting. 

However, to face today’s crisis, DOE’s programs must be enlarged 

to include new initiatives that encourage collaboration and truly 

promote the transformation of our energy economy. It will take 

more than just increased funding. We also need better policy to 

make it easier and more efficient to collaborate across these sectors, to make collaboration both streamlined and nimble. 

Even Michigan, with a manufacturing economy under siege, can 

show what great opportunities we have before us. Innovative partnerships between universities, government and industry are showing a clear path to win-win situations. We can come up with energy 

solutions and strengthen economies. 

Michigan and the Great Lakes regional economies are rooted in 

the heavy manufacturing base that fueled America’s greatness in 

the last century. We now can build on that to find new answers to 

our energy challenges. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
17 

Look at the auto industry, for example, where fuel costs and carbon emissions dictate that the automobile must be reinvented. Internal combustion engines will give way to cars powered by electricity and hydrogen. This change will not only solve energy problems. It will also spawn new business and a new economy. 

My home State already is moving ahead to change our economic 

base to one focused on knowledge and energy industries. The Governor’s Centers of Energy Excellence matches companies, universities and training facilities so that research innovations can make 

it to the market. 

Therefore, to augment DOE’s expertise and strengthen the drive 

for alternative energy, we must make two policy changes: fully 

fund the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA– 

E, and establish a network of discovery and innovation institutes. 

Last year, Congress established ARPA–E, an independent agency 

at DOE, to serve as a critical bridge between universities that are 

the incubators of new ideas and companies. Establishing ARPA–E 

is truly a milestone, but we must move quickly to fund it to the 

recommended level of $300 million. We have already lost too much 

time in our race to create a secure and clean energy future. 

Discovery and Innovation Institutes, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, represent a second way to address 

multidisciplinary energy challenges. DIIs bring Federal agencies, 

research universities and industry together as collaborative R&D 

labs. DIIs will be regional, ensuring that they will draw on local 

strengths to work in a system that seamlessly spans from basic 

science to commercialization. And since it takes more than just 

science and innovation to build a sustainable energy infrastructure, 

DIIs can also be equipped to address socioeconomic and policy 

issues. This approach can provide unique training grounds for the 

next generation of technologists and leaders. 

So the time to act decisively is upon us. Our national security, 

the sustained health of the economy, and our environment depend 

on our success in this mission. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Forrest, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Forrest follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 61958A.008
19 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 61958A.009
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 61958A.010
21 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 61958A.011
22 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 61958A.012
23 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 61958A.013
24 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 61958A.014
25 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 61958A.015
26 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 61958A.016
27 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 61958A.017
28 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 61958A.018
29 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 61958A.019
30 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 61958A.020
31 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to recognize our next witness, 

who is Dr. Daniel Kammen. He is a professor at the University of 

California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. His work focuses on the analysis of national and international energy policy. He is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and he has been working 

closely with the State of California as they implement their 

groundbreaking climate legislation, AB 32. 

We welcome you, Dr. Kammen. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL KAMMEN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY 

Mr. KAMMEN. Thank you very much. It is an honor to speak. And 

I do have some slides if they could be put up. 

First of all, it is an honor to appear before this committee. I can’t 

think of a more vital task, and I am delighted with the attention 

and innovative approaches that the committee has been working 

on. I would like to start with a few key findings and then move 

from there to some of the details of what has taken place and what 

has not taken place in crafting our national energy plan. 

The first and perhaps most troubling finding is that the global 

rate of decarbonization of the economy, which had been progressing 

at about 1 percent per year for the past three decades, over the last 

8 years has now stalled. In fact, we have seen a flat line in the 

sense that the global economy has not been improving in its ability 

to generate dollars of GNP and gross world product without producing carbon. This is a critical issue, and the lead economies must 

take a role in reversing this trend if we have any hope of meeting 

our climate goals. That is a vital first part of the story. 

The second piece is that public money alone will not solve and 

will not even begin to solve the climate problem. But, pardoning 

the analogy, it is vital that the public sector prime the pump in 

this area. There are a number of features, both in terms of the actual dollars spent and their impact on the private sector, for which 

we have a great deal of data, that if the public sector does not play 

a major role in this area, the private sector cannot move ahead in 

the ways that it needs to do. 

There are powerful examples. We have already heard about the 

story in the national health field where a concerted effort, a 

planned effort to double the Federal NIH budget over about a decade resulted in a far larger increase in private sector investment. 

In fact, while public sector moneys doubled, the stability and the 

path demonstrated resulted in a factor of 11 to 12 increase in the 

private sector money. 

We have not seen any plan comparable to that in the energy 

field; and, in fact, a colleague of mine noted that what this means 

is that we will likely live long enough to see the error of our ways. 

So a vital issue has been left before us. In the semiconductor 

field, where the United States was demonstrably trailing Japan, coordinated public-private sector effort resulted in SEMATECH that 

charted a new course and in fact led to a whole range of innovations, so powerful in fact that the public money was effectively no 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

longer needed; and this carried through at the private-sector effort 

with a range of innovations and a vital part of the overall story. 

The key message in this is that without a plan, without a plan 

that coordinates energy efforts and ties it to our climate needs, it 

is impossible for even a set of well-crafted individual programs to 

get us where we want to go. No matter how good a job one does 

with a particular effort on a subset of nuclear or solar or biofuel 

technology, without that vision it is impossible to carry these 

things through in times of budget stress and in crises when money 

is needed for further areas. 

That is the single most critical part of the story, and that is why 

it is so critical the bill you proposed and the versions go forward 

that lays out a climate plan and ties the energy investments to it. 

We have already heard about how critically small the energy investment has been as a part of our overall economy; and, in fact, 

the energy field is investing at roughly 1/10 the average rate of reinvestment of revenues back into research of the economy overall. 

And as the President has already mentioned, we have already seen 

higher levels in biotech and other areas, where investments at 10 

to 15 percent of total revenues have been put back into some of the 

areas of biotech. This is the sort of investment that is possible in 

the energy area; and, in fact, this is the sort of investment that is 

critical in the energy area to meet the goals ahead of us. 

We have a number of key things that we have done relatively 

quickly. Right now, we have a relatively poor program to transfer 

technologies from our national labs and from some universities into 

the public sector. We have had times in the past where various arrangements like credas have been successful in bringing these technologies to the market, and we need to unleash that potential 

again. 

We also have a wide range of international initiatives where the 

United States could profitably partner, both in terms of technology 

research and development sharing and in outreach and dissemination. There are important opportunities for the U.S. in India, the 

U.S. in China, United States and Europe to move ahead. And in 

fact the most compelling message you will hear when talking to 

European leaders is how critical it is for the United States to reengage and to reap the lion’s share of the benefits in this area. 

This is not a selfish endeavor. This is one where we critically 

must see those investments. 

And I will highlight one item on this final slide. This shows the 

composite aggregate growth rates in investment in clean energy 

when you look at Europe, North America and Asia. It is notable not 

only that we are seeing high rates in other parts of the world, but 

in fact the rates have increased in Europe, and in Asia are far outstripping the current investment rates in the United States. This 

is a shame, and this is bad for our economy. 

We see the world’s largest wind company in Denmark, a country 

of 5 million. The next Google of wind, of solar, of fuel cells should 

all be U.S. companies. We actually have the technology innovation 

centers, Silicon Valley, Route 128, the Austin area, areas evolving 

in the Detroit area are all primed to do this. But without that 

strong Federal signal that public moneys and public investment 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

and universities will focus on these areas, you send a very mixed 

message to industry that we will move ahead in these areas. 

So I urge us to use as the basic part of this equation the need 

to push dramatically ahead on funding as all of us, I believe, are 

advocating for, but also to set the critical policy environment where 

a price for pollution will be part of the equation, where efforts will 

be targeted at lowest-cost programs, not at pet programs, and a 

program where the Federal Government will take the lead by beginning to do carbon-based, cost-effectiveness analysis of Federal 

programs both on the research side and on the deployment side. 

And it is vital to link those two parts of the equation. 

While the Vannevar Bush story is an awesomely powerful one 

and we cite it for good reason in many situations, the immediacy 

of climate change now dictates that we highlight equally the R&D 

side and the deployment side. If we don’t focus on both, it will be 

impossible to achieve our climate goals. 

Thank you very much for the chance to address the committee, 

and I look forward to the question and answer period. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Kammen, very much. 

[The statement of Dr. Kammen follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 here 61958A.021
35 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here 61958A.022
36 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 here 61958A.023
37 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here 61958A.024
38 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here 61958A.025
39 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here 61958A.026
40 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here 61958A.027
41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here 61958A.028
42 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 here 61958A.029
43 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 here 61958A.030
44 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 here 61958A.031
45 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 here 61958A.032
46 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 here 61958A.033
47 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 here 61958A.034
48 

The CHAIRMAN. Our final witness is Dr. Jack Fellows. He is Vice 

President at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 

He worked in the White House Office of Management and Budget, 

where he oversaw the budget and policy issues related to NASA, 

NSF, Federal-wide R&D programs that helped initiate the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JACK D. FELLOWS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH 

Mr. FELLOWS. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify today, also; and I commend the committee for your 

tireless efforts on this important topic, including, Chairman Markey, your introduction of the recent iCAP legislation. 

As you said, my name is Jack Fellows. I am the Vice President 

of a nonprofit consortium of over 70 universities that are very interested in this hearing. Every member of the committee actually 

has one of my university members either in your State or in your 

district. 

I will respond to the steering committee questions in just a 

minute, but I want to emphasize that my responses are based on 

a community document that provides advice to the next administration and Congress on making our Nation resilient to severe 

weather and climate change. It was created by eight organizations 

that represent thousands of experts in the public, private and academic weather and climate enterprise, and I have submitted that 

document as a part of my testimony. 

Our 50 States are battered by billions of dollars of weather and 

climate-related damages and losses each year, and it isn’t clear 

how these impacts are going to change as the climate changes. I 

am talking about floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, sea level 

change; and adapting to these changes will be crucial for economic 

and social stability and in particular making water, food and energy supplies reliable and sustainable into the future. 

Our country has made substantial investments to improve 

weather and climate tools and information, and we have made tremendous progress over the last 40 years. We are very grateful for 

this support. But due to the complexity of this problem and years 

of declining budgets, these community partners who wrote this document are concerned that our Nation does not have all the tools 

we need for an effective energy and climate strategy. In particular, 

one that helps local and regional decisionmakers deal with climate 

change, one that supports the implementation of carbon emissions 

reduction proposals like iCAP and one that helps actually build a 

prosperous, carbon-free economy, including making forecasts for 

green industries like wind and solar. 

Our ability to provide the right scale and type of information in 

these areas is hampered by the lack of key observations, computing, research and modelling and effective coordination. Regardless, a lot of local and regional decisionmakers are moving forward 

with inadequate information in the face of substantial climate feedback, uncertainties that may prove very costly to civilization—for 

example, how quickly the polar ice caps are actually melting. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
49 

Given the urgency of the situation, the community partners have 

actually provided this document to the Obama and McCain campaigns and also collected nominations for weather and climate positions in the next administration. 

Let me address the questions that the committee gave me. 

The first one was, what are the current Earth observing and climate modelling investments and how do they compare to the past 

and with other countries? 

There is really no effective inventory of these activities in the 

U.S. right now. That is one of the recommendations of the community document, to create that kind of inventory. 

There is something called the Climate Change Science Program 

that provides the best estimates that we have. This is a program 

that involves 13 Federal agencies and we hope has about $1.9 billion appropriated in 2009. In my testimony, I actually provided a 

funding history of the Climate Change Science Program, but a brief 

summary, the funding is roughly back to where it was in the early 

1990s. So whatever gains we have made over the last couple of decades, we have lost. I am not familiar with the current funding in 

other countries right now, but in the past it has been roughly 

equivalent to the U.S. investment. 

The other question you ask is what investments are needed to 

meet our energy and climate challenges now? 

These community partners are making recommendations in the 

areas of observation, computing, research modelling, societal relevance and leadership and management. And in that document it 

includes a budget table with specific program and budget estimates 

that total $9 billion over the next 5-years, well within the kind of 

$7 to $9 billion that the iCAP legislation is trying to raise for domestic climate adaptation activities each year. 

Third and fourth question I was asked is, what policies are needed to optimize these investments and what should be the private, 

public and academic roles in this effort? 

The community partners provide an entire section in our document on leadership and management recommendations and how 

these three sectors ought to work together. Leadership will be a 

key ingredient to optimize these investments, and that is why the 

community partners are actually collecting nominations for leadership positions in the next administration. 

This section also includes a set of policy and management approaches that build on proven management tools that were available in the 1990s, and that includes a climate leader at a level 

equivalent to the President’s national security and economic advisors, an effective interagency coordination and oversight mechanism, an annual integrated weather and climate program and 

budget review and evaluation mechanisms to make sure that we 

are making progress toward our goal. 

That concludes my remarks, and thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Fellows, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Fellows follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 61958A.035
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 61958A.036
52 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here 61958A.037
53 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here 61958A.038
54 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 61958A.039
55 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 61958A.040
56 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 61958A.041
57 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here 61958A.042
58 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 61958A.043
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here 61958A.044
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here 61958A.045
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here 61958A.046
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 61958A.047
63 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 61958A.048
64 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will now recognize himself for a round 

of questions. 

Dr. Kammen, do you believe that we have adequate technologies 

to begin reducing global warming pollution now even as we increase our investment in R&D in the years ahead? 

Mr. KAMMEN. I do very strongly believe that we have an adequate base to begin. We clearly have areas where we need research, a number of individual technologies on the balance between 

investing in efficiency now and some of the low-carbon technologies 

in the long run. But as a platform to begin that process today in 

the economy that base exists, and yet we need to bring much, much 

more of it to market than has been the case in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hockfield, could you respond to the same 

question? Do we have adequate technologies today to make a significant beginning? 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. We have adequate technologies to make a significant beginning. What we feel is that we have important things 

we can do in the near term. But in the mid term and the long term, 

we have got to invest aggressively to improve those technologies to 

make them more economic and more efficient. But we certainly can 

begin today, and I think we have to start today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, Dr. Hockfield. What is the 

interest level of students at MIT with this issue? 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. The interest level is deafening. Just as one example, our students are wildly enthusiastic about it. We can’t give 

them enough. We have a student-led energy club that was established just 3 years ago, and now it is over 700 members. This is 

largely a graduate student organization, and it was established by 

graduate students across all of the different schools at MIT who 

recognize that, in their desire to be energy professionals, they are 

committed to working in the field, that their educations that they 

were receiving in the department of mechanical engineering or in 

their MBA program at the Sloan School of Management was insufficient to make them well-educated energy professionals. And so 

they have linked resources across the entire Institute to educate 

one another about all of the things they will need to be powerful 

advocates and powerful facilitators of a bright energy future. 

The students’ interest is absolutely deafening, and one of my 

fears is that if we don’t fund the kind of research that will fuel innovation, these very brilliant students will see that a bright future 

actually lies elsewhere, even despite their passion for solving what 

I believe is the greatest challenge of our era. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hockfield. 

Let’s talk a little bit about the R&D budget in terms of how it 

compares to past R&D budgets and just kind of get your sense 

across the board of what needs to happen. Does it need to be increased from a doubling to a tenfold increase in order to deal with 

the magnitude of this challenge? Could each of you give us a sense 

of what you believe is the most appropriate? 

Mr. FORREST. If I can jump in, I would like to go back one step 

and talk about climate change and energy and then get—and, if I 

may, then go to that other question. 

But the issue of do we have enough tools for climate change and 

pursue energy at the same time I think is a vital one. It is not an 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
65 

either/or proposition. We have to take them both on. We do have 

the tools. And the best analogy I can give was in the Second World 

War. We didn’t have a choice to say will we go after Germany or 

Japan? It was both. And that is the same situation we have today. 

In terms of the budget, I think the overwhelming opinion of this 

panel—I can certainly speak for myself—is that we are woefully 

underfunded. So if we talk about a 10 times increase, yes, but we 

also have to also build the capacity. So you can’t do it overnight. 

We have a very large reservoir of student interest, as President 

Hockfield has mentioned; and I think that we just have to really 

get on with it right away and start to fund some of these institutes, 

ARPA–E, for example, and just start moving up that chain as rapidly as we can. But certainly I think the numbers would justify a 

tenfold increase. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the NIH budget is approximately $30 billion 

a year? 

Mr. FORREST. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Research on health problems. Is that the scale 

that you think we should be talking about, Dr. Hockfield? 

Mr. FORREST. Yes. Certainly the level of intensity of the problem 

is every bit as much as what we are tackling with health; and 

when we really cut the numbers for the DOE right down to what 

is going into science, it is about $1.5 billion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hockfield, do you agree? 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. Whether it is $1.5 or $4.5 billion, it is vastly insufficient. And I think you have drawn the comparison that I immediately go to as a life scientist, which is a comparison with the 

NIH budget. The NIH budget is close to $30 billion, and that is a 

lot of money. But we have gotten a huge bang for that buck. 

Just think about it. I gave the example of heart disease and 

stroke. Look at AIDS. In the beginning of the 1980s, this was a disease that had no cure. It was a death sentence, and we projected 

that every hospital bed in America was going to have an AIDS patient in it. This was a very tough problem. A new disease. We 

didn’t understand anything about it. We have turned it, through 

investments, into a chronic manageable disease. The costs to health 

care savings are 140 times the investment in research dollars, and 

that doesn’t even begin to account for the economic benefit of these 

people being in the workplace. 

We can do the same thing around energy, and it will fuel—you 

know, Federal investments can fuel an innovation economy that 

will be good for everyone. 

Now we talk about how much money. You know, I say three 

times right now. Let’s do that immediately. And whether it is 10 

times, you know, over a 10-year period or it gets to the NIH budget 

level, I think it has to. These are problems that we can solve, and 

we know how to solve them. 

And it will have the added benefit of, you know, fueling the 

young people of America. Right now, we kind of wring our hands 

over our young people’s lack of interest in science and engineering 

and mathematics. Well, when I was growing up, it wasn’t that I 

had an abstract interest in these things. I had a real interest in 

these things. Because we are going to win the race to the moon. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
66 

And I think we could power up our young people today with the 

same kind of enthusiasm for solving these energy and climate challenges. Not to mention the building of new industries that would 

come out of it, as we have demonstrated so many times in the past. 

This is America’s gain. We should be able to win it this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Hockfield. 

My time is going to expire. I apologize to you, Dr. Kammen. 

But there has been, unfortunately, a 16 percent reduction in the 

NIH budget over the last 4 years as well. So we really do have to 

change the whole approach that America is taking not only to energy but health and other issues, because these are the real threats 

to ordinary American families, much greater, actually, than the 

likelihood that a terrorist will come to their hometown. These are 

the issues that are actually going to impact their families’ futures. 

My time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I would like to ask about how to structure this imminent exponential increase in R&D that we will imminently obtain maybe in 

March next year, I hope. One of the concerns I have is structuring 

it so that R&D goes into stovepipes, into favorite programs, which 

is a thing I think we want to resist. And I would just like your 

comments. Maybe I can start with Dr. Kammen about that. 

Would it be an issue right now, frankly, about whether to create 

a revenue stream that would fund just R&D just in coal sequestration, which I have heartburn about because I don’t think we should 

limit R&D to any one particular technology. We should have a 

broad-based recognition that some of these technologies will succeed and some of them will fail, and we should not put our eggs 

in any one basket. Dr. Kammen, any comments? 

Mr. KAMMEN. I very much appreciate the chance to address that, 

because this is a critical issue. The lessons from the NIH budget 

increase were that you did need to ramp it up in a way that industry and universities could absorb it. Our time constant in academia 

is actually about 4 to 5 years for a doctoral student to come to fruition. And then in the industry side it is actually often another 4 

or 5 years for them to become technologies in the market. So this 

tripling is a good starting point. In our papers, we actually advocate a 5 to 10 percent increase based on the climate challenge. 

But this issue of stovepiping is a vital one; and, in fact, we have 

had a series of interesting individual program areas in the Department of Energy, at EPA, et cetera, but we have not had the kind 

of cross-technology comparisons that you are speaking towards. 

And by far the most effective tool we have now is to examine technologies in batches. There are things that are nearer term, where 

a carbon cost effectiveness can be performed. But there are also 

areas which are further off, higher payoff, high risk, where we are 

going to need to have some areas where we look at with longerterm missions. 

The most important lesson we have seen from past efforts is 

that, for both the near term and for the longer term ones, stability 

and a plan is the most important future. The private sector cannot 

ramp up in the broad set of areas we need if we don’t see that stability. So the long-term budget increase is part of the story. And 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
67 

targeting individual ones early on, especially those already have a 

large market share, has not proven to be an effective use of money 

in the past. And so targeting money in the coal area is a concern, 

as it would be in targeting a number of others. 

So I urge the committee to look at this broad portfolio approach 

and to use that to evaluate not only individual technologies but 

those that have critical synergies. We have seen efforts where wind 

and natural gas can work well together, and so structuring incentives on the deployment side to draw those technologies into the 

market is critical as well. 

So, again, pushing on the policy and it is research-based at the 

same time is the best way to bring these technologies broadly into 

the market and to re-energize a number of U.S. firms to become 

leaders in these areas. 

Mr. INSLEE. Dr. Hockfield. 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. I want to emphasize this idea of approaching a 

portfolio of technologies. We can’t choose winners now. We don’t 

know what they are going to be; and we have to invest money, you 

know, in a number of technologies. 

One of the problems is this kind of research is done across a 

number of Federal agencies. So how can we bring them together to 

get appropriate synergies and reduce unnecessary redundancy? 

I think it is important to enter into a very rapid strategic planning energize that pulls in government, industry and universities 

to set out a game plan; and I hope that there will be some kind 

of Federal counsel around these energy issues bringing in the relevant agencies, not just DOE but DOD, NIH, NSF, EPA HUD, you 

know, around building standards. And I don’t know who might 

chair this council of secretaries, but perhaps it could be co-chaired 

by the President’s science advisor and the Secretary of Energy. But 

some way of integrating approaches not just within a single agency 

but across agencies. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think that is an important way to think about it. 

One quick question: To get to this plateau where we need to do 

this major ramp-up of R&D, it takes some political throwaway. We 

have got some great ideas floating around. We need some political 

throwaway, frankly, to get Congress and the executive branch—we 

need a combination of—a new Vannevar Bush having these conversations with the next President and Members of Congress. But 

we need a lot of people around here. 

I just wonder, maybe Dr. Fellows, do you have any thoughts 

about how to develop a real consortium, you know, nationally between academia and the industry? How do we build a real movement to get this job done, as happened in the health care industry 

that really developed a uniform, you know, strategy to get this job 

done. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Well, you know, it is happening at various scales. 

The rest of my day I am spending up here on the Hill with the 

American Geophysical Union on a congressional visit today to talk 

about these various issues. 

But the document I mentioned in my testimony was written by 

these eight organizations that represents thousands of experts in 

both the public, private and academic sectors of the weather and 

climate community. So it is starting to happen, and we are writing 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
68 

these documents and providing them to leaders like yourselves to 

try to build these coalitions. In our community, we have about 20 

years of multiple agencies working together; and there is some 

good history here on how these kind of integrated programs can be 

done. But leadership is key, and getting the right leaders and the 

right kind of political focus on here is step one. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Unlike President Kennedy, who had Jerome Wiesner, became 

president of MIT, or President Roosevelt, who had Professor Bush 

come in, it is unclear that this President Bush knows the name 

of—much less has ever met with—his own science advisors. So 

there is a stark difference historically in terms of the relationship 

with this subject. 

Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Missouri, 

Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Hockfield, you may have already at least partially answered 

this question. But I am wondering what are the most important 

emerging technologies of which we should be aware and what are 

ways in which we can best support these efforts? 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. The incredibly accelerating demand for energy— 

it is great now. It will probably double by 2050—demands that we 

pursue a portfolio of technologies. The current technologies that we 

are using are not going to, you know, go out of phase tomorrow, 

and we have to work very hard to increase their efficiency and 

their economy while we can develop the technologies of the future. 

We have work going on at MIT across a range of technologies. 

We believe that nuclear is going to be an important piece of the energy equation in the future. We are very, very excited about the opportunities around solar, wind. Geothermal, a technology that was 

about to be put to bed except for the MIT geothermal report came 

out about a year and a half ago and happily rescued that at the 

last moment. 

There are a number of technologies; and, frankly, I believe there 

are technologies we don’t know about today because we haven’t unleashed that engine of innovation that comes out of basic research. 

So I don’t think we can make that step yet. 

There are enormously exciting things right on the horizon. There 

are exciting things in hand that just need further development. But 

it would be desperately premature to pick any one or a small set 

of them for development. We are going to need everything we can 

get our hands on. The current technologies have to be improved, 

and then we have to innovate around the technologies of the future. 

Mr. FORREST. If I could jump in on that, if you look at what is 

price competitive today with fossil fuel in the renewable sphere, the 

most competitive is wind. But the source of energy which is unlimited out there is solar, and the thing that is holding us back from 

solar right now is cost. It is the cost per watt that you pay, which 

is—depends on how you do it—it is between double and triple that 

of fossil fuel today. But it is marching down at an extraordinary 

rate. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
69 

So if you look at solar, you look at biomass, you look at energy 

storage which will transform the automotive industry, you have 

several really strong incumbents that we can move forward with. 

It is really just a matter of hitting price points at this point. 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. Can I just add in the thing about storage? Storage is absolutely critical for all energy technologies. Solar, the price 

of photovoltaics may come down. But if we don’t have our hands 

around storage, that is going to be problem. And one of the most 

exciting areas that I see going on is new battery technologies. And 

it will be the cars of the future. Actually, not such distant future. 

But it is going to be critical to make solar and wind viable technologies. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Dr. Kammen. 

Mr. KAMMEN. There are also technology areas that bring in other 

areas of expertise. There is no question storage that is important. 

There are some interesting efforts going on in this area. But the 

basic backbone of this whole system is going to be our transmission 

distribution system, and many universities have allowed this area 

to lapse so there are in fact no power electronics professors at a 

number of leading engineering universities. That is a huge oversight, and it is a huge mistake, because our renewable energy resources are not always coincident with what exists today. 

Mr. CLEAVER. What can Congress do? 

Mr. KAMMEN. There is a range of things. One is we need better 

regulation with what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

does. We also need ties into what the National Academy of Engineering does. Because the advances in power electronics come in 

from work in a variety of areas, from everything from what is going 

on with our cell phones to power management issues, need to be 

applied to make the new grid that we are going to build in some 

form anyway as flexible and as smart as possible so it really becomes the clean energy superhighway and not yet just another 

build-out of what we have as —right now, we have quite an antiquated system. That one requires an integration with people who 

think of themselves as energy researchers and those people who 

think of themselves as electrical engineering and controls folks. 

Thankfully, this country has a large resource there, few of which, 

however, have been applied right now to working on that new grid. 

So this is again an area where basic research and the application 

deployment are taught. 

Texas had a historic recent vote to permit and to fund a $5 billion superhighway for wind power, essentially from west Texas and 

eastern New Mexico into the population centers. And that sends a 

strong signal. We need to get the basic research so that the new 

version of the grid is up to the task. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So it would help probably if we had an Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. KAMMEN. It would definitely help if we were protecting the 

environment and coordinating those efforts in what we do in terms 

of land, in terms of Department of Energy, in terms of a lot of the 

basic infrastructure. Even building and housing is going to be tied 

in, because many of our homes and businesses can, in fact, be 

power plants. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. CLEAVER. I am going to introduce a bill to create an EPA because I think this country has long needed an Environmental Protection Agency, and I think such legislation should come forth in 

this Congress. 

Dr. Fellows. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Well, I wanted to add a perspective from the climate community on priorities. 

Our current climate models reproduce a history of the climate 

quite well, and we can tell you whether a continent is warmer or 

wetter. But I recently had the executive director of the Colorado 

Public Health and Environment Department come and visit. And 

he asked me for the precipitation and temperature trends longterm in the Denver area. And our models are operating on a grid 

cell size of 100 kilometers; at that level you can’t even see the 

Rocky Mountains, so I can’t provide him those kind of long-term 

precipitation and temperature trends in such a small area. 

One of our highest priority areas is to drive down that modeling 

to a level that local and regional decision makers can actually get 

the information they need to have to make plans about water, food, 

transportation system, things like that. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Hockfield, I would like to get an idea—you are asking for a 

fairly large amount of money—how you see that money being allocated. One of the reasons I ask is because a concern I have is, 

young students that want to go to graduate school have to spend 

5, 6 years after getting a degree, and they are living at fairly low 

wages during this period. And even when they graduate with a 

Ph.D., they are still facing years of substandard wages compared 

to someone who just went for a bachelor’s degree into finance, for 

example. 

One of the experiences I had lately was, a math professor said 

there are plenty of math students now, there are more than you 

can imagine. And that was the good news. But then he said, they 

are all going to finance, which is not bad news, but it is not what 

we need in this area. 

So could you give me some idea of how you think we could address that and similar problems? 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. I hate that we all sound like a broken record, 

research dollars, research dollars, research dollars. But one of the 

geniuses of the Vannevar Bush appeal to President Roosevelt, and 

it was then articulated in Science: The Endless Frontier, which set 

out the blueprint for the American research enterprise, was that 

we created these magnificent research universities that, at their 

best, really do integrate research and education together. And 

frankly, most of my faculty—not all of them, but most of them— 

could have jobs in industry and be making twice, three times, in 

some cases ten times what they are making. But they are so motivated by this marvelous draw of invention-innovation, and being 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
71 

around young people we really do put research and education together. 

So by investing in research, we are talking about investing in 

graduate students, we are talking about investing in postdocs. The 

reason that the students in mathematics and in electrical engineering and computer science are going to Wall Street when they come 

out of MIT is because that is where the jobs are. When they look 

at their faculty who—Empower Electronics is a great, I am so 

happy you brought that up, a great—we have a couple faculty who 

are working in it, but miserably funded. 

So a smart young person is looking forward to a life of what? 

There isn’t a career track that they can proceed because frankly 

there has been a roller coaster of energy research over the last several years. It is funded, it goes away; it is funded, it goes away. 

These people want a career where they can—frankly, they will accept lower salaries. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I heard some very bad news about the University of California, in particular the math department there. One of 

the finest math institutions in the world is saying that next year 

they may not be able to accept new graduate students unless they 

get additional funding. This is a terrific tragedy for our country. 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. So part of the government’s abdication from the 

commitment that was set out in the Science: The Endless Frontier 

blueprint was a real partnership between the research university 

and government; and the government has abdicated that through 

these reductions in research funding. And one of the places where 

it hurt the most is in funding for mathematics graduate education. 

It has become very, very difficult to fund graduate students at a 

level that is commensurate with what late-20-year-olds need simply 

to live at a reasonable level in a place like Cambridge or New York 

City or in the Bay Area. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. One thing that might help is specific academic 

programs that entice students in energy fields. 

Could you address that, Dr. Kammen. 

Mr. KAMMEN. Certainly. 

Actually, we had a spate of developing these programs in the 

1970s during the last time we had this ramp-up of energy funding. 

My program, the Energy and Resources Group, program at MIT, 

Carnegie Mellon, Penn, or a number of the beneficiaries of that, a 

number of these died out or withered away because of this true 

desert of funding. 

We now see students back in droves. When I came to Berkeley 

from Princeton in 1998 there were 45 students in the graduatelevel energy class. We capped the class this semester of 320. And 

to let you know, I have a huge problem finding qualified teaching 

assistants because we have so swamped the potential spaces. 

So there is good news in the pipeline as referred to at MIT as 

well; at Michigan and Texas it is all going on. But we really do 

need to build out this business side, this opportunity for them to 

go into, as a number of people have mentioned and Congressman 

Inslee mentioned, the need for a compact and the bones that could 

be offered out in the political dialogue in D.C. And there is no question that one of the advantages this field is showing right now is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
72 

dramatically higher job creation numbers than the same amount of 

investment in fossil fuels. 

Now, this is a transitory effect; it will not go on forever. But at 

the moment we are trying to dramatically increase the budget. The 

fact that we see three to five times more jobs per dollar invested 

in the clean tech energy area—and I am including energy efficiency 

that we have not mentioned explicitly here, but it is vital to the 

equation, this job dividend, green collar jobs, inner city jobs, as well 

as the high-end jobs—is a critical benefit that we can capture. And 

right now many of those jobs are going to Germany, Norway, Portugal. So we are losing out. In fact, little Portugal just set up a 

clean energy research investment fund larger than the entire U.S. 

investment in this area. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I see that my time has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And without giving away our ages, I would say Dr. Hockfield has 

probably already acknowledged being in the same group that I am 

in, which grew up during the Space Race. My father was head of 

the design team that built a camera that took the first live pictures 

from the moon when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And my 

brothers and I got used to having a blackboard over the breakfast 

table and solving equations that he would scribble out for us while 

we were downing our cereal. We benefited from a generation that 

pulled us out of the Depression. The Greatest Generation, the end 

of the American century that—the second half of which I lived 

through, the generation that won World War II. 

It took great determination and vision and hard work and investment for that generation to win a war and for us to put a man on 

the moon. But that wasn’t all. Their effort was backed up by the 

resources that put into place an incredible investment at the time 

in pure research. 

I just came back a couple weeks ago from Denver, and one of the 

most exciting things that—maybe the most exciting thing for me 

was not the political goings-on, although those were for somebody 

who had never attended a convention before very exciting, but I got 

to go to NREL, the Renewable Energy Laboratories, to ENCAR, the 

Atmospheric Research Center, and to NOAA’s research center in 

Boulder. And in the space of 2 days I saw the latest plug in hybrids, the latest solar, thin-film photovoltaics that are 23 percent 

efficiency, which is the high point they have achieved so far to my 

knowledge, and biofuels that are being created from nonfuel 

sources like wood chips and cornstalks and husks, not the corn kernels that are the food everybody is worried about. 

And then the next day, after seeing the good news, I got to go 

to NCAR and NOAA and see what would happen to the planet if 

we don’t do anything. And to anybody who hasn’t been there and 

seen this, I highly recommend it, because I have already read the 

statistics and I am a believer. And I have been working on renewable energy issues for 30 years, and it was like being hit over the 

head with a 2x4 to see the graphic demonstration of what happens 

when the growing latitudes for food move into the alluvial plain of 

Canada where there is no soil. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
73 

And I said to the director of NOAA, I guess we will go from being 

a net exporter of food to being a net importer of food. And his answer was ‘‘Yes, but from where?’’ And he pushed the remote control 

to revolve that big globe they had up there and showed that all 

continents are the same color red, all the continents will be, if we 

do nothing, will be pushing the growing latitudes toward the poles 

at the same time that we are projected to have 12 billion people 

on the face of this Earth. 

So we are looking at a situation that cannot be dismissed. But 

the good news is that, at the same time, we do have the technologies and we need to make the right choices. 

Mr. Inslee covered some of the ground that I was going to ask 

about in terms of making choices and stovepiping, and I am particularly interested that we not favor some industries, as we do. I 

mean, there are costs that are not included in the kilowatt hour 

price that are charged for electricity generated from nuclear and 

from fossil fuels, whether they be the cost of wars in unstable areas 

of the world that have oil or the fact that the taxpayer has subsidized the insuring of all nuclear plants since the Price-Anderson 

Act. 

And so I would prefer to see either a level playing field or some 

kind of equal subsidies for renewables, but that is just my opinion. 

I am also concerned that I have been buying wind power in my 

home at Dover Plains, New York, for several years. The company 

that—the wind firm that I am buying it from was just bought by 

a Spanish conglomerate, Iberdrola, a good company but not an 

American company. So now my dollars are going for the profit of 

a foreign-owned corporation. 

And when I was in Colorado, I saw one of the largest new photovoltaic installations there, built and installed by American workers, 

but the solar cells were made in China. So if we go from buying 

fuel from overseas to buying solar cells from overseas, we are really 

out of the frying pan and into the fire economically. And we are 

also not putting our brainpower to work in the way that we should. 

That is enough rambling from me, but I just wanted to ask in 

terms of funding climate observation, to the degree that we have 

a shortage of funds here, we will be looking at trying to make a 

choice between preventing climate change or focusing on mitigation 

to some extent, and also prioritizing renewables and noncarbonbased sources of energy versus funding of further climate investigation and focusing on localities and regions as opposed to the bigger 

picture. 

So perhaps, Dr. Fellows, maybe you would like to start answering how you would prioritize those things. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Well, in terms of observations, whether you are 

doing mitigation or adaptation, you need observations. For mitigation, you will be monitoring the carbon levels to see if you are 

achieving them. For adaptation, it is more about what are the processes that we need to understand to adapt to. 

So it was—last year, in 2007, the National Research Council actually produced a study that laid out all the missions that—observational missions you need to take all the vital signs of the United 

States. There are 17 of them. And even in the document that I provided in my testimony, out of the $9 billion those that fall in the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
74 

next 5 years are funded. So we have a very good road map of what 

kind of observations we need for both mitigation and adaptation. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, if you would allow the other witnesses 

to answer the same question, if they wish. 

Mr. FORREST. One of the issues that I would like to bring forward is that we are talking an awful lot about energy generation. 

But there is a tremendous amount we can do with conservation as 

well. And that also—and we can do that immediately. Interior 

lighting takes up 20 percent of electricity that is in the grid today. 

And we are still using an incandescent bulb which is basically a 

heater that gives off light as a byproduct. 

There are other sources. In the automotive domain, we can do 

hugely better. 

So these are very quick responses that we can actually implement within a matter of a few years, and that will really, I think, 

change also the growth of carbon in the atmosphere at a real rate. 

We should never take our eye off the ball of conservation. There 

are a lot of solutions there. 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. Can I just add a little bit of reflection about energy research? 

We are talking about funding energy research and ramping it up 

very rapidly. I would just add caution that it should not be too clever. There are a lot of technologies that are almost in reach. And 

we very much want to move those along and get them implemented. But I believe that one of our government’s major responsibilities and one of the important reasons why we have done so 

well in so many new industries is that we have invested in basic 

research, the kind of research where, when you embark on it, you 

don’t know what is going to come out of it. There will be new technologies coming along in the future only if we invest in basic research today. 

So let us—I am very enthusiastic about funding research that 

will deliver technologies for tomorrow and 5 years and 10 years 

from now. We have got to be thinking about what we need to put 

in place that we are funding the technologies 50 years from now. 

And that has been the brilliance of, frankly, DARPA, the NIH, in 

funding early research that nobody could have predicted exactly 

where it was going to come out, but has been so, so important for 

the Nation’s success. 

Mr. KAMMEN. A critical part of the story that we have to come 

back to again and again is that even if we get to this ten times increase in the Federal money, which is certainly the goal that the 

papers in my lab have cited, it is going to be the private sector investment far—many times that that we are going to need. To do 

that we need to send a number of signals that this area is both stable, as we have described, but also we have opportunities now to 

help balance this field out. 

A number of States have adopted so-called loading orders benefiting clean energy, energy efficiency and the low carbon sources 

before they would authorize new fossil fuel production. That sends 

a strong signal. 

A number of other utility areas have engaged in a process of decoupling the revenues from more electricity sales with their overall 

profit based on a mechanism that allows a forecast of sales and the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
75 

amount you get paid per kilowatt hour to vary to that target. That 

encourages conservation, it encourages low-carbon forms of energy. 

So we have a number of mechanisms that aren’t going to be seen 

as strictly research spending that can dramatically expand the industry’s interest, ability and rewards for going to the clean area. 

That is really why at the legislation level we critically need to tie 

these at all points, back and forth. 

One last point on this is that we have effectively frittered away 

the last 20 years or so of knowledge of the climate change story. 

The details are still coming in, but the basic story has been known 

for some time. And many of these technologies have been ready together. 

We need to pull on the market as well as pushing on the research side. And many of those market pulls do not require dramatic amounts of added money. Some do, like a better grid. But 

coupling clever policy tools and this much expanded R&D base 

really does send the signal that industry needs to make this a new 

national priority. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

What I am going to ask now is for each you to give us your best 

minute and a half summary of what you want the Congress to remember about this issue as we move forward in putting solutions 

in place. And we will go in reverse order. 

We will begin with you, Dr. Fellows. 

Mr. FELLOWS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Well, from our perspective, we really see this as civilization 

standing at a serious crossroads. We have a lot of uncertainties 

that we are facing. 

Mr. Hall, I have sat with Sandy McDonald before and looked at 

that large globe in NOAA. One of the big concerns we have is helping local and regional decision makers deal with energy issues, 

with water, with food issues to reduce some of the uncertainties. 

Another really scary one is, civilization has been putting about 

6 or 7 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere. There are thousands 

of gigatons of carbon frozen in the Arctic. As the Arctic heats up— 

and it will heat up quite a bit more than the rest of the world— 

how quickly would that be released. If it is released quickly, it 

could be the end of civilization. 

That is a kind of uncertainty that we don’t fully understand. I 

am not saying it will happen, but we don’t understand it. 

So the kind of research investments that we are talking about in 

this community document addresses those type of issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Fellows. 

Dr. Kammen. 

Mr. KAMMEN. First, energy is a $1 trillion industry in this country. We import $700 billion of that. And so what we are calling for 

here is a very small down payment, a very small brain trust to 

manage that huge industry. 

It is exactly in keeping with the amount of effort we would need 

in this area. And the fact that we do have such an important diversity of energy research topics and researchers ready to go should 

give every Member of Congress and the Senate the motivation to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
76 

stick with the plan to develop these carbon and energy plans and 

to bring them forth and to recognize that poll after poll of Americans says that clean energy and secure low-carbon power is something that people want. They need the political leadership and they 

need the vision that this is going to be a plan. 

We lack that plan, we lack that go-to-the-moon sort of mentality 

right now. That is the vital lesson that will bring all of the science 

technology base broadly into the market. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Kammen. 

Dr. Forrest. 

Mr. FORREST. To me, it is really just simply a matter of priorities. As a Nation, we have great wealth and we can set our priorities almost at will if we choose to. And I can’t think of a higher 

priority. Everything is at stake here. Our national security, we are 

currently buying our energy from our least best friends in the 

world, primarily. It is a question of a clean environment. What are 

we leaving for our children? What are we leaving for generations 

to come? And finally it is an issue of economic leadership in our 

standard of living. 

Really it is the issue of the 21st century. If America does not 

seize this as a top priority, as perhaps the top priority, we will lose 

our position inevitably in the world; and it is going to happen very 

quickly. So I don’t think that we have time to lose. I think that, 

responding just a wee bit to Mr. Inslee’s question of where do we 

get the political heft to throw this forward, I think there is a rising 

chorus of voices. It may not hit today in full, or even tomorrow, but 

it has got to hit within the next year or two, because if we don’t 

set this as the priority—I can give you one example. 

Germany has set this as a national priority to get off of the foreign oil addiction and so on, and they have invested through their 

tax structures and so on in large growth in their solar industry. It 

is just one example, but they have set the priorities, and they are 

on their way. We need to get on our way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Forrest. 

And Dr. Hockfield you are cleanup. 

Ms. HOCKFIELD. So we have all articulated the deeply linked 

challenges of economic insecurity, energy insecurity and global climate change. What we have been advocating for is a massive powerful important investment in research universities. These kinds of 

investments have a double return. We produce innovations and 

innovators. And what we are asking is, please, help us unleash the 

power of America’s innovation economy to turn this global energy 

challenge into a wonderful energy opportunity. 

Thank you so much for holding this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. It is our honor to have such a 

distinguished panel. And this is going to be a very important panel 

in terms of the information you have given us as we formulate the 

plan for January and February of 2009. We are clearly at a point 

where the debate for President is revolving around this issue. 

And as I said in my opening, ‘‘drill, baby, drill’’ is not a long-term 

strategy for the United States with 3 percent of the oil reserves. 

We need to unleash this technological genius. That is our strength, 

and that is always what has led to the United States being the 

dominant power in the world. And if we don’t tap it, then we will 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 

become ever more dependent upon those who not only are weak in 

technology but are strong in our weakness. 

And that is something that ultimately, I think, can only be remedied by unleashing all the young people at universities you are 

finding want to solve this problem. 

So we thank each of you for being here today. 

The hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
78 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 61958A.049
79 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 61958A.050
80 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 61958A.051
81 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 61958A.052
82 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 61958A.053
83 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 61958A.054
84 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 61958A.055
85 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 61958A.056
86 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 61958A.057
87 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 61958A.058
88 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 61958A.059
89 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 61958A.060
90 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 61958A.061
91 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 61958A.062
92 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 61958A.063